From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 1 00:02:44 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA25452 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 00:02:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQgCa-0001Vj-HO for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 00:02:29 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB152SLM005808 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 00:02:28 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQgCZ-0001Vb-Qn for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 00:02:27 -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 AAA25446 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 00:02:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQgCX-0002nT-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 00:02:25 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQgCX-0002nQ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 00:02:25 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQgCC-0001Rb-Jc; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 00:02:04 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQgBI-0001RA-4V for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 00:01:08 -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 AAA24118 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 00:00:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQgBF-0002la-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 00:01:05 -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 1AQgBE-0002lX-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 00:01:05 -0500 Received: (from schaefer@localhost) by candle.brasslantern.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id hB1514103625 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 21:01:04 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: candle.brasslantern.com: schaefer set sender to schaefer@closedmail.com using -f From: Bart Schaefer Message-Id: <1031201050104.ZM3624@candle.brasslantern.com> In-Reply-To: <20031201041154.GA32587@thyrsus.com> Comments: In reply to "Eric S. Raymond" "Re: [Asrg] 0. General - anti-harvesting (was Inquiry about CallerID Verification)" (Nov 30, 11:11pm) 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> <20031201041154.GA32587@thyrsus.com> 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 05:01:04 +0000 On Nov 30, 11:11pm, Eric S. Raymond wrote: } } 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. } } I read this to mean that the Return-Path must, if present, be a } valid mailbox for a responsible person (note the MUST). I read this to mean that the server is reqired to insert the return-path field, regardless of its knowledge of the validity of the mailbox. Suppose I send a message to you. For whatever reason, it's queued at my company SMTP server rather than delivered immediately to your MX. While the message is in the queue, I have an argument with my CEO over the interpretation of RFC2821, and he fires me. The sysadmin immediately disables my email account. You're saying that its now an _SMTP protocol_ violation for the company server to complete the process of delivering that queued message to you? -- Bart Schaefer Brass Lantern Enterprises http://www.well.com/user/barts http://www.brasslantern.com Zsh: http://www.zsh.org | PHPerl Project: http://phperl.sourceforge.net _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 1 00:09:20 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA25574 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 00:09:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQgIz-00025r-3O for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 00:09:05 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB1595SF008044 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 00:09:05 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQgIy-00025f-V9 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 00:09:05 -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 AAA25561 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 00:08:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQgIw-0002tz-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 00:09:02 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQgIw-0002tw-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 00:09:02 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQgIv-00023S-5D; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 00:09:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQgIh-00023E-TS for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 00:08:47 -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 AAA25557 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 00:08:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQgIf-0002tg-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 00:08:45 -0500 Received: from ntbbs.winserver.com ([208.247.131.9] helo=winserver.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQgIe-0002tc-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 00:08:44 -0500 Received: by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v5.7.450.9b10) for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 00:09:03 -0500 Received: from ([68.211.198.96]) EHLO=FAMILY by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v5.7.450.9b10) with SMTP id 2489808484; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 00:09:02 -0500 Message-ID: <001701c3b7c9$41d9d410$60c6d344@FAMILY> From: "Hector Santos" To: "Yakov Shafranovich" , "ASRG" Cc: "Dave Crocker" , "Eric S. Raymond" References: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0111322D@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <002001c3b59a$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> <3FCA9582.2080602@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: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 00:09:09 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ----- Original Message ----- From: "Yakov Shafranovich" To: "ASRG" > > 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 Yakov, The scattered RFC concepts related to the Return Path (RP) are very clear about this. In practice, all commercial vendors and legitimate mail sites expect it to be valid because a high percentage of the mail client/server/gateway software design is 100% purely based on its validity. That has NOTHING to do with the fact that it could be invalid. Yet, the software is designed to handle this possibility as well. In this case, the mail is dropped, logged, or whatever. The design assumption is that it is valid with a no brainer consideration that it it quite possible the destination is not reachable. This is just like snail mail. An invalid return address on the paper envelope stamped with "Return To sender" with a silly finger pointing to the return address, will fail. It happens. But that does not mean, since it is possible to be invalid, it is therefore not required to be valid. No, it is naturally assumed to be valid. From a mail transport system standpoint, this is vitally important. With delay validation or mail processing such as as gateway, i.e, UUCP/SLIP operations, etc, in order for to properly support gateway and UUCP operations, the SMTP receiver must conform with the RFC by added the "Return-Path:" line to the TOP of the DATA received for final destination targets. RFC 1123 - Host Requirements 5.2.8 DATA Command: RFC-821 Section 4.1.1 .. When the receiver-SMTP makes "final delivery" of a message, then it MUST pass the MAIL FROM: address from the SMTP envelope with the message, for use if an error notification message must be sent later (see Section 5.3.3). There is an analogous requirement when gatewaying from the Internet into a different mail environment; see Section 5.3.7. If you don't do this, your can break gateway operations, including email list servers, especially when there is a route involved. Now the compliant GATEWAY has the support the "Return-Path:" header line in order to provide a proper bounce path. The logic in our gateway software using this priority order to get the return path: RETURN PATH: SENDER: [ERROR-TO:] (Mostly supported by ListServ, Wildcat) Reply-To: FROM: This follows RFC 822: 4.4.4. AUTOMATIC USE OF FROM / SENDER / REPLY-TO However, the legacy RFC 822 does not mention Return-Path. This is covered by RFC 1123, 5.2.8. Please note: that obtaining the Sender, From, etc, means that a MTA must reach the DATA stage which again, in my view, is something you wish to AVOID to address illegal access as a preliminary access check. Again, the point is, it is EXPECTED to be there, it is expected to be valid. Unreachable Return Path is a difference subject. However, it is the subject that the RFC needs to address in what is to be expected about a unreachable return path. In practice, it is handled as a BOUNCE concept and if a system fails to deliver the BOUNCE, it is automatically blacklisted (at least in our software it is). Since a BOUNCE is a natural requirement to a mail server, therefore the return path is expected to be valid, with logic to handle the failures. > 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? OK. thanks for clarification. But as I indicated above, current commercial implementations of mail systems (clients, servers, gateways) in the market place has made it a pseudo-standard and requirement that a valid return path is provided. Otherwise, we can't work together. Unreachable return paths are part of the design, handled differently with each system. I can speak for our system that we will retry a system using our default values of 3 days, once per hour (72 attempts). I can also tell you that we have logic that puts a weight on the type of return path failure. For example: Default Retry = 72 Failed MX = subtract 10 Failed IP = subtract 5 Failed Server = subtract 2 with the idea to accelerate the bounce (when retry <= 0) depending on where it failed. So if a MX is bad, using the above numbers: hour 1 retry count 72 hour 2 retry count 62 hour 3 retry count 52 etc, after 8 hours, the bounce will occur. However, in practice, this was too tight, so it was relaxed (weight are zero). It will try 72 times. The exception to the rule is if a server receiving the mail responds with a code of 55x, which means don't try again. I am only telling you this because what you need to do look at is what "Unreachable" means and put it in writing so that developers will have a guideline to put constraints on a unrearchable return path. Look at he CAN-SPAM bill. It does require a valid return path. So this should be enough to put it in the specs. The specs can say something that reflects the the kind of possible failures when an attempt is made to connect to a MTA and deliver mail and that is outlined by the SMTP state machine. Possible failure points: connect HELO/EHLO MAIL FROM: RCPT TO: DATA QUIT when you lock into the specs that a DOMAIN and a ADDRESS will be expected to be valid, then you inherently and immediately begin to address a high percentage of the spammer problem. It will solve it 100%, but it will make the spammers, well, honest spammers and thats a MAJOR benefit in the efforts to control and regulate them (which I believe is NOT part of the functional design for SMTP). Thats a installation desire or an end-user +desire. The VENDORs will now be able to offer the features the customers and end users want. > 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? Like I said, above, that is none of your business. You are complicating what is otherwise a technical problem with a very easy technical solution. You just need to make it possible. By attempting to get into "interpretation" of the data, then you are going into a fuzzy logic and that's not the purpose of SMTP. In my technical opinion, you have an fantastic opportunity to address to a very large degree the anonymous abuse of the servers by simply address the dearth of controls in the specifications. Forget about spam. It could something else together. Maybe you don't want EXE files or VBS files send because the customer is placing scrutiny on this type of data. In all cases, you need to control and authenticate access that is independent of the mail content. With that said, that does not mean the SMTP server should not offer some level of control here for "data interpretation." Like I said before, I see only some sort of CRC32 checker maybe to be added, but that's it. Compliant clients can say: C: DATA CRC=1BCD233 S: 354 Begin sending data or with a fallback: C: DATA CRC=1BCD233 S: 500 Command not understood C: DATA S: 354 Begin sending data The compliant server can not use the CRC32 to make sure the data integrity is ok. We can extend this to address main content controls. C: DATA CRC=1BCD233 HAS=ADV,ATTS S: 452 Sorry, ADV not accepted, Attachments not accepted or a positive warning: S: 354 Begin sending data. Warning: ADV not accepted, Attachments not accepted In our design, we offer the HOOK into the DATA stage. That makes a customer implementation leaving it UP to them to define what is SPAM or not. Anyway, not reaching the DATA state is the goal I think the effort should concentrate on. The benefit by defining the new controls in SMTP, is that we can now FEED traceable information to the customer to allow them to do what they want with it. --- 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 Mon Dec 1 00:13:25 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA25666 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 00:13:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQgMv-0002by-6v for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 00:13:10 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB15D91F010032 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 00:13:09 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQgMv-0002bj-2U for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 00:13:09 -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 AAA25651 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 00:12:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQgMs-0002yE-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 00:13:06 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQgMs-0002yB-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 00:13:06 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQgMn-0002X7-6G; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 00:13:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQgME-0002Po-1H for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 00:12:26 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA25622 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 00:12:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQgMB-0002xL-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 00:12:23 -0500 Received: from dci.doncaster.on.ca ([66.11.168.194] helo=smtp.istop.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQgMB-0002xI-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 00:12:23 -0500 Received: from waltdnes.org (ip200-182.tor.istop.com [66.11.182.200]) by smtp.istop.com (Postfix) with SMTP id BE83136A94 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 00:12:23 -0500 (EST) Received: by waltdnes.org (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Mon, 1 Dec 2003 00:12:31 -0500 From: Walter Dnes To: ASRG list Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - depracate all list/bulk mailing and changeto RSS Message-ID: <20031201051230.GE3058@m433> References: <20031130040601.19226.910.Mailman@www1.ietf.org> <3FCA4F0F.40206@getactive.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3FCA4F0F.40206@getactive.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: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 00:12:31 -0500 On Sun, Nov 30, 2003 at 12:11:59PM -0800, Bill Pease wrote > Feature Limits: > *Limited to no support for graphically-enhanced content That is a good thing. If I see an interesting headline, I'll click on the URL, and it'll take me to your super-duper/singing/dancing website. > *Limited support for variety of content types typical in newsletter > publishing It's a list of URLs. If you have a high-bandwidth and low-bandwidth version of your website, offer two URLs. > *Limited support for tracking subscriber interaction with content Awwwwwwwww. Guess what... Microsoft is blocking web bugs too... http://www.wired.com/news/infostructure/0,1377,60781,00.html > *No support for various transactions that can be enabled within email > (e.g., donation, viral marketing). *************** Ding ding ding ding ding... we have a winner! The whole point behind this mailing list is to reduce/eliminate unsolicited marketing. If I want really exciting offers daily, I'll point my newsreader at alt.really.exciting.offers. If I want something, *I* will initiate the the contact. I do *NOT* want to be marketed to via my inbox, any more than I want to be marketed to via my phone at suppertime. Do you understand ? It's been my experience that marketing types think that email was invented first and foremost for marketing and email-blasting. Wrong; it was invented as two-way communication. If a potential customer emails you asking for a quote on 1000 widgets, reply to their email with the requested quote. That is customer service. Blasting out millions of unsolicited emails contributes to the destruction of the medium. -- Walter Dnes Email users are divided into two classes; 1) Those who have effective spam-blocking 2) Those who wish they did _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 1 00:22:19 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA26106 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 00:22:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQgVY-0003EM-L0 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 00:22:04 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB15M4uw012412 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 00:22:04 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQgVY-0003E7-FG for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 00:22:04 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA26100 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 00:21:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQgVV-0003B3-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 00:22:02 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQgVV-0003B0-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 00:22:01 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQgVV-0003Bt-0h; Mon, 01 Dec 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 1AQgUX-0003AS-Do for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 00:21:01 -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 AAA26082 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 00:20:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQgUU-0003Aa-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 00:20:58 -0500 Received: from dci.doncaster.on.ca ([66.11.168.194] helo=smtp.istop.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQgUU-0003AX-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 00:20:58 -0500 Received: from waltdnes.org (ip200-182.tor.istop.com [66.11.182.200]) by smtp.istop.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 657DC3713C for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 00:20:59 -0500 (EST) Received: by waltdnes.org (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Mon, 1 Dec 2003 00:21:06 -0500 From: Walter Dnes To: ASRG list Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - depracate all list/bulk mailing and changeto RSS Message-ID: <20031201052106.GF3058@m433> References: <20031130040601.19226.910.Mailman@www1.ietf.org> <3FCA4F0F.40206@getactive.com> <3FCA51D6.4010500@solidmatrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3FCA51D6.4010500@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: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 00:21:06 -0500 On Sun, Nov 30, 2003 at 03:23:50PM -0500, Yakov Shafranovich wrote > >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? I may be getting cynical in my old age, but I think it'll be a non-starter. The good part of pull, as far as I'm concerned, is that control rests with the end user, not the marketer. The bad part of pull, as far as the marketer is concerned, is that control rests with the end user, not the marketer. -- Walter Dnes Email users are divided into two classes; 1) Those who have effective spam-blocking 2) Those who wish they did _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 1 00:23:24 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA26158 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 00:23:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQgWb-0003UV-Vb for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 00:23:09 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB15N9IV013413 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 00:23:09 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQgWb-0003UF-9g for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 00:23:09 -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 AAA26137 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 00:22:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQgWX-0003C2-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 00:23:05 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQgWW-0003By-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 00:23:05 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQgWS-0003My-Kh; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 00:23:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQgWN-0003Mf-6Q for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 00:22:55 -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 AAA26125 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 00:22:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQgWK-0003Bd-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 00:22:52 -0500 Received: from mail.chariot.net.au ([203.87.95.38]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQgWJ-0003Ba-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 00:22:52 -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 DFFD55FBF4; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 15:52:49 +1030 (CST) From: "Chris" To: "Walter Dnes" , "ASRG list" Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - depracate all list/bulk mailing and changeto 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: <20031201051230.GE3058@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: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 15:56:38 +1030 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > > *No support for various transactions that can be enabled within email > > (e.g., donation, viral marketing). > *************** > Ding ding ding ding ding... we have a winner! The whole point behind > this mailing list is to reduce/eliminate unsolicited marketing. If I > want really exciting offers daily, I'll point my newsreader at > alt.really.exciting.offers. If I want something, *I* will initiate the > the contact. I do *NOT* want to be marketed to via my inbox, any more > than I want to be marketed to via my phone at suppertime. Do you > understand ? > In that case set your personal filters or whatever to "NO UCE" but let the rest of the world decide what it wants and doesn't want to read. speaking for myself I don't think you should be telling me what I want to get in my mail box or don't want to get. of course I might be alone in this. Regards Chris > -----Original Message----- > From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of > Walter Dnes > Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 3:43 PM > To: ASRG list > Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - depracate all list/bulk mailing and > changeto RSS > > > On Sun, Nov 30, 2003 at 12:11:59PM -0800, Bill Pease wrote > > > Feature Limits: > > *Limited to no support for graphically-enhanced content > > That is a good thing. If I see an interesting headline, I'll click on > the URL, and it'll take me to your super-duper/singing/dancing website. > > > *Limited support for variety of content types typical in newsletter > > publishing > > It's a list of URLs. If you have a high-bandwidth and low-bandwidth > version of your website, offer two URLs. > > > *Limited support for tracking subscriber interaction with content > > Awwwwwwwww. Guess what... Microsoft is blocking web bugs too... > http://www.wired.com/news/infostructure/0,1377,60781,00.html > > > *No support for various transactions that can be enabled within email > > (e.g., donation, viral marketing). > *************** > Ding ding ding ding ding... we have a winner! The whole point behind > this mailing list is to reduce/eliminate unsolicited marketing. If I > want really exciting offers daily, I'll point my newsreader at > alt.really.exciting.offers. If I want something, *I* will initiate the > the contact. I do *NOT* want to be marketed to via my inbox, any more > than I want to be marketed to via my phone at suppertime. Do you > understand ? > > It's been my experience that marketing types think that email was > invented first and foremost for marketing and email-blasting. Wrong; it > was invented as two-way communication. If a potential customer emails > you asking for a quote on 1000 widgets, reply to their email with the > requested quote. That is customer service. Blasting out millions of > unsolicited emails contributes to the destruction of the medium. > > -- > 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 Mon Dec 1 00:26:21 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA26240 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 00:26:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQgZS-0003eB-5m for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 00:26:06 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB15Q5Cq013977 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 00:26:05 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQgZQ-0003bW-TZ for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 00:26:04 -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 AAA26228 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 00:25:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQgZO-0003Dm-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 00:26:02 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQgZO-0003Dj-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 00:26:02 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQgZN-0003Wa-I3; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 00:26:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQgZ5-0003WB-OT for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 00:25:43 -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 AAA26221 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 00:25:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQgZ3-0003Db-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 00:25:41 -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 1AQgZ2-0003DR-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 00:25:40 -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 <0HP700JUVB1VWG@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 05:25:12 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - anti-harvesting (was Inquiry about CallerID Verification) In-reply-to: <001701c3b7c9$41d9d410$60c6d344@FAMILY> To: ASRG Message-id: <3FCAD0B0.5070609@solidmatrix.com> Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, he, ru User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007 X-Enigmail-Version: 0.82.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime References: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0111322D@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <002001c3b59a$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> <3FCA9582.2080602@solidmatrix.com> <001701c3b7c9$41d9d410$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: Mon, 01 Dec 2003 00:25:04 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Hector Santos wrote: [..] > when you lock into the specs that a DOMAIN and a ADDRESS will be expected to > be valid, then you inherently and immediately begin to address a high > percentage of the spammer problem. [..] From my understanding, what you are basically asking is to make every single email on the Internet have a valid return address which will be checked by every system. This would require an RFC to be published laying out this requirement, which would in my view change the current SMTP specification, or in your view would consistute the codification of the "spirit" of the law, as it is inherently present today. But, why lock down the actual email address instead of the domain? Why require every email to have a valid return address and domain? Shouldn't requiring a valid domain name suffice? >>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? > > > Like I said, above, that is none of your business. You are complicating > what is otherwise a technical problem with a very easy technical solution. > You just need to make it possible. > > By attempting to get into "interpretation" of the data, then you are going > into a fuzzy logic and that's not the purpose of SMTP. > The SMTP specification and related RFCs make it very clear that parsing the RCPT TO and MAIL FROM addresses is perfectly fine, and that is done all the time (DATA is a different story). I do not see any problems with "interpretation" of email addresses used in RCPT TO and MAIL FROM commands, and having them split into domain/address sections. Why is that fuzzy logic if the SMTP specification defines a very specific format that addresses must follow? Why go through the trouble of having to do an RCPT TO callback, when an easier and more lighweight mechanism will do fine (like a LMAP cached DNS query)? [..] > With that said, that does not mean the SMTP server should not offer some > level of control here for "data interpretation." Like I said before, I > see only some sort of CRC32 checker maybe to be added, but that's it. [..] > The compliant server can not use the CRC32 to make sure the data integrity > is ok. [..] What the point of having a CRC check? TCP assures an error-free connection and SMIME/PGP can assure integrity with a digital signature? 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 Mon Dec 1 00:32:19 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA26357 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 00:32:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQgfE-0003qp-Tw for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 00:32:04 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB15W4hj014797 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 00:32:04 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQgfE-0003pl-OR for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 00:32:04 -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 AAA26348 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 00:31:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQgfC-0003GQ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 00:32:02 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQgfB-0003GN-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 00:32:01 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQgfB-0003mL-Mn; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 00:32:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQgeR-0003m0-HZ for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 00:31:15 -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 AAA26336 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 00:30:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQgeO-0003GJ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 00:31:12 -0500 Received: from ntbbs.winserver.com ([208.247.131.9] helo=winserver.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQgeO-0003GG-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 00:31:12 -0500 Received: by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v5.7.450.9b10) for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 00:31:32 -0500 Received: from ([68.211.198.96]) EHLO=FAMILY by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v5.7.450.9b10) with SMTP id 2491156953; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 00:31:30 -0500 Message-ID: <002301c3b7cc$65adb480$60c6d344@FAMILY> From: "Hector Santos" To: "ASRG" , "Dave Crocker" References: 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: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 00:31:39 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Exactly, this is why is critical that before any proposals are worked on, the RFC specifications must precisely be clear in its functional specification at each and every interface point. Once done, the proposals is then easy to write to fit the new controlled specs. I've seen this happen before and Yakov only needs to do is speak to Randy Bush about the demise of the Fidonet Technical Specifications Committee (FTSC) and the Fidonet Network itself (still present but not in the numbers it use to be). The interpretation of the specs, the insistence of FTSC administrators to comply with legacy specifications, their fear of losing control to militant new groups, help kill it. The internet was coming and developers were CRYING to get new internet ready specifications used by practically all the vendors accepted by the committee. However, to be compliant (hence get a product code), you had to support a legacy protocol called FTSC1 describing the absolute minimum how a client and server handshakes to identify and exchange data. If your software didn't support FTSC1, the net coordinators (ISP) would remove the node (mail server customer) from the membership list (DNS). This is akin to being removed your MX record removed from DNS for not having a valid SMTP server. When you joined the network, your host (ISP) did FTSC1 compliance testing of your installation before issuing an address (MX record) into the nodelist (DNS). Now, in no way, am I advocating a strict administrated network like Fidonet offered, but there were no security or access issues. We can learn and borrow quite a few ideas from it. In a way, we are sort heading in the same direction with SMTP with a "central authority" controlling your mail server integration into the backbone. It works, but do we really want this. I don't think so. Fix the SMTP specs people. Everything else will follow. The specs are great, flexible. We just need to leave no room for anonymous abuse. --- Hector Santos, CTO WINSERVER "Wildcat! Interactive Net Server" support: http://www.winserver.com sales: http://www.santronics.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chris" To: ; "Yakov Shafranovich" Cc: "ASRG" ; "Dave Crocker" Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2003 11:35 PM Subject: RE: [Asrg] 0. General - anti-harvesting (was Inquiry about CallerID Verification) > > 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 > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 1 00:37:23 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA26454 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 00:37:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQgk8-00047r-Ml for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 00:37:08 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB15b89X015853 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 00:37:08 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQgk7-00047a-8F for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 00:37:07 -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 AAA26437 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 00:36:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQgk4-0003Jq-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 00:37:04 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQgk4-0003Jn-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 00:37:04 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQgk0-00042s-R4; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 00:37:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQgjW-00042O-IG for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 00:36:30 -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 AAA26419 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 00:36:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQgjT-0003Jj-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 00:36:27 -0500 Received: from mail.chariot.net.au ([203.87.95.38]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQgjT-0003Jg-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 00:36:27 -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 E2F5965AC0; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 16:06:25 +1030 (CST) From: "Chris" To: "Walter Dnes" , "ASRG list" Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - depracate all list/bulk mailing and changeto 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: <20031201052106.GF3058@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: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 16:10:14 +1030 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > The good part of pull, as far as I'm concerned, is that > control rests with the end user, not the marketer. The bad part of > pull, as far as the marketer is concerned, is that control rests with > the end user, not the marketer. > I can agree with you on this one. Regards Chris > -----Original Message----- > From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of > Walter Dnes > Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 3:51 PM > To: ASRG list > Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - depracate all list/bulk mailing and > changeto RSS > > > On Sun, Nov 30, 2003 at 03:23:50PM -0500, Yakov Shafranovich wrote > > > >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? > -- > 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 Mon Dec 1 00:46:22 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA26584 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 00:46:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQgsp-0004wN-Qt for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 00:46:07 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB15k7PQ018985 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 00:46:07 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQgsp-0004w8-Lm for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 00:46:07 -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 AAA26569 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 00:45:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQgsm-0003N2-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 00:46:05 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQgsm-0003Mz-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 00:46:04 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQgsk-0004ti-2s; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 00:46:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQgrm-0004ow-3D for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 00:45:02 -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 AAA26557 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 00:44:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQgrj-0003Md-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 00:44:59 -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 1AQgri-0003ME-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 00:44:59 -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 <0HP700BYDBUWPW@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 05:42:36 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - anti-harvesting (was Inquiry about CallerID Verification) In-reply-to: <002301c3b7cc$65adb480$60c6d344@FAMILY> To: ASRG Message-id: <3FCAD4C6.8000909@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: <002301c3b7cc$65adb480$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: Mon, 01 Dec 2003 00:42:30 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Hector Santos wrote: [..] > Exactly, this is why is critical that before any proposals are worked on, > the RFC specifications must precisely be clear in its functional > specification at each and every interface point. Once done, the proposals > is then easy to write to fit the new controlled specs. > [..] > > Fix the SMTP specs people. Everything else will follow. The specs are > great, flexible. We just need to leave no room for anonymous abuse. > [..] Can we leave your RCPT TO proposal out for a second? Leaving that aside, what exactly do you propose? 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 Mon Dec 1 00:58:21 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA26855 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 00:58:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQh4R-0005Z4-9t for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 00:58:07 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB15w72R021384 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 00:58:07 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQh4R-0005Yp-4n for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 00:58:07 -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 AAA26843 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 00:57:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQh4O-0003WJ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 00:58:04 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQh4N-0003WG-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 00:58:03 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQh4L-0005Vq-0Q; Mon, 01 Dec 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 1AQh3n-0005Sd-NI for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 00:57:27 -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 AAA26797 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 00:57:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQh3k-0003VT-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 00:57:24 -0500 Received: from ntbbs.winserver.com ([208.247.131.9] helo=winserver.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQh3k-0003VQ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 00:57:24 -0500 Received: by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v5.7.450.9b10) for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 00:57:43 -0500 Received: from ([68.211.198.96]) EHLO=FAMILY by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v5.7.450.9b10) with SMTP id 2492728421; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 00:57:42 -0500 Message-ID: <002901c3b7d0$0e716960$60c6d344@FAMILY> From: "Hector Santos" To: "ASRG" References: <010a01c3b70d$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> <20031201041154.GA32587@thyrsus.com> <1031201050104.ZM3624@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: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 00:57:50 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bart Schaefer" To: "ASRG" Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 12:01 AM Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - anti-harvesting (was Inquiry about CallerID Verification) > } I read this to mean that the Return-Path must, if present, be a > } valid mailbox for a responsible person (note the MUST). > > I read this to mean that the server is reqired to insert the return-path > field, regardless of its knowledge of the validity of the mailbox. hmmm?? It is expected to be VALID! Whether thats true or not, is a different story which is 100% expected as a possibility and handled accordingly depending on server implemention. In our case, it is blacklisted after 72 tries (default). That gives you 3 days to fix your server can get back up. If you can't get your server up, then you have no business being a mail server. On a new attempt, our software will try once more. If successful, it is removed from the blacklist. Otherwise, it is an immediate failure. > Suppose I send a message to you. For whatever reason, it's queued at > my company SMTP server rather than delivered immediately to your MX. > While the message is in the queue, I have an argument with my CEO over > the interpretation of RFC2821, and he fires me. The sysadmin immediately > disables my email account. > > You're saying that its now an _SMTP protocol_ violation for the company > server to complete the process of delivering that queued message to you? > Thats not a SMTP problem. These are ethical and legal issues. First, if you write/store mail using company resource, they own your email. They can do whatever they want. This is legally enforced. Second, as far as SMTP, it is doing what it was technical designed done to do - queue for delivery. If the ADMIN wants to delete or kill the queue, thats up to him. That is not an SMTP decision. Now, on the other hand, if your system is acting as a passthru system, then it has TECHNCIAL responsible to move the mail - UNALTERED. If the ADMIN kills passthru mail, he is putting his operations (and business) at risk. I can't remember but I believe this is legalled enforced as well. If your software can not correctly handle the passthru operation of mail, you have no being in the mail transport business. Now, what is consided passthru mail? Basically routed mail, but there are two types of routed mail. If mail from another server is routed thru your system, you can not delete it or alter it. This is considered true passthu mail. If the mail came from a USER to its HOST (your system) to be routed to another site (not local), then this may be considered NON-PASSTHRU, depending on the type of user: Employee - company owns your email stored on the system. Commercial - user using an ISP. This is questionable. In my opinion, in this case, this is passthru and the ISP has no business in the killing/altering of a commercial user. However, the ISP has to right to have a disclaimer for user mail (i.e., no porn) passing thru his system as the original source. This (disclaimer) is legally enforced. However, again, if the mail is true passthru, your server has the ultimate responsibility to move it. It can't just let it die. --- 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 Mon Dec 1 01:35:33 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA27544 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 01:35:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQheP-0007pS-9g for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 01:35:17 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB16ZHOK030094 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 01:35:17 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQheP-0007pJ-0d for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 01:35:17 -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 BAA27533 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 01:35:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQheL-0003tE-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 01:35:13 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQheL-0003tA-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 01:35:13 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQheC-0007mw-Vf; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 01:35:04 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQhdX-0007mQ-DS for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 01:34:23 -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 BAA27505 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 01:34:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQhdU-0003sS-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 01:34:20 -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 1AQhdT-0003sP-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 01:34:19 -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 hB16YJGU021994; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 01:34:19 -0500 Received: from snark.thyrsus.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by snark.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hB16YJhC003267; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 01:34:19 -0500 Received: (from esr@localhost) by snark.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB16YJp0003265; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 01:34:19 -0500 From: "Eric S. Raymond" To: Bart Schaefer Cc: ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - anti-harvesting (was Inquiry about CallerID Verification) Message-ID: <20031201063419.GA29153@thyrsus.com> Reply-To: esr@thyrsus.com References: <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> <20031201041154.GA32587@thyrsus.com> <1031201050104.ZM3624@candle.brasslantern.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1031201050104.ZM3624@candle.brasslantern.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, 1 Dec 2003 01:34:19 -0500 Bart Schaefer : > On Nov 30, 11:11pm, Eric S. Raymond wrote: > } > } 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. > } > } I read this to mean that the Return-Path must, if present, be a > } valid mailbox for a responsible person (note the MUST). > > I read this to mean that the server is reqired to insert the return-path > field, regardless of its knowledge of the validity of the mailbox. ...and that return-path field must describe the valid submission address from which the mail entered. The sentence "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." is pretty definitive. > Suppose I send a message to you. For whatever reason, it's queued at > my company SMTP server rather than delivered immediately to your MX. > While the message is in the queue, I have an argument with my CEO over > the interpretation of RFC2821, and he fires me. The sysadmin immediately > disables my email account. > > You're saying that its now an _SMTP protocol_ violation for the company > server to complete the process of delivering that queued message to you? I am saying that I may refuse mail becayse that path has become invalid and be in strict conformance with RFC2821. When Hector Santos talks about strictly enforcing the SMTP standards in order to close loopholes that spammers are using, this is what he means -- and he's got a point. -- Eric S. Raymond _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 1 01:54:26 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA27859 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 01:54:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQhwg-0000Tt-QK for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 01:54:10 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB16sAoi001843 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 01:54:10 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQhwg-0000Te-JW for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 01:54:10 -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 BAA27848 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 01:53:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQhwd-00042m-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 01:54:07 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQhwc-00042j-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 01:54:06 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQhwW-0000Pw-Rm; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 01:54:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQhvp-0000Ph-GS for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 01:53:17 -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 BAA27844 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 01:53:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQhvm-00042X-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 01:53:14 -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 1AQhvl-00042U-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 01:53:13 -0500 Received: (from schaefer@localhost) by candle.brasslantern.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id hB16rDR03795 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 22:53:13 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: candle.brasslantern.com: schaefer set sender to schaefer@closedmail.com using -f From: Bart Schaefer Message-Id: <1031201065312.ZM3794@candle.brasslantern.com> In-Reply-To: <002901c3b7d0$0e716960$60c6d344@FAMILY> Comments: In reply to "Hector Santos" "Re: [Asrg] 0. General - anti-harvesting (was Inquiry about CallerID Verification)" (Dec 1, 12:57am) References: <010a01c3b70d$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> <20031201041154.GA32587@thyrsus.com> <1031201050104.ZM3624@candle.brasslantern.com> <002901c3b7d0$0e716960$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 06:53:12 +0000 On Dec 1, 12:57am, Hector Santos wrote: } } ----- Original Message ----- } From: "Bart Schaefer" } } > } I read this to mean that the Return-Path must, if present, be a } > } valid mailbox for a responsible person (note the MUST). } > } > I read this to mean that the server is reqired to insert the return-path } > field, regardless of its knowledge of the validity of the mailbox. } } hmmm?? It is expected to be VALID! Again, why? (Where "this" in "I read this" is the quotation from RFC2821, now elided, and is not the quotation from ESR that is still included.) } > Suppose I send a message to you. For whatever reason, it's queued at } > my company SMTP server rather than delivered immediately to your MX. } > While the message is in the queue, I have an argument with my CEO over } > the interpretation of RFC2821, and he fires me. The sysadmin immediately } > disables my email account. } > } > You're saying that its now an _SMTP protocol_ violation for the company } > server to complete the process of delivering that queued message to you? } > } } Thats not a SMTP problem. It is, according to what you (and ESR) have claimed. The address from which the queued message was sent is no longer valid. If, as you assert, it is a MUST requirement of 2821 that the return-path be valid, then any SMTP server that continues delivery of a queued message for which the sender has since become invalid, is violating the protocol. Replace the whole scenario with use of a sneakemail.com address which I disable while the message is in the queue, if that's a better example. } Second, as far as SMTP, it is doing what it was technical designed } done to do - queue for delivery. Exactly my point. It's technically impossible for a store-and-forward system to require that the end points are continuously valid. Ergo, I don't believe it's reasonable to interpret the aforementioned section of RFC2821 the way you say it should be interpreted. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 1 02:10:31 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA06241 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 02:10:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQiCE-0002Hh-CF for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 02:10:14 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB17AEQU008778 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 02:10:14 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQiCD-0002HV-MB for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 02:10:13 -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 CAA05796 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 02:09:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQiCA-0004HM-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 02:10:10 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQiC9-0004HJ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 02:10:09 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQiC1-0002Dn-RF; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 02:10:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQiB3-00024v-DU for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 02:09:01 -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 CAA04814 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 02:08:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQiAz-0004GI-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 02:08:57 -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 1AQiAy-0004GE-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 02:08:57 -0500 Received: (from schaefer@localhost) by candle.brasslantern.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id hB178vw03842 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 23:08:57 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: candle.brasslantern.com: schaefer set sender to schaefer@closedmail.com using -f From: Bart Schaefer Message-Id: <1031201070857.ZM3841@candle.brasslantern.com> In-Reply-To: <20031201063419.GA29153@thyrsus.com> Comments: In reply to "Eric S. Raymond" "Re: [Asrg] 0. General - anti-harvesting (was Inquiry about CallerID Verification)" (Dec 1, 1:34am) References: <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> <20031201041154.GA32587@thyrsus.com> <1031201050104.ZM3624@candle.brasslantern.com> <20031201063419.GA29153@thyrsus.com> 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 07:08:57 +0000 On Dec 1, 1:34am, Eric S. Raymond wrote: } } I am saying that I may refuse mail becayse that path has become invalid } and be in strict conformance with RFC2821. I don't disagree with that. What I disagree with is the claim that the *sending* system is in violation of RFC2821 because the return-path has become invalid. Put another way, I don't agree that RFC2821 *justifies* your refusal of the message, merely that it does not *prohibit* such refusal. Yakov's point (unless I'm completely confused) is that it would constitute a new requirement for *sending* systems if the return-path "MUST" always be a valid address. Hector says that it would not be a new requirement, and I still haven't been convinced that Hector is correct. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 1 02:12:23 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA07858 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 02:12:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQiE3-0002hD-RR for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 02:12:07 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB17C7p1010123 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 02:12:07 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQiE0-0002dC-RQ for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 02:12:04 -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 CAA07379 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 02:11:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQiDx-0004I9-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 02:12:01 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQiDw-0004I6-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 02:12:00 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQiDw-0002ao-TH; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 02:12:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQiDG-0002Wn-5j for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 02:11:18 -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 CAA06689 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 02:11:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQiDC-0004Hr-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 02:11:14 -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 1AQiDC-0004Hn-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 02:11:14 -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 hB17BEGU022241; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 02:11:14 -0500 Received: from snark.thyrsus.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by snark.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hB17BDhC004637; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 02:11:13 -0500 Received: (from esr@localhost) by snark.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB17BD7l004635; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 02:11:13 -0500 From: "Eric S. Raymond" To: Bart Schaefer Cc: ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - anti-harvesting (was Inquiry about CallerID Verification) Message-ID: <20031201071113.GA30032@thyrsus.com> Reply-To: esr@thyrsus.com References: <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> <20031201041154.GA32587@thyrsus.com> <1031201050104.ZM3624@candle.brasslantern.com> <002901c3b7d0$0e716960$60c6d344@FAMILY> <1031201065312.ZM3794@candle.brasslantern.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1031201065312.ZM3794@candle.brasslantern.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, 1 Dec 2003 02:11:13 -0500 Bart Schaefer : > It is, according to what you (and ESR) have claimed. The address from which > the queued message was sent is no longer valid. If, as you assert, it is a > MUST requirement of 2821 that the return-path be valid, then any SMTP server > that continues delivery of a queued message for which the sender has since > become invalid, is violating the protocol. I didn't say that. There's a nuance here you're missing. The sending MTA is conformant with RFC2821, as I read it, if it issues a Return-Path back to the user that preserves the MAIL FROM information, e.g. is valid at the time the message was generated. There is a MUST attached to that requirement. The receiving MTA is conformant if, upon ascertaining that the Return-Path is invalid, it refuses the mail for that reason. The fact that said Return-Path may have become invalid after transmission and before receipt is an interesting edge case which does not affect the meaning of RFC2821 in any way. -- Eric S. Raymond _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 1 02:18:31 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA10919 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 02:18:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQiJz-0003K5-7I for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 02:18:15 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB17IFAj012750 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 02:18:15 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQiJw-0003JZ-W0 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 02:18:13 -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 CAA10888 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 02:17:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQiJt-0004Ot-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 02:18:09 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQiJs-0004Oq-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 02:18:09 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQiJl-0003Eg-N0; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 02:18:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQiIy-0003Ag-TN for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 02:17:12 -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 CAA10800 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 02:16:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQiIu-0004OW-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 02:17:09 -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 1AQiIu-0004OT-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 02:17:08 -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 hB17H8GU022271; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 02:17:08 -0500 Received: from snark.thyrsus.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by snark.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hB17H8hC010126; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 02:17:08 -0500 Received: (from esr@localhost) by snark.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB17H8Ug010124; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 02:17:08 -0500 From: "Eric S. Raymond" To: Bart Schaefer Cc: ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - anti-harvesting (was Inquiry about CallerID Verification) Message-ID: <20031201071708.GB30032@thyrsus.com> Reply-To: esr@thyrsus.com References: <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> <20031201041154.GA32587@thyrsus.com> <1031201050104.ZM3624@candle.brasslantern.com> <20031201063419.GA29153@thyrsus.com> <1031201070857.ZM3841@candle.brasslantern.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1031201070857.ZM3841@candle.brasslantern.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, 1 Dec 2003 02:17:08 -0500 Bart Schaefer : > What I disagree with is the claim that the *sending* system is in violation > of RFC2821 because the return-path has become invalid. Put another way, I > don't agree that RFC2821 *justifies* your refusal of the message, merely > that it does not *prohibit* such refusal. You are correct. The path may *become* invalid without putting the sending MTA retroactively in violation. It must however *be* valid at time of transmission. That is the plain meaning of 4.1.1.4. > Yakov's point (unless I'm completely confused) is that it would constitute > a new requirement for *sending* systems if the return-path "MUST" always be > a valid address. Hector says that it would not be a new requirement, and I > still haven't been convinced that Hector is correct. Yakov is correct that that would be a new requiremwnt. But "MUST always be a valid address" is not what I am maintaining, nor is it Hector's position unless I have misunderstood him. We are simply maintaining that sending MTAs MUST issue a valid return path at time of transmission. -- Eric S. Raymond _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 1 02:54:29 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA12147 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 02:54:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQisn-0006Bp-UC for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 02:54:14 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB17sDnL023787 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 02:54:13 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQism-0006Ba-VE for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 02:54:12 -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 CAA12128 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 02:53:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQisj-0004pt-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 02:54:09 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQisi-0004pq-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 02:54:08 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQisb-00069M-5O; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 02:54:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQisT-00068z-AF for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 02:53:53 -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 CAA12125 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 02:53:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQisP-0004pi-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 02:53:49 -0500 Received: from mail004.syd.optusnet.com.au ([211.29.132.145]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQisO-0004pU-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 02:53:48 -0500 Received: from zen.fernhaven (c211-30-105-76.carlnfd1.nsw.optusnet.com.au [211.30.105.76]) by mail004.syd.optusnet.com.au (8.11.6p2/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hB17rI303957 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 18:53:18 +1100 Received: from [172.16.0.129] (helo=fred.fernhaven) by zen.fernhaven with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1AQirs-0002pD-00 for ; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 18:53:16 +1100 From: Brett Watson Organization: PhD Student, Macquarie University To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - anti-harvesting (was Inquiry about CallerID Verification) 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: <200312011854.43717.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: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 18:54:43 +1100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Let me see if I can summarise the crux of the matter, here. Regardless of what the RFCs say about return address validity, it seems like a reasonable local policy to reject mail that has an invalid return address. Arguments over what the RFCs say on the matter are largely red herrings: the sender need not be in violation of the RFCs to justify a "refuse" policy. The problem arises in actually determining the validity of any address. The only explicit mechanism that SMTP ever had for verifying addresses was the VRFY command, but it has fallen out of favour. Attempting to verify an address via SMTP using any other technique is a configuration and implementation dependent hack. Nothing in the RFCs requires that the "MAIL From" and "RCPT To" dialogue actually divulge the validity of any recipient address, although it's arguably "good behaviour" to do so. So do we suggest that VRFY ought to be revived as a return-path validity checker? Does this benefit outweigh the disadvantages for which VRFY has been depreciated in the first place? Or am I misunderstanding this argument? Regards, TFBW _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 1 03:24:28 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA01609 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 03:24:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQjLl-0008W5-Dj for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 03:24:10 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB18O9eK032731 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 03:24:09 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQjLl-0008Vq-3H for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 03:24:09 -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 DAA01586 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 03:23:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQjLi-0005T8-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 03:24:06 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQjLh-0005T5-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 03:24:06 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQjLc-0008TO-TB; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 03:24:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQjL3-0008QN-GW for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 03:23:25 -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 DAA01559 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 03:23:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQjKz-0005SK-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 03:23:21 -0500 Received: from ntbbs.winserver.com ([208.247.131.9] helo=winserver.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQjKy-0005SE-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 03:23:21 -0500 Received: by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v5.7.450.9b10) for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 03:23:37 -0500 Received: from ([68.211.198.96]) EHLO=FAMILY by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v5.7.450.9b10) with SMTP id 2501482625; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 03:23:36 -0500 Message-ID: <006901c3b7e4$70d8d1b0$60c6d344@FAMILY> From: "Hector Santos" To: , "Bart Schaefer" Cc: "ASRG" References: <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> <20031201041154.GA32587@thyrsus.com> <1031201050104.ZM3624@candle.brasslantern.com> <002901c3b7d0$0e716960$60c6d344@FAMILY> <1031201065312.ZM3794@candle.brasslantern.com> <20031201071113.GA30032@thyrsus.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: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 03:23:44 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric S. Raymond" To: "Bart Schaefer" > > The receiving MTA is conformant if, upon ascertaining that the Return-Path > is invalid, it refuses the mail for that reason. > > The fact that said Return-Path may have become invalid after transmission and > before receipt is an interesting edge case which does not affect the > meaning of RFC2821 in any way. Exactly. It really just like regular snail mail. When someone puts a return address on the upper left corner of the envelope, it is the expectation of the "SYSTEM" that is is valid in order for it to work properly. That doesn't say anything about the "possibility" that it may not be valid or blank which means no return process needs to be considered. The consequences of such is that the SYSTEM can no longer return the mail which is natural part of the system functional specification. The SYSTEM can no longer go any further with the invalid return address. There is a systematic process in place that works with the idea that the RETURN ADDRESS is valid. Same is true with SMTP. All commercial servers work with this design assumption. It has too. Otherwise it doens't work which the SPAMMERS are proving for us. :-) --- 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 Mon Dec 1 03:52:33 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA02053 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 03:52:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQjmy-0001ic-Kc for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 03:52:16 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB18qGTJ006603 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 03:52:16 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQjmy-0001iQ-3l for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 03:52:16 -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 DAA02039 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 03:52:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQjmv-0005kE-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 03:52:13 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQjmv-0005kB-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 03:52:13 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQjmj-0001g5-4J; Mon, 01 Dec 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 1AQjlx-0001f7-Pr for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 03:51:13 -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 DAA02021 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 03:50:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQjlv-0005jg-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 03:51:11 -0500 Received: from ntbbs.winserver.com ([208.247.131.9] helo=winserver.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQjlu-0005jd-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 03:51:10 -0500 Received: by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v5.7.450.9b10) for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 03:51:32 -0500 Received: from ([68.211.198.96]) EHLO=FAMILY by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v5.7.450.9b10) with SMTP id 2503157546; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 03:51:31 -0500 Message-ID: <006d01c3b7e8$57459720$60c6d344@FAMILY> From: "Hector Santos" To: "Brett Watson" , References: <200312011854.43717.famous-asrg@nutters.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: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 03:51:40 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brett Watson" To: Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 2:54 AM Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - anti-harvesting (was Inquiry about CallerID Verification) > > So do we suggest that VRFY ought to be revived as a return-path validity > checker? Does this benefit outweigh the disadvantages for which VRFY has been > depreciated in the first place? > > Or am I misunderstanding this argument? No, you got it. And you raise a very excellent possible solution which I like because it doesn't technically change the SMTP protocol. It now becomes a functional requirement. Lets put a version number of the NEXT SMTP system. V2.0 For ESMTP V2.0 Servers: Compliant servers must support VRFY as a way to validate return address. With modern systems, RCPT TO: is basically doing the same thing. The difference VRFY is not required to be issued in any specific order and it doesn't occur any internal server logic to remember a RCPT TO: list. So VRFY is the prefer method as a low overhead verification. For ESMTP V2.0 Clients: It can use a RCPT TO: only as a fallback if VRFY fails as a "command not understood" The beauty of this is that most systems already support VRFY but have it OFF by default. So it is just a simple matter of the sysop turning it on. We can certainly extend this in many ways. But by using this method, the SMTP protocol itself does not need to change. Only the specifications need to be make it clear in writing that the return path must be valid. If it isn't valid, the is up to the server implementation to decide what to do with it. But we can't just leave it in a "limbo" that suggests in any way that it is may be unreachable, therefore no action should be taken that prohibit this possibility. I vote to "re-institute" the VRFY command as recommended requirement for ESMTP V2.0 Protocols designs. The argument about harvesting is a non-issue. - Most systems offer dynamic validation with RCPT TO: - Some might delay it to the DATA stage, but it still done (YAHOO) - Systems that delay with gateway software will try to BOUNCE the message. If no bounce is reached by the spammers, then he has learned that the address is "ACCEPTABLE." - Systems that delay with gateway software bouncing the message to a unreachable site, well, this only means this type of spammer didn't care in the FIRST place if the address was acceptable or not. He was just throwing darts on the wall. If some stuck, GREAT. If not, still GREAT. From his stand point, his SPAM SOFTWARE completed it job (throwing darts) of sending mail to anyone who would accept it. Who cares if it was actually by a user or not. He will find out when the user reads his mail using html references. So in ALL cases, it is a non-issue. I vote for VRFY to be part of the next specs! Thanks Brett! --- 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 Mon Dec 1 04:02:40 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA02331 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 04:02:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQjwl-0002Wn-5E for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 04:02:23 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB192LAu009686 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 04:02:21 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQjwh-0002Vw-Q4 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 04:02:19 -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 EAA02266 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 04:02:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQjwf-0005rg-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 04:02:17 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQjwe-0005rd-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 04:02:16 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQjwQ-0002RH-4Q; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 04:02:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQjva-0002QC-Tf for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 04:01:10 -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 EAA02232 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 04:00:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQjvY-0005oi-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 04:01:08 -0500 Received: from guttormur.frisk-software.com ([213.220.100.9]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQjvX-0005oU-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 04:01:07 -0500 Received: by guttormur.frisk-software.com (Postfix, from userid 517) id EF2B038031; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 09:00:32 +0000 (GMT) Received: from localhost.localdomain. (pc28.frisk-software.com [172.16.5.2]) by guttormur.frisk-software.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C111438013 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 09:00:32 +0000 (GMT) Received: by localhost.localdomain. (8.9.3/client-1.3) id JAA04029; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 09:00:33 GMT From: Fridrik Skulason To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 4. Survey of Solutions - Methods of Authentication -Trojans] Message-ID: <20031201090033.GG30566@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: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 09:00:33 +0000 > If anyone think spammers will move en masse to trojan systems to continue > their habit, I believe they are sadly mistaken. I wouldn't be too sure about that. I am looking at this problem from a anti-virus/anti-trojan perspective, and what I am seeing is the establisnment of several networks of "zombies", used for spam-related purposes - not only spamming, but also DoS attacks on anti-spam sites. The connection between spammers and compromised machines is becoming clearer and clearer. The spammers that just buy spam software from companies like www.saurabh.info, www.marketing-2000.net, www.massmailsoftware.com or other similar companies do not use the zombie nets, that's true...you have to look elsewhere, for example at the spammers with connections to the Russian criminal underground. I am not sure how high the percentage of spam from zombie machines is, but it is growing...that much is certain. -- 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 Mon Dec 1 04:14:27 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA02537 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 04:14:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQk8A-0003ol-LI for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 04:14:10 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB19EAxu014674 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 04:14:10 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQk88-0003oZ-8r for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 04:14:08 -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 EAA02518 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 04:13:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQk85-0005wr-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 04:14:05 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQk85-0005wo-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 04:14:05 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQk81-0003mL-6V; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 04:14:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQk7t-0003m3-A7 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 04:13:53 -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 EAA02515 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 04:13:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQk7q-0005we-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 04:13:50 -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 1AQk7p-0005wb-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 04:13:49 -0500 Received: (from schaefer@localhost) by candle.brasslantern.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id hB19Dnb03968 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 01:13:49 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: candle.brasslantern.com: schaefer set sender to schaefer@closedmail.com using -f From: Bart Schaefer Message-Id: <1031201091349.ZM3967@candle.brasslantern.com> Reply-To: In-Reply-To: <20031201071708.GB30032@thyrsus.com> Comments: In reply to "Eric S. Raymond" "Re: [Asrg] 0. General - anti-harvesting (was Inquiry about CallerID Verification)" (Dec 1, 2:17am) References: <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> <20031201041154.GA32587@thyrsus.com> <1031201050104.ZM3624@candle.brasslantern.com> <20031201063419.GA29153@thyrsus.com> <1031201070857.ZM3841@candle.brasslantern.com> <20031201071708.GB30032@thyrsus.com> 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 09:13:49 +0000 On Dec 1, 2:17am, Eric S. Raymond wrote: } } Bart Schaefer : } > What I disagree with is the claim that the *sending* system is in violation } > of RFC2821 because the return-path has become invalid. Put another way, I } > don't agree that RFC2821 *justifies* your refusal of the message, merely } > that it does not *prohibit* such refusal. } } You are correct. The path may *become* invalid without putting the } sending MTA retroactively in violation. It must however *be* valid } at time of transmission. That is the plain meaning of 4.1.1.4. You mean 4.1.1.2? "The reverse-path consists of the sender mailbox." } We are simply maintaining that sending MTAs MUST issue a valid return } path at time of transmission. And I assert that even that is a new requirement. Valid from what point of view? Suppose the (not uncommon case) of a sending MTA that is not the same host as the MX for the sender's domain. Call these MTA1 and MX1. A message is transmitted via MTA1 to the recipient's MX, which I'll call MX2. If the sender mailbox is valid at MTA1 -- that is, MTA1 can successfully deliver a DSN to that mailbox in the event of a 5xx response from MX2 -- where is the requirement that the mailbox also be valid when presented as a RCPT TO: at MX1? _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 1 04:18:21 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA02616 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 04:18:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQkBx-0004Bs-7R for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 04:18:05 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB19I5UQ016102 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 04:18:05 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQkBw-0004AX-91 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 04:18:04 -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 EAA02603 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 04:17:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQkBt-00061B-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 04:18:01 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQkBs-000618-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 04:18:00 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQkBt-00045p-0u; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 04:18:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQkAx-0003yb-N9 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 04:17:03 -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 EAA02596 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 04:16:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQkAu-0005yn-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 04:17:00 -0500 Received: from guttormur.frisk-software.com ([213.220.100.9]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQkAu-0005yR-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 04:17:00 -0500 Received: by guttormur.frisk-software.com (Postfix, from userid 517) id CF98B38021; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 09:16:31 +0000 (GMT) Received: from localhost.localdomain. (pc28.frisk-software.com [172.16.5.2]) by guttormur.frisk-software.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B74738013 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 09:16:31 +0000 (GMT) Received: by localhost.localdomain. (8.9.3/client-1.3) id JAA04036; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 09:16:32 GMT From: Fridrik Skulason To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals: LMTP proposals] Message-ID: <20031201091632.GH30566@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: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 09:16:32 +0000 > 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'. LMAP will never eliminate all cases of forgery - which actually has a rather nasty side-effect. Think of it as the "survival of the fittest" in action. If something like LMAP was universally adopted, any spam mechanism not affected by it would be "encouraged", so to speak. So, which cases would not be affected by LMAP? Now, in addition to all the "non-forged" methods (disposable accounts, rogue ISPs and so on) there is the following: A spammer gains access to a compromised computer, and determines the mail address of the owner of the machine. The spam is then sent out in the name of the owner of the machine, just as if the real owner was actually pressing the keys. In other words, widespread implementation of LMAP (which would be a good thing) would lead to more compromised machines (which would be a bad thing) ;-) -- 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 Mon Dec 1 04:27:27 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA02744 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 04:27:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQkKl-0004YS-1I for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 04:27:11 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB19RAgI017505 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 04:27:10 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQkKj-0004YG-Tf for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 04:27:09 -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 EAA02738 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 04:26:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQkKh-00064n-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 04:27:07 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQkKg-00064k-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 04:27:06 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQkKb-0004UH-CW; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 04:27:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQkK6-0004TR-0M for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 04:26:30 -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 EAA02717 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 04:26:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQkK3-000645-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 04:26:27 -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 1AQkK2-000642-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 04:26:26 -0500 Received: (from schaefer@localhost) by candle.brasslantern.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id hB19QRe04021 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 01:26:27 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: candle.brasslantern.com: schaefer set sender to schaefer@closedmail.com using -f From: Bart Schaefer Message-Id: <1031201092627.ZM4020@candle.brasslantern.com> In-Reply-To: <006d01c3b7e8$57459720$60c6d344@FAMILY> Comments: In reply to "Hector Santos" "Re: [Asrg] 0. General - anti-harvesting (was Inquiry about CallerID Verification)" (Dec 1, 3:51am) References: <200312011854.43717.famous-asrg@nutters.org> <006d01c3b7e8$57459720$60c6d344@FAMILY> X-Mailer: Z-Mail (5.0.0 30July97) To: 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 09:26:27 +0000 On Dec 1, 3:51am, Hector Santos wrote: } } For ESMTP V2.0 Servers: } } Compliant servers must support VRFY as a way to validate return address. That doesn't address the issue (pun?). See my example of MTA1 sending to MX2, which tries to verify the address using MX1. Unless you impose the additional requirement that MX1 be able to verify all addresses that may originate from MTA1, it doesn't matter whether you use VRFY or RCPT. If, on the other hand, and as Yakov keeps suggesting, you verify only that MTA1 is a valid source of mail for the domain shared by MTA1 and MX1, you have placed no new requirements on the SMTP protocol -- you've added an external authentication step, but not changed SMTP itself. The most obvious workaround for anyone with an "old" SMTP server will be to blindly respond success to VRFY of any localpart in their domain, at which point you've got no more information (in fact, you've got less) than if you had simply verified MTA1 in the first place. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 1 04:36:35 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA03003 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 04:36:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQkTb-0005F3-TE for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 04:36:19 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB19aJGd020150 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 04:36:19 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQkTb-0005Ev-C6 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 04:36:19 -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 EAA02994 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 04:35:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQkTM-0006CB-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 04:36:04 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQkTL-0006C8-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 04:36:03 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQkTJ-00057A-Qj; Mon, 01 Dec 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 1AQkT8-00056q-Tn for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 04:35:50 -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 EAA02988 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 04:35:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQkT5-0006Bu-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 04:35:47 -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 1AQkT5-0006Br-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 04:35:47 -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 hB19ZmGU023652 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 04:35:48 -0500 Received: from snark.thyrsus.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by snark.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hB19ZlhC026158 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 04:35:47 -0500 Received: (from esr@localhost) by snark.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB19ZlwY026156 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 04:35:47 -0500 From: "Eric S. Raymond" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - anti-harvesting (was Inquiry about CallerID Verification) Message-ID: <20031201093547.GA21449@thyrsus.com> Reply-To: esr@thyrsus.com References: <010901c3b798$84c96910$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FCA81B1.9080808@solidmatrix.com> <011301c3b7a1$818831b0$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FCA9582.2080602@solidmatrix.com> <20031201041154.GA32587@thyrsus.com> <1031201050104.ZM3624@candle.brasslantern.com> <20031201063419.GA29153@thyrsus.com> <1031201070857.ZM3841@candle.brasslantern.com> <20031201071708.GB30032@thyrsus.com> <1031201091349.ZM3967@candle.brasslantern.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1031201091349.ZM3967@candle.brasslantern.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, 1 Dec 2003 04:35:47 -0500 Bart Schaefer : > Suppose the (not uncommon case) of a sending MTA that is not the same host > as the MX for the sender's domain. Call these MTA1 and MX1. A message is > transmitted via MTA1 to the recipient's MX, which I'll call MX2. If the > sender mailbox is valid at MTA1 -- that is, MTA1 can successfully deliver > a DSN to that mailbox in the event of a 5xx response from MX2 -- where is > the requirement that the mailbox also be valid when presented as a RCPT TO: > at MX1? RFC2821 says the Return-Path has to be the same address that was presented to the MAIL command. -- Eric S. Raymond _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 1 04:56:29 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA03460 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 04:56:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQkmp-0006gS-VW for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 04:56:13 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB19uBG2025688 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 04:56:11 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQkmp-0006bC-1z for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 04:56:11 -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 EAA03442 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 04:55:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQkmk-0006RM-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 04:56:06 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQkmk-0006RJ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 04:56:06 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQkmh-0006Yn-7d; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 04:56:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQkmA-0006Y4-OV for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 04:55:30 -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 EAA03430 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 04:55:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQkm7-0006Qy-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 04:55:27 -0500 Received: from teal.hjp.at ([62.99.236.98]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQkm2-0006QL-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 04:55:27 -0500 Received: (qmail 8586 invoked by uid 500); 1 Dec 2003 09:54:52 -0000 From: "Peter J. Holzer" To: ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - anti-harvesting (was Inquiry about CallerID Verification) Message-ID: <20031201095452.GY3985@teal.hjp.at> Mail-Followup-To: ASRG 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: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="z3PcgjD2qOzdkXVS" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3FCA9582.2080602@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: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 10:54:52 +0100 --z3PcgjD2qOzdkXVS Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 2003-11-30 20:12:34 -0500, Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > 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. > > > > 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 provi= ng > >is how the CURRENT specification needs to be tighten up. > > > [..] >=20 > What I am trying to point out that your specific proposal is not=20 > compliant with the current architecture. I do think it is compliant. RFC 2821 mentions here and there that mail may not be accepted for unspecified policy reasons, for example: 3.3 MAIL FROM: [SP ] [...] If the mailbox specification is not acceptable for some reason, the server MUST return a reply indicating whether the failure is permanent (i.e., will occur again if the client tries to send the same address again) or temporary (i.e., the address might be accepted if the client tries again later). [...] - If the verb is initially accepted and the 354 reply issued, the DATA command should fail only [...] or if the server determines that the message should be rejected for policy or other reasons. 3.7 If it declines to relay mail to a particular address for policy reasons, a 550 response SHOULD be returned. etc. I believe that these are left intentionally undefined ("some reason", "policy or other reasons", "policy reasons") to allow the administrator to impose arbitrary (but hopefully sensible) rules on his systems without violating the RFC.=20 So, I believe that Wildcat or Exim servers which try to validate the whole return path are just as compliant as sendmail or qmail servers which try to only validate the domain part of the return path. > Whether the RFCs require a valid return address, or not, in spirit or in= =20 > letter of the law, is something Dave Crocker and Eric Raymond, and=20 > others, who worked on the original 821 and 2821 RFCs can tell us. Eric told us, but I'm not convinced. I would agree with him that it is the spirit of the law, but the letters he has shown us to support his interpretation are rather weak. Anyway, I think this is a red herring. SMTP doesn't have to require return-path validation, it only has to allow it. > 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. Yes, but that's the whole point, isn't it? Some people choose to send out messages with invalid return paths. Many of them are spammers, some are only incompetent. In any case, they cause problems: DSNs cannot be delivered and often replies won't work either (if the message headers contain the same sender address). So it do agree with Hector that it is a sensible policy decision to not accept such messages in the first place.=20 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 --z3PcgjD2qOzdkXVS Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE/yw/sfZ+RkG8quy0RAmBbAJ4n+8a70GQG0E3Nqx5IE3/1TAkJqwCfQxRf PkMdUdHUWNTmMTPJ7H+0gxs= =9bov -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --z3PcgjD2qOzdkXVS-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 1 05:10:27 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA04051 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 05:10:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQl0N-00088k-Su for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 05:10:11 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB1AABwZ031284 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 05:10:11 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQl0M-00088U-EL for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 05:10:10 -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 FAA04037 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 05:09:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQl0J-0006ir-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 05:10:07 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQl0I-0006io-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 05:10:06 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQl0E-000869-LP; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 05:10:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQkzU-00082b-Sf for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 05:09:16 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA03999 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 05:09:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQkzR-0006ht-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 05:09:13 -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 1AQkzQ-0006hq-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 05:09:13 -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 hB1A9DGU024147; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 05:09:13 -0500 Received: from snark.thyrsus.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by snark.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hB1A9DhC007319; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 05:09:13 -0500 Received: (from esr@localhost) by snark.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB1A9DWM007317; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 05:09:13 -0500 From: "Eric S. Raymond" To: Bart Schaefer Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - anti-harvesting (was Inquiry about CallerID Verification) Message-ID: <20031201100913.GA7306@thyrsus.com> Reply-To: esr@thyrsus.com References: <011301c3b7a1$818831b0$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FCA9582.2080602@solidmatrix.com> <20031201041154.GA32587@thyrsus.com> <1031201050104.ZM3624@candle.brasslantern.com> <20031201063419.GA29153@thyrsus.com> <1031201070857.ZM3841@candle.brasslantern.com> <20031201071708.GB30032@thyrsus.com> <1031201091349.ZM3967@candle.brasslantern.com> <20031201093547.GA21449@thyrsus.com> <1031201095053.ZM4100@candle.brasslantern.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1031201095053.ZM4100@candle.brasslantern.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, 1 Dec 2003 05:09:13 -0500 Bart Schaefer : > } RFC2821 says the Return-Path has to be the same address that was > } presented to the MAIL command. > > So what? MX1 isn't any party to the protocol exchange between MTA1 and > MX2. The reverse-path is completely valid as far as MTA1 can tell; if > MX2 responds 5xx, MTA1 will do the right thing. You still haven't shown > me how or why any of this affects what happens if MX1 becomes party to > a separate SMTP transaction initiated by MX2, whether involving the same > or any other mailbox. I don't see how the presence of MXes matters. Are you maintaining that what's in the MAIL FROM need not be a valid reply address? -- Eric S. Raymond _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 1 05:11:21 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA04091 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 05:11:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQl1E-00005r-He for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 05:11:06 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB1AB4ka000357 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 05:11:04 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQl1D-00005c-Pd for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 05:11:03 -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 FAA04070 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 05:10:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQl19-0006jV-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 05:10:59 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQl19-0006jS-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 05:10:59 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQl1B-0008Po-6H; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 05:11:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQl0a-0008Cp-15 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 05:10:24 -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 FAA04042 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 05:10:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQl0W-0006iy-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 05:10:20 -0500 Received: from ntbbs.winserver.com ([208.247.131.9] helo=winserver.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQl0W-0006iv-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 05:10:20 -0500 Received: by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v5.7.450.9b10) for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 05:10:39 -0500 Received: from ([68.211.198.96]) EHLO=FAMILY by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v5.7.450.9b10) with SMTP id 2507905078; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 05:10:39 -0500 Message-ID: <009f01c3b7f3$654ae950$60c6d344@FAMILY> From: "Hector Santos" To: "ASRG" References: <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> <20031201041154.GA32587@thyrsus.com> <1031201050104.ZM3624@candle.brasslantern.com> <20031201063419.GA29153@thyrsus.com> <1031201070857.ZM3841@candle.brasslantern.com> <20031201071708.GB30032@thyrsus.com> <1031201091349.ZM3967@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: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 05:10:48 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bart Schaefer" To: "ASRG" Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 4:13 AM Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - anti-harvesting (was Inquiry about CallerID Verification) > And I assert that even that is a new requirement. Valid from what point of > view? > > Suppose the (not uncommon case) of a sending MTA that is not the same host > as the MX for the sender's domain. Call these MTA1 and MX1. A message is > transmitted via MTA1 to the recipient's MX, which I'll call MX2. If the > sender mailbox is valid at MTA1 -- that is, MTA1 can successfully deliver > a DSN to that mailbox in the event of a 5xx response from MX2 -- where is > the requirement that the mailbox also be valid when presented as a RCPT TO: > at MX1? C: connect to MX2 S: 250 welcome C: HELO MTA1 S: 250 HELLO there! (ignore any validation here for the moment) C: MAIL FROM: MTA1@MX1 --- BEGIN WCSAP VALIDATION --- C: connect to MX1 S: 250 welcome C: HELO MX2 S: 250 Hello! C: RCPT TO: MTA1@MX1 S: 552 - Sorry doesn't exist C: QUIT S: 250 --- END WCSAP VALIDATION return 4xx or 5xx depending on policy --- S: 552, Local user not found! C: QUIT I don't see the problem. Also, keep in mind that a return path is persistent cross all routes. --- 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 Mon Dec 1 05:15:28 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA04349 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 05:15:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQl5D-0000Yn-Ol for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 05:15:11 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB1AFBQR002153 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 05:15:11 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQl5D-0000Ye-9u for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 05:15:11 -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 FAA04328 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 05:14:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQl59-0006pI-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 05:15:07 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQl59-0006pD-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 05:15:07 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQl54-0000W0-OL; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 05:15:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQl4X-0000VA-UI for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 05:14:29 -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 FAA04273 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 05:14:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQl4U-0006o7-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 05:14:26 -0500 Received: from teal.hjp.at ([62.99.236.98]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQl4T-0006mp-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 05:14:26 -0500 Received: (qmail 8808 invoked by uid 500); 1 Dec 2003 10:13:56 -0000 From: "Peter J. Holzer" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - anti-harvesting (was Inquiry about CallerID Verification) Message-ID: <20031201101356.GZ3985@teal.hjp.at> Mail-Followup-To: asrg@ietf.org References: <011301c3b7a1$818831b0$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FCA9582.2080602@solidmatrix.com> <20031201041154.GA32587@thyrsus.com> <1031201050104.ZM3624@candle.brasslantern.com> <20031201063419.GA29153@thyrsus.com> <1031201070857.ZM3841@candle.brasslantern.com> <20031201071708.GB30032@thyrsus.com> <1031201091349.ZM3967@candle.brasslantern.com> <20031201093547.GA21449@thyrsus.com> <1031201095053.ZM4100@candle.brasslantern.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="eUqGrSc0O7wKBRnC" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1031201095053.ZM4100@candle.brasslantern.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 11:13:56 +0100 --eUqGrSc0O7wKBRnC Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 2003-12-01 09:50:53 +0000, Bart Schaefer wrote: > On Dec 1, 4:35am, Eric S. Raymond wrote: > } > } Bart Schaefer : > } > Suppose the (not uncommon case) of a sending MTA that is not the > } > same host as the MX for the sender's domain. Call these MTA1 and > } > MX1. A message is transmitted via MTA1 to the recipient's MX, which > } > I'll call MX2. If the sender mailbox is valid at MTA1 -- that is, > } > MTA1 can successfully deliver a DSN to that mailbox in the event of > } > a 5xx response from MX2 -- where is the requirement that the mailbox > } > also be valid when presented as a RCPT TO: at MX1? > } > } RFC2821 says the Return-Path has to be the same address that was > } presented to the MAIL command. >=20 > So what? MX1 isn't any party to the protocol exchange between MTA1 and > MX2. The reverse-path is completely valid as far as MTA1 can tell; if > MX2 responds 5xx, MTA1 will do the right thing. Yes, but if MX2 accepts the message (e.g., to pass it on to MX3) and then discovers a problem, it won't be able to send a DSN. Since MTA1 cannot know whether MX2 is the final delivery agent or just an intermediate relay it has to send a globally useful reverse path, not one which is useful only at MTA1. The open question is: Do the requirements, which the RFC puts on the use of the reverse path (DSN's MUST be sent to the reverse path, the reverse-path MUST be copied to the Return-Path header on final delivery, etc.) also constitute a requirement on the sender to provide a valid return-path? Or is it allowed to insert an invalid path if it isn't interested in DSNs, Replies, etc.? I can see no clear requirement in RFC 2821 that the mailbox of the sender MUST be globally reachable and accept mails. The expectation is clearly there (otherwise the requirement that DSNs are sent there, or the care in preserving it at final delivery wouldn't make much sense), but the explicit requirement is IMHO missing. 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 --eUqGrSc0O7wKBRnC Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE/yxRkfZ+RkG8quy0RAi2TAJ9yHwmfn3YJxXXKgry7XLUcYcc6NgCgwcg6 kb96mw1jiShnQnGd0NlqQso= =d6l+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --eUqGrSc0O7wKBRnC-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 1 05:19:25 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA04507 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 05:19:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQl93-0000mo-JB for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 05:19:09 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB1AJ8SH002924 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 05:19:08 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQl91-0000l5-2z for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 05:19:07 -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 FAA04477 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 05:18:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQl8x-0006vz-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 05:19:03 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQl8x-0006vw-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 05:19:03 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQl8w-0000iT-JE; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 05:19:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQl8a-0000hr-B8 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 05:18:40 -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 FAA04458 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 05:18:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQl8W-0006vP-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 05:18:37 -0500 Received: from ntbbs.winserver.com ([208.247.131.9] helo=winserver.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQl8W-0006vM-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 05:18:36 -0500 Received: by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v5.7.450.9b10) for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 05:18:55 -0500 Received: from ([68.211.198.96]) EHLO=FAMILY by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v5.7.450.9b10) with SMTP id 2508400890; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 05:18:54 -0500 Message-ID: <00a701c3b7f4$8cd68c80$60c6d344@FAMILY> From: "Hector Santos" To: "Bart Schaefer" , References: <200312011854.43717.famous-asrg@nutters.org> <006d01c3b7e8$57459720$60c6d344@FAMILY> <1031201092627.ZM4020@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: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 05:19:04 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bart Schaefer" To: Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 4:26 AM Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - anti-harvesting (was Inquiry about CallerID Verification) > On Dec 1, 3:51am, Hector Santos wrote: > } > } For ESMTP V2.0 Servers: > } > } Compliant servers must support VRFY as a way to validate return address. > > That doesn't address the issue (pun?). See my example of MTA1 sending to > MX2, which tries to verify the address using MX1. I did. I saw nothing there. See my reply which outlines the logic you described. > Unless you impose the additional requirement that MX1 be able to verify all addresses that may > originate from MTA1, it doesn't matter whether you use VRFY or RCPT. Nothing to impose, its already part of the specification. The RETURN PATH is a REQUIREMENT for proper SMTP operations. period. You don't have it, it presents improper operations and spammers have exploited this hole! All you have basically shown is that there is a scalability issue. That is true. But more importantly it will be become a redundancy issue more than anything else, because once it works, there will be a lot of redundant checks against valid addressing which then says that maybe it could fall back to a LMAP method where you just validate the domain. --- 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 Mon Dec 1 05:25:27 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA04737 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 05:25:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQlEt-0001ET-NY for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 05:25:11 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB1APB99004737 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 05:25:11 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQlEt-0001Cq-5D for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 05:25:11 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA04718 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 05:24:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQlEp-00072Z-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 05:25:07 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQlEp-00072W-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 05:25:07 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQlEk-0001AA-UI; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 05:25:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQlEc-00019E-6k for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 05:24:54 -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 FAA04702 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 05:24:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQlEV-000722-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 05:24:48 -0500 Received: from mail001.syd.optusnet.com.au ([211.29.132.142]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQlEV-00071f-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 05:24:47 -0500 Received: from zen.fernhaven (c211-30-105-76.carlnfd1.nsw.optusnet.com.au [211.30.105.76]) by mail001.syd.optusnet.com.au (8.11.6p2/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hB1AOGb05763 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 21:24:16 +1100 Received: from [172.16.0.129] (helo=fred.fernhaven) by zen.fernhaven with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1AQlDz-0007v3-00; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 21:24:15 +1100 From: Brett Watson Organization: PhD Student, Macquarie University To: "Hector Santos" , Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - anti-harvesting (was Inquiry about CallerID Verification) User-Agent: KMail/1.5.3 References: <200312011854.43717.famous-asrg@nutters.org> <006d01c3b7e8$57459720$60c6d344@FAMILY> In-Reply-To: <006d01c3b7e8$57459720$60c6d344@FAMILY> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200312012125.43232.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: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 21:25:43 +1100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 19:51, Hector Santos wrote: > No, you got it. And you raise a very excellent possible solution which I > like because it doesn't technically change the SMTP protocol. It now > becomes a functional requirement. > ... > Compliant servers must support VRFY as a way to validate return address. I don't see how this, on its own, overlaps with a proposal like LMAP. If host X sends us mail with "MAIL From:", then we ask an MX for Y to "VRFY user@Y", all we have determined is whether is a "valid" address, for some loose definition of "valid". (One of my domains has a catch-all address in force at the moment anyhow, so *every* syntactically valid address is a "valid mailbox".) Critically, what we have *not* determined is whether host X is *authorised* to represent that address. That is what LMAP attempts to ascertain. The reinstatement of VRFY would potentially give spammers a good way of evaluating their address lists. A spammer could also probe around for a verifiable address to use in the "MAIL From:" part of the dialogue. In the absence of an LMAP-type authorisation mechanism, this strikes me as a rather bad thing. Is your response to this a challenge/response type scenario, where the (known-to-be-valid) return address is sent a message asking for confirmation? This is a nasty burden on the victim of fraud. We need the LMAP-type authorisation mechanism to act as a first-pass filter to reject blatant frauds. Or perhaps I've missed your point. I haven't had the time to fully analyse all the messages on this list in the last couple of days. Regards, TFBW _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 1 05:26:24 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA04769 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 05:26:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQlFp-0001N8-Bf for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 05:26:09 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB1AQ9K0005268 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 05:26:09 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQlFo-0001MN-Cn for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 05:26:08 -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 FAA04753 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 05:25:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQlFk-00073C-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 05:26:04 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQlFk-000739-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 05:26:04 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQlFk-0001JC-Er; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 05:26:04 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQlFB-0001II-5D for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 05:25:29 -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 FAA04729 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 05:25:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQlF7-00072q-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 05:25:25 -0500 Received: from ntbbs.winserver.com ([208.247.131.9] helo=winserver.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQlF7-00072l-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 05:25:25 -0500 Received: by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v5.7.450.9b10) for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 05:25:44 -0500 Received: from ([68.211.198.96]) EHLO=FAMILY by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v5.7.450.9b10) with SMTP id 2508808937; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 05:25:42 -0500 Message-ID: <00b001c3b7f5$80153590$60c6d344@FAMILY> From: "Hector Santos" To: "Bart Schaefer" , References: <200312011854.43717.famous-asrg@nutters.org> <1031201093931.ZM4043@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: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 05:25:52 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > I dispute that the existing protocol supports Hector's position. As I > said in another message, I also dispute that VRFY can be adapted for this > purpose in any useful way. I already proved that it works. You have not shown that it does not work. You all said talked about is scalability issues and FALSE positives. I already said that the method can not do anything against false positives. But as my statistics have shown over 80% of the abuse are from GHOST systems! That is a DRASTIC reduction in illegal access. You now also question whether a return path is not required to be VALID??? Is that a question view of your thinking? A Return Path MUST be valid in order to get a MAIL SYSTEM to bounce mechanism work. If you are too assume that a RETURN PATH is not to be relied on, than we must as well throw out all the RFC dealing with DSN and bouncing. Again, that has nothing to do with the "real" possibility that it is NOT valid. The spammers have proven that. --- 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 Mon Dec 1 05:29:25 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA04916 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 05:29:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQlIj-0001XS-It for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 05:29:09 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB1AT9Nr005912 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 05:29:09 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQlIh-0001XH-IS for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 05:29:07 -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 FAA04894 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 05:28:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQlIe-00076z-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 05:29:04 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQlId-00076v-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 05:29:03 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQlIc-0001Ut-Jo; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 05:29:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQlI7-0001Tt-PA for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 05:28:31 -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 FAA04860 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 05:28:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQlI4-00075y-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 05:28:28 -0500 Received: from ntbbs.winserver.com ([208.247.131.9] helo=winserver.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQlI3-00075v-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 05:28:27 -0500 Received: by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v5.7.450.9b10) for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 05:28:49 -0500 Received: from ([68.211.198.96]) EHLO=FAMILY by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v5.7.450.9b10) with SMTP id 2508994687; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 05:28:48 -0500 Message-ID: <00b601c3b7f5$eecf0100$60c6d344@FAMILY> From: "Hector Santos" To: "Bart Schaefer" , References: <010901c3b798$84c96910$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FCA81B1.9080808@solidmatrix.com> <011301c3b7a1$818831b0$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FCA9582.2080602@solidmatrix.com> <20031201041154.GA32587@thyrsus.com> <1031201050104.ZM3624@candle.brasslantern.com> <20031201063419.GA29153@thyrsus.com> <1031201070857.ZM3841@candle.brasslantern.com> <20031201071708.GB30032@thyrsus.com> <1031201091349.ZM3967@candle.brasslantern.com> <20031201093547.GA21449@thyrsus.com> <1031201095053.ZM4100@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: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 05:28:58 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bart Schaefer" To: Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 4:50 AM Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - anti-harvesting (was Inquiry about CallerID Verification) > } RFC2821 says the Return-Path has to be the same address that was > } presented to the MAIL command. > > So what? MX1 isn't any party to the protocol exchange between MTA1 and > MX2. The reverse-path is completely valid as far as MTA1 can tell; if > MX2 responds 5xx, MTA1 will do the right thing. You still haven't shown > me how or why any of this affects what happens if MX1 becomes party to > a separate SMTP transaction initiated by MX2, whether involving the same > or any other mailbox. Doesn't apply. Your example is akin to a user with an address maintained by an ISP. In general, the user will use his ISP server to send mail. But you said, he will do peer to peer and send directly using his OWN send software. The same applies since he is using his ISP ADDRESS, the validation still takes place at his ISP site. --- 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 Mon Dec 1 05:31:22 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA04975 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 05:31:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQlKc-0001kd-VB for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 05:31:06 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB1AV664006725 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 05:31:06 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQlKc-0001kO-Ej for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 05:31:06 -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 FAA04957 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 05:30:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQlKY-00078K-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 05:31:03 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQlKY-00078H-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 05:31:02 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQlKX-0001hk-TF; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 05:31:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQlK4-0001gD-RG for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 05:30:32 -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 FAA04951 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 05:30:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQlK1-000789-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 05:30:29 -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 1AQlK0-000786-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 05:30:28 -0500 Received: (from schaefer@localhost) by candle.brasslantern.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id hB1AUTW04211 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 02:30:29 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: candle.brasslantern.com: schaefer set sender to schaefer@closedmail.com using -f From: Bart Schaefer Message-Id: <1031201103028.ZM4210@candle.brasslantern.com> In-Reply-To: <20031201100913.GA7306@thyrsus.com> Comments: In reply to "Eric S. Raymond" "Re: [Asrg] 0. General - anti-harvesting (was Inquiry about CallerID Verification)" (Dec 1, 5:09am) References: <011301c3b7a1$818831b0$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FCA9582.2080602@solidmatrix.com> <20031201041154.GA32587@thyrsus.com> <1031201050104.ZM3624@candle.brasslantern.com> <20031201063419.GA29153@thyrsus.com> <1031201070857.ZM3841@candle.brasslantern.com> <20031201071708.GB30032@thyrsus.com> <1031201091349.ZM3967@candle.brasslantern.com> <20031201093547.GA21449@thyrsus.com> <1031201095053.ZM4100@candle.brasslantern.com> <20031201100913.GA7306@thyrsus.com> X-Mailer: Z-Mail (5.0.0 30July97) To: asrg@ietf.org 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 10:30:28 +0000 On Dec 1, 5:09am, Eric S. Raymond wrote: } } Bart Schaefer : } > } RFC2821 says the Return-Path has to be the same address that was } > } presented to the MAIL command. } > } > So what? MX1 isn't any party to the protocol exchange between MTA1 and } > MX2. The reverse-path is completely valid as far as MTA1 can tell; if } > MX2 responds 5xx, MTA1 will do the right thing. You still haven't shown } > me how or why any of this affects what happens if MX1 becomes party to } > a separate SMTP transaction initiated by MX2, whether involving the same } > or any other mailbox. } } I don't see how the presence of MXes matters. Hector's caller-ID proposal determines the validity of an address coming from MTA1 by initiating a new SMTP transaction with the corresponding MX, in this case MX1. We wouldn't be having this discussion at all if the presence of MX1 were not required. } Are you maintaining that what's in the MAIL FROM need not be a valid } reply address? I am maintaining that a separate SMTP transaction among MX2 and MX1 is not a reliable test of whether what's in MTA1's MAIL FROM is a valid reply address, because the existing protocol definition cannot require that it be a reliable test. If that means the MAIL FROM is not a valid reply address, then yes, I am asserting that nothing I've yet seen quoted from RFC2821 requires that what's in the MAIL FROM need be a valid address to which MX2 can reply. I further assert that if 2821 did require that, it would then prohibit those edge cases that you've previously dismissed; which edge cases it manifestly does not prohibit. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 1 05:33:21 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA05066 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 05:33:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQlMX-00023K-Q3 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 05:33:05 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB1AX5Xq007881 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 05:33:05 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQlMX-00022o-Je for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 05:33:05 -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 FAA05059 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 05:32:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQlMT-0007Cc-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 05:33:02 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQlMT-0007CY-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 05:33:01 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQlMT-0001xq-OH; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 05:33:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQlLa-0001rs-8u for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 05:32:06 -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 FAA05009 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 05:31:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQlLW-00079D-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 05:32:02 -0500 Received: from ntbbs.winserver.com ([208.247.131.9] helo=winserver.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQlLW-00079A-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 05:32:02 -0500 Received: by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v5.7.450.9b10) for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 05:32:23 -0500 Received: from ([68.211.198.96]) EHLO=FAMILY by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v5.7.450.9b10) with SMTP id 2509207656; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 05:32:21 -0500 Message-ID: <00c101c3b7f6$6dc09000$60c6d344@FAMILY> From: "Hector Santos" To: References: <011301c3b7a1$818831b0$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FCA9582.2080602@solidmatrix.com> <20031201041154.GA32587@thyrsus.com> <1031201050104.ZM3624@candle.brasslantern.com> <20031201063419.GA29153@thyrsus.com> <1031201070857.ZM3841@candle.brasslantern.com> <20031201071708.GB30032@thyrsus.com> <1031201091349.ZM3967@candle.brasslantern.com> <20031201093547.GA21449@thyrsus.com> <1031201095053.ZM4100@candle.brasslantern.com> <20031201100913.GA7306@thyrsus.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: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 05:32:31 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric S. Raymond" To: "Bart Schaefer" > > I don't see how the presence of MXes matters. Are you maintaining that > what's in the MAIL FROM need not be a valid reply address? Just wish to point out that the MAIL FROM does not need to be a reply address. It is usually the case though in non-server MTA clients (Outlook, Eudora, etc). It is typically not the same for MAILING LIST systems. The MAIL FROM is the list admin or error path. But in all cases, it is presumed to be valid. --- 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 Mon Dec 1 05:43:26 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA05474 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 05:43:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQlWJ-0003cb-8z for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 05:43:11 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB1AhBxj013915 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 05:43:11 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQlWJ-0003cM-36 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 05:43:11 -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 FAA05454 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 05:42:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQlWF-0007Mj-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 05:43:07 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQlWF-0007Mg-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 05:43:07 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQlW9-0003Y7-4f; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 05:43:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQlVS-0003XH-M2 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 05:42:18 -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 FAA05421 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 05:42:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQlVP-0007Lq-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 05:42:15 -0500 Received: from ntbbs.winserver.com ([208.247.131.9] helo=winserver.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQlVO-0007Ln-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 05:42:14 -0500 Received: by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v5.7.450.9b10) for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 05:42:35 -0500 Received: from ([68.211.198.96]) EHLO=FAMILY by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v5.7.450.9b10) with SMTP id 2509819609; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 05:42:33 -0500 Message-ID: <00d301c3b7f7$da89e0a0$60c6d344@FAMILY> From: "Hector Santos" To: "Peter J. Holzer" , References: <011301c3b7a1$818831b0$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FCA9582.2080602@solidmatrix.com> <20031201041154.GA32587@thyrsus.com> <1031201050104.ZM3624@candle.brasslantern.com> <20031201063419.GA29153@thyrsus.com> <1031201070857.ZM3841@candle.brasslantern.com> <20031201071708.GB30032@thyrsus.com> <1031201091349.ZM3967@candle.brasslantern.com> <20031201093547.GA21449@thyrsus.com> <1031201095053.ZM4100@candle.brasslantern.com> <20031201101356.GZ3985@teal.hjp.at> 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: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 05:42:42 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Peter J. Holzer" > To: > Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 5:13 AM > Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - anti-harvesting (was Inquiry about CallerID Verification) > The open question is: Do the requirements, which the RFC puts on the use > of the reverse path (DSN's MUST be sent to the reverse path, the > reverse-path MUST be copied to the Return-Path header on final delivery, > etc.) also constitute a requirement on the sender to provide a valid > return-path? Or is it allowed to insert an invalid path if it isn't > interested in DSNs, Replies, etc.? In which case, a null address is used. But using a NULL imposes other restrictions on spammers, that is why it is not used by SPAMMERS. Namely, a NULL address triggers a single RCPT TO: allowance and only a LOCAL user allowance, among other things. > I can see no clear requirement in RFC > 2821 that the mailbox of the sender MUST be globally reachable and > accept mails. The expectation is clearly there (otherwise the > requirement that DSNs are sent there, or the care in preserving it at > final delivery wouldn't make much sense), but the explicit requirement > is IMHO missing. That is basically all I am recommending that needs to be done, clarify the specs and the solutions will come like no tomorrow. It doesn't have to be an expensive Caller ID method, but it is the only current way to valid it. The research will immediately go into getting a better, optimized, no overhead caller id system! 80% of the spammer base will disappear or begin to make them legit, in which case, makes them traceable. A remarkable improvement will be made to the industry. The IETF will become sore from all the pats on the back they will receive. :-) --- 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 Mon Dec 1 06:06:26 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA05984 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 06:06:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQlsY-0004ou-DO for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 06:06:11 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB1B6AVx018529 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 06:06:10 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQlsY-0004om-7M for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 06:06:10 -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 GAA05967 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 06:05:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQlsU-0007cr-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 06:06:06 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQlsU-0007co-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 06:06:06 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQlsP-0004mZ-CE; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 06:06:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQlsF-0004mA-He for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 06:05:51 -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 GAA05964 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 06:05:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQlsB-0007cl-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 06:05:47 -0500 Received: from ntbbs.winserver.com ([208.247.131.9] helo=winserver.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQlsB-0007cc-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 06:05:47 -0500 Received: by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v5.7.450.9b10) for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 06:06:03 -0500 Received: from ([68.211.198.96]) EHLO=FAMILY by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v5.7.450.9b10) with SMTP id 2511228031; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 06:06:02 -0500 Message-ID: <00d901c3b7fb$222091e0$60c6d344@FAMILY> From: "Hector Santos" To: "Mark E. Mallett" Cc: "Brett Watson" , References: <200312011854.43717.famous-asrg@nutters.org> <006d01c3b7e8$57459720$60c6d344@FAMILY> <20031201103708.GD24303@iridium.mv.net> 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: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 06:06:10 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > There are various legitimate situations in which VRFY or RCPT TO > verification wouldn't presently work. These would have to be solved. > For example: > > - UUCP (mentioned elsewhere in this long thread.) The host system > doesn't have any chance of verifying users behind the UUCP connection. > You'd get false positives here. I already addressed this. This is a SERVER implementation issue. We had the same problem in our UUCP software awhile back. The solution was to support RFC 1128 5.2.8 and make sure that delay validation performed by the UUCP/gateway software supported it by expecting the specific header line: "Return-Path: If the UUCP software does not support it, then you are correct. The Return-Path is persistent across the route until final delivery is reached. > - As with UUCP, other sorts of disconnected delivery systems where the > receiving MTA doesn't know anything about the usernames attached to > a domain. e.g. the user who has a catchall box for all > *@example.com addresses, who periodically accesses that box and > applies local filtering rules. The user who just has a single > maildrop from which mail is retrieved via something like fetchmail > (or a number of equivalents). Again, false positives. Well, its a compatibility issue. Absolutely. But in the case of the SMTP system, at this level UUCP doesn't apply yet. The validation proposed is at the SMTP level. In our case, where the hosting sysop may have UUCP downlinks, he may not be a candidate to use a SMTP based validation. So he would have to turn it off. I should point out that our SMTP customers with UUCP downloads are becoming obsolete. But we still needed to support it because in our design, a design since 1984 before SMTP was added in 1996, still used a UUCP mail/news format and interface between each part of the systems: SMTP <--> UUCP SPOOLS<---> LOCAL MAIL/GATEWAY <--> SERVER DATABASE UUCP customers then use uucico to move their mail to their downlinks. > - The recipient address that is only valid under certain circumstances > (e.g. graylisted, or firewalled such that it only accepts mail from > certain sources, or has a filter installed such that it only > accepts mail from certain senders). False negatives here. Ok, but I think what with a callerid standard a place, it will help make some of this unnecessary. > - The system that accepts all mail so that it can update its > 'corpus' of spam mail. False positives. True, which was something we though YAHOO was doing but they are validating in the DATA state. > Maybe they can be solved by extending the capabilities of VRFY, > but I doubt they can be solved by changing usage behaviour. > What would be another way? There is never going to be a 100% solution. The proposal simply highlights the dearth of the SMTP controls which is what 80% of the spammers are exploiting. My contention is that you can address the 80% of the problem by having strict definitions of the specs. If by change there are made strict, then there a big part of the problem is solve when the software begins to comply. Sure, there could be zombies. My WCSAP implementation is using a second fake address test and I was able to pick up many of these as an OPEN RELAY site. But you will not get them all. In this case, when the controls are in place, the spammers will be reduced to traceable systems. --- 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 Mon Dec 1 06:08:19 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA06018 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 06:08:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQluO-0005Mf-Do for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 06:08:04 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB1B84uD020622 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 06:08:04 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQluO-0005MX-3I for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 06:08:04 -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 GAA06012 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 06:07:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQluJ-0007eD-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 06:07:59 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQluJ-0007eA-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 06:07:59 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQluL-0005GZ-HJ; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 06:08:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQlto-0004yO-6O for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 06:07:28 -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 GAA06009 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 06:07:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQltk-0007e1-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 06:07:24 -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 1AQltj-0007dy-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 06:07:23 -0500 Received: (from schaefer@localhost) by candle.brasslantern.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id hB1B7OJ04336 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 03:07:24 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: candle.brasslantern.com: schaefer set sender to schaefer@closedmail.com using -f From: Bart Schaefer Message-Id: <1031201110724.ZM4335@candle.brasslantern.com> In-Reply-To: <00b001c3b7f5$80153590$60c6d344@FAMILY> Comments: In reply to "Hector Santos" "Re: [Asrg] 0. General - anti-harvesting (was Inquiry about CallerID Verification)" (Dec 1, 5:25am) References: <200312011854.43717.famous-asrg@nutters.org> <1031201093931.ZM4043@candle.brasslantern.com> <00b001c3b7f5$80153590$60c6d344@FAMILY> X-Mailer: Z-Mail (5.0.0 30July97) To: 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 11:07:24 +0000 On Dec 1, 5:25am, Hector Santos wrote: } } > I dispute that the existing protocol supports Hector's position. As I } > said in another message, I also dispute that VRFY can be adapted for this } > purpose in any useful way. } } I already proved that it works. You've proved that spammers use garbage envelope sender addresses. We already knew that. } You have not shown that it does not work. I'm not trying to show that it does not work. I'm trying convince YOU to show two things, which you have not yet shown: (1) WSCAP works _better_ than a system such as LMAP that uses something lighter weight than SMTP for the callbacks. (2) WSCAP does not impose an undue burden by requiring third-party SMTP servers to disavow every forged address that appears to be in their domain. Your response to (1) seems always to be to change the subject, by saying "but WSCAP works now, and needs no changes to SMTP!" The thread on which this message is a reply is actually an argument about just the "needs no changes" clause, which has become a rathole. You keep dimissing (2) as a scalability issue, but please note that it is not a scalability issue for the servers that deploy WSCAP -- it is a scalability issue for servers that _ARE PROBED BY_ WSCAP. And it is a larger scalability issue even than bogus DSNs. You've waved your hands a lot, but you haven't convinced me that this isn't cost-shifting on a much larger scale than you imagine. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 1 06:15:29 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA06173 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 06:15:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQm1H-0005il-J0 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 06:15:14 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB1BFBvA021985 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 06:15:11 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQm1H-0005iW-DL for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 06:15:11 -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 GAA06170 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 06:14:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQm1D-0007hh-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 06:15:07 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQm1D-0007he-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 06:15:07 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQm18-0005g9-DV; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 06:15:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQm0k-0005fo-3E for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 06:14:38 -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 GAA06163 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 06:14:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQm0g-0007hb-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 06:14:34 -0500 Received: from ntbbs.winserver.com ([208.247.131.9] helo=winserver.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQm0f-0007hY-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 06:14:33 -0500 Received: by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v5.7.450.9b10) for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 06:14:55 -0500 Received: from ([68.211.198.96]) EHLO=FAMILY by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v5.7.450.9b10) with SMTP id 2511759875; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 06:14:53 -0500 Message-ID: <00e901c3b7fc$5f24ba70$60c6d344@FAMILY> From: "Hector Santos" To: References: <011301c3b7a1$818831b0$60c6d344@FAMILY> <3FCA9582.2080602@solidmatrix.com> <20031201041154.GA32587@thyrsus.com> <1031201050104.ZM3624@candle.brasslantern.com> <20031201063419.GA29153@thyrsus.com> <1031201070857.ZM3841@candle.brasslantern.com> <20031201071708.GB30032@thyrsus.com> <1031201091349.ZM3967@candle.brasslantern.com> <20031201093547.GA21449@thyrsus.com> <1031201095053.ZM4100@candle.brasslantern.com> <20031201100913.GA7306@thyrsus.com> <1031201103028.ZM4210@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: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 06:15:02 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bart Schaefer" > } > } I don't see how the presence of MXes matters. > > Hector's caller-ID proposal determines the validity of an address coming > from MTA1 by initiating a new SMTP transaction with the corresponding MX, > in this case MX1. We wouldn't be having this discussion at all if the > presence of MX1 were not required. But is is only used because the user provided his address as MX1. > } Are you maintaining that what's in the MAIL FROM need not be a valid > } reply address? > > I am maintaining that a separate SMTP transaction among MX2 and MX1 is > not a reliable test of whether what's in MTA1's MAIL FROM is a valid > reply address, because the existing protocol definition cannot require > that it be a reliable test. The existing procotol must certainly defines that it is a reliable test - WHEN USED by COMPLIANT systems. When it is used by non-compliant systems, then you will be blocked with ESMTP VERSION 9.0! > If that means the MAIL FROM is not a valid reply address, then yes, I > am asserting that nothing I've yet seen quoted from RFC2821 requires > that what's in the MAIL FROM need be a valid address to which MX2 can > reply. I further assert that if 2821 did require that, it would then > prohibit those edge cases that you've previously dismissed; which edge > cases it manifestly does not prohibit. Your assertion is based on validity of non-compliant usage which is EXACTLY what we are trying to block! My assertion is that the 80% of the spamming problem is SOLVED by conforming to the specs. The RFCs clearly indicates that the Return-Path: is a REQUIREMENT which comes from a required MAIL-FROM: with the presumption is it a RELIABLE return path. But that also doesn't mean that it may not be VALID. In COMPLIANT systems, it will be. In SPOOF systems, it will not. What is so hard to understand about that? --- 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 Mon Dec 1 06:18:21 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA06251 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 06:18:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQm47-000645-D3 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 06:18:07 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB1BI7E6023307 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 06:18:07 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQm45-00063L-5V for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 06:18:05 -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 GAA06241 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 06:17:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQm40-0007kj-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 06:18:00 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQm40-0007kg-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 06:18:00 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQm40-0005y6-TG; Mon, 01 Dec 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 1AQm34-0005oy-SN for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 06:17:02 -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 GAA06215 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 06:16:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQm30-0007iL-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 06:16:59 -0500 Received: from ntbbs.winserver.com ([208.247.131.9] helo=winserver.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQm30-0007iI-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 06:16:58 -0500 Received: by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v5.7.450.9b10) for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 06:17:23 -0500 Received: from ([68.211.198.96]) EHLO=FAMILY by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v5.7.450.9b10) with SMTP id 2511908328; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 06:17:22 -0500 Message-ID: <00f101c3b7fc$b7a26260$60c6d344@FAMILY> From: "Hector Santos" To: "ASRG" References: <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> <20031201041154.GA32587@thyrsus.com> <1031201050104.ZM3624@candle.brasslantern.com> <20031201063419.GA29153@thyrsus.com> <1031201070857.ZM3841@candle.brasslantern.com> <20031201071708.GB30032@thyrsus.com> <1031201091349.ZM3967@candle.brasslantern.com> <009f01c3b7f3$654ae950$60c6d344@FAMILY> <1031201103250.ZM4218@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: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 06:17:32 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bart Schaefer" To: "ASRG" Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 5:32 AM Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - anti-harvesting (was Inquiry about CallerID Verification) > On Dec 1, 5:10am, Hector Santos wrote: > } > } I don't see the problem. > > If I explain any further, I'll just be repeating myself; so I won't. > Well, I'm sorry. I am very opened minded. You have failed to show me why a CALLER-ID system based on the requirement of a valid RETURN-PATH will not work. --- 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 Mon Dec 1 06:19:24 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA05065 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 05:33:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQlMX-000238-NQ for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 05:33:05 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB1AX5Ol007867 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 05:33:05 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQlMX-00022n-H3 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 05:33:05 -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 FAA05058 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 05:32:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQlMT-0007Cf-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 05:33:02 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQlMT-0007CZ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 05:33:01 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQlMU-0001ye-S6; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 05:33:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQlML-0001xP-En for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 05:32:53 -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 FAA05036 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 05:32:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQlMH-0007Bt-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 05:32:50 -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 1AQlMH-0007Bq-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 05:32:49 -0500 Received: (from schaefer@localhost) by candle.brasslantern.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id hB1AWo704219 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 02:32:50 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: candle.brasslantern.com: schaefer set sender to schaefer@closedmail.com using -f From: Bart Schaefer Message-Id: <1031201103250.ZM4218@candle.brasslantern.com> In-Reply-To: <009f01c3b7f3$654ae950$60c6d344@FAMILY> Comments: In reply to "Hector Santos" "Re: [Asrg] 0. General - anti-harvesting (was Inquiry about CallerID Verification)" (Dec 1, 5:10am) References: <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> <20031201041154.GA32587@thyrsus.com> <1031201050104.ZM3624@candle.brasslantern.com> <20031201063419.GA29153@thyrsus.com> <1031201070857.ZM3841@candle.brasslantern.com> <20031201071708.GB30032@thyrsus.com> <1031201091349.ZM3967@candle.brasslantern.com> <009f01c3b7f3$654ae950$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 10:32:50 +0000 On Dec 1, 5:10am, Hector Santos wrote: } } I don't see the problem. If I explain any further, I'll just be repeating myself; so I won't. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 1 06:48:29 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA06855 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 06:48:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQmXG-0007YP-Tv for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 06:48:14 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB1BmEf7029031 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 06:48:14 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQmXG-0007YA-Ot for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 06:48:14 -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 GAA06837 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 06:47:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQmXC-0000D5-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 06:48:10 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQmXB-0000D2-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 06:48:09 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQmX3-0007UV-FX; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 06:48:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQmWS-0007Mu-OY for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 06:47:24 -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 GAA06829 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 06:47:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQmWO-0000Ca-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 06:47:20 -0500 Received: from ntbbs.winserver.com ([208.247.131.9] helo=winserver.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQmWO-0000CX-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 06:47:20 -0500 Received: by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v5.7.450.9b10) for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 06:47:40 -0500 Received: from ([68.211.198.96]) EHLO=FAMILY by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v5.7.450.9b10) with SMTP id 2513725203; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 06:47:39 -0500 Message-ID: <00f501c3b800$f2aeab30$60c6d344@FAMILY> From: "Hector Santos" To: References: <200312011854.43717.famous-asrg@nutters.org> <1031201093931.ZM4043@candle.brasslantern.com> <00b001c3b7f5$80153590$60c6d344@FAMILY> <1031201110724.ZM4335@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: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 06:47:49 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bart Schaefer" To: > } I already proved that it works. > > You've proved that spammers use garbage envelope sender addresses. We > already knew that. Then why aren't you doing anything about it? Do you have a better method that works within the spirit of Mr. Crocker wishes, namely no change the PROTOCOL!? Or are you waiting for developers to solve it for you? Well, I have done something and have provided AMPLE envidence that it helps solve 80% of the spammer problem. If you want to help solve the weaknesss, great. Yakov gave a few and so did you. But that does NOT mean it will not work. > I'm not trying to show that it does not work. Than what are saying? > I'm trying convince YOU to show two things, which you have not yet shown: I sure have! > (1) WSCAP works _better_ than a system such as LMAP that uses something > lighter weight than SMTP for the callbacks. I sure did! Check out the statistics I provided. http://www.winserver.com/public/antispam/stats/stats-2003-nov.htm LMAP is similar to a RBL lookup at the connection level. RBL provides an average of 76% success rate and WCSAP provided a near 90% success rate. Which is EXPECTED because you are goint a STEP further than just checking the domain. Now I can 100% verify this by analyzing the WCSAP.LOG to see how any of the rejects were MX and CONNECT based. But this is obvious. > (2) WSCAP does not impose an undue burden by requiring third-party > SMTP servers to disavow every forged address that appears to be > in their domain. I didn't disclaim it was not an expensive process. What I said it is a different issue altogether. It is a scalaribility and redundancy issue. It is a DESIGN IMPLEMENTATION issue. It does not negate that fact that you can SPAM PROOF to a large degree your system by simply validating the return path. > Your response to (1) seems always to be to change the subject, oh hogwash. > by saying "but WSCAP works now, and needs no changes to SMTP!" Baloney, I did not say such a thing. What needs to CHANGE is the RFC SPECIFICATION so that we have the ammunition to put a MAIL FROM: validation into action and be able to do so LEGALLY! Right now, MAIL FROM is only required for BOUNCING. If its required for bouncing then it should be required for possible dynamic and instant validating is SO desired by a system. The last thing I want is be sued by SPAMCO being paid millions by Microsoft or whoever to spam servers and the transaction is blocked due to an MAIL FROM: conformity check. We need to make SPAMCO responsible at the TECHNICAL level. Once it is compliant, it is allowed thru, at which case, I dont' give flying $%# what the mail is. That is NOT my problem as a SMTP mail server vendor. > The thread on which this message is a reply is actually an argument about just the "needs no > changes" clause, which has become a rathole. > > You keep dimissing (2) as a scalability issue, but please note that it > is not a scalability issue for the servers that deploy WSCAP -- it is a > scalability issue for servers that _ARE PROBED BY_ WSCAP. It still a SCALABILITY issue! The system that is PROBED can restrict connection access, which is PAR for the course. In addition, those attacks are trackable! > And it is a larger scalability issue even than bogus DSNs. You've waved your hands > a lot, but you haven't convinced me that this isn't cost-shifting on a > much larger scale than you imagine. Are you are paper hat or what? Didn't I say that this will be come a redundancy problem if it was widely deployed? For the umpteen time, WCSAP is a BLACK BOX VALIDATION into the SMTP process. The REAL goal here is making the MAIL FROM: mandatory IN WRITING. Once done, OPTIMIZED SOLUTIONS will come. I don't know much clear I can get. --- 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 Mon Dec 1 07:01:24 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA07138 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 07:01:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQmjm-0008AW-5J for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 07:01:10 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB1C1A23031394 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 07:01:10 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQmjm-0008AH-15 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 07:01:10 -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 HAA07115 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 07:00:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQmjh-0000Jh-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 07:01:05 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQmjh-0000Je-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 07:01:05 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQmjd-00085R-MC; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 07:01:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQmil-0007yv-9U for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 07:00:07 -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 GAA07073 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 06:59:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQmig-0000JG-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 07:00:03 -0500 Received: from ntbbs.winserver.com ([208.247.131.9] helo=winserver.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQmig-0000JD-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 07:00:02 -0500 Received: by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v5.7.450.9b10) for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 07:00:24 -0500 Received: from ([68.211.198.96]) EHLO=FAMILY by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v5.7.450.9b10) with SMTP id 2514489953; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 07:00:23 -0500 Message-ID: <010d01c3b802$ba8b69d0$60c6d344@FAMILY> From: "Hector Santos" To: References: <200312011854.43717.famous-asrg@nutters.org> <006d01c3b7e8$57459720$60c6d344@FAMILY> <200312012125.43232.famous-asrg@nutters.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: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 07:00:33 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brett Watson" To: "Hector Santos" ; Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 5:25 AM Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - anti-harvesting (was Inquiry about CallerID Verification) > We need the LMAP-type > authorisation mechanism to act as a first-pass filter to reject blatant > frauds. > Or perhaps I've missed your point. I haven't had the time to fully analyse all > the messages on this list in the last couple of days. and I certaintly spent more than I expected this weekend (I hope it is not all in vain) A Callerid Verification, inherently includes a DOMAIN lookup. It has 5 checks: - DNS MX LOOKUP - MX IP CONNECTION - NULL ADDRESS REQUIREMENT (MAIL FROM: <>) - RCPT TO: VALIDATION [OPTIONAL] - RCPT TO: FAKE ADDRESS FOR AN OPEN RELAY TEST Where does LMAP fit in the above? Does LMAP required an additional Lookup (TXT)? --- 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 Mon Dec 1 07:12:21 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA07266 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 07:12:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQmuL-0000Xl-Aw for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 07:12:05 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB1CC5f0002083 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 07:12:05 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQmuK-0000W4-L1 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 07:12:04 -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 HAA07260 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 07:11:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQmuK-0000Po-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 07:12:04 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQmuJ-0000Pl-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 07:12:03 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQmuG-0000Tl-JG; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 07:12:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQmu5-0000TW-CW for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 07:11:49 -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 HAA07256 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 07:11:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQmu0-0000PY-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 07:11:45 -0500 Received: from sccrmhc11.comcast.net ([204.127.202.55]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQmu0-0000PJ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 07:11:44 -0500 Received: from fda.zemos.net ([68.38.12.170]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc11) with ESMTP id <2003120112111601100nnsj6e>; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 12:11:16 +0000 Received: from zemos.net (unknown [10.0.0.2]) by fda.zemos.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4F2318685; Sun, 30 Nov 2003 21:17:29 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3FCB2FF7.90808@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: Fridrik Skulason Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals: LMTP proposals] References: <20031201091632.GH30566@f-prot.com> In-Reply-To: <20031201091632.GH30566@f-prot.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, 01 Dec 2003 07:11:35 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Fridrik Skulason wrote: >>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'. > > > LMAP will never eliminate all cases of forgery - which actually has a > rather nasty side-effect. Think of it as the "survival of the fittest" > in action. If something like LMAP was universally adopted, any spam > mechanism not affected by it would be "encouraged", so to speak. > > So, which cases would not be affected by LMAP? Now, in addition > to all the "non-forged" methods (disposable accounts, rogue ISPs and so > on) there is the following: > > A spammer gains access to a compromised computer, and determines > the mail address of the owner of the machine. The spam is then > sent out in the name of the owner of the machine, just as if > the real owner was actually pressing the keys. > > In other words, widespread implementation of LMAP (which would be a good > thing) would lead to more compromised machines (which would be a bad > thing) ;-) > In the case you cite, the recipients gain two advantages over the current situation: they have soemone to hold accountable, and that someone has an interest in cooperating. -- Philip Miller _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 1 07:17:23 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA07336 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 07:17:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQmzD-0000ot-8p for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 07:17:07 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB1CH7KU003145 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 07:17:07 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQmzD-0000oe-0I for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 07:17:07 -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 HAA07333 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 07:16:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQmzC-0000Rr-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 07:17:06 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQmzC-0000Ro-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 07:17:06 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQmz7-0000mT-75; Mon, 01 Dec 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 1AQmyJ-0000m2-98 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 07:16:11 -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 HAA07326 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 07:15:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQmyI-0000RT-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 07:16:10 -0500 Received: from mercury.mv.net ([199.125.85.40]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQmyI-0000RQ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 07:16:10 -0500 Received: (qmail 29231 invoked from network); 1 Dec 2003 07:16:07 -0500 Received: from iridium.mv.net (HELO mv.mv.com) (199.125.85.17) by mercury.mv.net with SMTP; 1 Dec 2003 07:16:07 -0500 X-Peer-Info: remote-ip 199.125.85.17 local-ip 199.125.85.40 local-name mercury.mv.net Received: (qmail 27510 invoked by uid 101); 1 Dec 2003 07:16:04 -0500 From: "Mark E. Mallett" To: Hector Santos Cc: "Mark E. Mallett" , Brett Watson , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - anti-harvesting (was Inquiry about CallerID Verification) Message-ID: <20031201121604.GB11701@iridium.mv.net> References: <200312011854.43717.famous-asrg@nutters.org> <006d01c3b7e8$57459720$60c6d344@FAMILY> <20031201103708.GD24303@iridium.mv.net> <00d901c3b7fb$222091e0$60c6d344@FAMILY> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <00d901c3b7fb$222091e0$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: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 07:16:04 -0500 On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 06:06:10AM -0500, Hector Santos wrote: > > There are various legitimate situations in which VRFY or RCPT TO > > verification wouldn't presently work. These would have to be solved. > > For example: > > > > - UUCP (mentioned elsewhere in this long thread.) The host system > > doesn't have any chance of verifying users behind the UUCP connection. > > You'd get false positives here. > > I already addressed this. This is a SERVER implementation issue. > > We had the same problem in our UUCP software awhile back. The solution was > to support RFC 1128 5.2.8 and make sure that delay validation performed by > the UUCP/gateway software supported it by expecting the specific header > line: > > "Return-Path: > > If the UUCP software does not support it, then you are correct. > > The Return-Path is persistent across the route until final delivery is > reached. OK, but what does that have to do with the paragraph that this is allegedly a response to? And did you really mean RFC 1128? > > - As with UUCP, other sorts of disconnected delivery systems where the > > receiving MTA doesn't know anything about the usernames attached to > > a domain. e.g. the user who has a catchall box for all > > *@example.com addresses, who periodically accesses that box and > > applies local filtering rules. The user who just has a single > > maildrop from which mail is retrieved via something like fetchmail > > (or a number of equivalents). Again, false positives. > > Well, its a compatibility issue. Absolutely. > > But in the case of the SMTP system, at this level UUCP doesn't apply yet. > The validation proposed is at the SMTP level. > > In our case, where the hosting sysop may have UUCP downlinks, he may not be > a candidate to use a SMTP based validation. So he would have to turn it > off. > > I should point out that our SMTP customers with UUCP downloads are becoming > obsolete. > > But we still needed to support it because in our design, a design since > 1984 before SMTP was added in 1996, still used a UUCP mail/news format and > interface between each part of the systems: > > SMTP <--> UUCP SPOOLS<---> LOCAL MAIL/GATEWAY <--> SERVER DATABASE > > UUCP customers then use uucico to move their mail to their downlinks. OK, but what does this have to do with the paragraph that it is supposedly responding to? (a) that paragraph was specifically about things *other* than UUCP, and (b) even if it was about UUCP, how does address the VRFY issue? > > - The recipient address that is only valid under certain circumstances > > (e.g. graylisted, or firewalled such that it only accepts mail from > > certain sources, or has a filter installed such that it only > > accepts mail from certain senders). False negatives here. > > Ok, but I think what with a callerid standard a place, it will help make > some of this unnecessary. I doubt it. I imagine that with or without spam, more sophisticated filters that apply at SMTP time will be more and more common. RCPT TO validation will become more and more fuzzy as that will depend more on connection-time filter logic. Spam may be the prime factor promoting the development of interfaces supporting them, but once they are there, they will be used. Yours, mm _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 1 07:35:25 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA07777 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 07:35:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQnGe-0001zo-9g for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 07:35:10 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB1CZ8Ve007666 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 07:35:08 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQnGe-0001zZ-5R for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 07:35:08 -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 HAA07758 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 07:34:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQnGd-0000hO-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 07:35:07 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQnGd-0000hL-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 07:35:07 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQnGY-0001wy-OI; Mon, 01 Dec 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 1AQnGN-0001wT-Kk for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 07:34:51 -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 HAA07745 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 07:34:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQnGM-0000h2-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 07:34:50 -0500 Received: from mail.chariot.net.au ([203.87.95.38]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQnGM-0000gu-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 07:34:50 -0500 Received: from wanderer (ppp-049.cust203-87-110.ghr.chariot.net.au [203.87.110.49]) by mail.chariot.net.au (Postfix) with SMTP id AFF8765CA8; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 23:04:45 +1030 (CST) From: "Chris" To: "Fridrik Skulason" , 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) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 In-Reply-To: <20031201090033.GG30566@f-prot.com> Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 23:03:55 +1030 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > I am not sure how high the percentage of spam from zombie machines is, > but it is growing...that much is certain. > Yes it is growing, but will it ever reach the proportions of todays mass mailing? I sincerley doubt it. not even 100th of todays spam the other problem is that in effect we can never stop compromised machines therefore we can never stop spam. so should we give up? We currently have spammers who have an open system. they can get bulkmail software from anywhere. But to trojan a machine to send spam. no way that becomes a federal crime, and today I believe it can be even classed as an act of terrorism. FIRST lets close the open system, not keep on thinking of reasons to boo hoo legitimate ideas. then rename the ASRG to the ATRG (Anti Trojan Research group) Chris > -----Original Message----- > From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of > Fridrik Skulason > Sent: 1 December 2003 7:31 PM > To: asrg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Asrg] 4. Survey of Solutions - Methods of Authentication > -Trojans] > > > > If anyone think spammers will move en masse to trojan systems > to continue > > their habit, I believe they are sadly mistaken. > > I wouldn't be too sure about that. I am looking at this problem from a > anti-virus/anti-trojan perspective, and what I am seeing is the > establisnment > of several networks of "zombies", used for spam-related purposes - not > only spamming, but also DoS attacks on anti-spam sites. > > The connection between spammers and compromised machines is becoming > clearer and clearer. > > The spammers that just buy spam software from companies like > www.saurabh.info, > www.marketing-2000.net, www.massmailsoftware.com or other similar > companies > do not use the zombie nets, that's true...you have to look elsewhere, > for example at the spammers with connections to the Russian criminal > underground. > > I am not sure how high the percentage of spam from zombie machines is, > but it is growing...that much is certain. > > -- > 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 Dec 1 08:13:39 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA09329 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 08:13:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQnrg-0005A7-Sz for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 08:13:24 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB1DDOa2019840 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 08:13:24 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQnrg-00059v-NE for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 08:13:24 -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 IAA09310 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 08:13:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQnrf-0001Mi-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 08:13:23 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQnrf-0001Mf-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 08:13:23 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQnrJ-000559-1h; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 08:13:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQnqa-00050a-1N for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 08:12:16 -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 IAA09276 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 08:12:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQnqZ-0001LU-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 08:12:15 -0500 Received: from ntbbs.winserver.com ([208.247.131.9] helo=winserver.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQnqY-0001LM-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 08:12:14 -0500 Received: by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v5.7.450.9b10) for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 08:12:29 -0500 Received: from ([68.211.198.96]) EHLO=FAMILY by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v5.7.450.9b10) with SMTP id 2518813937; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 08:12:27 -0500 Message-ID: <001901c3b80c$cc162eb0$60c6d344@FAMILY> From: "Hector Santos" To: "Mark E. Mallett" Cc: "Mark E. Mallett" , "Brett Watson" , References: <200312011854.43717.famous-asrg@nutters.org> <006d01c3b7e8$57459720$60c6d344@FAMILY> <20031201103708.GD24303@iridium.mv.net> <00d901c3b7fb$222091e0$60c6d344@FAMILY> <20031201121604.GB11701@iridium.mv.net> 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: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 08:12:35 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit If am I still able to follow this thread, I believe I said: In the case of the SMTP system, at this level UUCP doesn't apply yet. The validation proposed is at the SMTP level. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark E. Mallett" To: "Hector Santos" Cc: "Mark E. Mallett" ; "Brett Watson" ; Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 7:16 AM Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - anti-harvesting (was Inquiry about CallerID Verification) > On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 06:06:10AM -0500, Hector Santos wrote: > > > There are various legitimate situations in which VRFY or RCPT TO > > > verification wouldn't presently work. These would have to be solved. > > > For example: > > > > > > - UUCP (mentioned elsewhere in this long thread.) The host system > > > doesn't have any chance of verifying users behind the UUCP connection. > > > You'd get false positives here. > > > > I already addressed this. This is a SERVER implementation issue. > > > > We had the same problem in our UUCP software awhile back. The solution was > > to support RFC 1128 5.2.8 and make sure that delay validation performed by > > the UUCP/gateway software supported it by expecting the specific header > > line: > > > > "Return-Path: > > > > If the UUCP software does not support it, then you are correct. > > > > The Return-Path is persistent across the route until final delivery is > > reached. > > OK, but what does that have to do with the paragraph that this is > allegedly a response to? And did you really mean RFC 1128? > > > > > > - As with UUCP, other sorts of disconnected delivery systems where the > > > receiving MTA doesn't know anything about the usernames attached to > > > a domain. e.g. the user who has a catchall box for all > > > *@example.com addresses, who periodically accesses that box and > > > applies local filtering rules. The user who just has a single > > > maildrop from which mail is retrieved via something like fetchmail > > > (or a number of equivalents). Again, false positives. > > > > Well, its a compatibility issue. Absolutely. > > > > But in the case of the SMTP system, at this level UUCP doesn't apply yet. > > The validation proposed is at the SMTP level. > > > > In our case, where the hosting sysop may have UUCP downlinks, he may not be > > a candidate to use a SMTP based validation. So he would have to turn it > > off. > > > > I should point out that our SMTP customers with UUCP downloads are becoming > > obsolete. > > > > But we still needed to support it because in our design, a design since > > 1984 before SMTP was added in 1996, still used a UUCP mail/news format and > > interface between each part of the systems: > > > > SMTP <--> UUCP SPOOLS<---> LOCAL MAIL/GATEWAY <--> SERVER DATABASE > > > > UUCP customers then use uucico to move their mail to their downlinks. > > OK, but what does this have to do with the paragraph that it is > supposedly responding to? (a) that paragraph was specifically > about things *other* than UUCP, and (b) even if it was about UUCP, > how does address the VRFY issue? > > > > > > - The recipient address that is only valid under certain circumstances > > > (e.g. graylisted, or firewalled such that it only accepts mail from > > > certain sources, or has a filter installed such that it only > > > accepts mail from certain senders). False negatives here. > > > > Ok, but I think what with a callerid standard a place, it will help make > > some of this unnecessary. > > I doubt it. I imagine that with or without spam, more sophisticated > filters that apply at SMTP time will be more and more common. RCPT TO > validation will become more and more fuzzy as that will depend more > on connection-time filter logic. Spam may be the prime factor promoting > the development of interfaces supporting them, but once they are there, > they will be used. > > Yours, > mm > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 1 08:47:42 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA10127 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 08:47:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQoOd-0007M0-Kx for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 08:47:28 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB1DlRG4028262 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 08:47:27 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQoOd-0007Ll-Gp for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 08:47:27 -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 IAA10084 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 08:47:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQoOc-0001q6-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 08:47:26 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQoOb-0001q3-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 08:47:25 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQoOD-0007Fl-GC; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 08:47:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQoNY-0007CA-DY for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 08:46:20 -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 IAA10070 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 08:46:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQoNX-0001nT-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 08:46:19 -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 1AQoNW-0001nO-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 08:46:18 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-374-149.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.175.215]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HP700COFY86WF@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 13:45:48 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich To: Hector Santos , ASRG Message-id: <3FCB4606.6000204@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 - Verification via RCPT TO callback Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2003 08:45:42 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Hector, At this point I believe we have begun to go in circles about your proposal. What I would like to do here, is to summarize in this thread our collective issues and objects, and for you to reply once to this thread with your opinions. If you wish, you can go ahead and write up an analysis, following the checklist in the technical considerations document about these issues. Breaking down the different issues in several sections might help as well. However, I would like to close this debate for some time, since I do not see any point in debating this topic right now. It seems to me that both sides are stuck to their opinions at the moment, and we need to take a breather. As you have mentioned, you are going to be deploying this system as multiple customer sites. What we would like to do, is for you to come back to the group in a few weeks with the results, and let us know if any of the issues we have raised played any difference. In order to have a totally objective analysis, we would recommend to run a bunch of control systems that do not have the method and than compare the results. However, your separate point about the need to analyze the SMTP protocol, and its weaknesses, and then see where the protocol can be tightened and holes patched, has merit for future discussion and I would definatly like to continue that discussion in a new separate thread if we can keep your RCPT TO proposal separate from that discussion. ------ Some of the objections raised against the RCPT TO proposal: * As the specifications stand right now, normal SMTP sites are not expecting RCPT TO callbacks to verify existance of email addresses. Since this is the current facts on the ground, your specific method has potential issues since the sender's server might not be willing to cooperate with your method, or even think of you as a malicious attack and null-route your server. Whether the RFCs assume or require a valid return address is irrelevant, the facts on the ground are that no one is expecting call backs. * In other cases such as Yahoo, all RCPT TOs are responded to with "2xx" codes, and validation is delayed until after the DATA command. Since you cannot continue validation past the RCPT TO command in order to avoid the sender from receiving messages, your method has false positives. * Nothing prevents a spammer from using someone else's return address, or operate a domain that answers "250" to all callbacks. Since established companies such as Yahoo do that as well, you will not be able to detect the difference between them and the spammers. * There exists a potential for DDOS attacks with this method. * There are very significant reasons why the authors of RFCs 2821 and 2505 recommend for the VRFY command to be turned off. Many of these reasons are still applicable, and before recommending the change, we need to analyze *why* that decision was made in the first place, and why today's environment would be any different. * In certain deployment scenarios, the outer SMTP server has no knowledge of the existance of email addresses, will accept all email, and will not be able to respond normally to call backs. Requiring a change in those cases, puts a burden on the administrators which can be avoided otherwise. * The SMTP protocol is designed for as a protocol for servers to communicate. Therefore, the authentication that is logically needed, is verifying the servers themselves, as opposed to individual accounts. * This method works today, but there is no guarantee it will work tomorrow. ------------- 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 Mon Dec 1 08:49:27 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA10245 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 08:49:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQoQG-0007pb-6X for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 08:49:12 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB1Dn8mR030097 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 08:49:08 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQoQF-0007pI-TU for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 08:49:07 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA10224 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 08:48:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQoQE-0001rj-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 08:49:06 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQoQD-0001rg-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 08:49:05 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQoQ8-0007jV-Ps; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 08:49:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQoPs-0007fF-B2 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 08:48:44 -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 IAA10174 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 08:48:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQoPq-0001rR-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 08:48:42 -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 1AQoPq-0001rO-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 08:48:42 -0500 Received: from [192.168.254.12] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by toaster.scconsult.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2953DB0AD8 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 08:48:39 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: bill@fireproof.scconsult.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20031201091632.GH30566@f-prot.com> References: <20031201091632.GH30566@f-prot.com> To: asrg@ietf.org From: Bill Cole Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals: LMTP proposals] 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, 1 Dec 2003 08:48:37 -0500 At 9:16 AM +0000 12/1/03, Fridrik Skulason wrote: >> 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'. > >LMAP will never eliminate all cases of forgery - which actually has a >rather nasty side-effect. Think of it as the "survival of the fittest" >in action. If something like LMAP was universally adopted, any spam >mechanism not affected by it would be "encouraged", so to speak. > >So, which cases would not be affected by LMAP? Now, in addition >to all the "non-forged" methods (disposable accounts, rogue ISPs and so >on) there is the following: > > A spammer gains access to a compromised computer, and determines > the mail address of the owner of the machine. The spam is then > sent out in the name of the owner of the machine, just as if > the real owner was actually pressing the keys. > >In other words, widespread implementation of LMAP (which would be a good >thing) would lead to more compromised machines (which would be a bad >thing) ;-) That raises the question of whether significantly more compromised machines is a possibility, or whether we are already seeing that problem limited by factors other than 'demand' from spammers and others. We've already seen worms that send spam, install backdoors, install open proxies, install SMTP relays, and check-in compromised machines for orders from their master to attack anti-spam facilities. It seems to me that the demand is already effectively infinite. what would likely increase if the fraction of spam using machines that have been blatantly taken over. That's not a bad thing. Right now there are a significant number of spammers who work in the very dark gray area of abusing open relays, open proxies, and insecure web-mail systems. Making those tools worthless will drive the slimeballs using them off to mechanisms like full system compromise which cannot be argued by anyone sane to be anything less than criminal: the spammer cannot argue to his provider or law enforcement that a crackable system was intentionally left that way so he could crack it, as some now argue successfully in regards to open proxies and open relays. -- Bill Cole bill@scconsult.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 1 08:54:19 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA10389 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 08:54:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQoV3-00080x-K7 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 08:54:05 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB1Ds5kG030801 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 08:54:05 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQoV3-00080i-Er for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 08:54:05 -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 IAA10334 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 08:53:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQoV2-0001uh-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 08:54:04 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQoV1-0001ue-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 08:54:03 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQoUz-0007y6-As; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 08:54:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQoUI-0007xY-O1 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 08:53:18 -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 IAA10315 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 08:53:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQoUH-0001u9-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 08:53:17 -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 1AQoUG-0001tw-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 08:53:16 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-374-149.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.175.215]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HP700CYSYJTWF@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 13:52:46 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 4. Survey of Solutions - Methods of Authentication -Trojans] In-reply-to: To: Chris Cc: Fridrik Skulason , asrg@ietf.org Message-id: <3FCB47AC.3070502@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: Mon, 01 Dec 2003 08:52:44 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT This issues has been raised before. It is out of the scope of our group to consider how to solve the problem with zombies or trojans. While there are some proposals (MTA MARK) that address the issue, it is addresses within the realm of dealing with spam. Yakov Chris wrote: > >>I am not sure how high the percentage of spam from zombie machines is, >>but it is growing...that much is certain. >> > > > Yes it is growing, but will it ever reach the proportions of todays mass > mailing? > > I sincerley doubt it. not even 100th of todays spam > > the other problem is that in effect we can never stop compromised machines > therefore we can never stop spam. so should we give up? > > We currently have spammers who have an open system. they can get bulkmail > software from anywhere. > > But to trojan a machine to send spam. no way that becomes a federal crime, > and today I believe it can be even classed as an act of terrorism. > > FIRST lets close the open system, not keep on thinking of reasons to boo hoo > legitimate ideas. > > then rename the ASRG to the ATRG (Anti Trojan Research group) > > Chris > > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of >>Fridrik Skulason >>Sent: 1 December 2003 7:31 PM >>To: asrg@ietf.org >>Subject: Re: [Asrg] 4. Survey of Solutions - Methods of Authentication >>-Trojans] >> >> >> >>>If anyone think spammers will move en masse to trojan systems >> >>to continue >> >>>their habit, I believe they are sadly mistaken. >> >>I wouldn't be too sure about that. I am looking at this problem from a >>anti-virus/anti-trojan perspective, and what I am seeing is the >>establisnment >>of several networks of "zombies", used for spam-related purposes - not >>only spamming, but also DoS attacks on anti-spam sites. >> >>The connection between spammers and compromised machines is becoming >>clearer and clearer. >> >>The spammers that just buy spam software from companies like >>www.saurabh.info, >>www.marketing-2000.net, www.massmailsoftware.com or other similar >>companies >>do not use the zombie nets, that's true...you have to look elsewhere, >>for example at the spammers with connections to the Russian criminal >>underground. >> >>I am not sure how high the percentage of spam from zombie machines is, >>but it is growing...that much is certain. >> ------- 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 Mon Dec 1 08:56:19 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA10456 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 08:56:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQoWy-0008Hz-PH for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 08:56:04 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB1Du4bL031857 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 08:56:04 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQoWx-0008Hg-W3 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 08:56:04 -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 IAA10449 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 08:55:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQoWv-0001w9-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 08:56:01 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQoWv-0001w6-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 08:56:01 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQoWv-0008Bo-C4; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 08:56:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQoW2-0008Ab-SY for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 08:55:06 -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 IAA10431 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 08:54:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQoW1-0001vd-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 08:55:05 -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 1AQoW1-0001vI-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 08:55:05 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-374-149.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.175.215]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HP700CF5YMTWF@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 13:54:34 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals: LMTP proposals] In-reply-to: <20031201101929.GC24303@iridium.mv.net> To: "Mark E. Mallett" Cc: Fridrik Skulason , asrg@ietf.org Message-id: <3FCB4816.3000005@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: <20031201091632.GH30566@f-prot.com> <20031201101929.GC24303@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: Mon, 01 Dec 2003 08:54:30 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Mark E. Mallett wrote: > On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 09:16:32AM +0000, Fridrik Skulason wrote: > >> A spammer gains access to a compromised computer, and determines >> the mail address of the owner of the machine. The spam is then >> sent out in the name of the owner of the machine, just as if >> the real owner was actually pressing the keys. >> >>In other words, widespread implementation of LMAP (which would be a good >>thing) would lead to more compromised machines (which would be a bad >>thing) ;-) > > > What solutions are there that don't suffer this problem? > > (greylisting and other sorts of limiters might not, so much, but > that's the sort or things that "owning" machines get around, too.) > It then becomes a bigger incentive on the ISPs to start detecting and blocking malicious machines. 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 Mon Dec 1 09:55:36 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA12530 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 09:55:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQpSH-0003ay-Vw for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 09:55:20 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB1EtHvm013814 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 09:55:17 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQpSH-0003aj-S5 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 09:55:17 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA12527 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 09:55:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQpSF-0002tZ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 09:55:15 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQpSF-0002tW-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 09:55:15 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQpS1-0003Xx-Ro; Mon, 01 Dec 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 1AQpRi-0003XZ-5I for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 09:54:42 -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 JAA12515 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 09:54:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQpRg-0002t6-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 09:54:40 -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 1AQpRf-0002t3-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 09:54:39 -0500 Received: from [192.168.254.12] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by toaster.scconsult.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E87EB0AF6 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 09:54:37 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: bill@fireproof.scconsult.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3FCA4F0F.40206@getactive.com> References: <20031130040601.19226.910.Mailman@www1.ietf.org> <3FCA4F0F.40206@getactive.com> To: asrg@ietf.org From: Bill Cole Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - depracate all list/bulk mailing and changeto 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: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 09:54:32 -0500 At 12:11 PM -0800 11/30/03, 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. I guess we each see things from our own perspectives. I see the BBC, the Guardian, most tech news operations, and nearly ever 'blogger' on the planet using RSS and marketers moving to it as a means of escaping the problems of email. It should be noted for readers that you are coming at this from the perspective of a company which sends unsolicited bulk email for profit and goes so far as to maintain a fraudulent .org domain registration in support of that endeavor. >In summary: > >Audience Reach Limits: >*RSS readers have very limited market penetration (<5%), requiring >installation of additional software into email client, browser or >desktop That is remarkably like the 1993 argument for remaining with Gopher. HTTP/HTML client penetration was lousy. >Feature Limits: >*Limited to no support for graphically-enhanced content >*Limited support for variety of content types typical in newsletter publishing These apply to email far more, and for both media are client-bound. One way in which RSS is an improvement in this area is that an increasing number of organizations are starting to treat email with 'rich' content as spam, and simply dropping it at the mail server. RSS clients are just specialized HTTP clients, so that sort of risk is essentially zero. The issue of aggregators not directly supporting rich content is more complex -- see below. >*No support for content customization or personalization based on >subscriber attributes False. It has to be worked a different way than with email but customized RSS is no harder than customized HTML. You have to think of it as a web application, not a mail-merge project. >*Limited support for tracking subscriber interaction with content That is more limited with email than most people in your business care to admit. Tracking anything other than whether a user intentionally follows an URL in email was never very reliable and is persistently becoming less so, to the point where the claims of some people in the email marketing business regarding things like 'web bugs' is now bordering on fraudulent. >*No support for various transactions that can be enabled within >email (e.g., donation, viral marketing). It seems that you have missed out on how RSS clients get used and on what an RSS feed actually is. They are typically not total replacements for web clients and the full web-based versions of content, but rather a way for users to see an overview of a publisher's current content with every item having a link to the full content. Anything that you can do on a website can be syndicated (i.e. *ADVERTISED* to people who have affirmatively chosen to see your ads) with RSS. It is true that today there is not enough market penetration of decent clients to flip a switch and move every mailing list of every flavor to RSS, and that the way clients currently exist for the most part is a hindrance, but it is pretty clear that this is a short-term issue. There are already developers hooking in aggregators to Outlook and combining them with web browsers. RSS is an easy addition to modern browsers because it is an XML application, and it takes very little in the way of extra smarts to make a web browser parse RSS and present it in a useful way. >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. I find it interesting that aside from the issue of whether people have clients now, which is a real but very likely quite short-term issue, nearly all of the cited disadvantages are concerns exclusively for marketers. This points at a significant problem for email marketers because as varieties of bulk mail which are not so marketing-oriented join the bloggers in using RSS and abandon any need to think about the entire issue of spam, bulk email will become increasing only a medium for marketing of various sorts (including that done by entities like PBS and the American Red Cross) and simply whacking all bulk email at the server level will become increasingly attractive to most mail server operators. Right now, that's a hard decision to take on a policy level but an increasingly easy decision to implement technically. As the balance of benefits to recipients versus benefits to sender shifts increasingly away from recipients, people who serve recipients will find it easier to make that policy decision to the detriment of senders. -- Bill Cole bill@scconsult.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 1 09:57:30 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA12592 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 09:57:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQpU1-0003nP-SJ for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 09:57:13 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB1Ev5h6014585 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 09:57:05 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQpU1-0003nA-GT for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 09:57:05 -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 JAA12572 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 09:56:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQpTz-0002ug-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 09:57:03 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQpTz-0002ud-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 09:57:03 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQpTx-0003hT-4R; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 09:57:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQpTo-0003h2-2b for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 09:56:52 -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 JAA12569 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 09:56:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQpTm-0002uZ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 09:56:50 -0500 Received: from [194.197.204.198] (helo=netcityzen.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQpTl-0002uW-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 09:56:49 -0500 Received: (qmail 20952 invoked from network); 1 Dec 2003 14:56:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO JIM) (195.165.168.88) by www.netcityzen.com with SMTP; 1 Dec 2003 14:56:34 -0000 Message-ID: <008e01c3b81b$53cbaa70$6400a8c0@INTRA.KOODIA.FI> From: "Tomi Panula-Ontto" To: References: <00e001c3b5ac$ab5f55a0$6400a8c0@INTRA.KOODIA.FI> <3FC78099.8080409@elvey.com> <004c01c3b650$60c77870$0323a8c0@Jimiboy> <3FC92518.2020604@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: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 16:56:40 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 11/30/2003 1:00 AM, Matthew Elvey said: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Matthew Elvey" To: "Tomi Panula-Ontto" Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2003 1:00 AM Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals: LMTP vs. rDNS / Reverse MX [RMX] proposals > Reply below. Please reply to the list, quoting me. > On 11/29/2003 12:11 AM, Tomi Panula-Ontto sent forth electrons to convey: > > > > >[cut] > > > > > >>>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). > > > > > So you are no longer against TXT records, yes? > I'm still against both TXT record and parsing. I don't like the idea of receiving multiple ASRG.= that I'm supposed to parse and make the decision. I want to keep things simple. The original reverse mx proposition suggested that we should have a list of IP addresses [=authorized/trusted MTAs] for a given network. Scenario: "IP is listed => Allow" Scenario: "IP not listed => Deny" Scenario: "IP not listed (no list) = Work as before (Allow)" (Deny if timed policy change?) MTAMark was in this sence a bit better; instead of getting the LIST of IP addresses (and using multiple dns queries) there would be one simple answer; ASRG.MTA=YES or ASRG.MTA=NO - so there is no need to determine whether the network admin has done the job. Reverse MX proposition has been updated after this. 4.3.2.1.in-addr.arpa IN PTR mail.company.dom. 4.3.2.1.in-addr.arpa IN MX 10 127.0.0.2 127.0.0.2=Allow, 127.0.0.3=Deny (I'd say priority field should be reserved and should be 10, any comments?) If one wishes, it's still legitimate to inform reason (or whatever) in TXT record 4.3.2.1.in-addr.arpa IN PTR dialup-127.company.dom. 4.3.2.1.in-addr.arpa IN MX 10 127.0.0.3 4.3.2.1.in-addr.arpa IN TXT "DIALUP" There is a record type for this purpose, so why not use it? Why invent a system on top of a system? > I suppose it might make RBLs need fewer entries. But should my ISP, a > common carrier, have any business deciding whether or not I should be > able to run a non-abusive mail server? I'd rather they not, when the > benefit is a very slight impact on spam that can be achieved without > such restrictions. I prefer to have RBL runners in control to ISPs in > control, but I guess that's a political question. I'd most like to have > LMTP in control. Fewer entries? A LOT fewer entries. No more spamming from dialups, or from unauthorized IPs, etc. Are you saying that if this MTA registering would be mandatory to the network owners and receiving MTAs would start using it it would not cause any or irrelevant amount of reduction in spam? It's LOT easier to spot bad behaving IP addresses from a set of 500 000 registered MTAs than from a set of approx. 4^32 (not to mention IPv6). It gives us a more control; the network abuse team can block it and if they don't or do it late, we can still RBL the spammer out. Your network provider (aka. reverse zone administrator) should ask you "Hey, in order to fight solicited email, we have to register all MTAs. What's your MTA IP address?" You give them your IP(s), they add it to the dns and everybody should be happy. Then, go ahead and generate spam as much as you wish, but don't come wondering what happened when your network abuse team unauthorizes your MTA IP address for spamming. We need rules. One rule would be that you will have to register your MTA with your network provider. I do know some networks would propably set every IP they got as trusted IP - and we'll be happy to RBL them away. This is a little change, little check, which is easy to maintain and easy to develop support for it. If there are no major problems with it, then why not? _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 1 10:24:32 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA14537 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 10:24:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQpuK-0005Ln-PQ for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 10:24:17 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB1FOGVV020561 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 10:24:16 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQpuK-0005LU-CG for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 10:24:16 -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 KAA14515 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 10:24:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQpuH-0003FR-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 10:24:14 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQpuH-0003FO-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 10:24:13 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQpu5-0005He-5O; Mon, 01 Dec 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 1AQptS-0005H5-7T for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 10:23:22 -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 KAA14503 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 10:22:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQptD-0003F1-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 10:23:07 -0500 Received: from mercury.mv.net ([199.125.85.40]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQptD-0003Ey-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 10:23:07 -0500 Received: (qmail 10556 invoked from network); 1 Dec 2003 10:23:04 -0500 Received: from iridium.mv.net (HELO mv.mv.com) (199.125.85.17) by mercury.mv.net with SMTP; 1 Dec 2003 10:23:04 -0500 X-Peer-Info: remote-ip 199.125.85.17 local-ip 199.125.85.40 local-name mercury.mv.net Received: (qmail 1852 invoked by uid 101); 1 Dec 2003 10:23:03 -0500 From: "Mark E. Mallett" To: Tomi Panula-Ontto Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals: LMTP vs. rDNS / Reverse MX [RMX] proposals Message-ID: <20031201152303.GC15385@iridium.mv.net> References: <00e001c3b5ac$ab5f55a0$6400a8c0@INTRA.KOODIA.FI> <3FC78099.8080409@elvey.com> <004c01c3b650$60c77870$0323a8c0@Jimiboy> <3FC92518.2020604@elvey.com> <008e01c3b81b$53cbaa70$6400a8c0@INTRA.KOODIA.FI> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <008e01c3b81b$53cbaa70$6400a8c0@INTRA.KOODIA.FI> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 10:23:03 -0500 > Reverse MX proposition has been updated after this. > > 4.3.2.1.in-addr.arpa IN PTR mail.company.dom. > 4.3.2.1.in-addr.arpa IN MX 10 127.0.0.2 > > 127.0.0.2=Allow, 127.0.0.3=Deny BTW (and I was guilty of this the other day too.. but didn't occur to me until a little after posting): the target of an MX is a name, not a number. "127.0.0.2" can be used, but it doesn't mean an IP address. Perhaps some use could be made of the reverse MX pointer indicating some legitimate name. mm _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 1 11:57:07 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA17633 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 11:57:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQrLt-0001WH-9f for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 11:56:51 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB1GunLT005834 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 11:56:49 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQrLt-0001W0-49 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 11:56:49 -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 LAA17601 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 11:56:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQrLr-00057j-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 11:56:48 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQrLr-00057f-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 11:56:47 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQrL7-0001Re-Mh; Mon, 01 Dec 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 1AQrL2-0001RI-3S for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 11:55:56 -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 LAA17555 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 11:55:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQrKy-00056s-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 11:55:52 -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 1AQrKu-00056G-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 11:55:48 -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 1AQrQp-0005HT-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 12:01:55 -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 15:18:00 EST." <005401c3b77f$0f1e27f0$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: Mon, 01 Dec 2003 12:01:54 -0500 "Hector Santos" wrote: > I don't see why you would want to to confuse the issue with RSS, HTTP, IRC, > etc? I explained the reasons. > The problem is the SMTP specification. I explained why I thought it wasn't. You can have a very well-defined, and completely insecure protocol. My point was that the problem isn't the SMTP specification (i.e. technical issues). It's the fundamentaly design of SMTP (i.e. social goals for the system.) > To drastically reduce the spammer problem, > > A) Deal with access issues > B) Deal with technical comformity issues > > thats it!! Nonsense. > 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. And if you don't understand why spam isn't a problem in other protocols, any new messaging protocol you design may still suffer from the same fundamental flaws as SMTP. So you've just changed protocols for *nothing*. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 1 12:08:31 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA17985 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 12:08:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQrWy-0002au-0C for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 12:08:16 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB1H8DSD009875 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 12:08:13 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQrWu-0002ZA-5E for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 12:08:12 -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 MAA17970 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 12:07:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQrWs-0005KQ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 12:08:10 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQrWr-0005KM-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 12:08:09 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQrWj-0002Vz-GR; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 12:08:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQrWg-0002VA-OM for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 12:07:58 -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 MAA17965 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 12:07:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQrWe-0005KF-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 12:07:56 -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 1AQrWU-0005K6-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 12:07:46 -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 1AQrcS-0005II-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 12:13:56 -0500 From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals: LMTP proposals] In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 01 Dec 2003 09:16:32 GMT." <20031201091632.GH30566@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, 01 Dec 2003 12:13:55 -0500 Fridrik Skulason wrote: > LMAP will never eliminate all cases of forgery - which actually has a > rather nasty side-effect. Think of it as the "survival of the fittest" > in action. If something like LMAP was universally adopted, any spam > mechanism not affected by it would be "encouraged", so to speak. No. Adding security in one are of the network changes the cost-benefit ratio for attacks in other areas of the network. This is a very different statement than what you made. > In other words, widespread implementation of LMAP (which would be a good > thing) would lead to more compromised machines (which would be a bad > thing) ;-) Tough sh*t for them. By the same argument, I shouldn't put locks or an alarm in my house, because that encourages thieves to go after my neighbour, instead of me. Such arguments are ridiculous, and either originate from a misunderstanding of the security space, or a hidden agenda to prevent *any* anti-spam measures from being implemented. To repeat what I've been saying since the start of ASRG: If one of the requirements for this group is that nothing changes, then we should all give up, and disband the group. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 1 12:14:40 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA18209 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 12:14:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQrcr-00031C-DK for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 12:14:24 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB1HELU0011596 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 12:14:21 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQrcr-00030x-8l for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 12:14:21 -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 MAA18169 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 12:14:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQrco-0005RQ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 12:14:18 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQrco-0005RN-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 12:14:18 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQrcW-0002yL-NP; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 12:14:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQrbx-0002x1-HM for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 12:13:29 -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 MAA18123 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 12:13:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQrbw-0005Q7-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 12:13:24 -0500 Received: from mail.crlf.net ([216.126.92.195]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQrbu-0005Q3-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 12:13:23 -0500 Received: by mail.crlf.net (Postfix, from userid 100) id 8EDF91F001; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 12:16:54 -0500 (EST) From: David Maxwell To: Dag Kihlman Cc: asrg@ietf.org, scrosby@cs.rice.edu Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals - Pull System (revisited) Message-ID: <20031201171654.GC28951@mail> References: <001001c3b66e$2923b690$0f5ad3d9@Klokburken2> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <001001c3b66e$2923b690$0f5ad3d9@Klokburken2> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 12:16:54 -0500 On Sat, Nov 29, 2003 at 12:44:33PM +0100, Dag Kihlman wrote: > I agree with Scott: people seem unwilling to make hard choices. The SMTP > protocol is old, ideal for spammers and inefficient. Any textbook covering Could you point out an 'innefficiency' in SMTP more specifically, please? That's one fault I don't see SMTP as having - unless you're saying that all the spam clogging the pipes makes SMTP inefficient... not quite the normal application of that word. > 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. That sounds like a contradiction to me: "avoid communication" AND "Send everything" Steps like HELO will continue to be useful in protocols for the same reason the 3 way handshake is critical to TCP. Before you commit significant resources to a session, you need to sanity check it. Failure to do so leaves the door open to DoS attacks. -- David Maxwell, david@vex.net|david@maxwell.net --> Mastery of UNIX, like mastery of language, offers real freedom. The price of freedom is always dear, but there's no substitute. Personally, I'd rather pay for my freedom than live in a bitmapped, pop-up-happy dungeon like NT. - Thomas Scoville _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 1 12:36:24 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA19218 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 12:36:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQrxw-00045m-Po for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 12:36:09 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB1Ha8WM015724 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 12:36:08 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQrxw-00045X-Ld for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 12:36:08 -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 MAA19192 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 12:35:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQrxv-0005hx-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 12:36:07 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQrxu-0005hu-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 12:36:06 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQrxp-00043G-I3; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 12:36:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQrxZ-00042l-1r for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 12:35:45 -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 MAA19188 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 12:35:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQrxX-0005hr-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 12:35:43 -0500 Received: from guttormur.frisk-software.com ([213.220.100.9]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQrxX-0005hB-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 12:35:43 -0500 Received: by guttormur.frisk-software.com (Postfix, from userid 517) id 155D238013; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 17:35:12 +0000 (GMT) Received: from localhost.localdomain. (pc28.frisk-software.com [172.16.5.2]) by guttormur.frisk-software.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA56C38006 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 17:35:11 +0000 (GMT) Received: by localhost.localdomain. (8.9.3/client-1.3) id RAA04126; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 17:35:12 GMT From: Fridrik Skulason To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals: LMTP proposals]] Message-ID: <20031201173512.GA4067@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: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 17:35:12 +0000 > > In other words, widespread implementation of LMAP (which would be a good > > thing) would lead to more compromised machines (which would be a bad > > thing) ;-) > > What solutions are there that don't suffer this problem? I am not saying there are any better solutions. LMAP (or something like that) would go a long way towards reducing the problem caused by spam with forged headers. All I am saying is that if/when some method like LMAP will be adopted, spammers will put increased emphasis on methods not affected by LMAP, such as: 1) "Disposable" accounts - get an account somewhere, violate the AUP and spam until the account is shut down. 2) Rogue ISPs. 3) Zombies...networks of compromised machines, used to send spam "in the name" of the owner of the machines. Those are not reasons not to implement LMAP or any other protocol to reach the same goal - I am all for any method that will reduce forgery - all I am saying is that we can expect a changed strategy by spammers, and other methods will be needed to deal with that. -- 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 Mon Dec 1 12:44:23 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA19662 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 12:44:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQs5g-0004wy-23 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 12:44:08 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB1Hi8KZ019022 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 12:44:08 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQs5f-0004vH-Os for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 12:44:07 -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 MAA19652 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 12:43:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQs5e-0005rW-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 12:44:06 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQs5d-0005rT-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 12:44:05 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQs5Y-0004t5-Po; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 12:44:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQs5N-0004ss-7t for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 12:43:49 -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 MAA19638 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 12:43:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQs5L-0005r9-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 12:43:47 -0500 Received: from guttormur.frisk-software.com ([213.220.100.9]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQs5L-0005qy-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 12:43:47 -0500 Received: by guttormur.frisk-software.com (Postfix, from userid 517) id 3065938013; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 17:43:17 +0000 (GMT) Received: from localhost.localdomain. (pc28.frisk-software.com [172.16.5.2]) by guttormur.frisk-software.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB68938006 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 17:43:16 +0000 (GMT) Received: by localhost.localdomain. (8.9.3/client-1.3) id RAA04132; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 17:43:18 GMT From: Fridrik Skulason To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals: LMTP proposals]] Message-ID: <20031201174318.GB4067@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: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 17:43:18 +0000 > In the case you cite, the recipients gain two advantages over the current > situation: they have soemone to hold accountable, and that someone has an > interest in cooperating. In an ideal world, yes. In practice this may be somewhat more difficult than you expect. Consider the following: anyone who "allows" his machine to be compromised in the first place might simply not consider security to be high priority, and may not respond to a notification that his system is compromised by closing the security hole. This is getting somewhat off-topic as far as the LMAP protocol is concerned, though. -- 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 Mon Dec 1 12:56:27 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA19979 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 12:56:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQsHM-0005Wi-Cx for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 12:56:12 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB1HuCnW021238 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 12:56:12 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQsHM-0005WT-92 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 12:56:12 -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 MAA19957 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 12:55:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQsHK-0005yU-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 12:56:10 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQsHK-0005yR-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 12:56:10 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQsHB-0005Tv-Hz; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 12:56:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQsGD-0005T7-0R for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 12:55:01 -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 MAA19923 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 12:54:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQsGB-0005xf-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 12:54:59 -0500 Received: from guttormur.frisk-software.com ([213.220.100.9]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQsGA-0005xE-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 12:54:58 -0500 Received: by guttormur.frisk-software.com (Postfix, from userid 517) id 04EC238013; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 17:54:29 +0000 (GMT) Received: from localhost.localdomain. (pc28.frisk-software.com [172.16.5.2]) by guttormur.frisk-software.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C958F38006 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 17:54:28 +0000 (GMT) Received: by localhost.localdomain. (8.9.3/client-1.3) id RAA04137; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 17:54:30 GMT From: Fridrik Skulason To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals: LMTP proposals]] Message-ID: <20031201175430.GC4067@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: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 17:54:30 +0000 >That's not a bad thing. Right now there are a significant number of >spammers who work in the very dark gray area of abusing open relays, >open proxies, and insecure web-mail systems. Making those tools >worthless will drive the slimeballs using them off to mechanisms like >full system compromise which cannot be argued by anyone sane to be >anything less than criminal: the spammer cannot argue to his provider >or law enforcement that a crackable system was intentionally left >that way so he could crack it, as some now argue successfully in >regards to open proxies and open relays. That's a good point, but I would not be too optimistic about the possibility of going after them through the legal system, for several reasons. One is the difficulty of tracking them down - it may not be worth the effort unless we are talking about a massive network of tens of thousands of machines. Another problem is one of jurisdiction. Say for example that someone in Russia logs on a system in Moldavia, hacks into a system in Australia, and uses that system to send spam to the US. Now, where did the crime take place, and which court would have jurisdiction in this case? I don't know, but then again, I'm not a lawyer - however, I can well imagine some legal problems if a situation like this arises. -- 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 Mon Dec 1 12:58:23 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA20077 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 12:58:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQsJE-0005jb-JQ for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 12:58:09 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB1Hw85E022037 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 12:58:08 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQsJE-0005jM-FA for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 12:58:08 -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 MAA20071 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 12:57:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQsJC-000607-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 12:58:06 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQsJC-000604-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 12:58:06 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQsJ7-0005gy-8p; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 12:58:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQsJ4-0005gj-Be for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 12:57:58 -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 MAA20060 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 12:57:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQsJ2-0005zn-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 12:57:56 -0500 Received: from pigeon.verisign.com ([65.205.251.71]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQsJ1-0005zk-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 12:57:56 -0500 Received: from mou1wnexc01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.53]) by pigeon.verisign.com (8.12.10/) with ESMTP id hB1HvtT1012171 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 09:57:55 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 09:57:55 -0800 Message-ID: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E024253B8@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: [Asrg] 0. General - SMTP problems WAS anti-harvesting (was Inquir y about CallerID Verification) 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, 1 Dec 2003 09:57:54 -0800 The problem I see with the harvesting issue is that it is very easy to lose sight of the objective and end up rejecting viable anti-spam measures in persuit of what is at best a palliative. I don't want to have to keep my email address secret. Nor is it practical for me to attempt to do so, my address can be harvested very easily from mailing list archives (including this one). Preventing dictionary attacks against a mail server is probably only worthwhile for the purpose of avoiding the cost of dealing with the immediate attack. If you can detect the dicitionary attack effectively you can also detect the spam. If we were going to redesign the email system ALL connections would be authenticated and the ONLY transaction supported would be 'deliver email'. SMTP is like FTP a very conversational protocol. It comes from the days when people thought of Internet protocols in a very different way, as a human log in to a different machine, rather than as transferring data between machines. The design innovation of HTTP was to eliminate the inefficient and unnecessary multiple round trips imposed by FTP and fetch data with a sinple request/response protocol. There is actually a rationale for a multiple round trip protocol for email. Legitimate parties do not want to send a long message body that is going to be junked. The rest of SMTP is simply noise. Why for example do we give the adressees of the email twice, first in the SMTP protocol, then again in the RFC822 message? Why does it take a separate round trip to validate each individual recipient? A more logical email protocol would have only two phases, in the first phase the servers would perform mutual authentication and the sender would pass the message header. The recpient would then respond OK to send, Not OK, etc. It is possible that a message would succeed for some recipients but not for others, the mail server might respond that an address was permanently forwarded. This is pretty much like what SMTP does today, except that the protocol would be a single request followed by a single response to get all the negotiation done at once. The second phase would be transfer of the message body itself. After that shut down the TCP connection and go home. Given the probablility of very large message sizes in the future it might even be reasonable to add in some form of support for incremental message transfer, so that retry on failure becomes possible. Now consider the delta between an idealized mail protocol and what we have. I don't see how the delta is big enough to get excited about. SMTP is distinctly sub optimal, it is somewhat unreliable, but the main source of unreliability these days is mail filtering. Protocol and mail server errors are much rarer. I cannot see the delta as being big enough to merit the cost of a transition. As for the push/pull issue. A pull protocol would presumably break the protocol into two so that after the initial first phase the TCP connection would shut down and the recipient would attempt to re-establish the connection in reverse to obtain the message body. It is not possible to make the first phase a pull protocol. Email is by its nature initiated by the sender, not the receiver. We could imagine a 'subscription' first phase which would cause the recipient to regularly poll for updates. I do not see how that design is at all practical. The reliability would be abysmal. Any TCP issue when setting up the TCP connection for the second phase would result in the mail being lost. The sender would have to be much more complex in order to track whether the body had been retreived or not. All the 'pull' phase does is to perform a lightweight authentication of the TCP connection. If that is what we want to achieve there are cheaper and more reliable ways to achieve the same result, LMAP for example. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 1 12:59:26 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA20147 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 12:59:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQsK8-0005xJ-Iw for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 12:59:11 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB1Hx4cE022887 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 12:59:04 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQsK7-0005wp-EX for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 12:59:03 -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 MAA20113 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 12:58:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQsK4-00060p-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 12:59:00 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQsK4-00060m-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 12:59:00 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQsK4-0005pm-Sp; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 12:59:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQsJ7-0005gw-4y for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 12:58:01 -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 MAA20063 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 12:57:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQsJ5-0005zt-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 12:57:59 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com ([65.205.251.73]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQsJ4-0005zq-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 12:57:58 -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 hB1Hvuq1010246; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 09:57:56 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc03.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 09:57:56 -0800 Message-ID: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E024253B7@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: esr@thyrsus.com, Matthew Elvey Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Legal - Subject labeling; do-not-spam l ist; banners 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, 1 Dec 2003 09:57:53 -0800 Eric writes > 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. Eric is completely right about this. If you look into the legal issues it is very easy to see why the bill has a labelling requirement. Labelling makes no sense in the context of technical enforcement. It makes a great deal of sense if you are dealling with first ammendment issues and enforcement. > 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*. It is pretty rare to see any requirement for consultation of any non-federal agency other than the academy of sciences. > Matthew: > > 1. This was tried already in California, and failed abysmally. It > > won't be enforced or effective. > > California ain't the Feds. The California bill has only been signed a few months. It is far too soon to know what effect it will have. At the FTC workshop the lawyers for the states mostly stated that they were acting in order to spur federal action. > > 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. The possession of spam software is not illegal in itself but would provide evidence supporting a case that a spamming act had been performed. Design of a spam feature to allow evasion of a particlar countermeasure might not be criminal in itself but conspiring with a spammer to create such could be. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 1 13:01:22 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA20219 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 13:01:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQsM7-00069T-Cy for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 13:01:07 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB1I17bO023641 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 13:01:07 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQsM7-00069E-81 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 13:01:07 -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 NAA20198 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 13:00:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQsM5-00061y-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 13:01:05 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQsM5-00061v-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 13:01:05 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQsM2-00063S-El; Mon, 01 Dec 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 1AQsL2-0005yo-98 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 13:00:00 -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 MAA20173 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 12:59:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQsL0-00061k-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 12:59:58 -0500 Received: from guttormur.frisk-software.com ([213.220.100.9]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQsKz-00061E-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 12:59:58 -0500 Received: by guttormur.frisk-software.com (Postfix, from userid 517) id 0F15C38018; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 17:59:28 +0000 (GMT) Received: from localhost.localdomain. (pc28.frisk-software.com [172.16.5.2]) by guttormur.frisk-software.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDC5B38013 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 17:59:27 +0000 (GMT) Received: by localhost.localdomain. (8.9.3/client-1.3) id RAA04142; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 17:59:29 GMT From: Fridrik Skulason To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals: LMTP proposals]] Message-ID: <20031201175929.GD4067@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: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 17:59:29 +0000 > It then becomes a bigger incentive on the ISPs to start detecting and > blocking malicious machines. Consider that ISPs have only shown limited willingness to do so in the past - for example when the compromised systems have been used to send out worms, instead of spam. It might help if the ISPs were legally required to block compromised machines, but whether that is practical or feasible is a different issue. -- 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 Mon Dec 1 13:09:28 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA20392 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 13:09:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQsTx-0006ii-PO for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 13:09:13 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB1I9DRd025829 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 13:09:13 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQsTx-0006iW-IR for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 13:09:13 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA20375 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 13:08:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQsTv-00065q-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 13:09:11 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQsTu-00065n-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 13:09:10 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQsTl-0006eI-IS; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 13:09:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQsT6-0006bK-A6 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 13:08:20 -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 NAA20359 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 13:08:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQsT4-00065T-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 13:08:18 -0500 Received: from guttormur.frisk-software.com ([213.220.100.9]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQsT4-00065H-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 13:08:18 -0500 Received: by guttormur.frisk-software.com (Postfix, from userid 517) id 0B45638013; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 18:07:48 +0000 (GMT) Received: from localhost.localdomain. (pc28.frisk-software.com [172.16.5.2]) by guttormur.frisk-software.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFEA238006 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 18:07:47 +0000 (GMT) Received: by localhost.localdomain. (8.9.3/client-1.3) id SAA04149; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 18:07:49 GMT From: Fridrik Skulason To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals: LMTP proposals]] Message-ID: <20031201180749.GE4067@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: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 18:07:49 +0000 > Adding security in one are of the network changes the cost-benefit > ratio for attacks in other areas of the network. This is a very > different statement than what you made. It seems you have misunderstood me - this is exactly what I was saying. If LMAP (or something like that) gets adopted, spammers will change their strategy to stay in business. One of the strategies not affected by LMAP is the use of compromised machines - therefore I fear that we will see an increase in their use in the future. >> In other words, widespread implementation of LMAP (which would be a good >> thing) would lead to more compromised machines (which would be a bad >> thing) ;-) > > Tough sh*t for them. Nice to see how concerned you are about security. > By the same argument, I shouldn't put locks or an alarm in my house, > because that encourages thieves to go after my neighbour, instead of > me. Now this is just stupid. I am not arguing that something like LMAP should not be implemented....quite the contrary - I would love to see something like that widely adopted. All I am saying is that by itself, it may not have much effect on the overall spam volume - the spammers will switch to other methods, and to handle those we need different solutions. -- 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 Mon Dec 1 13:13:27 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA20525 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 13:13:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQsXj-0006y4-CZ for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 13:13:12 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB1ID7Rx026778 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 13:13:07 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQsXj-0006xp-83 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 13:13:07 -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 NAA20485 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 13:12:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQsXh-00067s-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 13:13:05 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQsXg-00067p-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 13:13:04 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQsXd-0006tu-4s; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 13:13:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQsXL-0006tI-I8 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 13:12:43 -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 NAA20474 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 13:12:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQsXJ-00067a-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 13:12:41 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com ([65.205.251.73]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQsXI-00067W-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 13:12:41 -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 hB1ICWq1014483; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 10:12:32 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc03.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 10:12:32 -0800 Message-ID: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E01113233@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Bill Cole'" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - depracate all list/bulk mailing and cha ngeto RSS 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, 1 Dec 2003 10:12:30 -0800 > >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. > > I guess we each see things from our own perspectives. I see the BBC, > the Guardian, most tech news operations, and nearly ever 'blogger' on > the planet using RSS and marketers moving to it as a means of > escaping the problems of email. RSS has already got to critical mass, the question is whether it is good for more than the task the early adopters use it for. It is a lot easier to extend an existing protocol than to generate the momentum for a whole new protocol. The IETF has not been very successful in creating new protocols from scratch and even less in competing against an existing protocol. > >Audience Reach Limits: > >*RSS readers have very limited market penetration (<5%), requiring > >installation of additional software into email client, browser or > >desktop > > That is remarkably like the 1993 argument for remaining with Gopher. > HTTP/HTML client penetration was lousy. The question is why RSS is likely to improve its penetration. What is missing here is a good client side integration. Gopher was still beating WWW until the Web clients started to do the job better. There was also a natural transition since the best gopher clients were Web clients so the majority of the audience moved to the Web client. At that point it was comparing the gopher protocol with http. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 1 13:18:26 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA20917 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 13:18:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQsca-0007gI-O0 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 13:18:12 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB1II8pt029520 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 13:18:08 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQsca-0007g3-Hg for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 13:18:08 -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 NAA20901 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 13:17:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQscY-0006Df-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 13:18:06 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQscY-0006Dc-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 13:18:06 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQscT-0007Z5-9G; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 13:18:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQsbm-0007SV-9g for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 13:17:18 -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 NAA20801 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 13:17:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQsbh-0006Cn-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 13:17:13 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com ([65.205.251.73]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQsbg-0006CW-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 13:17:12 -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 hB1IH8q1015656; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 10:17:08 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc03.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 10:17:08 -0800 Message-ID: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E01113234@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Chris'" , "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" , "'Scott A Crosby'" , Yakov Shafranovich Cc: Asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] RE: 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: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 10:17:06 -0800 > > 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. > > > > > > I am confused Phill. this sounds like a promotion of pull ? Your problem appears to be that you confuse an honest assement of the pros/cons of a protocol with outright opposition. Pull is a useful concept, but it is only applicable for a small subset of email messages - regular broadcasts. The problem is that for the protocol to be pull it must be initiated by the recipient. Otherwise it is simply a baddly implemented push protocol. RSS does the task you propose better than a bodged version of SMTP. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 1 14:05:33 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA22827 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 14:05:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQtME-0001ya-PN for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 14:05:19 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB1J5IwQ007593 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 14:05:18 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQtME-0001yO-KW for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 14:05:18 -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 OAA22822 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 14:05:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQtMC-0006uO-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 14:05:16 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQtMB-0006uL-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 14:05:15 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQtLx-0001vz-H2; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 14:05:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQtLu-0001vh-AY for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 14:04:58 -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 OAA22802 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 14:04:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQtLr-0006u7-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 14:04:56 -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 1AQtLr-0006u4-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 14:04:55 -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 hB1J4rGU028431; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 14:04:53 -0500 Received: from snark.thyrsus.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by snark.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hB1J4rhC010179; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 14:04:53 -0500 Received: (from esr@localhost) by snark.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB1J4rDV010177; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 14:04:53 -0500 From: "Eric S. Raymond" To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" Cc: Matthew Elvey , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General -- the state of play Message-ID: <20031201190452.GA9924@thyrsus.com> Reply-To: esr@thyrsus.com References: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E024253B7@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E024253B7@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: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 14:04:52 -0500 Hallam-Baker, Phillip : > > 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. > > Eric is completely right about this. If you look into the legal issues it is > very easy to see why the bill has a labelling requirement. > > Labelling makes no sense in the context of technical enforcement. It makes a > great deal of sense if you are dealling with first ammendment issues and > enforcement. (I take it that "first ammendment issues and enforcement" should have read "first amendment issues and law enforcement".) We're all engineers here. We like to think about technical solutions. It can be difficult for us, sometimes, to recognize when we are dealing with constraints that are essentially political. We also have a tendency to minimax by deciding a single best strategy and discarding all others in order to execute it most efficiently. Politicians and lawyers don't think that way. They have more of a tendency to throw lots of mud at the wall and see which bits stick. Trust me on this, I'm married to a lawyer and part-time politician. Hell of a note for an anarchist... :-) Our engineer reflexes could really screw us up here if we're not careful. We're exploring several categories of attack on the spam problem. There's considerable danger that proposals that are politically and operationally viable will get lost in the noise of debate as we try to settle on a single minimax that we evaluate in purely technical terms. Here is my evaluation of the state of play: 1. Pull systems as a replacement for SMTP are a non-starter, if for no other reason that the deployment problem is impossible. Besides, the sponsors of CAN-SPAM won't accept "scrap the email network and start over" as a response from us -- it's not politically viable, we'd just blow our credibility. 2. We MUST develop a labeling standard. Technical arguments that some other approach (such as MTA labeling) would be better are beside the point. We've been presented a political test -- having been asked for input in the CAN-SPAM draft, can we come back with something that assists the FTC and the legislators? If we don't, (a) the labeling standard will be written -- probably badly -- by somebody else, and (b) we'll blow our credibility. 3. Hector Santos has a point about strict construction of the RFCs being. That point should not get lost in arguments about VRFY vs. LMAP. 4. LMAP seems neglected recently. This is bad. We're being distracted by stuff that (I think) is less important than putting an IETF stamp on *some* LMAP design. I have my own preferences but I'm not going to push them here. The point is we need to have a road forward. Rather than try to settle on one minimax, I think we ought to be working towards at least three standards-track RFCs: 1. An LMAP standard. 2. A labeling standard. 3. An RFC supplementing RFC2821/RFC2822 describing things like VRFY requirements (if we choose that path) and MTA labeling (if we choose that path). I have a draft RFC for labeling; I haven't seen any arguments with the content of the draft, it's all metadiscussion of whether we should have a labeling standard or do something else. But there is no reason for that to be an exclusive-or -- we need to have a labeling standard ready to hand the FTC in case CAN-SPAM passes. -- Eric S. Raymond _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 1 15:12:36 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA25880 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 15:12:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQuP6-0005rl-MI for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 15:12:21 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB1KCKK0022543 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 15:12:20 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQuP6-0005rW-Gw for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 15:12:20 -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 PAA25833 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 15:12:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQuP5-0007We-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 15:12:19 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQuP4-0007Wa-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 15:12:18 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQuOo-0005ng-7h; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 15:12:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQuOc-0005nD-Q8 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 15:11:52 -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 PAA25766 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 15:11:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQuOY-0007WO-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 15:11:46 -0500 Received: from ntbbs.winserver.com ([208.247.131.9] helo=winserver.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQuOX-0007WL-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 15:11:45 -0500 Received: by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v5.7.450.9b10) for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 15:11:58 -0500 Received: from ([68.211.198.96]) EHLO=FAMILY by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v5.7.450.9b10) with SMTP id 2543982890; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 15:11:56 -0500 Message-ID: <007201c3b847$675a5d30$60c6d344@FAMILY> From: "Hector Santos" To: , "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" Cc: "Matthew Elvey" , References: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E024253B7@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <20031201190452.GA9924@thyrsus.com> Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General -- the state of play 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: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 15:11:58 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric S. Raymond" To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" > Here is my evaluation of the state of play: > > 1. Pull systems as a replacement for SMTP are a non-starter, if for no other > reason that the deployment problem is impossible. Besides, the sponsors of > CAN-SPAM won't accept "scrap the email network and start over" as a response > from us -- it's not politically viable, we'd just blow our credibility. Hear, hear! Lets keep in mind also that the premise we must work with is adherence with the current standard which means backward compatibilty. > 2. We MUST develop a labeling standard. Technical arguments that some > other approach (such as MTA labeling) would be better are beside the > point. We've been presented a political test -- having been asked for > input in the CAN-SPAM draft, can we come back with something that assists > the FTC and the legislators? If we don't, (a) the labeling standard will > be written -- probably badly -- by somebody else, and (b) we'll blow > our credibility. From the developer perspective of the SMTP server, I don't view this as a technical issue to be dealt with at the SMTP level. I view it as a sysop/admin Option to be provided as part of the configuration that might interface with with a POST-PROCESSING concept. In other words, once the DATA is received, the transaction is technically complete. In our case, a HOOK at the DATA state is offered to run a 3rd party mail-filtering process with rules defined by the sysop/admin. The RFC already gives us the ability to provide a rejection DATA response code (4xx, 5xx). It discusses some examples dealing with header comformity but I recall when we added the HOOK, there was many questions as to what responses were applicable. For example, in our case, our design concluded with the possible responses: 250 Message accepted for delivery. 250 Message accepted, delivery pending 4xx Message rejected by mail filter. You may try again. 5xx Message rejected by mail filter as 3rd party developers began to implement the hook, it needed more flexibility, so now the SMTP Data Hook offers a way to provided hook-defined responses. The RFC does indicate that SMTP servers make response code flexible. So this change complied with this recommendation. How does it apply to LABELING? In lieu of a protocol change, i.e, a new command: SUBJECT: xxxxxxxx, to be provided before the DATA stage, we are left with DATA analysis to perform this function. So a SMTP product can provide the sysop a configuration option: [CAN-SPAM TAGS] ADV:PORN=REJECT ADV:DRUGS=ACCEPT etc. But this will only with vendors modifying their SMTP software. To make it work with legacy systems, the DATA is accepted and handled by NON-SMTP post mail processing methods. So because of this, it is not really a SMTP protocol issue in my view. > 3. Hector Santos has a point about strict construction of the RFCs being. That > point should not get lost in arguments about VRFY vs. LMAP. From a technical aspect, I strongly belive it is required. But more importantly, I envision legal issues if SMTP is enhanced in such a way that systems DO begin to filter/block systems from delivering mail that "mistakes" can occur (or NOT), but nonetheless, done so effectively that a commercial spammer sues for tortious interference. I know if I as was the commercial spamming business sending in my view, legitimate spam, and your software was blocking it, I will be looking to sue someone. With CAN-SPAM, it makes this possibility even stronger. So the SMTP specification must make it VERY clear every possible functional flow operation based on comformity of the specs. I believe when it is all said and done, it boils down to trusted clients with valid return addresses with strict and specific guidelines on what is considered valid and when it is considered valid. > > 4. LMAP seems neglected recently. This is bad. We're being distracted > by stuff that (I think) is less important than putting an IETF stamp on > *some* LMAP design. LMAP can help address it. Anything that does more "checking" per se, will work. But it requires additional DNS administration which does not fit the current SMTP frame work, hence it will not be immediately adopted. Oh, I can surely add support for it, but it doesn't help if others do not or are slow to do so. One improvement to LMAP can be to use the subdomain concept to provided LMAP information. That way SMTP DNS operations do not need to change and keeps it at 1 lookup, for example: current: mx1.whoever.com LMAP: mx1.lmap.whoever.com This way, all it will take at the SOFTWARE level is small change to check for the lmap sub-domain. I have no problem with this, but nothing is going to work unless the specs are changed to allow for strict SMTP checking. --- 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 Mon Dec 1 15:21:24 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA26660 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 15:21:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQuXd-0006M5-Qw for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 15:21:09 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB1KL9F8024425 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 15:21:09 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQuXd-0006Ls-9J for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 15:21:09 -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 PAA26631 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 15:20:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQuXb-0007dS-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 15:21:08 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQuXb-0007dN-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 15:21:07 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQuXY-0006Hy-M2; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 15:21:04 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQuX6-0006H3-0m for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 15:20:36 -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 PAA26584 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 15:20:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQuX4-0007cE-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 15:20:34 -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 1AQuX4-0007c5-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 15:20:34 -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 hB1KKUGU029159; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 15:20:30 -0500 Received: from snark.thyrsus.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by snark.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hB1KKUhC012860; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 15:20:30 -0500 Received: (from esr@localhost) by snark.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB1KKUCj012858; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 15:20:30 -0500 From: "Eric S. Raymond" To: Hector Santos Cc: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" , Matthew Elvey , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General -- the state of play Message-ID: <20031201202030.GA10412@thyrsus.com> Reply-To: esr@thyrsus.com References: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E024253B7@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <20031201190452.GA9924@thyrsus.com> <007201c3b847$675a5d30$60c6d344@FAMILY> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <007201c3b847$675a5d30$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: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 15:20:30 -0500 Hector Santos : > From the developer perspective of the SMTP server, I don't view > [labeling] as a technical issue to be dealt with at the SMTP level. You're right. It isn't. -- Eric S. Raymond _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 1 15:51:34 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA28861 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 15:51:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQv0o-0001HN-75 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 15:51:18 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB1KpIXl004911 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 15:51:18 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQv0o-0001H8-1T for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 15:51:18 -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 PAA28837 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 15:51:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQv0m-0000OV-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 15:51:16 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQv0m-0000OS-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 15:51:16 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQv0X-0001D3-Nx; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 15:51:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQv02-0001Bi-Ch for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 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 PAA28796 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 15:50:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQv00-0000NI-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 15:50:28 -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 1AQv00-0000NA-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 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 hB1KoQGU029405; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 15:50:26 -0500 Received: from snark.thyrsus.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by snark.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hB1KoQhC004691; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 15:50:26 -0500 Received: (from esr@localhost) by snark.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB1KoQks004689; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 15:50:26 -0500 From: "Eric S. Raymond" To: Matthew Elvey Cc: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" , ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Legal - Subject labeling Message-ID: <20031201205026.GA2590@thyrsus.com> Reply-To: esr@thyrsus.com References: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E024253B7@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <3FCBA663.3060808@elvey.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3FCBA663.3060808@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: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 15:50:26 -0500 Matthew Elvey : > Eric, if your draft continues to offer a labeling scheme for CE instead > of UCE, I'm going to create a competing draft. Unecessary. My draft uses CAN-SPAM's definition of CE, which explicitly excludes transactional and relationship email. That is, CAN-SPAM's "CE" is your "UCE". -- Eric S. Raymond _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 1 15:57:23 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA29114 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 15:57:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQv6Q-0001UZ-AP for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 15:57:07 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB1Kv6ID005729 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 15:57:06 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQv6Q-0001UK-5P for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 15:57:06 -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 PAA29108 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 15:56:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQv6O-0000VW-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 15:57:04 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQv6O-0000VR-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 15:57:04 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQv6K-0001QW-UR; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 15:57:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQv5M-0001Q3-Ps for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 15:56:00 -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 PAA29080 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 15:55:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQv5L-0000UP-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 15:55:59 -0500 Received: from newgiles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ([205.150.200.131] helo=newgiles.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQv5K-0000UM-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 15:55:58 -0500 Received: (from aland@localhost) by newgiles.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca (8.11.6/8.11.6) id hB1KuFi26881; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 15:56:15 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200312012056.hB1KuFi26881@newgiles.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca> From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals: LMTP proposals]] In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 01 Dec 2003 18:07:49 GMT." <20031201180749.GE4067@f-prot.com> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 15:56:15 -0500 (EST) Fridrik Skulason wrote: > If LMAP (or something like that) gets adopted, spammers will change their > strategy to stay in business. One of the strategies not affected by > LMAP is the use of compromised machines - therefore I fear that we will > see an increase in their use in the future. Too bad. > Nice to see how concerned you are about security. I'm concerned about *my* security. If someone else chooses to run insecure machines, that's their problem. I don't care, so long as it doesn't affect me. If wide-spread deployment of LMAP results in many insecure systems being exploited, I don't see why that's anyone's problem, but the admins of the insecure systems. > I am not arguing that something like LMAP should not be > implemented....quite the contrary - I would love to see something > like that widely adopted. All I am saying is that by itself, it may > not have much effect on the overall spam volume - the spammers will > switch to other methods, and to handle those we need different > solutions. Which is what I've been saying all along, and which is why I'm proposing LMAP. The point is that if we can force spammers to engage solely in illegal behaviour to send spam, then solutions *other* than technical ones start being more useful. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 1 15:58:20 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA29167 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 15:58:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQv7L-0001gJ-OO for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 15:58:03 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB1Kw3Sn006455 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 15:58:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQv7L-0001g2-49 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 15:58:03 -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 PAA29137 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 15:57:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQv7J-0000WH-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 15:58:01 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQv7J-0000WE-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 15:58:01 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQv7I-0001Ys-TS; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 15:58:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQv7A-0001Yf-Mr for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 15:57:52 -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 PAA29130 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 15:57:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQv78-0000W3-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 15:57:50 -0500 Received: from newgiles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ([205.150.200.131] helo=mail.nitros9.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQv78-0000W0-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 15:57:50 -0500 Received: from newgiles.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.nitros9.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBB2517013 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 15:58:06 -0500 (EST) From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals: LMTP proposals]] In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 01 Dec 2003 17:43:18 GMT." <20031201174318.GB4067@f-prot.com> Message-Id: <20031201205806.BBB2517013@mail.nitros9.org> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2003 15:58:06 -0500 Fridrik Skulason wrote: > In an ideal world, yes. In practice this may be somewhat more difficult > than you expect. Consider the following: anyone who "allows" his machine > to be compromised in the first place might simply not consider security > to be high priority, and may not respond to a notification that his > system is compromised by closing the security hole. Then you add them to a blacklist based on domain names. Problems in one area of the network should not affect other, well-behaved, areas of the network. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 1 16:02:26 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA29385 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 16:02:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQvBH-0001nL-V5 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 16:02:10 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB1L2735006893 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 16:02:07 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQvBH-0001n6-QE for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 16:02:07 -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 QAA29366 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 16:01:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQvBG-0000cI-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 16:02:06 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQvBF-0000cE-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 16:02:05 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQvBC-0001kn-Hy; Mon, 01 Dec 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 1AQvAw-0001kA-SN for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 16:01:47 -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 QAA29331 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 16:01:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQvAv-0000at-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 16:01:45 -0500 Received: from ntbbs.winserver.com ([208.247.131.9] helo=winserver.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQvAu-0000ap-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 16:01:44 -0500 Received: by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v5.7.450.9b10) for Asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 16:01:58 -0500 Received: from ([68.211.198.96]) EHLO=FAMILY by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v5.7.450.9b10) with SMTP id 2546983671; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 16:01:57 -0500 Message-ID: <009101c3b84e$64223870$60c6d344@FAMILY> From: "Hector Santos" To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" , "'Yakov Shafranovich'" Cc: "'Scott A Crosby'" , "Chris" , References: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E01113235@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Subject: Re: [Asrg] RE: 6. Proposals - Pull System (revisited) 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: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 16:02:07 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ----- Original Message ----- From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Yakov Shafranovich'" ; "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" Cc: "'Scott A Crosby'" ; "Chris" ; Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 1:20 PM Subject: RE: [Asrg] RE: 6. Proposals - Pull System (revisited) > It shifts that burden for all email senders. > > It seems as if what you want is the ability to read just the headers of an > email message and then decide to reject it. > > This is possible in the existing SMTP deployment, just send a refusal code > and slam the connection shut as soon as you detect spam. > Unlike FTP, we can't gracefully abort the DATA transmission channel. As you know, SMTP only uses one channel (port). In practice (as we saw it during R&D), dropped a DATA transmission will cause many clients to retry. Of course, a session record can be recorded and if the client retries again with similar client attributes (same IP, same HELO, same MAIL FROM and same RCPT TO:), then you can probably use this information to block the second attempt at these states by issusing a refusal code the client will now be able to read. However, in practices, for spoofing spammers, they may come in on a different IP, use a different HELO and/or MAIL FROM. So it would be hard to track. So I don't think dropping a DATA transmission works in the present form of SMTP. PS: When we explored it, it was done not for spam but to restrict data size. Our software will stop receiving once the limit is reach and issue the refusal code. All remaining data is discarded as an unknown command error. This the best solution, but dropping didn't work. They will retry. --- 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 Mon Dec 1 16:12:31 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA29899 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 16:12:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQvKz-0002h7-AC for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 16:12:15 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB1LC91v010351 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 16:12:09 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQvKz-0002gs-57 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 16:12:09 -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 QAA29854 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 16:11:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQvKx-0001DH-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 16:12:07 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQvKx-0001DE-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 16:12:07 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQvKq-0002d3-Ft; Mon, 01 Dec 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 1AQvJy-0002cA-1d for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 16:11:06 -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 QAA29792 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 16:10:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQvJw-00019J-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 16:11:04 -0500 Received: from smtp10.hy.skanova.net ([195.67.199.143]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQvJv-000196-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 16:11:03 -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 hB1LAm95018532; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 22:10:49 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <001601c3b84f$9a972630$0f5ad3d9@Klokburken2> From: "Dag Kihlman" To: "David Maxwell" Cc: , References: <001001c3b66e$2923b690$0f5ad3d9@Klokburken2> <20031201171654.GC28951@mail> 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: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 22:10:52 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit David! I think people just get annoyed by pull talk so I have skipped that... This message is free from all pull arguments... As to SMTP inefficiences: I guess You and I aggree that it is a good thing to keep memory usage down to have a fast server less vulnerable to DoS attacks. However we do not count the memory the same way. You and SMTP want to send small bits of information and catch an error as soon as possible. The general idea is: why send everything including a huge manuscript as an attatchment only to learn that the recipient is unknown! I aggree. It would probably not be efficient. However when discussing memory usage in server to server communication you must consider one other factor: the time the the data remains in the memory. SMTP has something like at least 12 trips over the Internet (for a successful mail). The thing which takes time in SMTP are the network trips. I have no figures but say an ordinary mail (without attatchments) in SMTP takes 1 second to send and that it uses an avarage of 0,4Kb. Then 1Mb will last for 2600 mails. If all is sent at once a mail could take say 1,5Kb and be completed in 0,1 seconds. Then 1Mb will last for 6800 mails. I repeat: my figures are just estimations, but any textbook on server to server communication in DCOM, CORBA, Web Services etc stress the fact that network trips waste server resources. Web Services are actually designed for single request-response solutions (even if sessions, cache and similar technologies are available). Any mail without an attatchment is so small that I cannot see why what is true in more complex programs would not be true in SMTP. I realize attatchements are a problem so I would suggest: A Without attatchment 1. Send all data but the attatchment + a boolean signaling no attatchemnet 2 Let the server go through the data according to SMTP protocol and return the first error message. Otherwise return OK B With attatchment 1 Send all data but the attatchment + a boolean signaling attatchment 2 Let the server go through the data according to SMTP protocol and return the first error message. Otherwise return OK 3 Send the attatchment 4 Return OK or error message I.e. I just minimize the network trips and pack the data in larger chunks and let the server go through the chunk according to SMTP and return an error as soon as one is encountered. The CPU will not have to handle several OK messages and several calls. Again, I cannot understand why what is common knowledge in COM, DCOM, Web Services and CORBA would not apply to mail servers. It is all a matter of processing data and handling network trips. If anyone could explain the difference I will have learnt something essential. /DK ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Maxwell" To: "Dag Kihlman" Cc: ; Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 6:16 PM Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals - Pull System (revisited) > On Sat, Nov 29, 2003 at 12:44:33PM +0100, Dag Kihlman wrote: > > I agree with Scott: people seem unwilling to make hard choices. The SMTP > > protocol is old, ideal for spammers and inefficient. Any textbook covering > > Could you point out an 'innefficiency' in SMTP more specifically, > please? > > That's one fault I don't see SMTP as having - unless you're saying that > all the spam clogging the pipes makes SMTP inefficient... not quite the > normal application of that word. > > > 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. > > That sounds like a contradiction to me: "avoid communication" AND "Send > everything" > > Steps like HELO will continue to be useful in protocols for the same > reason the 3 way handshake is critical to TCP. Before you commit > significant resources to a session, you need to sanity check it. Failure > to do so leaves the door open to DoS attacks. > > -- > David Maxwell, david@vex.net|david@maxwell.net --> Mastery of UNIX, like > mastery of language, offers real freedom. The price of freedom is always dear, > but there's no substitute. Personally, I'd rather pay for my freedom than live > in a bitmapped, pop-up-happy dungeon like NT. - Thomas Scoville > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 1 16:15:34 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA00082 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 16:15:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQvO2-0002wp-P8 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 16:15:18 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB1LFIVx011325 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 16:15:18 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQvO2-0002wa-Kv for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 16:15:18 -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 QAA00050 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 16:15:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQvO0-0001PL-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 16:15:17 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQvO0-0001PI-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 16:15:16 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQvNm-0002os-BM; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 16:15:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQvNg-0002oY-TT for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 16:14:56 -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 QAA00011 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 16:14:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQvNe-0001Mx-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 16:14:54 -0500 Received: from newgiles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ([205.150.200.131] helo=mail.nitros9.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQvNR-0001Mi-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 16:14:41 -0500 Received: from newgiles.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.nitros9.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D56A1701D for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 16:14:58 -0500 (EST) From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General -- the state of play In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 01 Dec 2003 14:04:52 EST." <20031201190452.GA9924@thyrsus.com> Message-Id: <20031201211458.9D56A1701D@mail.nitros9.org> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2003 16:14:58 -0500 "Eric S. Raymond" wrote: > 4. LMAP seems neglected recently. This is bad. I've been busy, and the authors of the various related drafts have resisted combining their proposals. I hope to have more LMAP updates in the future. > We're being distracted by stuff that (I think) is less important > than putting an IETF stamp on *some* LMAP design. I have my own > preferences but I'm not going to push them here. The point is we > need to have a road forward. There is significant opposition to doing *anything*; with the excuse that the proposal (whatever it is) is not perfect, or will cost too much to deploy, or that it hasn't been demonstrated to be useful, etc. There is so much opposition to LMAP related solutions that I'm skeptical if it (or any proposal) will ever be approved by anyone. I'm still involved in ASRG, because I have the naive belief that we can do *something* about the problem, other than sticking our collective heads in the sand. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 1 16:39:24 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA01819 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 16:39:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQvl6-0004Px-9A for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 16:39:08 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB1Ld88S016975 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 16:39:08 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQvl6-0004Pi-4u for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 16:39:08 -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 QAA01815 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 16:38:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQvl4-00023M-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 16:39:06 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQvl3-00023J-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 16:39:05 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQvky-0004NR-QY; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 16:39:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQvki-0004N3-TB for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 16:38:44 -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 QAA01806 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 16:38:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQvkg-00022x-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 16:38:42 -0500 Received: from omail2.getactive.com ([65.160.234.152]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQvkg-00022n-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 16:38:42 -0500 Received: (qmail 25341 invoked from network); 1 Dec 2003 21:38:12 -0000 Received: from map1.getactive.com (192.168.17.121) by omail2.getactive.com with SMTP; 1 Dec 2003 21:38:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 28141 invoked from network); 1 Dec 2003 21:38:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO getactive.com) (208.252.198.66) by map1.getactive.com with SMTP; 1 Dec 2003 21:38:12 -0000 Message-ID: <3FCBB490.1030407@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 - deprecate all list/bulk mailing and change to RSS References: <20031201065400.1603.67646.Mailman@www1.ietf.org> In-Reply-To: <20031201065400.1603.67646.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: Mon, 01 Dec 2003 13:37:20 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Seems to be some confusion in this thread about whether the ASRG mandate is to eliminate spam or all use of email for any marketing purpose. Marketing messages are not by definition = unsolicited email, or commercial email for that matter. Organizations communicate with their members or supporters, publishers communicate with their subscribers. Think Oxfam, Amnesty International, Mother Jones. These recipients have granted consent for ongoing communications, and these organizations want access to the set of marketing features that email provides: to convince their supporters to donate, or participate in the political process, or assist with viral recruitment, or engage in any of the host of other transactions involved in their missions. My point was simply that if RSS cannot be extended to support a set of standard marketing features, many legitimate email publishers are not going to migrate to it because it won't meet their communication needs. There is also the larger order problem that RSS faces as a pull technology: it does't meet the needs of organizations who rely on push email to alert supporters about urgent issues. If you don't want to marketed in your inbox by any organization, then don't join any of their email lists. Non-profit organizations communicate with supporters who have opted-in - they generally avoid prospecting via email. They avoid sending unsolicited mail because being stigmatized as spammers adversely impacts the most important assets they have - their brand and their trust relationship with supporters or subscribers. There is a set of email publishers that are legitimate, and are experiencing extensive collateral damage as a result of spam control efforts. To tell them they should migrate to a distribution mechanism that doesn't support basic marketing techniques because those techniques have been abused by spammers just increases the amount of collateral damage the war against spam imposes on this sector. Email will never be deprecated to support just "two-way communication" if alternative distribution mechanisms fail to provide comparable marketing functionality. __________________________________________ Message: 15 From: Walter Dnes Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 00:12:31 -0500 To: ASRG list Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - depracate all list/bulk mailing and changeto RSS On Sun, Nov 30, 2003 at 12:11:59PM -0800, Bill Pease wrote >> Feature Limits: >> *Limited to no support for graphically-enhanced content That is a good thing. If I see an interesting headline, I'll click on the URL, and it'll take me to your super-duper/singing/dancing website. >> *Limited support for variety of content types typical in newsletter >> publishing It's a list of URLs. If you have a high-bandwidth and low-bandwidth version of your website, offer two URLs. >> *Limited support for tracking subscriber interaction with content Awwwwwwwww. Guess what... Microsoft is blocking web bugs too... http://www.wired.com/news/infostructure/0,1377,60781,00.html >> *No support for various transactions that can be enabled within email >> (e.g., donation, viral marketing). *************** Ding ding ding ding ding... we have a winner! The whole point behind this mailing list is to reduce/eliminate unsolicited marketing. If I want really exciting offers daily, I'll point my newsreader at alt.really.exciting.offers. If I want something, *I* will initiate the the contact. I do *NOT* want to be marketed to via my inbox, any more than I want to be marketed to via my phone at suppertime. Do you understand ? It's been my experience that marketing types think that email was invented first and foremost for marketing and email-blasting. Wrong; it was invented as two-way communication. If a potential customer emails you asking for a quote on 1000 widgets, reply to their email with the requested quote. That is customer service. Blasting out millions of unsolicited emails contributes to the destruction of the medium. -- 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 Mon Dec 1 16:44:19 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA02033 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 16:44:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQvpr-0004cd-Uu for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 16:44:04 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB1Li3sw017761 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 16:44:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQvpr-0004cO-Q8 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 16:44:03 -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 QAA02023 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 16:43:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQvpp-000261-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 16:44:01 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQvpp-00025y-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 16:44:01 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQvpp-0004Yj-4r; Mon, 01 Dec 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 1AQvpW-0004YX-U9 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 16:43:42 -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 QAA02006 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 16:43:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQvpU-00025v-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 16:43:41 -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 1AQvpU-00025i-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 16:43:40 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-363-328.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.133.188]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HP800HT5KB5B2@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 21:42:45 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich To: ASRG Message-id: <3FCBB5D1.30400@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 - Subject labeling - FTC response Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2003 16:42:41 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Hi, I received some feedback from the FTC today. As it stands right now, the FTC has only begun preliminary analysis of the bill. Since this particular report on filtering has an 18 months deadline, work has not begun on it yet. When the FTC begins working on this report, input from the IETF and the ASRG will be solicited. Sincerely, Yakov Shafranovich Co-Chair, ASRG ------- 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 Mon Dec 1 16:50:33 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA02961 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 16:50:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQvvu-00056z-6R for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 16:50:18 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB1LoI8n019643 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 16:50:18 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQvvu-00056k-11 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 16:50:18 -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 QAA02869 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 16:49:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQvvn-0002Sl-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 16:50:11 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQvvm-0002Si-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 16:50:10 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQvvd-00052m-PN; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 16:50:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQvvY-00052U-4L for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 16:49:56 -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 QAA02828 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 16:49:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQvvW-0002Rh-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 16:49:54 -0500 Received: from newgiles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ([205.150.200.131] helo=mail.nitros9.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQvvV-0002RZ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 16:49:53 -0500 Received: from newgiles.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.nitros9.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F2EE17025 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 16:50:10 -0500 (EST) From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - deprecate all list/bulk mailing and change to RSS In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 01 Dec 2003 13:37:20 PST." <3FCBB490.1030407@getactive.com> Message-Id: <20031201215010.5F2EE17025@mail.nitros9.org> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2003 16:50:10 -0500 Bill Pease wrote: > If you don't want to marketed in your inbox by any organization, then > don't join any of their email lists. Easier said than done. Read the list archives for stories on how opting in to a list from company A results in "opt-in" for a number of other, associated, companies. Such behaviour is inappropriate, and contributes significantly to the perception that *all* bulk emailers, "legitimate" or otherwise, are nothing more than vile spammers. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 1 17:36:31 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA07177 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 17:36:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQweN-000822-Vh for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 17:36:16 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB1MaFDg030868 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 17:36:15 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQweN-00081n-RU for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 17:36:15 -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 RAA07149 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 17:36:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQweL-00048x-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 17:36:13 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQweL-00048u-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 17:36:13 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQwe9-0007zE-W8; Mon, 01 Dec 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 1AQwdb-0007yr-5a for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 17:35:27 -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 RAA07097 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 17:35:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQwdY-000482-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 17:35:24 -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 1AQwdY-00047y-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 17:35:24 -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 hB1MZOGU030656; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 17:35:24 -0500 Received: from snark.thyrsus.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by snark.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hB1MZOhC025827; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 17:35:24 -0500 Received: (from esr@localhost) by snark.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB1MZOw0025825; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 17:35:24 -0500 From: "Eric S. Raymond" To: Yakov Shafranovich Cc: ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Legal - Subject labeling - FTC response Message-ID: <20031201223524.GA16979@thyrsus.com> Reply-To: esr@thyrsus.com References: <3FCBB5D1.30400@solidmatrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3FCBB5D1.30400@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, 1 Dec 2003 17:35:24 -0500 Yakov Shafranovich : > I received some feedback from the FTC today. As it stands right now, the > FTC has only begun preliminary analysis of the bill. Since this > particular report on filtering has an 18 months deadline, work has not > begun on it yet. When the FTC begins working on this report, input from > the IETF and the ASRG will be solicited. Good. Then the right time to standards-track a labeling RFC is *now*, so we'll have it in hand with a decent amount of community review when FTC comes knocking. This goal is not exclusive of other RFCs or findings. The fact that "input from the IETF and the ASRG will be solicited" means we MUST have a constructive response in *addition* to whatever else we do, or lose future influence on the interpretation and implementation of CAN-SPAM. I have a draft RFC, to which I've seen the following responses: 1. Several friendly corrections -- typo fixes, advice that I should highlight the U.S. specificity of Can_SPAM, etc. I take these as support. 2. A technical objection that the proposal needs to use a new header rather than Keywords. Incorporated. 3. One misunderstanding about the scope of "commercial email" in CAN-SPAM and my draft. This is the only objection that has produced even a threat of a competing draft. 4. Two objections (one from John Levine, one from somebody else) that we shouldn't have a labeling system because we should be doing something else instead. As I've pointed out above, this is not responsive to the political reality of CAN-SPAM. I've been through the RFC mill before. This is a remarkably low level or controversy, and very encouraging. I'm volunteering to be the point guy on this. The issue interests me, and my public fame might turn out to be a useful tool when it comes time to talk the FTC and Congress out of peeing in the proposal so they'll like the flavor better. We're at particular risk of that here because the issue has little technical depth, increasing the risk that some bureacrat will think he understands the background issues enough to "improve" an RFC. (The most likely attempted "improvement" will be a more elaborate classification system.) Let me reiterate that I do not view this effort as competitive with any of the other proposals on the table (LMAP, callback, pull, MTA labeling, whatever) but as complementary with them. Those of you with interest in this issue, please work with me to improve the draft. What is the next step? If I'm reading RFC2026 correctly, it would be publishing my proposal as an Internet-Draft with a view to having it accepted as a Proposed Standard. Is this a candidate BCP or TS? I can see arguments in both directions. -- Eric S. Raymond _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 1 17:38:22 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA07248 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 17:38:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQwgA-0008Tp-On for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 17:38:07 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB1Mc625032569 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 17:38:06 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQwg8-0008S6-Tg for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 17:38:05 -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 RAA07226 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 17:37:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQwg6-0004Av-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 17:38:02 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQwg5-0004As-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 17:38:01 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQwg5-0008LU-DO; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 17:38:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQwfe-0008Eu-Ck for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 17:37:34 -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 RAA07222 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 17:37:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQwfb-0004Am-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 17:37:31 -0500 Received: from sccrmhc13.comcast.net ([204.127.202.64]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQwfb-0004A0-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 17:37:31 -0500 Received: from fda.zemos.net ([68.38.12.170]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc13) with ESMTP id <20031201223657016008bh1he>; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 22:36:57 +0000 Received: from zemos.net (unknown [10.0.0.2]) by fda.zemos.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id F133318685; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 07:43:13 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3FCBC29B.7050406@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 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] The State of RSS Readers for Mailing List Funcionality Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2003 17:37:15 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit After the recent discussion on the list of replacing bulk email with some completely user-initiated protocol, such as RSS, I decided to try it out. Mailbucket.org currently is testing its mailing list to RSS gateway, and they allow subscription of any list for this purpose. The URL for the ASRG list on this site is . For the past few days, I've read the list in the RSS aggregator Liferea, version 0.4.4. Here are my comments on this setup, which may not apply to others: 1. The lack of inate threading is painful. The messages simply appear as a sequence of messages, by default in date order. The only other thing they can be sorted on is 'Headline', which leads me to ... 2. Email headers aren't preserved. The message subject is used as the headline of each item. Aside from the subject, the gateway inserts the sender and date at the top of the message. Even worse, it cuts off the sender's actual email address, so that only the name appears, apparently to make it look nicer to the user. 3. There's no reasonable way to display the meaningful email headers. In terms of looking at a list of posts, I suppose it could be reasonable to insert the sender into the headline as well, but that would wreak havoc on sorting by subject. My conclusion is that NNTP is much better suited for this task. Mail clients frequently have integrated newsreaders, netnews posts have headers analogous to email's, and they interoperate well. The only real open question in terms of mailing-list/news interoperability is submission: should it still be done by emailing a list address, or should it be done by posting to the news group directly? -- Philip Miller _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 1 17:41:23 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA07479 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 17:41:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQwj6-0000IK-CU for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 17:41:08 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB1Mf8YU001126 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 17:41:08 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQwj6-0000I5-5G for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 17:41:08 -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 RAA07432 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 17:40:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQwj3-0004G1-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 17:41:05 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQwj2-0004Fu-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 17:41:04 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQwj1-0000EA-FJ; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 17:41:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQwhz-00008c-3c for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 17:40:02 -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 RAA07313 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 17:39:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQwhw-0004CW-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 17:39:56 -0500 Received: from mail.crlf.net ([216.126.92.195]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQwhv-0004CT-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 17:39:55 -0500 Received: by mail.crlf.net (Postfix, from userid 100) id 03D621F001; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 17:43:31 -0500 (EST) From: David Maxwell To: Dag Kihlman Cc: asrg@ietf.org, scrosby@cs.rice.edu Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals - Pull System (revisited) Message-ID: <20031201224330.GD28951@mail> References: <001001c3b66e$2923b690$0f5ad3d9@Klokburken2> <20031201171654.GC28951@mail> <001601c3b84f$9a972630$0f5ad3d9@Klokburken2> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <001601c3b84f$9a972630$0f5ad3d9@Klokburken2> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 17:43:30 -0500 On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 10:10:52PM +0100, Dag Kihlman wrote: > just estimations, but any textbook on server to server communication in > DCOM, CORBA, Web Services etc stress the fact that network trips waste > server resources. Web Services are actually designed for single > request-response solutions (even if sessions, cache and similar technologies > are available). Any mail without an attatchment is so small that I cannot > see why what is true in more complex programs would not be true in SMTP. DCOM and CORBA are most likely to be seen on a trusted network, not on the open Internet. I don't know that they make an effort to address the resource consumption issue. Web services are different, because the only work the server has to do is getting the reply out. In the case of email, the server is accepting responsibility for a larger workload - filtering, and possibly sending bounces, or delivery to multiple mailboxes. So, for general protocol design, I'd agree that an 'SMTP replacement' should probably require fewer round trips than current SMTP. Perhaps something like: 1: MTA id, Sender, # of recipients, (recipient list, if below some threshhold), size of content 1b: Server ACK/NAK/?? 2: Recipient list if above threshhold 2b: Server ACK/NAK/?? 3: Content. (Or token, for Pull implementations) 3b: Server ACK/NAK/?? I have nothing against looking at replacements for SMTP - but I would suggest that it should occur on a sub-list. It's a longer term project than tweaking the existing protocol, and I'd prefer that it not bog down discussions of changes that could be made more rapidly. -- David Maxwell, david@vex.net|david@maxwell.net --> Any sufficiently advanced Common Sense will seem like magic... - me _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 1 17:59:28 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA08400 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 17:59:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQx0b-0000vU-PR for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 17:59:14 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB1MxDBo003554 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 17:59:13 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQx0b-0000vF-LY for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 17:59:13 -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 RAA08274 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 17:58:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQx0Y-0004ba-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 17:59:11 -0500 Received: from manatick.foretec.com ([4.17.168.5] helo=manatick) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQx0W-0004ai-01 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 17:59:09 -0500 Received: from [132.151.6.22] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by manatick with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1AQwso-0007Md-WC for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 17:51:11 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQwsf-0000dx-Vp; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 17:51:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQwrz-0000dU-IJ for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 17:50:19 -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 RAA08057 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 17:50:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQwrw-0004Uu-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 17:50:16 -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 1AQwrw-0004UU-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 17:50:16 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-363-328.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.133.188]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HP800M3SNEU0J@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 22:49:47 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals: LMTP proposals]] In-reply-to: <20031201175929.GD4067@f-prot.com> To: Fridrik Skulason Cc: asrg@ietf.org Message-id: <3FCBC586.8000301@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: <20031201175929.GD4067@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: Mon, 01 Dec 2003 17:49:42 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Fridrik Skulason wrote: >>It then becomes a bigger incentive on the ISPs to start detecting and >>blocking malicious machines. > > > Consider that ISPs have only shown limited willingness to do so in the > past - for example when the compromised systems have been used to send > out worms, instead of spam. > > It might help if the ISPs were legally required to block compromised > machines, but whether that is practical or feasible is a different > issue. > Would then having a standard for marking IPs in rDNS space as non-MTA basically let ISPs off the hook? They will claim that publishing IP records should be enough and let the others do the blocking, instead of doing it themselves? 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 Mon Dec 1 18:01:26 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA08604 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 18:01:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQx2V-0001E8-7s for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 18:01:11 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB1N1Bix004708 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 18:01:11 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQx2V-0001Dr-0L for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 18:01:11 -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 SAA08511 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 18:00:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQx2S-0004fI-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 18:01:08 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQx2R-0004fF-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 18:01:07 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQx2L-000152-VZ; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 18:01:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQx1g-00013a-7l for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 18:00:20 -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 SAA08466 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 18:00:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQx1c-0004du-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 18:00:17 -0500 Received: from mercury.mv.net ([199.125.85.40]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQx1c-0004dr-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 18:00:16 -0500 Received: (qmail 27425 invoked from network); 1 Dec 2003 18:00:15 -0500 Received: from iridium.mv.net (HELO mv.mv.com) (199.125.85.17) by mercury.mv.net with SMTP; 1 Dec 2003 18:00:15 -0500 X-Peer-Info: remote-ip 199.125.85.17 local-ip 199.125.85.40 local-name mercury.mv.net Received: (qmail 8409 invoked by uid 101); 1 Dec 2003 18:00:12 -0500 From: "Mark E. Mallett" To: "Eric S. Raymond" Cc: Yakov Shafranovich , ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Legal - Subject labeling - FTC response Message-ID: <20031201230012.GC717@iridium.mv.net> References: <3FCBB5D1.30400@solidmatrix.com> <20031201223524.GA16979@thyrsus.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20031201223524.GA16979@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: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 18:00:12 -0500 On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 05:35:24PM -0500, Eric S. Raymond wrote: > > I have a draft RFC, to which I've seen the following responses: Perhaps you could post the URL again for the latest rev? mm _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 1 18:01:26 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA08609 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 18:01:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQx2V-0001EM-Ab for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 18:01:11 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB1N1BF5004724 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 18:01:11 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQx2V-0001Dx-5j for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 18:01:11 -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 SAA08514 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 18:00:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQx2S-0004fM-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 18:01:08 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQx2S-0004fJ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 18:01:08 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQx2O-00016Y-5t; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 18:01:04 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQx21-000148-Op for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 18:00:42 -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 SAA08484 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 18:00:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQx1y-0004eE-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 18:00:39 -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 1AQx1y-0004dq-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 18:00:38 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-363-328.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.133.188]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HP800L09NTXY6@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 22:58:49 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals: LMTP proposals] In-reply-to: To: Alan DeKok Cc: asrg@ietf.org Message-id: <3FCBC7A5.9070106@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: Mon, 01 Dec 2003 17:58:45 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Alan DeKok wrote: > Fridrik Skulason wrote: [..] >>In other words, widespread implementation of LMAP (which would be a good >>thing) would lead to more compromised machines (which would be a bad >>thing) ;-) > > > Tough sh*t for them. > > By the same argument, I shouldn't put locks or an alarm in my house, > because that encourages thieves to go after my neighbour, instead of > me. > > Such arguments are ridiculous, and either originate from a > misunderstanding of the security space, or a hidden agenda to prevent > *any* anti-spam measures from being implemented. > I believe that Fridrik was pointing out a simple fact - any effective anti-spam solutions would force spammers to seek other venues, including the increased use of hijacked computers. > To repeat what I've been saying since the start of ASRG: If one of > the requirements for this group is that nothing changes, then we > should all give up, and disband the group. > Our goals are is to determine how to provide maximum benefits with at least intrusive changes possible. While changes are necessary, we need to evaluate which changes have the most effect and the least cost. 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 Mon Dec 1 18:01:50 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA08655 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 18:01:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQx2t-0001Lu-QF for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 18:01:35 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB1N1ZAM005195 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 18:01:35 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQx2t-0001Li-KM for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 18:01:35 -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 SAA08565 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 18:01:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQx2q-0004gM-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 18:01:32 -0500 Received: from manatick.foretec.com ([4.17.168.5] helo=manatick) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQx0d-0004ai-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 17:59:15 -0500 Received: from [132.151.6.22] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by manatick with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1AQwo0-0007C7-Lj for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 17:46:13 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQwnp-0000Sz-9w; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 17:46:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQwmt-0000SJ-7J for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 17:45:03 -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 RAA07771 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 17:44:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQwmq-0004OL-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 17:45:00 -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 1AQwmq-0004Mz-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 17:45:00 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-363-328.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.133.188]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HP800MDDN610B@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 22:44:30 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: 6. Proposals - Pull - RSS and Mailing Lists (was Re: [Asrg] The State of RSS Readers for Mailing List Funcionality) In-reply-to: <3FCBC29B.7050406@zemos.net> To: Philip Miller Cc: asrg@ietf.org Message-id: <3FCBC447.2050609@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: <3FCBC29B.7050406@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, 01 Dec 2003 17:44:23 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT [Subject changed as per posting guidelines. Mod.] Philip Miller wrote: > After the recent discussion on the list of replacing bulk email with > some completely user-initiated protocol, such as RSS, I decided to try > it out. Mailbucket.org currently is testing its mailing list to RSS > gateway, and they allow subscription of any list for this purpose. The > URL for the ASRG list on this site is . > > For the past few days, I've read the list in the RSS aggregator Liferea, > version 0.4.4. Here are my comments on this setup, which may not apply > to others: > > 1. The lack of inate threading is painful. > The messages simply appear as a sequence of messages, by default in date > order. The only other thing they can be sorted on is 'Headline', which > leads me to ... > 2. Email headers aren't preserved. > The message subject is used as the headline of each item. Aside from the > subject, the gateway inserts the sender and date at the top of the > message. Even worse, it cuts off the sender's actual email address, so > that only the name appears, apparently to make it look nicer to the user. > 3. There's no reasonable way to display the meaningful email headers. > In terms of looking at a list of posts, I suppose it could be reasonable > to insert the sender into the headline as well, but that would wreak > havoc on sorting by subject. > > My conclusion is that NNTP is much better suited for this task. Mail > clients frequently have integrated newsreaders, netnews posts have > headers analogous to email's, and they interoperate well. The only real > open question in terms of mailing-list/news interoperability is > submission: should it still be done by emailing a list address, or > should it be done by posting to the news group directly? > > -- > Philip Miller > > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > ------- 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 Mon Dec 1 18:02:20 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA08712 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 18:02:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQx3M-0001TW-Lo for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 18:02:05 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB1N24Q0005664 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 18:02:04 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQx3M-0001TH-Fi for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 18:02:04 -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 SAA08650 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 18:01:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQx3J-0004iH-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 18:02:01 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQx3J-0004iE-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 18:02:01 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQx3K-0001NS-Ls; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 18:02:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQx2v-0001M1-TG for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 18:01:37 -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 SAA08577 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 18:01:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQx2s-0004gk-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 18:01:35 -0500 Received: from manatick.foretec.com ([4.17.168.5] helo=manatick) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQx0b-0004ai-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 17:59:13 -0500 Received: from smtp.sprintpcs.com ([63.167.114.16] helo=dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net) by manatick with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1AQwoK-0007C1-Ai for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 17:46:32 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-363-328.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.133.188]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HP800MRFN8I0B@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 22:46:00 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals: LMTP vs. rDNS / Reverse MX [RMX] proposals In-reply-to: <008e01c3b81b$53cbaa70$6400a8c0@INTRA.KOODIA.FI> To: Tomi Panula-Ontto Cc: asrg@ietf.org Message-id: <3FCBC4A3.2080605@solidmatrix.com> Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, he, ru User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007 X-Enigmail-Version: 0.82.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime References: <00e001c3b5ac$ab5f55a0$6400a8c0@INTRA.KOODIA.FI> <3FC78099.8080409@elvey.com> <004c01c3b650$60c77870$0323a8c0@Jimiboy> <3FC92518.2020604@elvey.com> <008e01c3b81b$53cbaa70$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: Mon, 01 Dec 2003 17:45:55 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Tomi Panula-Ontto wrote: [..] > This is a little change, little check, which is easy to maintain and > easy to develop support for it. If there are no major problems with > it, then why not? > [..] The DNS folks over at the IETF might be able to answer this question better since any use of the reverse DNS space involves different issues, on which we do not necessarily have the expertise. We will try to pass on the draft for review if feasible. 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 Mon Dec 1 18:04:16 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA08861 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 18:04:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQx5G-0001lJ-7C for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 18:04:02 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB1N42h4006767 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 18:04:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQx5G-0001l4-22 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 18:04:02 -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 SAA08809 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 18:03:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQx5D-0004kd-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 18:03:59 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQx5C-0004ka-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 18:03:58 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQx5E-0001fO-8T; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 18:04:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQx4j-0001dh-3n for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 18:03:29 -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 SAA08758 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 18:03:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQx4g-0004kT-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 18:03:26 -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 1AQx4f-0004ju-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 18:03:25 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-363-328.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.133.188]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HP8003FXO023S@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 23:02:32 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General -- the state of play In-reply-to: <20031201211458.9D56A1701D@mail.nitros9.org> To: Alan DeKok Cc: asrg@ietf.org Message-id: <3FCBC883.1020907@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: <20031201211458.9D56A1701D@mail.nitros9.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: Mon, 01 Dec 2003 18:02:27 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Alan DeKok wrote: > "Eric S. Raymond" wrote: > >> We're being distracted by stuff that (I think) is less important >>than putting an IETF stamp on *some* LMAP design. I have my own >>preferences but I'm not going to push them here. The point is we >>need to have a road forward. > > There is significant opposition to doing *anything*; with > the excuse that the proposal (whatever it is) is not perfect, or will > cost too much to deploy, or that it hasn't been demonstrated to be > useful, etc. > > There is so much opposition to LMAP related solutions that I'm > skeptical if it (or any proposal) will ever be approved by anyone. > I'm still involved in ASRG, because I have the naive belief that we > can do *something* about the problem, other than sticking our > collective heads in the sand. > We are trying to re-organize and move the group forward. While it may seem that no useful activity is going forth, we are working actively behind the scenes to make things happen. We are hoping to reorganize the group along the lines of a multiple subgroups, each focuses on a specific task, and consisting of a small number of a participants that can work effectively together away from the noise of the main list. We are also working on getting different industry players involved, so they can contribute. We also are working on setting up or figuring out a way on how to be able to evaluate proposals. Please bear with us for some time as we try to move this forward. 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 Mon Dec 1 18:08:23 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA09409 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 18:08:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQx9E-0002Qg-Mf for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 18:08:08 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB1N87PX009233 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 18:08:07 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQx9C-0002Oq-VT for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 18:08:07 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA09346 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 18:07:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQx9A-0004qY-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 18:08:04 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQx99-0004qV-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 18:08:03 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQx97-0002LN-I9; Mon, 01 Dec 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 1AQx8E-00023Z-Rd for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 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 SAA09239 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 18:06:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQx8B-0004pe-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 18:07:03 -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 1AQx8A-0004pa-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 18:07:02 -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 hB1N73GU030941; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 18:07:03 -0500 Received: from snark.thyrsus.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by snark.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hB1N73hC020057; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 18:07:03 -0500 Received: (from esr@localhost) by snark.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB1N721X020055; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 18:07:02 -0500 From: "Eric S. Raymond" To: "Mark E. Mallett" Cc: Yakov Shafranovich , ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Legal - Subject labeling - FTC response Message-ID: <20031201230702.GA17669@thyrsus.com> Reply-To: esr@thyrsus.com References: <3FCBB5D1.30400@solidmatrix.com> <20031201223524.GA16979@thyrsus.com> <20031201230012.GC717@iridium.mv.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20031201230012.GC717@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: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 18:07:02 -0500 Mark E. Mallett : > On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 05:35:24PM -0500, Eric S. Raymond wrote: > > > > I have a draft RFC, to which I've seen the following responses: > > Perhaps you could post the URL again for the latest rev? I haven't webbed it yet. Here it is: 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 machine-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 _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 1 18:36:07 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA11694 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 18:36:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQxa5-0003Uo-1Y for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 18:35:53 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB1NZr30013438 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 18:35:53 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQxa4-0003Uf-SZ for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 18:35:52 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA11660 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 18:35:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQxa0-0005XN-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 18:35:48 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQxa0-0005XK-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 18:35:48 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQxZI-0003OJ-Ds; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 18:35:04 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQxYp-0003Mv-BY for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 18:34:35 -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 SAA11598 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 18:34:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQxYl-0005V6-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 18:34:32 -0500 Received: from manatick.foretec.com ([4.17.168.5] helo=manatick) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQxYl-0005UQ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 18:34:31 -0500 Received: from dsl092-053-140.phl1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([66.92.53.140] helo=grelber.thyrsus.com) by manatick with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1AQxIi-0008Ca-Vg for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 18:17:57 -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 hB1NHtGU031046; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 18:17:55 -0500 Received: from snark.thyrsus.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by snark.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hB1NHthC029948; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 18:17:55 -0500 Received: (from esr@localhost) by snark.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB1NHtZo029946; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 18:17:55 -0500 From: "Eric S. Raymond" To: Yakov Shafranovich Cc: Alan DeKok , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General -- the state of play Message-ID: <20031201231755.GA26814@thyrsus.com> Reply-To: esr@thyrsus.com References: <20031201211458.9D56A1701D@mail.nitros9.org> <3FCBC883.1020907@solidmatrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3FCBC883.1020907@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, 1 Dec 2003 18:17:55 -0500 Yakov Shafranovich : > [...] We are hoping to reorganize the > group along the lines of a multiple subgroups, each focuses on a > specific task, and consisting of a small number of a participants that > can work effectively together away from the noise of the main list. We > are also working on getting different industry players involved, so they > can contribute. We also are working on setting up or figuring out a way > on how to be able to evaluate proposals. As should now be clear. I am volunteering to lead the labeling subgroup, if there is one. > Please bear with us for some time as we try to move this forward. Sorry, my intention was not to add to your troubles. I will cheerfully cooperate with the process. -- Eric S. Raymond _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 1 18:47:29 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA12618 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 18:47:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQxl5-0004pB-Qw for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 18:47:15 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB1NlFq1018527 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 18:47:15 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQxl5-0004oI-I0 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 18:47:15 -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 SAA12576 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 18:46:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQxl2-0005rf-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 18:47:12 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQxl2-0005rc-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 18:47:12 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQxkq-0004iK-Oc; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 18:47:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQxk3-0004gv-Vg for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 18:46:12 -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 SAA12313 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 18:45:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQxk0-0005lR-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 18:46:08 -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 1AQxjz-0005ks-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 18:46:08 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-363-328.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.133.188]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HP800JSMPZWP4@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 23:45:37 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Legal - Subject labeling - FTC response In-reply-to: <20031201230702.GA17669@thyrsus.com> To: esr@thyrsus.com Cc: "Mark E. Mallett" , ASRG Message-id: <3FCBD29C.3080801@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: <3FCBB5D1.30400@solidmatrix.com> <20031201223524.GA16979@thyrsus.com> <20031201230012.GC717@iridium.mv.net> <20031201230702.GA17669@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: Mon, 01 Dec 2003 18:45:32 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Eric S. Raymond wrote: > Mark E. Mallett : > >>On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 05:35:24PM -0500, Eric S. Raymond wrote: >> >>>I have a draft RFC, to which I've seen the following responses: >> >>Perhaps you could post the URL again for the latest rev? > > > I haven't webbed it yet. Here it is: > > This document has been added to the ASRG worksite at the following URL: http://asrg.kavi.com/apps/group_public/download.php/17/draft-irtf-asrg-filtering-can-spam-00.txt 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 Mon Dec 1 18:51:34 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA12868 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 18:51:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQxp0-00057m-8a for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 18:51:20 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB1NpItr019692 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 18:51:18 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQxp0-00057X-4C for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 18:51:18 -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 SAA12864 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 18:51:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQxox-0005yQ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 18:51:15 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQxow-0005yN-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 18:51:14 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQxok-00055I-71; Mon, 01 Dec 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 1AQxod-00054r-FY for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 18:50:55 -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 SAA12839 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 18:50:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQxoa-0005xr-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 18:50:52 -0500 Received: from mail.chariot.net.au ([203.87.95.38]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQxoY-0005xo-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 18:50:51 -0500 Received: from rebel (ppp-069.cust203-87-110.ghr.chariot.net.au [203.87.110.69]) by mail.chariot.net.au (Postfix) with SMTP id 1E4635FBB2; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 10:20:48 +1030 (CST) From: "Chris" To: "Yakov Shafranovich" , "Alan DeKok" Cc: Subject: RE: [Asrg] 0. General -- the state of play 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: <3FCBC883.1020907@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: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 10:24:34 +1030 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > Please bear with us for some time as we try to move this forward. > Sorry Yakov I did not get this far before shooting off my "to poll or not to poll" I will wait to see what you shake out of the bushes first Regards Chris > -----Original Message----- > From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of Yakov > Shafranovich > Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 9:32 AM > To: Alan DeKok > Cc: asrg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General -- the state of play > > > Alan DeKok wrote: > > "Eric S. Raymond" wrote: > > > >> We're being distracted by stuff that (I think) is less important > >>than putting an IETF stamp on *some* LMAP design. I have my own > >>preferences but I'm not going to push them here. The point is we > >>need to have a road forward. > > > > There is significant opposition to doing *anything*; with > > the excuse that the proposal (whatever it is) is not perfect, or will > > cost too much to deploy, or that it hasn't been demonstrated to be > > useful, etc. > > > > There is so much opposition to LMAP related solutions that I'm > > skeptical if it (or any proposal) will ever be approved by anyone. > > I'm still involved in ASRG, because I have the naive belief that we > > can do *something* about the problem, other than sticking our > > collective heads in the sand. > > > > We are trying to re-organize and move the group forward. While it may > seem that no useful activity is going forth, we are working actively > behind the scenes to make things happen. We are hoping to reorganize the > group along the lines of a multiple subgroups, each focuses on a > specific task, and consisting of a small number of a participants that > can work effectively together away from the noise of the main list. We > are also working on getting different industry players involved, so they > can contribute. We also are working on setting up or figuring out a way > on how to be able to evaluate proposals. > > Please bear with us for some time as we try to move this forward. > > 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 _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 1 18:54:22 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA12977 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 18:54:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQxrj-0005L5-TH for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 18:54:08 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB1Ns7TV020517 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 18:54:07 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQxrj-0005Kq-Nq for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 18:54:07 -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 SAA12930 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 18:53:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQxrg-00060f-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 18:54:04 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQxrg-00060c-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 18:54:04 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQxrd-0005Ia-3X; Mon, 01 Dec 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 1AQxql-0005HK-0Y for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 18:53:08 -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 SAA12906 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 18:52:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQxqh-0005zb-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 18:53:03 -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 1AQxqg-0005z5-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 18:53:03 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-363-328.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.133.188]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HP800J31QBEP4@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 23:52:31 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Legal - Subject labeling - FTC response In-reply-to: <20031201223524.GA16979@thyrsus.com> To: esr@thyrsus.com Cc: John R Levine , ASRG Message-id: <3FCBD43A.6000305@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: <3FCBB5D1.30400@solidmatrix.com> <20031201223524.GA16979@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: Mon, 01 Dec 2003 18:52:26 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Eric S. Raymond wrote: > Yakov Shafranovich : > >>I received some feedback from the FTC today. As it stands right now, the >>FTC has only begun preliminary analysis of the bill. Since this >>particular report on filtering has an 18 months deadline, work has not >>begun on it yet. When the FTC begins working on this report, input from >>the IETF and the ASRG will be solicited. > > > Good. Then the right time to standards-track a labeling RFC is *now*, > so we'll have it in hand with a decent amount of community review when > FTC comes knocking. > > This goal is not exclusive of other RFCs or findings. The fact that > "input from the IETF and the ASRG will be solicited" means we MUST > have a constructive response in *addition* to whatever else we do, or > lose future influence on the interpretation and implementation of > CAN-SPAM. > [..] > > I'm volunteering to be the point guy on this. The issue interests me, and my > public fame might turn out to be a useful tool when it comes time to talk > the FTC and Congress out of peeing in the proposal so they'll like the > flavor better. We're at particular risk of that here because the issue > has little technical depth, increasing the risk that some bureacrat will > think he understands the background issues enough to "improve" an RFC. (The > most likely attempted "improvement" will be a more elaborate classification > system.) > > Let me reiterate that I do not view this effort as competitive with > any of the other proposals on the table (LMAP, callback, pull, MTA > labeling, whatever) but as complementary with them. > > Those of you with interest in this issue, please work with me to > improve the draft. > > What is the next step? If I'm reading RFC2026 correctly, it would be > publishing my proposal as an Internet-Draft with a view to having it > accepted as a Proposed Standard. > We can publish the draft as an Internet draft via the group, I will discuss that with John. The goal here would be to start a discussion on the issue. If a filtering subgroup is created, this will end up there probably. 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 Mon Dec 1 18:55:22 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA13045 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 18:55:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQxse-0005Wq-Al for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 18:55:08 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB1Nt4jE021129 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 18:55:04 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQxsd-0005Tx-Oc for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 18:55:03 -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 SAA13020 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 18:54:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQxsa-00062F-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 18:55:00 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQxsa-000629-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 18:55:00 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQxsc-0005Rd-6W; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 18:55:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQxsE-0005R5-Lr for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 18:54:38 -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 SAA12975 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 18:54:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQxsB-00061Z-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 18:54:35 -0500 Received: from bulk.resource.org ([192.101.98.10]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQxsA-00060Q-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 18:54:34 -0500 Received: from bulk.resource.org (localhost.resource.org [127.0.0.1]) by bulk.resource.org (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id hB1Ns0u0001300; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 15:54:00 -0800 (PST) Received: (from carl@localhost) by bulk.resource.org (8.12.2/8.12.2/Submit) id hB1Nrxib001299; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 15:53:59 -0800 (PST) From: Carl Malamud Message-Id: <200312012353.hB1Nrxib001299@bulk.resource.org> Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Legal - Subject labeling - FTC response In-Reply-To: <3FCBD29C.3080801@solidmatrix.com> To: Yakov Shafranovich CC: esr@thyrsus.com, "Mark E. Mallett" , ASRG Organization: Memory Palace Press X-Winch: Warn 9.5i X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL94 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 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 15:53:59 -0800 (PST) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > This document has been added to the ASRG worksite at the following URL: > > http://asrg.kavi.com/apps/group_public/download.php/17/draft-irtf-asrg-filtering-can-spam-00.txt > Hi Yakov - A somewhat related document is draft-malamud-no-soliciting-02, which should be coming out of the i-d queue adn. Source for the current doc can always be found at: http://trusted.resource.org/no-solicit/ Regards, Carl _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 1 19:24:34 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA13809 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 19:24:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQyKx-0006xb-F6 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 19:24:19 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB20OJko026756 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 19:24:19 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQyKx-0006xT-6b for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 19:24:19 -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 TAA13782 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 19:24:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQyKv-0006Nu-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 19:24:17 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQyKv-0006Nr-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 19:24:17 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQyKf-0006tc-Ow; Mon, 01 Dec 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 1AQyKY-0006tC-Ph for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 19:23:54 -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 TAA13773 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 19:23:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQyKX-0006NS-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 19:23:53 -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 1AQyKW-0006NK-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 19:23:52 -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 hB20NnGU031625; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 19:23:49 -0500 Received: from snark.thyrsus.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by snark.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hB20NnhC023817; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 19:23:49 -0500 Received: (from esr@localhost) by snark.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB20Nnfl023815; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 19:23:49 -0500 From: "Eric S. Raymond" To: Carl Malamud Cc: Yakov Shafranovich , "Mark E. Mallett" , ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Legal - Subject labeling - FTC response Message-ID: <20031202002349.GA32079@thyrsus.com> Reply-To: esr@thyrsus.com References: <3FCBD29C.3080801@solidmatrix.com> <200312012353.hB1Nrxib001299@bulk.resource.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200312012353.hB1Nrxib001299@bulk.resource.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: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 19:23:49 -0500 Carl Malamud : > A somewhat related document is draft-malamud-no-soliciting-02, which > should be coming out of the i-d queue adn. Source for the current > doc can always be found at: > > http://trusted.resource.org/no-solicit/ Hmmm. Carl, should we be using the same class keywords, perhaps? It would be a trivial change to my draft, as our categories are equivalent. In fact, I see no good reason the "Sender-Keywords" header in my proposal shouldn't become "Solicitation". Then my proposal would simply become a requirement that commercial email MUST be labeled with the same keywords in a Solicitation header as are specified in your MTA-labeling draft. This would unify your MTA-labeling proposal with our proposed recommendation to the FTC on CAN-SPAM labeling in a nice way. If and when both drafts become RFCs, they can use the same IANA registry for solicitation keywords. In fact, this is so obviously the right thing that I'm going to go do it to my draft right now. I hope this will mean that advocates of MTA labeling and spam-labeling standards can get behind these proposals and cooperate rather than treating these alternatives as exclusive. -- Eric S. Raymond _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 1 19:26:24 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA13861 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 19:26:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQyMf-00079s-Gn for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 19:26:08 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB20Q54N027517 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 19:26:05 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQyMf-00079i-55 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 19:26:05 -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 TAA13851 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 19:25:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQyMd-0006PR-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 19:26:03 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQyMd-0006PO-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 19:26:03 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQyMc-00073z-BM; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 19:26:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQyM6-00073B-0Z for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 19:25:32 -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 TAA13840 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 19:25:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQyM4-0006P3-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 19:25:28 -0500 Received: from smtp14.fre.skanova.net ([195.67.227.31]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQyM3-0006P0-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 19:25:27 -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 hB20PCMS015551; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 01:25:12 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <016101c3b86a$c2e50920$0f5ad3d9@Klokburken2> From: "Dag Kihlman" To: "David Maxwell" Cc: , References: <001001c3b66e$2923b690$0f5ad3d9@Klokburken2> <20031201171654.GC28951@mail> <001601c3b84f$9a972630$0f5ad3d9@Klokburken2> <20031201224330.GD28951@mail> 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: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 01:25:16 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Maxwell" > So, for general protocol design, I'd agree that an 'SMTP replacement' > should probably require fewer round trips than current SMTP. Perhaps > something like: > True! The number of roundtrips is a matter of statistics and mathematics. It would not really be creative to take the textbook as a divine commandment. DCOM, CORBA, Web Services and COM (in Component Services etc) address the resource consumption by avoiding roundtrips, but a mail server will have many more break points, i.e. "Not OK" so the textbooks are not 100% accurate. The important thing is to convince others that SMTP has too many rountrips. A more slimmed approach is needed. > I have nothing against looking at replacements for SMTP - but I would > suggest that it should occur on a sub-list. It's a longer term project > than tweaking the existing protocol, and I'd prefer that it not bog down > discussions of changes that could be made more rapidly. I agree. But I think we are too few to discuss this issue and the number of possible implementations are too many. Possibly the best way is to implement solutions and test them. My students will implement a Web Service based solution with no connection to SMTP. I hope to encourage some of them to do a final thesis on the subject push or pull, hopefully with some implementations cooperating with SMTP mail servers. Since some of my colleagues believe in SMTP I think no one need worry that the students will get only the twisted ideas. ;-) I would be happy passing any papers on pull to the students... Papers on push are not cencured but they are abundant so the students will find them anyway... /DK _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 1 19:27:22 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA13924 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 19:27:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQyNf-0007Nb-G9 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 19:27:07 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB20R7D6028353 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 19:27:07 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQyNe-0007LP-LB for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 19:27:06 -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 TAA13898 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 19:26:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQyNa-0006QV-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 19:27:02 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQyNZ-0006QS-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 19:27:01 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQyNZ-0007Ce-Ms; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 19:27:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQyNH-0007Bj-6h for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 19:26:43 -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 TAA13878 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 19:26:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQyNF-0006Pq-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 19:26:41 -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 1AQyNE-0006Pa-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 19:26:41 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-363-328.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.133.188]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HP8004CPRTXD4@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 00:25:16 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Legal - Subject labeling - FTC response In-reply-to: <20031202002349.GA32079@thyrsus.com> To: esr@thyrsus.com Cc: Carl Malamud , "Mark E. Mallett" , ASRG Message-id: <3FCBDBE5.8090908@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: <3FCBD29C.3080801@solidmatrix.com> <200312012353.hB1Nrxib001299@bulk.resource.org> <20031202002349.GA32079@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: Mon, 01 Dec 2003 19:25:09 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Eric S. Raymond wrote: > Carl Malamud : > >>A somewhat related document is draft-malamud-no-soliciting-02, which >>should be coming out of the i-d queue adn. Source for the current >>doc can always be found at: >> >> http://trusted.resource.org/no-solicit/ > > > Hmmm. Carl, should we be using the same class keywords, perhaps? It would > be a trivial change to my draft, as our categories are equivalent. > > In fact, I see no good reason the "Sender-Keywords" header in my proposal > shouldn't become "Solicitation". Then my proposal would simply become > a requirement that commercial email MUST be labeled with the same keywords > in a Solicitation header as are specified in your MTA-labeling draft. > > This would unify your MTA-labeling proposal with our proposed recommendation to > the FTC on CAN-SPAM labeling in a nice way. If and when both drafts become > RFCs, they can use the same IANA registry for solicitation keywords. > > In fact, this is so obviously the right thing that I'm going to go do it to > my draft right now. > > I hope this will mean that advocates of MTA labeling and spam-labeling > standards can get behind these proposals and cooperate rather than treating > these alternatives as exclusive. Perhaps the two drafts should be merged together? 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 Mon Dec 1 19:27:22 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA13925 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 19:27:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQyNf-0007Nc-Gc for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 19:27:07 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB20R7F3028351 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 19:27:07 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQyNe-0007Kj-LJ for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 19:27:06 -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 TAA13895 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 19:26:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQyNZ-0006QR-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 19:27:01 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQyNZ-0006QO-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 19:27:01 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQyNZ-0007C7-1f; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 19:27:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQyMf-00079l-Fl for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 19:26:05 -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 TAA13854 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 19:25:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQyMd-0006PU-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 19:26:03 -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 1AQyMd-0006PN-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 19:26:03 -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 hB20Q3GU031650; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 19:26:03 -0500 Received: from snark.thyrsus.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by snark.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hB20Q3hC025930; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 19:26:03 -0500 Received: (from esr@localhost) by snark.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB20Q34D025928; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 19:26:03 -0500 From: "Eric S. Raymond" To: Yakov Shafranovich Cc: John R Levine , ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Legal - Subject labeling - FTC response Message-ID: <20031202002603.GB32079@thyrsus.com> Reply-To: esr@thyrsus.com References: <3FCBB5D1.30400@solidmatrix.com> <20031201223524.GA16979@thyrsus.com> <3FCBD43A.6000305@solidmatrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3FCBD43A.6000305@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, 1 Dec 2003 19:26:03 -0500 Yakov Shafranovich : > We can publish the draft as an Internet draft via the group, I will > discuss that with John. The goal here would be to start a discussion on > the issue. If a filtering subgroup is created, this will end up there > probably. You may count on me to be cooperative. I am about to fix my draft to be compatible with Carl Malamud's NO SOLICITING proposal. The changes will be trivial. -- Eric S. Raymond _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 1 19:32:22 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA14090 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 19:32:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQySV-0007Yq-9H for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 19:32:07 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB20W7fD029022 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 19:32:07 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQySV-0007Y1-2K for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 19:32:07 -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 TAA14071 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 19:31:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQyST-0006UV-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 19:32:05 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQyST-0006US-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 19:32:05 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQySP-0007Ve-IJ; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 19:32:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQyRh-0007V1-J3 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 19:31:17 -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 TAA14061 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 19:31:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQyRf-0006Tv-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 19:31:15 -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 1AQyRf-0006Tc-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 19:31:15 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-363-328.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.133.188]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HP800FT0S0WTB@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 00:29:26 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals - Pull System (revisited) In-reply-to: <016101c3b86a$c2e50920$0f5ad3d9@Klokburken2> To: Dag Kihlman Cc: David Maxwell , asrg@ietf.org, scrosby@cs.rice.edu Message-id: <3FCBDCE0.9090903@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> <20031201171654.GC28951@mail> <001601c3b84f$9a972630$0f5ad3d9@Klokburken2> <20031201224330.GD28951@mail> <016101c3b86a$c2e50920$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: Mon, 01 Dec 2003 19:29:20 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Dag Kihlman wrote: > From: "David Maxwell" [..] >>I have nothing against looking at replacements for SMTP - but I would >>suggest that it should occur on a sub-list. It's a longer term project >>than tweaking the existing protocol, and I'd prefer that it not bog down >>discussions of changes that could be made more rapidly. > > > I agree. But I think we are too few to discuss this issue and the number of > possible implementations are too many. If sufficient interest can be gathered, we can look into a subgroup. 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 Mon Dec 1 19:47:40 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA14435 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 19:47:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQyhJ-0000Ch-Cu for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 19:47:25 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB20lP4A000777 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 19:47:25 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQyhJ-0000CS-6q for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 19:47:25 -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 TAA14427 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 19:47:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQyhH-0006du-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 19:47:23 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQyhH-0006dr-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 19:47:23 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQygv-00008W-7O; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 19:47:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQygB-00006j-HH for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 19:46:15 -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 TAA14412 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 19:46:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQyg9-0006d9-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 19:46:13 -0500 Received: from bulk.resource.org ([192.101.98.10]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQyg8-0006cx-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 19:46:13 -0500 Received: from bulk.resource.org (localhost.resource.org [127.0.0.1]) by bulk.resource.org (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id hB20jgu0005139; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 16:45:42 -0800 (PST) Received: (from carl@localhost) by bulk.resource.org (8.12.2/8.12.2/Submit) id hB20jgr7005138; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 16:45:42 -0800 (PST) From: Carl Malamud Message-Id: <200312020045.hB20jgr7005138@bulk.resource.org> Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Legal - Subject labeling - FTC response In-Reply-To: <20031202002349.GA32079@thyrsus.com> To: esr@thyrsus.com CC: Yakov Shafranovich , "Mark E. Mallett" , ASRG Organization: Memory Palace Press X-Winch: Warn 9.5i X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL94 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 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 16:45:42 -0800 (PST) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Eric - I agree that the labels could share the same registry. But, one of the things I tried to do in my draft is let somebody else worry about what the labels are and how they are defined. It got bootstrapped with three easy ones, but I'd sure like the FTC or somebody else to worry about what these tokens really mean and who is supposed to use them. So, I'm not sure I'm comfortable with language in an i-d or rfc like "Commercial electronic mail MUST be labeled". Seems like that belongs in a law, not a standard. Do you think we can, in a proposed standard, require certain types of content to be labeled, or might we be better off simply specifying a carrier mechanism that can be used and let somebody else do the requiring? Also, do you think asrg will reach consensus in time to make a recommendation? Those people in DC sure have a lean and mean operation compared to ours. :) (BTW, I did both MTA protocol-level and header-level definitions under the theory that even if you require a header, some folks might forget to insert the label and, in that case, perhaps an intermediate relay might step in to help out via the trace fields ... in either case, the receiving mua and the receiving mta's get to decide what to believe and what to do with the message.) Regards, Carl > Carl Malamud : > > A somewhat related document is draft-malamud-no-soliciting-02, which > > should be coming out of the i-d queue adn. Source for the current > > doc can always be found at: > > > > http://trusted.resource.org/no-solicit/ > > Hmmm. Carl, should we be using the same class keywords, perhaps? It would > be a trivial change to my draft, as our categories are equivalent. > > In fact, I see no good reason the "Sender-Keywords" header in my proposal > shouldn't become "Solicitation". Then my proposal would simply become > a requirement that commercial email MUST be labeled with the same keywords > in a Solicitation header as are specified in your MTA-labeling draft. > > This would unify your MTA-labeling proposal with our proposed recommendation to > the FTC on CAN-SPAM labeling in a nice way. If and when both drafts become > RFCs, they can use the same IANA registry for solicitation keywords. > > In fact, this is so obviously the right thing that I'm going to go do it to > my draft right now. > > I hope this will mean that advocates of MTA labeling and spam-labeling > standards can get behind these proposals and cooperate rather than treating > these alternatives as exclusive. > -- > Eric S. Raymond > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 1 19:55:21 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA14571 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 19:55:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQyok-0000Tk-Fa for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 19:55:06 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB20t6cU001837 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 19:55:06 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQyok-0000TY-9Y for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 19:55:06 -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 TAA14560 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 19:54:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQyoi-0006hO-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 19:55:04 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQyoi-0006hL-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 19:55:04 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQyog-0000Pf-Ad; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 19:55:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQynx-0000P2-2E for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 19:54:17 -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 TAA14545 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 19:54:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQynv-0006gs-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 19:54:15 -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 1AQynu-0006gp-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 19:54:14 -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 hB20sEGU031837; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 19:54:14 -0500 Received: from snark.thyrsus.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by snark.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hB20sEhC020359; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 19:54:14 -0500 Received: (from esr@localhost) by snark.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB20sExk020357; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 19:54:14 -0500 From: "Eric S. Raymond" To: Yakov Shafranovich Cc: Carl Malamud , "Mark E. Mallett" , ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Legal - Subject labeling - FTC response Message-ID: <20031202005414.GD32079@thyrsus.com> Reply-To: esr@thyrsus.com References: <3FCBD29C.3080801@solidmatrix.com> <200312012353.hB1Nrxib001299@bulk.resource.org> <20031202002349.GA32079@thyrsus.com> <3FCBDBE5.8090908@solidmatrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3FCBDBE5.8090908@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, 1 Dec 2003 19:54:14 -0500 Yakov Shafranovich : > Perhaps the two drafts should be merged together? I'm open to this possibility. Actually the only considerations were technical I'd do it in a heartbeat -- I have no ego investment in being the only name at the top. But the relevant question is actually political -- and no, I don't mean IETF politics :-). My draft is designed for a particular, narrow purpose -- to be the IETF's response to the request for IETF input on the labeling standard contemplated in CAN-SPAM section 11.2. Carl's draft addresses the same problem, but in a way that is probably not under the remit given FTC by CAN-SPAM. Therefore it may be politically best to keep the two drafts separate, unless we're going to try to sell the FTC on the theory CAN-SPAM gives it authority to make regulations bot only with respect to my draft but with respect to his. -- Eric S. Raymond _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 1 20:29:25 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA15294 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 20:29:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQzLj-0001s6-2P for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 20:29:11 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB21TBjZ007193 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 20:29:11 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQzLi-0001rw-Ly for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 20:29:10 -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 UAA15279 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 20:28:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQzLg-00071E-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 20:29:08 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQzLg-00071B-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 20:29:08 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQzLZ-0001pg-HP; Mon, 01 Dec 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 1AQzLK-0001pO-JF for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 20:28:46 -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 UAA15276 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 20:28:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQzLI-000717-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 20:28:44 -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 1AQzLH-000714-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 20:28:43 -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 hB21SiGU032111; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 20:28:44 -0500 Received: from snark.thyrsus.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by snark.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hB21SihC010137; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 20:28:44 -0500 Received: (from esr@localhost) by snark.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB21ShvH010135; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 20:28:43 -0500 From: "Eric S. Raymond" To: Carl Malamud Cc: Yakov Shafranovich , "Mark E. Mallett" , ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Legal - Subject labeling - FTC response Message-ID: <20031202012843.GE32079@thyrsus.com> Reply-To: esr@thyrsus.com References: <20031202002349.GA32079@thyrsus.com> <200312020045.hB20jgr7005138@bulk.resource.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200312020045.hB20jgr7005138@bulk.resource.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: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 20:28:43 -0500 Carl Malamud : > I agree that the labels could share the same registry. But, one of the > things I tried to do in my draft is let somebody else worry about > what the labels are and how they are defined. It got bootstrapped > with three easy ones, but I'd sure like the FTC or somebody else > to worry about what these tokens really mean and who is > supposed to use them. So, I'm not sure I'm comfortable > with language in an i-d or rfc like "Commercial electronic mail > MUST be labeled". Seems like that belongs in a law, not > a standard. I hear you. And I think I've got the solution to your problem. Or *a* solution, anyhow. You see, I didn't just pull those three labels out of my butt -- they're the minimum set of categories required by CAN-SPAM, which actually does a pretty good job of defining them. My draft refers their definition to CAN-SPAM, and thus to FTC as the implementing regulatory authority. There goes one of your problems. :-) Remember that my draft is intended *specifically* as a response to the section 11.2 language in CAN-SPAN that enjoins the IETF to develop a labeling requirement in conformance with IETF standards; said labeling requirement would have the force of law. It's a happy coincidence that it dovetails so exactly with your proposal, but that was not my original intention. So we're in an interesting gray area here. We need to say MUST so our recommendation to FTC will have the appropriate meaning in *legal* and *political* terms. You say "Seems like that belongs in a law, not a standard." and you're right; if the FTC doesn't reject the IETF's recommendation, we will in effect be writing law. And I give it 60% odds the FTC will just adopt the draft whole, because messing with it would require extra work. The 40% chance is that some FTC staffer or Congessman will get a bug up his butt about other kinds of "bad" content and want to elaborate the keyword system. In my Visualization of the Cosmic All, the most likely proposal for a new keyword is DRUGS. > Do you think we can, in a proposed standard, require certain > types of content to be labeled, or might we be better off simply > specifying a carrier mechanism that can be used and let somebody > else do the requiring? Mechanism-only would satisfy the IETF's traditional requirements, but not the request we've had dropped on us by CAN-SPAM 11.2. > Also, do you think asrg will reach > consensus in time to make a recommendation? Those people > in DC sure have a lean and mean operation compared to ours. :) I think you just helped things along a whole hell of a lot, actually. Your draft and my draft now reinforce each other, making it politically more difficult to oppose either one without looking like a spoiler. I'll have some more comments on your draft off-list. -- Eric S. Raymond _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 1 20:30:18 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA15342 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 20:30:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQzMZ-00025L-HL for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 20:30:03 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB21U3h3008009 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 20:30:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQzMY-00024W-Ep for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 20:30:02 -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 UAA15314 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 20:29:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQzMW-00071i-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 20:30:00 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQzMV-00071f-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 20:29:59 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQzMW-0001xn-8u; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 20:30:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQzLu-0001tj-Fa for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 20:29:22 -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 UAA15283 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 20:29:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQzLs-00071L-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 20:29:20 -0500 Received: from krusty-motorsports.com ([192.94.170.8] ident=exim) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQzLr-00071H-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 20:29:19 -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 1AR0Ho-0000SC-Ov for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 02:29:12 +0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=localhost) by skipper.averillpark.net with esmtp (Exim 4.22) id 1AQzIu-0006hT-5a for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 20:26:16 -0500 From: Richard Welty Subject: Re[2]: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Legal - Subject labeling - FTC response To: ASRG Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: INLINE References: <200312020045.hB20jgr7005138@bulk.resource.org> In-Reply-To: <200312020045.hB20jgr7005138@bulk.resource.org> Reply-To: esr@thyrsus.com 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: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 20:26:14 -0500 (EST) On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 16:45:42 -0800 (PST) Carl Malamud wrote: > I agree that the labels could share the same registry. But, one of the > things I tried to do in my draft is let somebody else worry about > what the labels are and how they are defined. It got bootstrapped > with three easy ones, but I'd sure like the FTC or somebody else > to worry about what these tokens really mean and who is > supposed to use them. So, I'm not sure I'm comfortable > with language in an i-d or rfc like "Commercial electronic mail > MUST be labeled". Seems like that belongs in a law, not > a standard. if i might suggest, normally in the crypto groups, algorithms and their labeling are generally separated out from the protocols. this allowed, for example, AES to easily be added to the IPSec and SSH suites w/o messing with the existing drafts. i would submit that labeling should be a separate draft which can subsequently be supplemented or superceeded. having suggested it, i suppose i should also state that i'm willing to pull this part out of the existing drafts to stand on its own. 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 Mon Dec 1 20:51:29 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA15882 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 20:51:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQzh4-00031c-8M for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 20:51:15 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB21pENg011622 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 20:51:14 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQzh4-00031N-1A for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 20:51:14 -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 UAA15857 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 20:50:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQzh1-0007CY-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 20:51:11 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQzh1-0007CV-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 20:51:11 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQzgs-0002x8-Hz; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 20:51:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQzgZ-0002we-GD for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 20:50:43 -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 UAA15852 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 20:50:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQzgX-0007CM-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 20:50:41 -0500 Received: from pigeon.verisign.com ([65.205.251.71]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQzgW-0007CJ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 20:50:40 -0500 Received: from mou1wnexc01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.53]) by pigeon.verisign.com (8.12.10/) with ESMTP id hB21oeT1000890; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 17:50:40 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 17:50:40 -0800 Message-ID: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0111323A@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Bill Pease'" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - deprecate all list/bulk mailing and cha nge to RSS 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, 1 Dec 2003 17:50:36 -0800 > My point was simply that if RSS cannot be extended to support > a set of > standard marketing features, many legitimate email publishers are not > going to migrate to it because it won't meet their > communication needs. > There is also the larger order problem that RSS faces as a pull > technology: it does't meet the needs of organizations who > rely on push > email to alert supporters about urgent issues. I am not sure about that, I am pretty sure that there is an RSS feed on the Dean campaign public blog. But the wider point about the need to mix push with pull is surely right. My view of pull is that I want to be able to subscribe to information feeds and have my wireless gizmo opportunistically grab information onto it. So I am wandering arround and my handheld is sucking bits from whatever network is available and advertises itself as being public access. (Anyone want to propose a SID naming convention for 802.11b?). My use of that material would be browsing rather than surfing. In the early days of the Web it was NOT an interactive resource, there was not a lot of content. The browsing metaphor was appropriate because the Web was like a book that you read in a random order and at haphazard times. The metaphor changed to surfing when the interactive stuff started. I would like to be able to connect to CNET, Wired, Salon, Buzzflash, and similar news format sites and have the information available for me to read whenever I want, even when I am not connected (a plane with no Internet connectivity). This would clearly not be appropriate for slashdot, or a lot of other sites. I would also like to be able to connect to my bank accounts as a personal RSS feed, also any businesses I have accounts with. I want Microsoft Money to automatically keep me in sync. Email does not seem to be working for invoicing - yet. Sure there are some tweaks the protocol could benefit from, who do we need to get involved to find out what those tweaks are? What forum could we useto drive development of the RSS protocol? Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 1 20:52:23 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA15915 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 20:52:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQzhs-0003EV-DF for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 20:52:08 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB21q4GK012428 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 20:52:04 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQzhr-0003EL-Ab for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 20:52:03 -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 UAA15898 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 20:51:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQzho-0007D4-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 20:52:01 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQzho-0007D1-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 20:52:00 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQzhp-00037D-80; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 20:52:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQzhI-00033C-Tx for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 20:51:29 -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 UAA15861 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 20:51:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQzhG-0007Ce-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 20:51:26 -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 1AQzhG-0007CU-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 20:51:26 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-363-328.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.133.188]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HP8007X6VQIYB@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 01:49:37 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Legal - Subject labeling - FTC response In-reply-to: <20031202005414.GD32079@thyrsus.com> To: esr@thyrsus.com Cc: Carl Malamud , "Mark E. Mallett" , ASRG Message-id: <3FCBEFA9.2010200@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: <3FCBD29C.3080801@solidmatrix.com> <200312012353.hB1Nrxib001299@bulk.resource.org> <20031202002349.GA32079@thyrsus.com> <3FCBDBE5.8090908@solidmatrix.com> <20031202005414.GD32079@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: Mon, 01 Dec 2003 20:49:29 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Eric S. Raymond wrote: > Yakov Shafranovich : > >>Perhaps the two drafts should be merged together? > > > I'm open to this possibility. Actually the only considerations were > technical I'd do it in a heartbeat -- I have no ego investment in > being the only name at the top. But the relevant question is actually > political -- and no, I don't mean IETF politics :-). > > My draft is designed for a particular, narrow purpose -- to be the IETF's > response to the request for IETF input on the labeling standard contemplated > in CAN-SPAM section 11.2. > It seems to us that there is no further research possible within the scope of ASRG for this draft, considering its narrow focus. As it stands now, the proper forum for this discussion would probably be the IETF. Therefore, what we would suggest, is to submit the draft to the IETF as a independent submission and then shift the discussion there. The proper forum for this discussion would either be the main IETF mailing list (as a starting point), or the ietf-822 mailing list (http://www.imc.org/ietf-822/index.html). If the IETF sends it back to us, then we can continue discussing it here. 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 Mon Dec 1 20:54:18 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA15958 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 20:54:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQzjn-0003NU-9S for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 20:54:04 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB21s3Y9012978 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 20:54:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQzjn-0003NF-19 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 20:54:03 -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 UAA15952 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 20:53:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQzjk-0007E5-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 20:54:00 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQzjk-0007E2-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 20:54:00 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQzjl-0003HK-4i; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 20:54:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQzjE-0003Gm-6v for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 20:53:28 -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 UAA15942 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 20:53:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQzjB-0007Dk-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 20:53:25 -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 1AQzjB-0007Dh-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 20:53:25 -0500 Received: (from schaefer@localhost) by candle.brasslantern.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id hB21rO905455 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 17:53:24 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: candle.brasslantern.com: schaefer set sender to schaefer@closedmail.com using -f From: Bart Schaefer Message-Id: <1031202015324.ZM5454@candle.brasslantern.com> In-Reply-To: <016101c3b86a$c2e50920$0f5ad3d9@Klokburken2> Comments: In reply to "Dag Kihlman" "Re: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals - Pull System (revisited)" (Dec 2, 1:25am) References: <001001c3b66e$2923b690$0f5ad3d9@Klokburken2> <20031201171654.GC28951@mail> <001601c3b84f$9a972630$0f5ad3d9@Klokburken2> <20031201224330.GD28951@mail> <016101c3b86a$c2e50920$0f5ad3d9@Klokburken2> X-Mailer: Z-Mail (5.0.0 30July97) To: 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: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 01:53:24 +0000 On Dec 2, 1:25am, Dag Kihlman wrote: } } The important thing is to convince others that SMTP has too many } rountrips. A more slimmed approach is needed. RFC 2920, perhaps? _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 1 20:56:18 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA16023 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 20:56:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQzli-0003YV-VI for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 20:56:03 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB21u2uQ013661 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 20:56:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQzli-0003YG-P3 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 20:56:02 -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 UAA16020 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 20:55:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQzlg-0007FH-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 20:56:00 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQzlg-0007FE-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 20:56:00 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQzlg-0003SX-Oi; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 20:56:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQzlR-0003S9-7x for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 20:55:45 -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 UAA16017 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 20:55:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQzlO-0007FB-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 20:55:42 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com ([65.205.251.73]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQzlO-0007F8-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 20:55:42 -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 hB21tgca017219; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 17:55:42 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc03.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 17:55:42 -0800 Message-ID: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0111323B@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Philip Miller'" , Yakov Shafranovich Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] The State of RSS Readers for Mailing List Funcionality 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, 1 Dec 2003 17:55:41 -0800 > 1. The lack of inate threading is painful. > The messages simply appear as a sequence of messages, by > default in date > order. The only other thing they can be sorted on is > 'Headline', which leads > me to ... It sounds to me as if we need to define ways to express the relationships in an HTML like markup. > 2. Email headers aren't preserved. > The message subject is used as the headline of each item. > Aside from the > subject, the gateway inserts the sender and date at the top > of the message. > Even worse, it cuts off the sender's actual email address, so > that only the > name appears, apparently to make it look nicer to the user. Sounds like an implementation choice, possibly anti-spam one? > 3. There's no reasonable way to display the meaningful email headers. > In terms of looking at a list of posts, I suppose it could be > reasonable to > insert the sender into the headline as well, but that would > wreak havoc on > sorting by subject. > > My conclusion is that NNTP is much better suited for this > task. Mail clients > frequently have integrated newsreaders, netnews posts have > headers analogous > to email's, and they interoperate well. The only real open > question in terms > of mailing-list/news interoperability is submission: should > it still be done > by emailing a list address, or should it be done by posting > to the news > group directly? It will be easier to fix RSS than NNTP at this point. NNTP is actually very good for mailing lists which is not suprising given that is exactly what it was designed for. People are proposing RSS for newsletter style stuff. They are using it mostly for blogs. It seems to need tweakage to be ideal for that application. But the protocol is extensible and can be tweaked. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 1 21:05:29 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA16309 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 21:05:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQzuc-0003y5-R0 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 21:05:15 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB225EGe015247 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 21:05:14 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQzuc-0003xq-Mt for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 21:05:14 -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 VAA16266 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 21:04:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQzua-0007LP-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 21:05:12 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQzuZ-0007LM-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 21:05:11 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQzuR-0003v2-3Z; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 21:05:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQzuG-0003u7-DP for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 21:04:52 -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 VAA16255 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 21:04:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQzuD-0007Ku-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 21:04:49 -0500 Received: from sccrmhc11.comcast.net ([204.127.202.55]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQzuD-0007Kb-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 21:04:49 -0500 Received: from fda.zemos.net ([68.38.12.170]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc11) with ESMTP id <2003120202041801100ntoq7e>; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 02:04:18 +0000 Received: from zemos.net (unknown [10.0.0.2]) by fda.zemos.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7975218685; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 11:10:36 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3FCBF334.6010607@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: Fridrik Skulason Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 4. Survey of Solutions - Methods of Authentication -Trojans]] References: <20031201182106.GF4067@f-prot.com> In-Reply-To: <20031201182106.GF4067@f-prot.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, 01 Dec 2003 21:04:36 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Fridrik Skulason wrote: >>But to trojan a machine to send spam. no way that becomes a federal crime, >>and today I believe it can be even classed as an act of terrorism. > > You are forgetting one thing. Most of the activity behind the zombie nets > is directed from countries where that is not the case, or where the laws > are weaker. For example some of the East European countries have only > recently introduced copyright laws, similar to those in the western world. > > In one country - I think it was Moldavia (but I may be mistaken), it is only > a crime to hack into a government-owned machine, for example. This is a legitimate problem. I think that as a policy matter, we should push governments that do have and enforce such laws to put pressure on countries that don't. There may be technical approaches to this as well, but I don't think they adequately address this political problem. > I am all for that - as I have said before, I am all in favour of any > method of authentication that meets the following criteria: I'll take a shot at justifying LMAP here. If any of this doesn't appear in the proposal draft we currently have, it may need to be added in some form. > 1) Has a realistic chance of being adopted globally. It does not > matter how elegant the method is, if none of the "big players" > adopt it. LMAP replaces current DNS lookups (rDNS, MX, A, etc). Current solutions are ad-hoc and have little to no semantic meaning. Switching to LMAP will reduce the global DNS load because there will be fewer lookups and better caching of the relevant data. Since a whole lot of the forgery out there is of the major sending domains (AOL, Yahoo, MSN/Hotmail), and there's currently no way for them to prevent that, they have an incentive to implement and enforce it. > 2) Solves the problem of establishing with a reasonable degree of > certainity that the sender is who he is. Any such method will > fail on a compromised system - there is no way any software on > a different machine can deteremine whether the "right" human is > actually pressing the keys. We just have to acknowledge that > limitation and move on - a "solution" to the problem of > compromised systems is beyond the scope of this. In terms of establishing one part of that, that's exactly the purpose of LMAP. It prevents a random server claiming to send mail on behalf of a domain that hasn't authorized it. > 3) Can not be (easily) abused to result in a DoS attack. I can think of a potential issue with LMAP and DoS attacks. Consider: If someone can poison the caches used by, say, AOL's incoming MXs to not list your legitimate MTA, then your mail is PERMFAILed incorrectly. Unfortunately, this is something that we as a group cannot try to solve. Our best approach would be to note this possibility and move on. __ Philip Miller _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 1 21:14:22 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA16617 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 21:14:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AR03E-0004WN-5i for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 21:14:08 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB22E8Xa017373 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 21:14:08 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AR03E-0004W8-0y for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 21:14:08 -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 VAA16610 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 21:13:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AR03B-0007UX-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 21:14:05 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AR03B-0007UU-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 21:14:05 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AR037-0004SV-EQ; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 21:14:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AR02u-0004SB-5h for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 21:13:48 -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 VAA16607 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 21:13:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AR02r-0007UK-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 21:13:45 -0500 Received: from mail008.syd.optusnet.com.au ([211.29.132.212]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AR02q-0007UF-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 21:13:44 -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 hB22DCK21028 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 13:13:13 +1100 Received: from [172.16.0.129] (helo=fred.fernhaven) by zen.fernhaven with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1AR02J-0003eB-00 for ; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 13:13:11 +1100 From: Brett Watson Organization: PhD Student, Macquarie University To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re[2]: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Legal - Subject labeling - FTC response 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: <200312021314.40083.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: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 13:14:40 +1100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 20:26:14 -0500 (EST) Richard Welty wrote: > if i might suggest, normally in the crypto groups, algorithms and their > labeling are generally separated out from the protocols. this allowed, > for example, AES to easily be added to the IPSec and SSH suites > w/o messing with the existing drafts. i would submit that labeling > should be a separate draft which can subsequently be supplemented > or superceeded. I heartily second that notion. Eric's draft makes a number of suggestions, of which the content-tagging tokens are only a small part. It would be better if the draft merely specified a *means* for those tokens to be incorporated, and the tokens themselves were externalised. Eric has already expressed the opinion that the tokens are the most likely candidate for tweaking by the other Powers That Be, so it would be wise to isolate them from the more technical aspects of the draft. This is also the area most likely to be expanded upon by other lawmaking bodies or future revisions to the law. If the Powers That Be are going to do any tweaking, let's give them something obvious to tweak that won't result in any technical brain damage. Let the main draft specify "Solicitation:" (or whatever) as the standard means of placing legally-required labels on a message, and define the labels themselves in another document entirely. (You may want to define a *grammar* for the labels in the main draft, but leave the actual vocabulary out of it.) Regards, TFBW _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 1 21:16:24 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA16685 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 21:16:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AR05C-0004mQ-RY for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 21:16:10 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB22GARA018371 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 21:16:10 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AR05C-0004mE-CV for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 21:16:10 -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 VAA16667 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 21:15:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AR059-0007Vk-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 21:16:07 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AR059-0007Vh-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 21:16:07 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AR052-0004f1-LA; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 21:16:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AR04S-0004eN-MR for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 21:15:24 -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 VAA16651 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 21:15:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AR04Q-0007VC-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 21:15:22 -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 1AR04P-0007Ut-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 21:15:21 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-363-328.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.133.188]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HP800D2IWWL5G@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 02:14:52 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 4. Survey of Solutions - Methods of Authentication -Trojans]] In-reply-to: <3FCBF334.6010607@zemos.net> To: Philip Miller Cc: Fridrik Skulason , asrg@ietf.org Message-id: <3FCBF595.7080202@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: <20031201182106.GF4067@f-prot.com> <3FCBF334.6010607@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, 01 Dec 2003 21:14:46 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Philip Miller wrote: > Fridrik Skulason wrote: [..] >> I am all for that - as I have said before, I am all in favour of any >> method of authentication that meets the following criteria: > > > I'll take a shot at justifying LMAP here. If any of this doesn't appear > in the proposal draft we currently have, it may need to be added in some > form. > [..] >> 3) Can not be (easily) abused to result in a DoS attack. > > > I can think of a potential issue with LMAP and DoS attacks. Consider: > If someone can poison the caches used by, say, AOL's incoming MXs to not > list your legitimate MTA, then your mail is PERMFAILed incorrectly. > Unfortunately, this is something that we as a group cannot try to solve. > Our best approach would be to note this possibility and move on. > [..] Take a look at: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dnsext-dns-threats-05.txt We should reference the document, and move on. BTW, if anyone wants to help with LMAP discussion draft, please email Alan. 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 Mon Dec 1 21:26:30 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA16866 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 21:26:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AR0Ey-00056v-OF for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 21:26:16 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB22QGZ6019642 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 21:26:16 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AR0Ex-00056j-15 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 21:26:15 -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 VAA16859 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 21:25:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AR0Eu-0007bP-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 21:26:12 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AR0Et-0007bL-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 21:26:11 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AR0El-000534-9f; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 21:26:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AR0EK-00052G-4X for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 21:25:36 -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 VAA16848 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 21:25:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AR0EH-0007b4-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 21:25:33 -0500 Received: from krusty-motorsports.com ([192.94.170.8] ident=exim) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AR0EH-0007b1-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 21:25:33 -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 1AR1AJ-0001P2-LO for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 03:25:31 +0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=localhost) by skipper.averillpark.net with esmtp (Exim 4.22) id 1AR0DF-0006kw-7q for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 21:24:29 -0500 From: Richard Welty Subject: Re[3]: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Legal - Subject labeling - FTC response To: asrg@ietf.org Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: INLINE References: <200312021314.40083.famous-asrg@nutters.org> In-Reply-To: <200312021314.40083.famous-asrg@nutters.org> Reply-To: asrg@ietf.org 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: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 21:24:28 -0500 (EST) On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 13:14:40 +1100 Brett Watson wrote: > Let the main draft specify "Solicitation:" (or whatever) as the standard means > of placing legally-required labels on a message, and define the labels > themselves in another document entirely. (You may want to define a *grammar* > for the labels in the main draft, but leave the actual vocabulary out of it.) actually, i'd lean towards a doc on grammar and other generic labeling details, and one with an actual set of labels, now that i think about it. 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 Mon Dec 1 21:41:25 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA17158 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 21:41:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AR0TN-0005ti-N8 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 21:41:09 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB22f9Qd022664 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 21:41:09 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AR0TN-0005tT-J0 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 21:41:09 -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 VAA17151 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 21:40:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AR0TK-0007in-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 21:41:06 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AR0TK-0007ik-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 21:41:06 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AR0TF-0005ph-M2; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 21:41:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AR0T2-0005pQ-3L for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 21:40:48 -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 VAA17144 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 21:40:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AR0Sz-0007ic-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 21:40:45 -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 1AR0Sy-0007iZ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 21:40:44 -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 hB22ejGU032742; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 21:40:45 -0500 Received: from snark.thyrsus.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by snark.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hB22ejhC029868; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 21:40:45 -0500 Received: (from esr@localhost) by snark.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB22ejW9029866; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 21:40:45 -0500 From: "Eric S. Raymond" To: Brett Watson Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Legal - Subject labeling - FTC response Message-ID: <20031202024045.GC18499@thyrsus.com> Reply-To: esr@thyrsus.com References: <200312021314.40083.famous-asrg@nutters.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200312021314.40083.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: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 21:40:45 -0500 Brett Watson : > I heartily second that notion. Eric's draft makes a number of > suggestions, of which the content-tagging tokens are only a small > part. It would be better if the draft merely specified a *means* for > those tokens to be incorporated, and the tokens themselves were > externalised. It's an appealing idea. But: (1) Right now, the draft is a complete and self-contained response to CAN-SPAM 11.2. I think it may be a bad idea tactically to split it apart. Better to give the FTC one simple document when it comes time. (2) The present vocabulary is not arbitrary, it is the categories *required* by CAN-SPAM. So there's a case for any further vocabulary extensions to be in a separate TS, but an equally strong case that these belong in the base document. (3) There's a coordination issue with Carl Malamud's NO-SOLICITATION I-D. I've just changed my draft to spell the header and keywords the exact same way he does. -- Eric S. Raymond _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 1 22:42:31 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA18660 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 22:42:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AR1QW-00080Q-LE for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 22:42:16 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB23gG9P030768 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 22:42:16 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AR1QW-00080B-FL for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 22:42:16 -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 WAA18654 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 22:42:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AR1QT-0000XS-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 22:42:13 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AR1QS-0000XP-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 22:42:12 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AR1QG-0007wY-T0; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 22:42:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AR1PY-0007sZ-65 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 22:41:16 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA18588 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 22:41:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AR1PU-0000WV-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 22:41:12 -0500 Received: from dci.doncaster.on.ca ([66.11.168.194] helo=smtp.istop.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AR1PU-0000WO-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 22:41:12 -0500 Received: from waltdnes.org (ip204-182.tor.istop.com [66.11.182.204]) by smtp.istop.com (Postfix) with SMTP id C171B37416 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 22:41:11 -0500 (EST) Received: by waltdnes.org (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Mon, 1 Dec 2003 22:41:19 +4300 From: Walter Dnes To: ASRG list Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - depracate all list/bulk mailing and changeto RSS Message-ID: <20031202034119.GA4991@m433> References: <20031201051230.GE3058@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: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 22:41:19 -0500 On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 03:56:38PM +1030, Chris wrote > > > > > *No support for various transactions that can be enabled within email > > > (e.g., donation, viral marketing). > > *************** > > Ding ding ding ding ding... we have a winner! The whole point behind > > this mailing list is to reduce/eliminate unsolicited marketing. If I > > want really exciting offers daily, I'll point my newsreader at > > alt.really.exciting.offers. If I want something, *I* will initiate the > > the contact. I do *NOT* want to be marketed to via my inbox, any more > > than I want to be marketed to via my phone at suppertime. Do you > > understand ? > > > > In that case set your personal filters or whatever to "NO UCE" > > but let the rest of the world decide what it wants and doesn't want > to read. > > speaking for myself I don't think you should be telling me what I > want to get in my mail box or don't want to get. > > of course I might be alone in this. I have no desire to stop email that you want to receive. What I do object to is unsolicited bulk email that gets sent to me. And I don't see why I should have to run filters, etc, to allow you to get email ads that you want. Install an RSS client. Or download shareware, and let it pop up ads on your desktop. -- Walter Dnes Email users are divided into two classes; 1) Those who have effective spam-blocking 2) Those who wish they did _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 2 01:07:41 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA21714 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 01:07:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AR3gx-0003GD-JN for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 01:07:23 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB267NrX012527 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 01:07:23 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AR3gw-0003Fq-UZ for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 01:07:22 -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 BAA21708 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 01:07:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AR3gt-0001sq-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 01:07:20 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AR3gt-0001sn-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 01:07:19 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AR3gb-00037r-QM; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 01:07:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AR3gQ-00037T-Ai for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 01:06:50 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA21700 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 01:06:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AR3gN-0001sd-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 01:06:47 -0500 Received: from ms-smtp-01-lbl.southeast.rr.com ([24.25.9.100] helo=ms-smtp-01-eri0.southeast.rr.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AR3gM-0001sa-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 01:06:46 -0500 Received: from DXHIRX1 ([24.74.0.12]) by ms-smtp-01-eri0.southeast.rr.com (8.12.10/8.12.7) with SMTP id hB266jSq017381 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 01:06:46 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <00f501c3b89a$659edbd0$0201a8c0@DXHIRX1> From: "Ken Hirsch" To: References: <001001c3b66e$2923b690$0f5ad3d9@Klokburken2> <20031201171654.GC28951@mail> <001601c3b84f$9a972630$0f5ad3d9@Klokburken2> <20031201224330.GD28951@mail> <016101c3b86a$c2e50920$0f5ad3d9@Klokburken2> <1031202015324.ZM5454@candle.brasslantern.com> Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Pull System Polling Overhead 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 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: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 01:05:33 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Pure pull systems suffer from polling overhead. This is already becoming a problem with RSS and think how few people know what RSS is. This is a potentially major scalability problem. See http://philringnalda.com/blog/2002/10/joels_rss_problem.php http://www.sidhe.org/~dan/blog/archives/000149.html http://www.sidhe.org/~dan/blog/archives/000170.html http://www.mnot.net/blog/2003/05/03/rss_traffic_characterisation http://www.teledyn.com/mt/archives/001496.html http://www.teledyn.com/mt/archives/001499.html http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2003/08/02/RSSNumbers The next major version of Windows (Longhorn) is slated to include an RSS reader. I think it was on the alphas distributed at PDC and available to MSDN subscribers. Personally I use a web-based RSS aggregator, which keeps things synched between home and office. It also has much lower bandwidth usage than client-side readers. I use bloglines (http://www.bloglines.com/), but there are some others: http://mywireservice.com/ http://fyuze.com/ http://www.newsisfree.com/ http://www.feed-me.info/DesktopDefault.aspx _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 2 01:50:33 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA22483 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 01:50:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AR4MN-0004TE-Di for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 01:50:16 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB26oB70017181 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 01:50:11 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AR4MN-0004T2-4i for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 01:50:11 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA22457 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 01:49:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AR4MJ-0002BV-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 01:50:07 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AR4MJ-0002BS-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 01:50:07 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AR4ME-0004PM-9M; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 01:50:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AR4LH-0004OU-PB for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 01:49:03 -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 BAA22441 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 01:48:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AR4LE-0002Aw-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 01:49:00 -0500 Received: from mail.chariot.net.au ([203.87.95.38]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AR4LD-0002At-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 01:48:59 -0500 Received: from rebel (ppp-098.cust203-87-110.ghr.chariot.net.au [203.87.110.98]) by mail.chariot.net.au (Postfix) with SMTP id DDA506064A; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 17:18:53 +1030 (CST) From: "Chris" To: "Walter Dnes" , "ASRG list" Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - depracate all list/bulk mailing and changeto 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: <20031202034119.GA4991@m433> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 17:22:42 +1030 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > I have no desire to stop email that you want to receive. What I do > object to is unsolicited bulk email that gets sent to me. Thats the purpose of this group, to define ways to let you get what you want and I get what I want I want my local airlines to send me details of their "specials" sometimes four a week I have opted in I *want* it in my inbox I don't want to have to keep reminding myself to "check my feed" or have YAP(yet another app) on my desktop and they don't do RSS anyway Are you going to force the airline companys to set up a feed for me? Regards Chris > -----Original Message----- > From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of > Walter Dnes > Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 2:11 PM > To: ASRG list > Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - depracate all list/bulk mailing and > changeto RSS > > > On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 03:56:38PM +1030, Chris wrote > > > > > > > *No support for various transactions that can be enabled > within email > > > > (e.g., donation, viral marketing). > > > *************** > > > Ding ding ding ding ding... we have a winner! The whole > point behind > > > this mailing list is to reduce/eliminate unsolicited marketing. If I > > > want really exciting offers daily, I'll point my newsreader at > > > alt.really.exciting.offers. If I want something, *I* will > initiate the > > > the contact. I do *NOT* want to be marketed to via my inbox, any more > > > than I want to be marketed to via my phone at suppertime. Do you > > > understand ? > > > > > > > In that case set your personal filters or whatever to "NO UCE" > > > > but let the rest of the world decide what it wants and doesn't want > > to read. > > > > speaking for myself I don't think you should be telling me what I > > want to get in my mail box or don't want to get. > > > > of course I might be alone in this. > -- > 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 Tue Dec 2 03:23:43 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA07952 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 03:23:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AR5oa-0001xX-Lr for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 03:23:26 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB28NO3O007532 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 03:23:24 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AR5oZ-0001x7-Td for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 03:23:23 -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 DAA07945 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 03:23:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AR5oX-0003Lz-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 03:23:21 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AR5oX-0003Lw-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 03:23:21 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AR5oC-0001tT-RJ; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 03:23:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AR5nG-0001sK-38 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 03:22:02 -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 DAA07922 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 03:21:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AR5nD-0003La-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 03:21:59 -0500 Received: from argon.connectinternetsolutions.com ([193.110.243.33] helo=argon.connect.org.uk) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AR5nD-0003LX-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 03:21:59 -0500 Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 1AR5nE-0003M1-Ie for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 08:22:00 +0000 In-Reply-To: <200312012353.hB1Nrxib001299@bulk.resource.org> Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Legal - Subject labeling - FTC response 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, 02 Dec 2003 08:22:00 +0000 > > > >A somewhat related document is draft-malamud-no-soliciting-02, found at: > > http://trusted.resource.org/no-solicit/ > The problem I have with the various NO-SOLICIT / NO-UCE proposals that have been made over the years is that they seem to imply that a system / recipient accepts UCE / solicitations *by* *default* unless it gives the sender notice. And that a sender will assume it's doing nothing "wrong" if it isn't given any such notice. It strikes me that this is completely contrary to the direction of this group (and the law in many jurisdictions). A recipient does not give implicit consent to any communication by not expressly denying it, any more that I accept that you can shoot me because I don't wear a T-shirt saying "No-Shooting". This particular no-solicit proposal has been elaborated to produce a rather coarse and inflexible recipient consent-expression system. I'm sure that most contributors and the chairs would agree that: 1. Most email recipients do not believe that they implicitly consent to all communications that they don't explicitly reject. This group shouldn't support any proposal which goes against this in any way. 2. Any consent expression system will need to be flexible and extensible if it's to be useful. Labelling the message (not the SMTP transaction) may be useful in enabling enforcement of recipient (or system) policy. This is the kind of thing that we're chartered to do, I believe. -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 2 03:32:28 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA08165 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 03:32:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AR5x0-0002XD-Rd for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 03:32:10 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB28W6HY009731 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 03:32:06 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AR5wz-0002Wn-Qe for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 03:32:05 -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 DAA08151 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 03:31:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AR5wx-0003SV-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 03:32:03 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AR5ww-0003SQ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 03:32:02 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AR5wu-0002SK-Id; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 03:32:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AR5wW-0002Rg-B3 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 03:31:36 -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 DAA08139 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 03:31:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AR5wT-0003S3-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 03:31:33 -0500 Received: from joy.songbird.com ([208.184.79.7]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AR5wT-0003RM-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 03:31:33 -0500 Received: from bbprime (jay.songbird.com [208.184.79.253]) by joy.songbird.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hB28blf16717; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 00:37:47 -0800 From: Dave Crocker Reply-To: Dave Crocker Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <68130331096.20031201224909@brandenburg.com> To: "Terry Sullivan" CC: "asrg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Asrg] 2. Update from the Analysis & Characterization Group In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 22:49:09 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Terry, TS> Here's a brief update from the small but highly motivated A&C TS> subgroup. kudoes on your motivation. TS> 1) We undertook an experiment to address the TS> seemingly commonplace belief that "different TS> people get different spam." For purposes of TS> this experiment, we analyzed two large TS> samples of spam (several-K relatively recent The obvious question is about your sampling methodology. How were the messages acquired? What are the characteristics of the different recipients? How many different recipients. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking Sunnyvale, CA USA _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 2 03:32:30 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA08180 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 03:32:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AR5x0-0002XE-Sk for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 03:32:12 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB28W6b8009732 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 03:32:06 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AR5x0-0002Wo-0d for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 03:32:06 -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 DAA08154 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 03:31:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AR5wx-0003SX-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 03:32:03 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AR5ww-0003SR-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 03:32:02 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AR5wv-0002ST-JJ; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 03:32:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AR5wX-0002Rp-KL for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 03:31:37 -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 DAA08142 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 03:31:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AR5wV-0003S9-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 03:31:35 -0500 Received: from joy.songbird.com ([208.184.79.7]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AR5wU-0003RN-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 03:31:34 -0500 Received: from bbprime (jay.songbird.com [208.184.79.253]) by joy.songbird.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hB28bkf16714; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 00:37:46 -0800 From: Dave Crocker Reply-To: Dave Crocker Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <135129167232.20031201222945@brandenburg.com> To: "Chris" CC: esr@thyrsus.com, "Yakov Shafranovich" , "ASRG" Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - anti-harvesting (was Inquiry about CallerID Verification) In-Reply-To: References: <20031201041154.GA32587@thyrsus.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 22:29:45 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Chris, C> Therefore any attempts to use a "feature" that is disputed will probably end C> up breaking some software good observation. we can probably make it work as a variant of 'be liberal in what you accept and conservative in what you send'. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking Sunnyvale, CA USA _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 2 03:55:33 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA08761 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 03:55:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AR6JP-0003mG-Ot for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 03:55:15 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB28tFmX014514 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 03:55:15 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AR6JP-0003m1-Ef for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 03:55:15 -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 DAA08744 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 03:55:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AR6JM-0003iP-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 03:55:12 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AR6JM-0003iM-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 03:55:12 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AR6JC-0003ho-EG; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 03:55:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AR6IW-0003hL-CD for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 03:54:20 -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 DAA08725 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 03:54:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AR6IT-0003hf-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 03:54:17 -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 1AR6IT-0003hc-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 03:54:17 -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 hB28sIGU003760; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 03:54:18 -0500 Received: from snark.thyrsus.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by snark.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hB28sHhC019096; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 03:54:17 -0500 Received: (from esr@localhost) by snark.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB28sHjH019094; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 03:54:17 -0500 From: "Eric S. Raymond" To: Jon Kyme Cc: ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Legal - Subject labeling - FTC response Message-ID: <20031202085416.GA17091@thyrsus.com> Reply-To: esr@thyrsus.com References: <200312012353.hB1Nrxib001299@bulk.resource.org> 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: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 03:54:17 -0500 Jon Kyme : > The problem I have with the various NO-SOLICIT / NO-UCE proposals that have > been made over the years is that they seem to imply that a system / > recipient accepts UCE / solicitations *by* *default* unless it gives the > sender notice. And that a sender will assume it's doing nothing "wrong" if > it isn't given any such notice. It strikes me that this is completely > contrary to the direction of this group (and the law in many > jurisdictions). A recipient does not give implicit consent to any > communication by not expressly denying it, any more that I accept that you > can shoot me because I don't wear a T-shirt saying "No-Shooting". Urgh. Good point. > Labelling the message (not the SMTP transaction) may be useful in enabling > enforcement of recipient (or system) policy. This is the kind of thing that > we're chartered to do, I believe. I've been working on it. -- Eric S. Raymond _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 2 04:11:23 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA09185 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 04:11:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AR6Yk-0004jm-Cx for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 04:11:06 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB29B6Qx018208 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 04:11:06 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AR6Yh-0004jP-3z for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 04:11:03 -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 EAA09164 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 04:10:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AR6Yd-0003sy-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 04:10:59 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AR6Yd-0003sX-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 04:10:59 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AR6Xo-0004bU-1C; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 04:10:08 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AR6X2-0004XQ-KE for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 04:09:20 -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 EAA09110 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 04:09:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AR6Wz-0003rk-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 04:09:17 -0500 Received: from ntbbs.winserver.com ([208.247.131.9] helo=winserver.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AR6Wz-0003rh-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 04:09:17 -0500 Received: by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v5.7.450.9b10) for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 04:09:41 -0500 Received: from ([68.211.198.96]) EHLO=FAMILY by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v5.7.450.9b10) with SMTP id 2590645968; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 04:09:39 -0500 Message-ID: <008e01c3b8b4$0f515b80$60c6d344@FAMILY> From: "Hector Santos" To: "Yakov Shafranovich" , "ASRG" References: <3FCB4606.6000204@solidmatrix.com> Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Verification via RCPT TO callback 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: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 04:09:55 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Yakov, This will be my last comments on the matter. I will provide future info on our gamma testing results. See my final inline comments below. PS: That I am no advocate of any particular method. The less overhead the better. To me, this is a functional specification issue. Fix, clarify the specs and everything will naturally follow. It is that with the current implementation of the network, with no other change, other than performing a return path check (which inherently includes a domain, mx and IP check), you can amazingly solve 80% of the anonymous access problem - TODAY! ----- Original Message ----- From: "Yakov Shafranovich" To: "Hector Santos" ; "ASRG" Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 8:45 AM Subject: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Verification via RCPT TO callback > Some of the objections raised against the RCPT TO proposal: > > * As the specifications stand right now, normal SMTP sites are not > expecting RCPT TO callbacks to verify existance of email addresses. > Since this is the current facts on the ground, your specific method has > potential issues since the sender's server might not be willing to > cooperate with your method, or even think of you as a malicious attack > and null-route your server. Whether the RFCs assume or require a valid > return address is irrelevant, the facts on the ground are that no one is > expecting call backs. Change the SPECS and it make it compliancy issue, and everyone who is serious about addressing costly spamming issus will gladly conform, upgrade their software, or whatever. > * In other cases such as Yahoo, all RCPT TOs are responded to with "2xx" > codes, and validation is delayed until after the DATA command. Since you > cannot continue validation past the RCPT TO command in order to avoid > the sender from receiving messages, your method has false positives. Once the SPECS are changed, YAHOO will support it because it works. If they don't, then they were never serious about solving the spammer problem on their system. > * Nothing prevents a spammer from using someone else's return address, > or operate a domain that answers "250" to all callbacks. Since > established companies such as Yahoo do that as well, you will not be > able to detect the difference between them and the spammers. > > * There exists a potential for DDOS attacks with this method. Like anything else. You don't need this method to do a DDOS or malicious attacks. But if we use the VRFY method, that will help reduce this potential. In additional, this can all be tracked and scaled. > * There are very significant reasons why the authors of RFCs 2821 and > 2505 recommend for the VRFY command to be turned off. Many of these > reasons are still applicable, and before recommending the change, we > need to analyze *why* that decision was made in the first place, and why > today's environment would be any different. I understood the "red-herring" harvesting reason was used as a reason against enabled the option or providing it in software: OFF: VRFY/RCPT TO response: TRUE ON: VRFY/RCPT TO resposnse: TRUE or FALSE As far as a SPAMMER is concern, a constant TRUE response is all they want to know! So in my view, having it OFF perpertuates the problem. Doesn't help it. > * In certain deployment scenarios, the outer SMTP server has no > knowledge of the existance of email addresses, will accept all email, > and will not be able to respond normally to call backs. Requiring a > change in those cases, puts a burden on the administrators which can be > avoided otherwise. Configuration issue. Not all servers need to use it. > * The SMTP protocol is designed for as a protocol for servers to > communicate. Therefore, the authentication that is logically needed, is > verifying the servers themselves, as opposed to individual accounts. A CallerID system includes a DOMAIN check because it has to get there in the first place to verify the address. So it fails at the DOMAIN, you know it is a SPOOF or ZOMBIE site!! Bingo, thats is what we WANT! > * This method works today, but there is no guarantee it will work tomorrow. Like anything else, but in this case, verifying a return path will always work if the requirement is put into the specs that says it MUST NOT BE SPOOF address. Hey, maybe thats all you need to say: MAIL FROM: The Return Path address must not be a GHOST or SPOOF address. If one is provided, the SMTP receiver will expect the address to be a valid return path as required as part of the DSN operations MAIL FROM Field Validation and Verification Per RFC section xxxx, the return path must conform to proper syntax. Server Implementations or installations may perform return path verification using various techniques outline in [xxxxxxxx] before mail will be accepted. If a 45x refusal code is returned: 45x Return Path not a valid return path the client has the option to reenter a valid return path or end the session If a 45x refusal code is returned: 45x Return Path not a valid return path the client should not continue and end the session. Server who choose not to verify the return path should continue with a 250 response code. ciao --- 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 Tue Dec 2 05:40:37 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA11241 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 05:40:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AR7x7-0008RS-Iv for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 05:40:21 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB2AeLn7032445 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 05:40:21 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AR7x7-0008RE-EA for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 05:40:21 -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 FAA11231 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 05:40:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AR7x3-0004jY-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 05:40:17 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AR7x3-0004jV-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 05:40:17 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AR7wp-0008OW-0z; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 05:40:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AR7wE-0008Nl-Lg for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 05:39:26 -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 FAA11213 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 05:39:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AR7wB-0004iv-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 05:39:23 -0500 Received: from argon.connectinternetsolutions.com ([193.110.243.33] helo=argon.connect.org.uk) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AR7wA-0004is-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 05:39:22 -0500 Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 1AR7wA-0003rU-MB; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 10:39:22 +0000 In-Reply-To: <3FCBEFA9.2010200@solidmatrix.com> Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Legal - Subject labeling - FTC response To: "Yakov Shafranovich" 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, 02 Dec 2003 10:39:22 +0000 > > It seems to us that there is no further research possible within the > scope of ASRG for this draft, considering its narrow focus. As it stands > now, the proper forum for this discussion would probably be the IETF. > > Therefore, what we would suggest, is to submit the draft to the IETF as > a independent submission and then shift the discussion there. The proper > forum for this discussion would either be the main IETF mailing list (as > a starting point), or the ietf-822 mailing list > (http://www.imc.org/ietf-822/index.html). If the IETF sends it back to > us, then we can continue discussing it here. Surely Eric can submit it *independently* whenever he likes? He doesn't need you to tell him to. Are you trying to say that further discussion by the group won't be appreciated - that there's no way such a proposal would get group support? Or perhaps support by the chairs is the issue, in that support for labelling is seen as support for a particular law? Maybe I've got this wrong, and I'm eager to be corrected - surely the output of this group is going to be (in part) IDs recommended to the IETF by the group. How about if references to any particular "law", were removed? Would it then be suitable matter for evaluation here and eventual recommendation to the IETF by this group? And if not, why not? I'd be grateful if the chairs could take the trouble to respond to this. Thanks, JK -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 2 11:17:27 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA24714 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 11:17:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARDD4-0006gO-Io for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 11:17:10 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB2GHAVX025684 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 11:17:10 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARDD4-0006gB-7x for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 11:17:10 -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 LAA24666 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 11:16:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARDD3-0003KZ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 11:17:09 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARDD2-0003Iy-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 11:17:08 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARDBz-0006VK-14; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 11:16:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARDBW-0006Sx-DC for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 11:15:38 -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 LAA24482 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 11:15:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARDBV-0003Gf-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 11:15:33 -0500 Received: from newgiles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ([205.150.200.131] helo=mail.nitros9.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARDBU-0003GE-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 11:15:33 -0500 Received: from newgiles.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.nitros9.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4756017087 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 11:15:44 -0500 (EST) From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals: LMTP proposals] In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 01 Dec 2003 17:58:45 EST." <3FCBC7A5.9070106@solidmatrix.com> Message-Id: <20031202161544.4756017087@mail.nitros9.org> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2003 11:15:44 -0500 Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > I believe that Fridrik was pointing out a simple fact - any effective > anti-spam solutions would force spammers to seek other venues, including > the increased use of hijacked computers. Yes, but it was leaning towards being biased against a solution, because of the change in cost. To quote him again: >> In other words, widespread implementation of LMAP (which would be a >> good thing) That's nice... >> would lead to more compromised machines (which would be a bad >> thing) Absolutely not. I could argue just as well that it's a Good Thing, because it now gives the admins & programmers incentive to fix their systems. We already KNOW those machines may be compromised. We already KNOW that changing the cost/benefit ratio for one behaviour will make others more appealing. It makes no sense to even insinuate that deploying a solution has negative effects on pre-existing broken systems. It's false logic. I'm sensitive to negativity about any proposal (more so for LMAP), because of the history in ASRG of nonsensical, irrelevant, false, and contradictory reasons people have used to oppose any proposal. The deployment, or not, of a proposal makes zero difference as to the ability to compromise those machines. Therefore, that risk should have ZERO INFLUENCE on the decision to deploy that proposal. Anyone who claims that such risks should influence the deployment decision looks to me like they have an agenda to prevent that deployment. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 2 11:21:29 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA24864 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 11:21:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARDGu-0006wh-L2 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 11:21:12 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB2GL8j0026693 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 11:21:08 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARDGu-0006wS-GC for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 11:21:08 -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 LAA24858 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 11:20:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARDGt-0003Pn-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 11:21:07 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARDGt-0003Pk-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 11:21:07 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARDGo-0006qV-WD; Tue, 02 Dec 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 1ARDGY-0006pi-2A for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 11:20:46 -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 LAA24844 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 11:20:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARDGX-0003Oz-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 11:20:45 -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 1ARDGV-0003OJ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 11:20:43 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-372-156.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.168.21]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HPA006UZ00CCN@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 16:19:31 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Legal - Subject labeling - FTC response In-reply-to: To: Jon Kyme Cc: ASRG Message-id: <3FCCBB8C.3000004@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, 02 Dec 2003 11:19:24 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Jon Kyme wrote: >>It seems to us that there is no further research possible within the >>scope of ASRG for this draft, considering its narrow focus. As it stands >>now, the proper forum for this discussion would probably be the IETF. >> >>Therefore, what we would suggest, is to submit the draft to the IETF as >>a independent submission and then shift the discussion there. The proper >>forum for this discussion would either be the main IETF mailing list (as >>a starting point), or the ietf-822 mailing list >>(http://www.imc.org/ietf-822/index.html). If the IETF sends it back to >>us, then we can continue discussing it here. > > > > Surely Eric can submit it *independently* whenever he likes? He doesn't > need you to tell him to. Are you trying to say that further discussion by > the group won't be appreciated - that there's no way such a proposal would > get group support? Or perhaps support by the chairs is the issue, in that > support for labelling is seen as support for a particular law? > This draft addresses a very specific requirement. The goal of the group is to do research in different areas and present findings. This specific draft does not require research since the guidelines for it have already been defined, and especially considering that the law concentrates on subject labeling specifically, which does not have too many options. Additionally, the goal of the draft is to be a response of the IETF on the issue. The formal body that is allowed to make such response would either be the IAB, the IESG or the IETF chair, not the IRTF. Therefore, it seems to us that this belongs on the IETF side, since this would be a policy issue that needs to be defined by them. We do not want to pre-empt their responsibilites, however if they choose to send it back to us, we'll be happy to look at it. > Maybe I've got this wrong, and I'm eager to be corrected - surely the > output of this group is going to be (in part) IDs recommended to the IETF > by the group. > Yes it is, but see my comments above. The IRTF's goal is to do research, anything that would be standards making or policy issues for the IETF, would go to the IETF. > How about if references to any particular "law", were removed? Would it > then be suitable matter for evaluation here and eventual recommendation to > the IETF by this group? > > And if not, why not? > > I'd be grateful if the chairs could take the trouble to respond to this. > It can be a suitable matter for evaluation if effectiveness can be shown. If the only way these schemes are effective is via law enforcement, that would not be a research topic for the ASRG unless we are asked to do so by another body: either the IETF or the FTC. 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 Tue Dec 2 11:27:46 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA25163 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 11:27:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARDMz-0007Qn-Ef for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 11:27:29 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB2GRPwJ028559 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 11:27:25 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARDMz-0007QU-6o for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 11:27:25 -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 LAA25141 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 11:27:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARDMx-0003X4-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 11:27:23 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARDMx-0003Wk-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 11:27:23 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARDMc-0007HB-K6; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 11:27:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARDLt-0007Fa-Lp for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 11:26:17 -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 LAA25116 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 11:26:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARDLs-0003WG-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 11:26:16 -0500 Received: from mercury.mv.net ([199.125.85.40]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARDLr-0003WD-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 11:26:16 -0500 Received: (qmail 15482 invoked from network); 2 Dec 2003 11:26:15 -0500 Received: from iridium.mv.net (HELO mv.mv.com) (199.125.85.17) by mercury.mv.net with SMTP; 2 Dec 2003 11:26:15 -0500 X-Peer-Info: remote-ip 199.125.85.17 local-ip 199.125.85.40 local-name mercury.mv.net Received: (qmail 16513 invoked by uid 101); 2 Dec 2003 11:26:14 -0500 From: "Mark E. Mallett" To: Jon Kyme Cc: ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Legal - Subject labeling - FTC response Message-ID: <20031202162614.GH7410@iridium.mv.net> References: <200312012353.hB1Nrxib001299@bulk.resource.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 11:26:14 -0500 On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 08:22:00AM +0000, Jon Kyme wrote: > > > > > > > > >A somewhat related document is draft-malamud-no-soliciting-02, found at: > > > > http://trusted.resource.org/no-solicit/ > > > > The problem I have with the various NO-SOLICIT / NO-UCE proposals that have > been made over the years is that they seem to imply that a system / > recipient accepts UCE / solicitations *by* *default* unless it gives the > sender notice. And that a sender will assume it's doing nothing "wrong" if > it isn't given any such notice. It strikes me that this is completely > contrary to the direction of this group (and the law in many > jurisdictions). A recipient does not give implicit consent to any > communication by not expressly denying it, any more that I accept that you > can shoot me because I don't wear a T-shirt saying "No-Shooting". Hmm, that's exactly the point I made when Eric first submitted his draft back on November 14. Thus I agree :-) -mm- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 2 11:28:23 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA25198 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 11:28:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARDNb-0007Yu-Rb for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 11:28:06 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB2GS3BY029068 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 11:28:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARDNb-0007Yl-Ei for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 11:28:03 -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 LAA25182 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 11:27:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARDNa-0003Xk-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 11:28:02 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARDNa-0003Xh-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 11:28:02 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARDNZ-0007RU-Py; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 11:28:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARDNN-0007R8-Pq for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 11:27:49 -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 LAA25160 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 11:27:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARDNM-0003XY-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 11:27:48 -0500 Received: from bulk.resource.org ([192.101.98.10]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARDNM-0003Wu-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 11:27:48 -0500 Received: from bulk.resource.org (localhost.resource.org [127.0.0.1]) by bulk.resource.org (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id hB2GR0u0017760; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 08:27:00 -0800 (PST) Received: (from carl@localhost) by bulk.resource.org (8.12.2/8.12.2/Submit) id hB2GR05I017759; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 08:27:00 -0800 (PST) From: Carl Malamud Message-Id: <200312021627.hB2GR05I017759@bulk.resource.org> Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Legal - Subject labeling - FTC response In-Reply-To: <20031202012843.GE32079@thyrsus.com> To: esr@thyrsus.com CC: Yakov Shafranovich , "Mark E. Mallett" , ASRG Organization: Memory Palace Press X-Winch: Warn 9.5i X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL94 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 08:27:00 -0800 (PST) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > I hear you. And I think I've got the solution to your problem. Or > *a* solution, anyhow. You see, I didn't just pull those three labels > out of my butt -- they're the minimum set of categories required by > CAN-SPAM, which actually does a pretty good job of defining them. My > draft refers their definition to CAN-SPAM, and thus to FTC as the > implementing regulatory authority. There goes one of your problems. :-) > > Remember that my draft is intended *specifically* as a response to the > section 11.2 language in CAN-SPAN that enjoins the IETF to develop a > labeling requirement in conformance with IETF standards; said labeling > requirement would have the force of law. It's a happy coincidence > that it dovetails so exactly with your proposal, but that was not > my original intention. Hmmm ... I went back and look at section 111.2 of the bill. I'm not sure I read it as requiring any action by the IETF. Section 111.2 merely says that any solution should conform to IETF standards, e.g., RFCs 2822, 2821. > > So we're in an interesting gray area here. We need to say MUST so our > recommendation to FTC will have the appropriate meaning in *legal* > and *political* terms. You say "Seems like that belongs in a law, not > a standard." and you're right; if the FTC doesn't reject the IETF's > recommendation, we will in effect be writing law. But, I don't think we should do that. We can specify protocol mechanisms and even header fields as containers, but why not let the legislators and the ftc do their labels themselves? After all, Korea or the EU or Bangladesh may very well have different labels. I'd much specify a mechanism and let policy people make policy. > > Mechanism-only would satisfy the IETF's traditional requirements, but > not the request we've had dropped on us by CAN-SPAM 11.2. Again, I don't see 111.2 as being a request to the IETF. I'm not saying you shouldn't publish your draft, I'm just highly skeptical you'll reach the rough consensus watermark for mandating the use of specific content labels. BTW, I was thinking about your comments and those by Jon about no-soliciting generating implied consent (e.g., if I don't have a no shooting shirt on you can shoot me). I'm not sure I agree. With no trespassing signs, at least out here in the forest where I live, the sign tells you not to go on a specific piece of property. But, if you see a driveway without a sign, I'm not sure I'd go driving up the hill, even if I am wearing my "no shooting" shirt. :) The point of my draft was a "go away" sign, which didn't and shouldn't imply "come in" if no sign is posted. I'll try to make more clear in the next draft both the implied consent issue and that the registry examples I specified are merely illustrative ... I picked maps-ube as one of the bootstraps because I thought that would make it very clear that others should load the registry with content. Regards, Carl _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 2 11:46:27 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA26215 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 11:46:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARDf9-0000iC-AB for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 11:46:11 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB2GkBos002730 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 11:46:11 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARDf8-0000hx-TZ for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 11:46:10 -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 LAA26188 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 11:45:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARDf7-0003x8-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 11:46:09 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARDf7-0003x4-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 11:46:09 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARDez-0000bO-Dy; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 11:46:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARDeF-0000a2-Va for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 11:45:16 -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 LAA26109 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 11:45:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARDeE-0003vi-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 11:45:14 -0500 Received: from mercury.mv.net ([199.125.85.40]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARDeE-0003vf-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 11:45:14 -0500 Received: (qmail 16361 invoked from network); 2 Dec 2003 11:45:12 -0500 Received: from iridium.mv.net (HELO mv.mv.com) (199.125.85.17) by mercury.mv.net with SMTP; 2 Dec 2003 11:45:12 -0500 X-Peer-Info: remote-ip 199.125.85.17 local-ip 199.125.85.40 local-name mercury.mv.net Received: (qmail 26586 invoked by uid 101); 2 Dec 2003 11:45:11 -0500 From: "Mark E. Mallett" To: Carl Malamud Cc: esr@thyrsus.com, Yakov Shafranovich , "Mark E. Mallett" , ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Legal - Subject labeling - FTC response Message-ID: <20031202164511.GI7410@iridium.mv.net> References: <20031202012843.GE32079@thyrsus.com> <200312021627.hB2GR05I017759@bulk.resource.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200312021627.hB2GR05I017759@bulk.resource.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 11:45:11 -0500 > > BTW, I was thinking about your comments and those by Jon about > no-soliciting generating implied consent (e.g., if I don't > have a no shooting shirt on you can shoot me). I'm not sure > I agree. With no trespassing signs, at least out here in the > forest where I live, the sign tells you not to go on a specific > piece of property. Out in our neck of the woods one has to post no trespassing/ no hunting signs, else hunting is implicitly permitted. But that's really neither here nor there. Personally I would like something (perhaps in the introduction) saying that the mere presence of this document is in no way to be taken as an endorsement of opt-out unsolicited bulk email. mm _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 2 12:24:07 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA28825 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 12:24:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AREFb-0005w9-QX for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 12:23:51 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB2HNpkS022815 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 12:23:51 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AREFb-0005vu-Jj for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 12:23:51 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA28784 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 12:23:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AREFN-0004wI-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 12:23:38 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AREFN-0004wD-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 12:23:37 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AREEn-0005ee-UP; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 12:23:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AREE4-0005Sv-GZ for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 12:22:16 -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 MAA28687 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 12:22:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AREE3-0004tn-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 12:22:15 -0500 Received: from bulk.resource.org ([192.101.98.10]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AREE2-0004t2-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 12:22:14 -0500 Received: from bulk.resource.org (localhost.resource.org [127.0.0.1]) by bulk.resource.org (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id hB2HLgu0022085; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 09:21:42 -0800 (PST) Received: (from carl@localhost) by bulk.resource.org (8.12.2/8.12.2/Submit) id hB2HLgHP022084; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 09:21:42 -0800 (PST) From: Carl Malamud Message-Id: <200312021721.hB2HLgHP022084@bulk.resource.org> Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Legal - Subject labeling - FTC response In-Reply-To: <20031202164511.GI7410@iridium.mv.net> To: "Mark E. Mallett" CC: esr@thyrsus.com, Yakov Shafranovich , ASRG Organization: Memory Palace Press X-Winch: Warn 9.5i X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL94 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 09:21:42 -0800 (PST) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit That's doable. Thanks for the suggestion. > > > > BTW, I was thinking about your comments and those by Jon about > > no-soliciting generating implied consent (e.g., if I don't > > have a no shooting shirt on you can shoot me). I'm not sure > > I agree. With no trespassing signs, at least out here in the > > forest where I live, the sign tells you not to go on a specific > > piece of property. > > Out in our neck of the woods one has to post no trespassing/ > no hunting signs, else hunting is implicitly permitted. But > that's really neither here nor there. Personally I would like > something (perhaps in the introduction) saying that the mere > presence of this document is in no way to be taken as an endorsement > of opt-out unsolicited bulk email. > > mm > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 2 13:12:30 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA00440 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 13:12:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARF0Q-0007uP-L9 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 13:12:14 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB2ICEa5030395 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 13:12:14 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARF0Q-0007u9-Ep for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 13:12:14 -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 NAA00419 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 13:11:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARF0O-0005Xj-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 13:12:12 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARF0O-0005Xg-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 13:12:12 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARF0D-0007pf-QR; Tue, 02 Dec 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 1AREzt-0007ol-OU for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 13:11:41 -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 NAA00408 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 13:11:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AREzr-0005XK-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 13:11:39 -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 1AREzr-0005XH-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 13:11:39 -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 hB2IBdGU008866; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 13:11:39 -0500 Received: from snark.thyrsus.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by snark.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hB2IBchC022125; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 13:11:38 -0500 Received: (from esr@localhost) by snark.thyrsus.com (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB2IBc2g022123; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 13:11:38 -0500 From: "Eric S. Raymond" To: Carl Malamud Cc: Yakov Shafranovich , "Mark E. Mallett" , ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Legal - Subject labeling - FTC response Message-ID: <20031202181137.GB13339@thyrsus.com> Reply-To: esr@thyrsus.com References: <20031202012843.GE32079@thyrsus.com> <200312021627.hB2GR05I017759@bulk.resource.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200312021627.hB2GR05I017759@bulk.resource.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: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 13:11:37 -0500 Carl Malamud : > But, I don't think we should do that. We can specify protocol > mechanisms and even header fields as containers, but why not let the > legislators and the ftc do their labels themselves? After all, > Korea or the EU or Bangladesh may very well have different labels. > I'd much specify a mechanism and let policy people make policy. As I said in private mail, if that's what you want you should write the draft that way. The way it's worded now it looks like you're pushing the MAPS-UBE definition, which is flawed in part 3. -- Eric S. Raymond _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 2 13:17:21 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA00546 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 13:17:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARF57-00089s-Tw for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 13:17:05 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB2IH5Tn031354 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 13:17:05 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARF57-00089d-OO for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 13:17:05 -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 NAA00536 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 13:16:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARF55-0005bE-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 13:17:03 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARF55-0005bB-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 13:17:03 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARF52-00087l-TD; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 13:17:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARF52-00087R-1P for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 13:17:00 -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 NAA00533 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 13:16:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARF50-0005ap-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 13:16:58 -0500 Received: from bulk.resource.org ([192.101.98.10]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARF4z-0005a5-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 13:16:57 -0500 Received: from bulk.resource.org (localhost.resource.org [127.0.0.1]) by bulk.resource.org (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id hB2IGRu0027356; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 10:16:27 -0800 (PST) Received: (from carl@localhost) by bulk.resource.org (8.12.2/8.12.2/Submit) id hB2IGRdB027355; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 10:16:27 -0800 (PST) From: Carl Malamud Message-Id: <200312021816.hB2IGRdB027355@bulk.resource.org> Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Legal - Subject labeling - FTC response In-Reply-To: <20031202181137.GB13339@thyrsus.com> To: esr@thyrsus.com CC: Yakov Shafranovich , "Mark E. Mallett" , ASRG Organization: Memory Palace Press X-Winch: Warn 9.5i X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL94 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 10:16:27 -0800 (PST) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Carl Malamud : > > But, I don't think we should do that. We can specify protocol > > mechanisms and even header fields as containers, but why not let the > > legislators and the ftc do their labels themselves? After all, > > Korea or the EU or Bangladesh may very well have different labels. > > I'd much specify a mechanism and let policy people make policy. > > As I said in private mail, if that's what you want you should write > the draft that way. The way it's worded now it looks like you're pushing the > MAPS-UBE definition, which is flawed in part 3. > -- I think the draft is written that way: the registry holds labels and people (e.g., the FTC) can register a label. Users then choose which flags to assert. As an example, you could register your 3 keywords and a definition. I'll try to make this point clearer. Carl _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 2 14:05:35 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA02396 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 14:05:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARFpm-0001kD-DS for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 14:05:18 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB2J5InU006693 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 14:05:18 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARFpm-0001jn-79 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 14:05:18 -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 OAA02378 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 14:05:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARFpj-0006IM-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 14:05:15 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARFpj-0006IJ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 14:05:15 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARFpW-0001h5-TC; Tue, 02 Dec 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 1ARFoc-0001gW-QR for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 14:04:06 -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 OAA02345 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 14:03:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARFoa-0006HQ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 14:04:04 -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 1ARFoa-0006H4-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 14:04:04 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-372-156.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.168.21]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HPA00JFI7JZ7Z@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 19:02:28 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: [Fwd: Re: [Asrg] 0. General -- the state of play] To: ASRG Message-id: <3FCCE1BE.5050501@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: Tue, 02 Dec 2003 14:02:22 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT A Volunteer. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General -- the state of play Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 13:48:36 -0500 From: Marc A. Pelletier To: Yakov Shafranovich References: <20031201211458.9D56A1701D@mail.nitros9.org> <3FCBC883.1020907@solidmatrix.com> <001201c3b902$19219410$6402a8c0@vampier> <3FCCDC66.8080405@solidmatrix.com> Have you gotten to the point where you have an hypothetical list of subgroups ready? I have a rare lull in my workload so I'm eager to contribute while I have the resources to be active. -- Marc ------- 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 Tue Dec 2 14:14:23 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA02833 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 14:14:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARFyH-0002NX-So for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 14:14:06 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB2JE5up009137 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 14:14:05 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARFyH-0002NI-Ot for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 14:14:05 -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 OAA02798 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 14:13:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARFyF-0006T8-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 14:14:03 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARFyE-0006T5-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 14:14:02 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARFyD-0002L6-5a; Tue, 02 Dec 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 1ARFxm-0002Kp-Mf for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 14:13:34 -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 OAA02782 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 14:13:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARFxk-0006ST-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 14:13:32 -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 1ARFxj-0006S1-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 14:13:31 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-372-156.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.168.21]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HPA001ZG81LAZ@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 19:13:02 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: [Asrg] 0. General -- the state of play] In-reply-to: <3FCCE1BE.5050501@solidmatrix.com> To: ASRG Cc: "Marc A. Pelletier" Message-id: <3FCCE439.4000507@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: <3FCCE1BE.5050501@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: Tue, 02 Dec 2003 14:12:57 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Ignore this message. My email client went nuts for some reason. Yakov Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > A Volunteer. > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General -- the state of play > Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 13:48:36 -0500 > From: Marc A. Pelletier > To: Yakov Shafranovich > References: <20031201211458.9D56A1701D@mail.nitros9.org> > <3FCBC883.1020907@solidmatrix.com> > <001201c3b902$19219410$6402a8c0@vampier> <3FCCDC66.8080405@solidmatrix.com> > > > Have you gotten to the point where you have an hypothetical list of > subgroups ready? I have a rare lull in my workload so I'm eager to > contribute while I have the resources to be active. > > -- Marc > > > ------- > 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 > ------- 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 Tue Dec 2 14:22:30 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA03210 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 14:22:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARG68-0002kh-P6 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 14:22:13 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB2JMCYZ010573 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 14:22:12 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARG68-0002kS-Jc for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 14:22:12 -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 OAA03204 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 14:21:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARG66-0006bZ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 14:22:10 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARG65-0006bW-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 14:22:09 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARG5w-0002gf-MB; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 14:22:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARG5Q-0002gE-SC for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 14:21:28 -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 OAA03165 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 14:21:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARG5O-0006b8-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 14:21:26 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com ([65.205.251.73]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARG5N-0006b4-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 14:21:25 -0500 Received: from mou1wnexc02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.54]) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.10/) with ESMTP id hB2JLKrc000436; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 11:21:20 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 11:21:20 -0800 Message-ID: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0111323E@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Carl Malamud'" , esr@thyrsus.com Cc: Yakov Shafranovich , "Mark E. Mallett" , ASRG Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Legal - Subject labeling - FTC response 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, 2 Dec 2003 11:21:14 -0800 > Hmmm ... I went back and look at section 111.2 of the bill. I'm not > sure I read it as requiring any action by the IETF. Section 111.2 > merely says that any solution should conform to IETF standards, > e.g., RFCs 2822, 2821. In the light of this point and the points made by Yakov I suggest we proceed as follows: 1) Send a note to the IAB telling them that we think that this is their tar baby and that they should deal with it. 2) Attach to the note a >short< summary of the discusion on ASRG, viz * Concerns were raised about the practical value of labelling which the FTC can evaluate for itself in the light of their mandate from Congress. * Responsibility for defining label terms and their use is properly the domain of the FTC, the role of the IETF would appear to be limited to defining the mechanism by which the labels are expressed. * Various mechanisms for expressing labelling were discussed, these include overloading the subject line, use of the keywords field, defining a new header. The advantages of and objections to overloading the subject line and defining a new header are largely self evident. * The principal difficulty with use of keyword terms is the risk of collision. This risk may be mitigated by defining some form of prefix scheme analogous to the namespace scheme employed in XML. Keyword labels might be encoded as USFTC:Spam or possibly IETF:Spam. It is likely that IANA registration will be sufficient to avoid prefix collisions. Given that we are not the IETF and given that we report through the IAB and given that political philosophy is out of scope that would appear to be the sum total of the discussion of the topic here that has relevance. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 2 16:27:48 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA11940 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 16:27:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARI3P-0001Mx-QW for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 16:27:31 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB2LRVr3005257 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 16:27:31 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARI3P-0001Mi-IV for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 16:27:31 -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 QAA11937 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 16:27:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARI3N-0001Hq-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 16:27:29 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARI3N-0001Hn-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 16:27:29 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARI2v-0001Ib-2H; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 16:27:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARI2h-0001IO-L8 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 16:26:47 -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 QAA11933 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 16:26:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARI2f-0001HJ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 16:26:45 -0500 Received: from argon.connectinternetsolutions.com ([193.110.243.33] helo=argon.connect.org.uk) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARI2f-0001HB-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 16:26:45 -0500 Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 1ARI2f-0001OZ-05; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 21:26:45 +0000 In-Reply-To: <3FCCBB8C.3000004@solidmatrix.com> Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Legal - Subject labeling - FTC response 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: Tue, 02 Dec 2003 21:26:45 +0000 > >>It seems to us that there is no further research possible within the > >>scope of ASRG for this draft, considering its narrow focus. As it > stands > >>now, the proper forum for this discussion would probably be the IETF. > >> > >>Therefore, what we would suggest, is to submit the draft to the IETF as > >>a independent submission and then shift the discussion there. The > proper > >>forum for this discussion would either be the main IETF mailing list > (as > >>a starting point), or the ietf-822 mailing list > >>(http://www.imc.org/ietf-822/index.html). If the IETF sends it back to > >>us, then we can continue discussing it here. > > > > > > > > Surely Eric can submit it *independently* whenever he likes? He doesn't > > need you to tell him to. Are you trying to say that further discussion > by > > the group won't be appreciated - that there's no way such a proposal > would > > get group support? Or perhaps support by the chairs is the issue, in > that > > support for labelling is seen as support for a particular law? > > > > > This draft addresses a very specific requirement. The goal of the group > is to do research in different areas and present findings. This specific > draft does not require research since the guidelines for it have already > been defined, and especially considering that the law concentrates on > subject labeling specifically, which does not have too many options. > It depends what you call research doesn't it? The group is chartered (among other things) to "collectively propose and evaluate solutions". > Additionally, the goal of the draft is to be a response of the IETF on > the issue. The formal body that is allowed to make such response would > either be the IAB, the IESG or the IETF chair, not the IRTF. Therefore, > it seems to us that this belongs on the IETF side, since this would be a > policy issue that needs to be defined by them. We do not want to > pre-empt their responsibilites, however if they choose to send it back > to us, we'll be happy to look at it. > > > Maybe I've got this wrong, and I'm eager to be corrected - surely the > > output of this group is going to be (in part) IDs recommended to the > IETF > > by the group. > > > > Yes it is, but see my comments above. The IRTF's goal is to do research, > anything that would be standards making or policy issues for the IETF, > would go to the IETF. > > > How about if references to any particular "law", were removed? Would it > > then be suitable matter for evaluation here and eventual recommendation > to > > the IETF by this group? > > > > And if not, why not? > > > > I'd be grateful if the chairs could take the trouble to respond to > this. > > > > It can be a suitable matter for evaluation if effectiveness can be > shown. If the only way these schemes are effective is via law > enforcement, that would not be a research topic for the ASRG unless we > are asked to do so by another body: either the IETF or the FTC. > How we measure "effectiveness" has still to be determined (unless I'm mistaken). But anyway, estimation of effectiveness is an element of, not a prerequisite for, evaluation. So I'm afraid that this can't be right. Of course, legal issues are indeed covered by the charter: "... will not pursue research into legal issues of spam, OTHER THAN the extent to which these issues affect, support, or constrain the technology." (my capitals) This is a instance where a technology and a "legal issue" are intimately related and mutually supportive. So, even though this proposal seems fairly well suited for evaluation by the group - it's not to be allowed for political reasons (at this time). I'm not knocking this - it's a valid position, and better for being explicit. In a sense of course, this proposal has already achieved quite a lot (not just noise), whether or not it's put forward as an ID. Thank you for taking the time to clarify, JK -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 2 16:35:24 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA12879 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 16:35:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARIAl-0001jQ-V6 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 16:35:07 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB2LZ7kr006650 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 16:35:07 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARIAl-0001jB-RB for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 16:35:07 -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 QAA12807 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 16:34:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARIAj-0001da-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 16:35:06 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARIAj-0001dX-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 16:35:05 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARIAf-0001gX-Aw; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 16:35:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARIAN-0001ft-3z for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 16:34:43 -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 QAA12709 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 16:34:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARIAL-0001b4-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 16:34:41 -0500 Received: from argon.connectinternetsolutions.com ([193.110.243.33] helo=argon.connect.org.uk) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARIAK-0001b0-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 16:34:40 -0500 Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 1ARIAK-0002ts-J5 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 21:34:40 +0000 In-Reply-To: <20031202162614.GH7410@iridium.mv.net> Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Legal - Subject labeling - FTC response 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, 02 Dec 2003 21:34:40 +0000 Mark E. Mallett writ: > > Hmm, that's exactly the point I made when Eric first submitted his > draft back on November 14. Thus I agree :-) > > -mm- > > Sorry, I missed that. Well done. -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 2 17:40:57 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA19458 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 17:40:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARJCC-0006Ft-0X for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 17:40:40 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB2MedGe024039 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 17:40:39 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARJCA-0006Fe-3k for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 17:40:38 -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 RAA19443 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 17:40:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARJC7-0004NU-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 17:40:35 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARJC7-0004NR-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 17:40:35 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARJBb-0006Ag-Ci; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 17:40:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARJ93-0005wY-K1 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 17:37:25 -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 RAA19282 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 17:37:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARJ91-0004JE-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 17:37:23 -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 1ARJ90-0004Hz-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 17:37:22 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-372-156.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.168.21]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HPA00C6MHH8N9@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 22:36:53 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich To: ASRG Cc: Markus Stumpf Message-id: <3FCD13F8.1000904@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 - rDNS / MTA MARK Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2003 17:36:40 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT The following response has been received from someone off-list. The person asked for his name to be kept private. Yakov -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: rDNS draft for spam >I wanted to get your quick thoughts on something. One of the proposals we >have called MTA MARK, uses the rDNS records to mark a specific IP as a >mail server or not a mail server. The purpose of this is to allow ISPs to >mark their IP space as such in order to reduce the impact caused by >hijacked computers sending spam. This proposal has also been suggested to >be expanded into a more general one, to let the IP address owner to be >able to mark any IP and the services allowed from that IP. Putting things in the reverse map has both advantages and disadvantages. I used for a while ISP that marked their whole IP range as spam source, and at the same time refusing to forward email that did not conform to @.net. So I do not trust ISP's to do the right thing and most of them do not have egress filtering thus allowing spoofed packets to leave their networks. TXT records are fine for experimentation a new record type is the way to go if this is good approach but the cost of backwards compatibility is high. The argument that it is expensive to upgrade to a new type are historic, most modern DNS software can handle unknown types [RFC3597]. >Many people have raised concerns about the fact that things like this >should not be present in the rDNS zone at all. I wanted to get your >feedback on that issue and the draft in general. This is a issue that should be discussed in DNSOPS but my feeling is reverse tree should be used better and this is as a good place as any other for capability of a host. I (personally) think the approach that uses the forward map to list mail sources at zone apex, is better as that requires far fewer entries. The draft example seems to suffer from a common misunderstanding that wildcard will match an existing name in a zone if the type does not exist, this is false see: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dnsext-wcard-clarify-02.txt ------- 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 Tue Dec 2 18:09:41 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA21167 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 18:09:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARJe2-0007vb-Ia for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 18:09:26 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB2N9Qxs030469 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 18:09:26 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARJe2-0007vM-BY for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 18:09:26 -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 SAA21091 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 18:09:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARJdz-0004qS-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 18:09:23 -0500 Received: from manatick.foretec.com ([4.17.168.5] helo=manatick) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARJdy-0004pj-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 18:09:22 -0500 Received: from [132.151.6.22] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by manatick with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1ARJUH-00005s-QX for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 17:59:22 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARJTx-000717-LU; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 17:59:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARJSS-0006yb-WE for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 17:57:29 -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 RAA20245 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 17:57:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARJSQ-0004hL-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 17:57:26 -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 1ARJSP-0004h5-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 17:57:25 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-372-156.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.168.21]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HPA001XPICH1T@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 22:55:34 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich To: ASRG Message-id: <3FCD1862.1020304@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 - "no-soliciting" ESMTP extension - New Draft Posted Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2003 17:55:30 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT As per Carl's note earlier, the -02 draft got posted today: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-malamud-no-soliciting-02.txt 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 Tue Dec 2 18:09:47 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA21208 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 18:09:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARJe5-0007wL-R2 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 18:09:32 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB2N9TQ4030515 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 18:09:29 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARJe5-0007w4-KA for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 18:09:29 -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 SAA21108 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 18:09:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARJe2-0004qp-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 18:09:26 -0500 Received: from manatick.foretec.com ([4.17.168.5] helo=manatick) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARJe2-0004pj-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 18:09:26 -0500 Received: from [132.151.6.22] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by manatick with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1ARJRU-0008TH-1v for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 17:56:28 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARJR3-0006lA-Fc; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 17:56:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARJP2-0006jN-4l for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 17:54:00 -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 RAA20143 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 17:53:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARJOw-0004fA-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 17:53:50 -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 1ARJOv-0004ep-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 17:53:49 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-372-156.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.168.21]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HPA00LJII8PMF@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 22:53:20 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich To: ASRG Cc: asrg-rmx@ntp.org, Alan DeKok Message-id: <3FCD17DA.1030204@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 - LMAP - New DMP 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: Tue, 02 Dec 2003 17:53:14 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT One of the LMAP-related proposals, DMP, has been published as a new Internet draft: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-fecyk-dmp-00.txt 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 Tue Dec 2 18:37:36 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA23415 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 18:37:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARK53-0000Nw-D7 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 18:37:21 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB2NbLME001456 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 18:37:21 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARK52-0000NH-Un for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 18:37:20 -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 SAA23395 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 18:37:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARK4z-0005Sy-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 18:37:17 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARK4z-0005Sv-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 18:37:17 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARK4j-0000IN-Di; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 18:37:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARK4g-0000Hd-A7 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 18:36:58 -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 SAA23349 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 18:36:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARK4d-0005Rp-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 18:36:55 -0500 Received: from moebius2.space.net ([195.30.1.100]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARK4c-0005Rm-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 18:36:54 -0500 Received: (qmail 62124 invoked by uid 1013); 2 Dec 2003 23:36:52 -0000 From: Markus Stumpf To: ASRG Message-ID: <20031202233314.GC43343@Space.Net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3FCD13F8.1000904@solidmatrix.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Organization: SpaceNet AG, Muenchen, Germany X-PGP-Fingerprint: 66 F3 75 79 01 D0 B8 5F 1A C7 77 88 4A B6 70 DF Subject: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals - rDNS / MTA MARK Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 00:36:52 +0100 On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 05:36:40PM -0500, Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > Putting things in the reverse map has both advantages and disadvantages. > I used for a while ISP that marked their whole IP range as spam source, > and at the same time refusing to forward email that did not conform > to @.net. So I do not trust ISP's to do the right thing > and most of them do not have egress filtering thus allowing spoofed > packets to leave their networks. There is a contract bewteen an ISP and a customer. The contract regulates rights and liabilities of both parties. If the ISP does not conform to the contract one can terminate it at any time and probably even sue the ISP for breach of a contract. This is nothing that is related to trust. With the same arguments you could say HTTP is bad, because the ISP does transparent proxy and they probably modify the contents of the web pages. If an ISP has a contract that clearly says: "you are not allowed to offer services, this is a surf account only" they might as well block incoming ports like smtp, http, ... they don't need to use something like MTA MARK. > TXT records are fine for experimentation a new record type is > the way to go if this is good approach but the cost of > backwards compatibility is high. > The argument that it is expensive to upgrade to a new type are > historic, most modern DNS software can handle unknown types [RFC3597]. RFC3597 was released Spetember 2003. With up to 5% of installations running even bind-4.x how long do you think it will take for rfc3597 to propagate? Even modern BIND servers didn't get it right. How about DNS proxies in firewalls, stub resolvers, ... While I agree that a new query type should be the way to go, it still is expensive, even with RFC3597. And the IETF is sometimes sloooow. Spam is hitting hard each day and we want a solution ASAP and not in some years when all have approved the new QTYPE. > >Many people have raised concerns about the fact that things like this > >should not be present in the rDNS zone at all. I wanted to get your > >feedback on that issue and the draft in general. > > This is a issue that should be discussed in DNSOPS but my feeling > is reverse tree should be used better and this is as a good place as > any other for capability of a host. There are people (even in IETF DNSOP) that think revDNS is obsolete and if not for IPv4 it will be at least for IPv6 ;-) > The draft example seems to suffer from a common misunderstanding > that wildcard will match an existing name in a zone if the type > does not exist, this is false see: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dnsext-wcard-clarify-02.txt We are/were aware of that. The warning about wildcards not being applied to subdomains should probably be extended with a notice about that. -------------------------------- Today I had a very valuable talk with Arnt Gulbrandsen who made some good comments and suggestions. Currently we tend to a more structured approach like _perm._smtp._tcp.8.0.30.195.in-addr.arpa IN TXT "1" _perm._smtp._tcp.1.0.30.195.in-addr.arpa IN TXT "0" or like _smtp._tcp.8.0.30.195.in-addr.arpa IN PERM 1 _smtp._tcp.1.0.30.195.in-addr.arpa IN PERM 0 The LHS used is derived from the hierarchy defined for SRV records and is well defined. For TXT records the "_perm" is necessary to define an object that is queried, aka a "question". If there is a special QTYPE like PERM this is not needed. The IESG doesn't like non questions ;-) It would also be possible to use another level of subdomains like _send._smtp._tcp.8.0.30.195.in-addr.arpa IN PERM 1 as this provides more flexibility and could be extended to _send._smtp._tcp.8.0.30.195.in-addr.arpa IN PERM 0 _send-crammd5._smtp._tcp.8.0.30.195.in-addr.arpa IN PERM 1 to indicate that one should allow only authenticated connections. This could be used to transport company policies like "from this (sub-)net accept only connections with ciphered passwords. we don't want that our employees use plaintext passwords accross the Internet". The drawback is that it uses a lot of DNS bandwidth and the server has to do a lot of queries for all possible "options". A solution to that would be to make the RHS not a boolean but e.g. a 64 bit integer and give it a meaning: 0 dont allow connections 1 allow unauthenticated connections (aka outgoing MTA) 2 allow only authenticated connections 3 allow only authenticated connections with ciphered passwords The same could of course also be achieved with TXT records. One question raised today was: Why is this useful at all? MTA MARK could also be accomplished much more effective by a firewall rule. This is IMHO a good and valid question ;-) An answer might be that firewalls rules are expensive, the more rules a firewall has to check the more expensive they get. So with large networks MTA MARK (or a more generalized form) could be a alternative. \Maex -- SpaceNet AG | Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 | Fon: +49 (89) 32356-0 Research & Development | D-80807 Muenchen | Fax: +49 (89) 32356-299 "The security, stability and reliability of a computer system is reciprocally proportional to the amount of vacuity between the ears of the admin" _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 2 19:32:28 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA25794 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 19:32:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARKw8-0002aP-6V for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 19:32:12 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB30WCJ1009935 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 19:32:12 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARKw8-0002aA-2Y for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 19:32:12 -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 TAA25783 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 19:31:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARKw6-0006Sj-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 19:32:10 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARKw6-0006Sg-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 19:32:10 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARKvx-0002Xt-Kb; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 19:32:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARKvl-0002Xe-P1 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 19:31:49 -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 TAA25761 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 19:31:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARKvk-0006SU-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 19:31:48 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com ([65.205.251.73]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARKvj-0006SO-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 19:31:47 -0500 Received: from mou1wnexc02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.54]) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.10/) with ESMTP id hB30Vkrc023947; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 16:31:46 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 16:31:46 -0800 Message-ID: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E01113240@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Yakov Shafranovich'" , ASRG Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - rDNS and DNS considerations 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, 2 Dec 2003 16:31:44 -0800 Following on on the rDNS track I did some investigation on the rDNS and DNS side. The following issues were raised off list: 1) Is rDNS stable enough to depend on? Maybe. The quality of the data registered for North America and European zones is 'reasonable'. It is not great but not ridiculous. The quality of the data in the Asian zones is not at all good. One issue to consider is that some of the NICs have been proposing to kill rDNS since "nobody uses it and it is no damn use". The feeling I got was that if a proposal that depended on rDNS was deployed it would probably create a sufficient incentive for folk to fix the stuff that needs fixing. 2) Can rDNS support other record types? I have not got a definitive answer here yet but the answer so far is 'don't see why not'. The 'reverse DNS' is only a chunk of the .arpa address space that has been repurposed. There is nothing magic about it. The state of rDNS suggests that if anyone has an app out there that is so fragile that it would be broken by a few TXT records then the best thing to do is to blow it up now and put it out of our misery. RTFM There may be a theoretical chance that someone has built something that depends on an assumption that rDNS is monolithic and unchanged. This chance appears to be very small and the chance we should care is negligible. 3) (DNS and rDNS) Should we use TXT records or some new record type? The issues here are political and technical. The technical issues have been discussed at some length. Basically getting a new record type is the Kosher way to do the job but the issue of what the impact on the deployed infrastracture would be is somewhat muddy. I don't think we need to bother with the clarification, the political issues determine the matter. To get a DNS resource record assigned we have to have an (IETF) standard. It is possible that the DNSEXT working group could act quickly, this seems to mean order of 18 months to be realistic. That is not going to be acceptable. It is not like we get a record type assignment and then get to work with it. I described the RMX and SPF approaches. Encoding protocol names into the DNS is now acceptable and is compatible with 'fast' tracking through the working group. When I described the idea of encoding IP addresses I got a period of silence and then 'thats what folk call a domain name hack'. I did not get a feeling that the process would be at all short. Basically this is the sort of proposal where people start suggesting that you build something other than DNS. My take is that we should use TXT and if anyone criticizes us tell them we will consider using a resource record if they tell us the numbers in advance, otherwise no deal. [There is a reason I started using all those URI based namespace designators, I loath registration processes, particularly when they are used for control] 4) What are the realistic DNS spoofing and IPO address poisoning vulnerabilities? Good news here, I have not got a definitive word but BIND9 is highly resistant to domain name cache poisoning. There are still a lot of people using BIND8 for performance reasons but that is not a major concern for us. If you are running BIND8 turn on LMAP and then find spammers are attacking you with cache poisoning you upgrade to BIND9. The IP spoofing issue seems to be unimportant. Although DNS is not proof against this attack it is in practice pretty difficult with a low probability of success and is very easy for the victim to detect. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 2 19:57:24 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA26622 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 19:57:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARLKE-0004C9-VY for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 19:57:06 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB30v6Pi016119 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 19:57:06 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARLKE-0004Bu-QG for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 19:57:06 -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 TAA26607 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 19:56:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARLKC-0006oy-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 19:57:04 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARLKC-0006ov-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 19:57:04 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARLK9-00049g-EH; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 19:57:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARLJo-00049A-9V for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 19:56:40 -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 TAA26572 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 19:56:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARLJm-0006nz-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 19:56:38 -0500 Received: from moebius2.space.net ([195.30.1.100]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARLJl-0006nw-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 19:56:37 -0500 Received: (qmail 66863 invoked by uid 1013); 3 Dec 2003 00:56:37 -0000 From: Markus Stumpf To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" Cc: "'Yakov Shafranovich'" , ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - rDNS and DNS considerations Message-ID: <20031203005637.GE43343@Space.Net> References: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E01113240@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E01113240@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: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 01:56:37 +0100 On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 04:31:44PM -0800, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > Following on on the rDNS track I did some investigation on the rDNS and DNS > side. The following issues were raised off list: Thanks. This is great stuff. One comment, though: > To get a DNS resource record assigned we have to have an (IETF) > standard. It is possible that the DNSEXT working group could act quickly, > this seems to mean order of 18 months to be realistic. That is not going to > be acceptable. It is not like we get a record type assignment and then get > to work with it. Due to the threat caused by spam it might happen that the DNSEXT working group could speed up things. However this would IMHO require that the proposal is a stable and practicable solution with a high probability of success. QTYPE is two octets and I don't think DNS will take large damage if it turns out that one TYPE has been "misassigned" ;-) \Maex -- SpaceNet AG | Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 | Fon: +49 (89) 32356-0 Research & Development | D-80807 Muenchen | Fax: +49 (89) 32356-299 "The security, stability and reliability of a computer system is reciprocally proportional to the amount of vacuity between the ears of the admin" _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 2 20:07:29 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA26995 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 20:07:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARLTz-0004a2-M8 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 20:07:11 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB317BpX017602 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 20:07:11 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARLTv-0004Zo-3F for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 20:07:07 -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 UAA26984 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 20:06:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARLTs-0006xm-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 20:07:05 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARLTs-0006xj-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 20:07:04 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARLTp-0004VF-Gk; Tue, 02 Dec 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 1ARLP2-0004L6-9n for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 20:02:04 -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 UAA26758 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 20:01:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARLP0-0006sg-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 20:02:02 -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 1ARLOz-0006rN-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 20:02:01 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-372-156.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.168.21]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HPA0009OO6FUZ@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 03 Dec 2003 01:01:32 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - rDNS and DNS considerations In-reply-to: <20031203005637.GE43343@Space.Net> To: Markus Stumpf Cc: ASRG Message-id: <3FCD35E8.7010908@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: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E01113240@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <20031203005637.GE43343@Space.Net> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2003 20:01:28 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Markus Stumpf wrote: > On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 04:31:44PM -0800, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > One comment, though: > >> To get a DNS resource record assigned we have to have an (IETF) >>standard. It is possible that the DNSEXT working group could act quickly, >>this seems to mean order of 18 months to be realistic. That is not going to >>be acceptable. It is not like we get a record type assignment and then get >>to work with it. > > > Due to the threat caused by spam it might happen that the DNSEXT working > group could speed up things. However this would IMHO require that the > proposal is a stable and practicable solution with a high probability of > success. QTYPE is two octets and I don't think DNS will take large > damage if it turns out that one TYPE has been "misassigned" ;-) > I would like to make a suggestion related to this proposal. There are two separate issues involved here: one has to do with the idea itself, and another with the implementation. In order to be able to gauge the issue itself better before getting into the nitty-gritty of the implementation details, a discussion of the idea would be useful, either as a separate document, or as part of the main document. This should follow the checklist in the end of (http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-crocker-spam-techconsider-02.txt). If you can do that, that would help us analyze and look at different issues 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 Tue Dec 2 21:18:36 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA29061 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 21:18:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARMap-0007xH-CR for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 21:18:19 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB32IJwJ030573 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 21:18:19 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARMap-0007x2-2U for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 21:18:19 -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 VAA29044 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 21:18:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARMam-0007jt-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 21:18:16 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARMam-0007jq-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 21:18:16 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARMaW-0007ud-RN; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 21:18:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARMaF-0007uJ-DS for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 21:17:43 -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 VAA29005 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 21:17:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARMaC-0007jL-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 21:17:40 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com ([65.205.251.73]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARMaC-0007jI-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 21:17:40 -0500 Received: from mou1wnexc02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.54]) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.10/) with ESMTP id hB32HeQA002299; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 18:17:40 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 18:17:40 -0800 Message-ID: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E01113241@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Markus Stumpf'" , "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" Cc: "'Yakov Shafranovich'" , ASRG Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - rDNS and DNS considerations 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, 2 Dec 2003 18:17:36 -0800 > Thanks. This is great stuff. > > One comment, though: > > To get a DNS resource record assigned we have to have an (IETF) > > standard. It is possible that the DNSEXT working group > could act quickly, > > this seems to mean order of 18 months to be realistic. That > is not going to > > be acceptable. It is not like we get a record type > assignment and then get > > to work with it. > > Due to the threat caused by spam it might happen that the > DNSEXT working > group could speed up things. However this would IMHO require that the > proposal is a stable and practicable solution with a high > probability of > success. QTYPE is two octets and I don't think DNS will take large > damage if it turns out that one TYPE has been "misassigned" ;-) Thats not the issue. The issue is control. If they hand out a QTYPE and we define a domain name hack they lose control of the future of DNS development. I think spam is a major issue. But DNSEXT is a group where you can say 'if the spec does not work in dotcom because it is too big the answer is to reduce the size of dotcom' and not get laughed at. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 2 21:23:20 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA29151 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 21:23:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARMfP-0008ES-Nd for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 21:23:04 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB32N3Q2031623 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 21:23:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARMfP-0008Ct-F3 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 21:23:03 -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 VAA29145 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 21:22:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARMfM-0007lb-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 21:23:00 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARMfM-0007lY-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 21:23:00 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARMfN-00086i-4d; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 21:23:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARMep-00086O-7i for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 21:22:27 -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 VAA29138 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 21:22:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARMem-0007lB-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 21:22:24 -0500 Received: from dci.doncaster.on.ca ([66.11.168.194] helo=smtp.istop.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARMel-0007l8-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 21:22:24 -0500 Received: from waltdnes.org (ip211-165.tor.istop.com [66.11.165.211]) by smtp.istop.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 7B60436F66 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 21:22:19 -0500 (EST) Received: by waltdnes.org (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 2 Dec 2003 21:22:28 +4300 From: Walter Dnes To: ASRG list Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - depracate all list/bulk mailing and changeto RSS Message-ID: <20031203022228.GA6512@m433> References: <20031202034119.GA4991@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: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 21:22:28 -0500 On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 05:22:42PM +1030, Chris wrote > I don't want to have to keep reminding myself to "check my feed" or > have YAP(yet another app) on my desktop and they don't do RSS anyway > > Are you going to force the airline companys to set up a feed for me? For much the same reason we had to shut down open relays... the answer to your question is "yes". They were convenient, but were also massively abused. A one-to-one answer to a question is one thing. Big email shotgun blasts aimed at the entire internet are totally another. Some time ago, I made a rather sarcastic posting defying marketeers to set up their own "unfiltered ISP", and watch current big ISPs collapse overnight as millions of "eager double-opt-in-subscribers" defect to the marketeers' ISP in order not be deprived of their newsletters. It looks more reasonable as time goes on. With all the complaints about false positives, why don't people set up unfiltered ISPs ? Why doesn't someone put up or shut up ? -- Walter Dnes Email users are divided into two classes; 1) Those who have effective spam-blocking 2) Those who wish they did _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 2 21:33:27 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA29295 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 21:33:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARMpA-0008SR-6w for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 21:33:10 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB32X80j032505 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 21:33:08 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARMp9-0008SC-VR for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 21:33:08 -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 VAA29284 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 21:32:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARMp7-00001k-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 21:33:05 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARMp6-00001h-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 21:33:04 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARMp4-0008Ny-1f; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 21:33:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARMoh-0008NV-LS for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 21:32:39 -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 VAA29274 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 21:32:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARMoe-00001T-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 21:32:36 -0500 Received: from mail.chariot.net.au ([203.87.95.38]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARMoe-00000U-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 21:32:36 -0500 Received: from rebel (ppp-140.cust203-87-110.ghr.chariot.net.au [203.87.110.140]) by mail.chariot.net.au (Postfix) with SMTP id 6A935634C8; Wed, 3 Dec 2003 13:01:23 +1030 (CST) From: "Chris" To: "Markus Stumpf" , "ASRG" Subject: RE: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals - rDNS / MTA MARK 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: <20031202233314.GC43343@Space.Net> 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, 3 Dec 2003 13:05:10 +1030 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Yavkov said... > So I do not trust ISP's to do the right thing > and most of them do not have egress filtering thus allowing spoofed > packets to leave their networks. I think it has been amply shown in the past that any system that relies on an ISP to "do the right thing" is destined to fail. laziness, cost, lack of knowledge or whatever will prevent many from doing so. ISP's could prevent much of the abuse (not just mail) that occurs on the net today with such things as your example above, egress filtering. but do they? So a system (whichever) must not rely on the ISP, but (IMHO) is better if the ISP is "left out in the cold" if he doesn't conform. that way when mail stops coming in or going out they must upgrade. That is also why I feel that any system must be at zero dollars or as low as possible to implement. Would the web have grown as fast as it did if people were forced to pay M$ dollars for web servers ? somehow I doubt it. Regards Chris _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 2 21:46:29 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA29631 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 21:46:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARN1o-0000wb-Oo for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 21:46:12 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB32kCJQ003630 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 21:46:12 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARN1o-0000wT-Aq for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 21:46:12 -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 VAA29624 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 21:45:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARN1l-0000BW-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 21:46:09 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARN1l-0000BT-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 21:46:09 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARN1d-0000sk-Tc; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 21:46:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARN16-0000sG-K0 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 21:45:28 -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 VAA29621 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 21:45:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARN13-0000B8-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 21:45:25 -0500 Received: from mail.chariot.net.au ([203.87.95.38]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARN12-0000B1-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 21:45:24 -0500 Received: from rebel (ppp-140.cust203-87-110.ghr.chariot.net.au [203.87.110.140]) by mail.chariot.net.au (Postfix) with SMTP id 0A24C632A6; Wed, 3 Dec 2003 13:15:23 +1030 (CST) From: "Chris" To: "Walter Dnes" , "ASRG list" Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - depracate all list/bulk mailing and changeto 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) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <20031203022228.GA6512@m433> 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, 3 Dec 2003 13:19:10 +1030 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Chris wrote.. > > > > Are you going to force the airline companys to set up a feed for me? (RSS) > Walter replied.. > For much the same reason we had to shut down open relays... the answer > to your question is "yes". They were convenient, but were also massively > abused. Any attempt to force someone to do something is destined to fail. If the current system works for them then they won't change. so we have to change the current system. not try to force people to use another system. And since when have we managed to shut down open relays? e-mail is a one to one or one to many. that is the way it was designed how can we change that? Most e-mail is not "blasted out onto the internet" as you say. but is in fact customised to suit the individual recipient even if it is just a web bug to track if the person opened the e-mail in a html capable reader. so essentially that becomes a one to one mailing. Regards Chris > -----Original Message----- > From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of > Walter Dnes > Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 12:52 PM > To: ASRG list > Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - depracate all list/bulk mailing and > changeto RSS > > > On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 05:22:42PM +1030, Chris wrote > > > I don't want to have to keep reminding myself to "check my feed" or > > have YAP(yet another app) on my desktop and they don't do RSS anyway > > > > Are you going to force the airline companys to set up a feed for me? > > For much the same reason we had to shut down open relays... the answer > to your question is "yes". They were convenient, but were also massively > abused. A one-to-one answer to a question is one thing. Big email > shotgun blasts aimed at the entire internet are totally another. > > Some time ago, I made a rather sarcastic posting defying marketeers to > set up their own "unfiltered ISP", and watch current big ISPs collapse > overnight as millions of "eager double-opt-in-subscribers" defect to the > marketeers' ISP in order not be deprived of their newsletters. It looks > more reasonable as time goes on. With all the complaints about false > positives, why don't people set up unfiltered ISPs ? Why doesn't > someone put up or shut up ? > > -- > 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 Tue Dec 2 21:48:20 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA29700 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 21:48:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARN3c-000196-0f for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 21:48:04 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB32m3aA004398 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 21:48:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARN3b-00018d-Lc for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 21:48:03 -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 VAA29684 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 21:47:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARN3Y-0000DF-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 21:48:00 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARN3X-0000DC-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 21:47:59 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARN3Z-000132-CO; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 21:48:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARN33-000127-NF for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 21:47:29 -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 VAA29652 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 21:47:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARN30-0000Cd-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 21:47:26 -0500 Received: from manatick.foretec.com ([4.17.168.5] helo=manatick) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARN30-0000Ca-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 21:47:26 -0500 Received: from [203.87.95.38] (helo=mail.chariot.net.au) by manatick with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1ARN31-0005IE-W6 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 21:47:28 -0500 Received: from rebel (ppp-140.cust203-87-110.ghr.chariot.net.au [203.87.110.140]) by mail.chariot.net.au (Postfix) with SMTP id 5CB73634A1; Wed, 3 Dec 2003 13:16:50 +1030 (CST) From: "Chris" To: "Chris" , "Markus Stumpf" , "ASRG" Subject: RE: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals - rDNS / MTA MARK 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, 3 Dec 2003 13:20:37 +1030 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit My apologies Yakov for the typo Regards Chris > -----Original Message----- > > > Yavkov said... > > > So I do not trust ISP's to do the right thing snip... _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 2 21:55:27 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA29826 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 21:55:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARNAR-0001OR-Bi for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 21:55:11 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB32t7nU005349 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 21:55:07 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARNAR-0001OC-6p for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 21:55:07 -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 VAA29820 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 21:54:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARNAO-0000GK-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 21:55:04 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARNAN-0000GH-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 21:55:03 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARNAM-0001KK-MD; Tue, 02 Dec 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 1ARNA9-0001K4-OV for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 21:54:49 -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 VAA29816 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 21:54:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARNA6-0000GE-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 21:54:46 -0500 Received: from mercury.mv.net ([199.125.85.40]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARNA6-0000GB-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 21:54:46 -0500 Received: (qmail 14896 invoked from network); 2 Dec 2003 21:54:44 -0500 Received: from iridium.mv.net (HELO mv.mv.com) (199.125.85.17) by mercury.mv.net with SMTP; 2 Dec 2003 21:54:44 -0500 X-Peer-Info: remote-ip 199.125.85.17 local-ip 199.125.85.40 local-name mercury.mv.net Received: (qmail 18116 invoked by uid 101); 2 Dec 2003 21:54:43 -0500 From: "Mark E. Mallett" To: Yakov Shafranovich Cc: ASRG , Markus Stumpf Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - rDNS / MTA MARK Message-ID: <20031203025443.GF29285@iridium.mv.net> References: <3FCD13F8.1000904@solidmatrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3FCD13F8.1000904@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: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 21:54:43 -0500 > > Putting things in the reverse map has both advantages and disadvantages. > I used for a while ISP that marked their whole IP range as spam source, > and at the same time refusing to forward email that did not conform > to @.net. So I do not trust ISP's to do the right thing > and most of them do not have egress filtering thus allowing spoofed > packets to leave their networks. Marking would only be one element in the total picture. An ISP that marked every address as an MTA would probably be subject to other sorts of classification. Re filters: MTA Marking has the advantage of merely providing advice. If I choose to accept SMTP connections from my friend Joe's DSL system, I can do so even if his IP address is marked as "not an MTA" (or more properly, "not an MTA that the owner of the IP infrastructure operates). I couldn't do so if the marking was via firewall. I prefer the approach that provides information and lets participants act on that information. You're always going to have bad actors (in this example, ISPs); I don't think that's anything specific to MTAMark. (That's similar to that comment about how LMAP is bad because it will encourage viral infections: you can't not do something because somebody will do something else bad.) > This is a issue that should be discussed in DNSOPS but my feeling > is reverse tree should be used better and this is as a good place as > any other for capability of a host. Indeed. > I (personally) think the approach that uses the forward map to > list mail sources at zone apex, is better as that requires far > fewer entries. But that's a different thing. There's domain/MTA scope a la LMAP, and there's IP marking a la MTAMark. Unless I miss your point (which is altogether likely). > The draft example seems to suffer from a common misunderstanding > that wildcard will match an existing name in a zone if the type > does not exist, this is false see: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dnsext-wcard-clarify-02.txt D'oh. It's easy to make that mistake, even when one knows better. -mm- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 2 22:19:24 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA00492 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 22:19:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARNXg-0002r2-Q8 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 22:19:08 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB33J8jO010966 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 22:19:08 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARNXg-0002qn-Kp for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 22:19:08 -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 WAA00476 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 22:18:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARNXd-0000ZB-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 22:19:05 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARNXd-0000Z8-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 22:19:05 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARNXY-0002oY-BB; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 22:19:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARNVP-0002ln-OG for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 22:16:47 -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 WAA00432 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 22:16:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARNVM-0000Xa-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 22:16:44 -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 1ARNVM-0000WX-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 22:16:44 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-372-156.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.168.21]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HPA00LHRUEYKC@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 03 Dec 2003 03:16:14 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - rDNS and DNS considerations In-reply-to: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E01113240@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" Cc: ASRG Message-id: <3FCD5579.9020905@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: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E01113240@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, 02 Dec 2003 22:16:09 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > Following on on the rDNS track I did some investigation on the rDNS and DNS > side. The following issues were raised off list: > > 1) Is rDNS stable enough to depend on? > Maybe. The quality of the data registered for North America and > European zones is 'reasonable'. It is not great but not ridiculous. The > quality of the data in the Asian zones is not at all good. > > One issue to consider is that some of the NICs have been proposing > to kill rDNS since "nobody uses it and it is no damn use". > Are you refering to the regional registries (RIPE, APNIC, etc.)? 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 Tue Dec 2 22:49:29 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA01698 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 22:49:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARO0o-0004OP-9s for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 22:49:14 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB33nEqf016879 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 22:49:14 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARO0o-0004O5-01 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 22:49:14 -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 WAA01684 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 22:48:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARO0k-00012p-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 22:49:10 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARO0k-00012h-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 22:49:10 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARO0b-0004KI-24; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 22:49:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARNzw-0004Jp-VJ for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 22:48:20 -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 WAA01640 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 22:48:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARNzt-00012Q-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 22:48:17 -0500 Received: from moebius2.space.net ([195.30.1.100]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARNzs-00012N-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 22:48:16 -0500 Received: (qmail 73922 invoked by uid 1013); 3 Dec 2003 03:48:16 -0000 From: Markus Stumpf To: Chris Cc: Markus Stumpf , ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals - rDNS / MTA MARK Message-ID: <20031203034816.GB68161@Space.Net> References: <20031202233314.GC43343@Space.Net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Organization: SpaceNet AG, Muenchen, Germany X-PGP-Fingerprint: 66 F3 75 79 01 D0 B8 5F 1A C7 77 88 4A B6 70 DF Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 04:48:16 +0100 On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 01:05:10PM +1030, Chris wrote: > I think it has been amply shown in the past that any system that relies on > an ISP to "do the right thing" is destined to fail. This is also true for everything an end user does. And it is also true for everything that so called "consultants" do. To cite a customer: "no our mailserver can't be an open relay. we have just paid 15000 bucks for a firewall and 10000 bucks for a consultant to set things up". This is also true for anything programmers do, just look at bugtraq. > ISP's could prevent much of the abuse (not just mail) that occurs on the net > today with such things as your example above, egress filtering. but do they? Enduser could prevent much of the abuse by simply not being so ignorant and updating their software. Microsoft could prevent much of the abuse by fixing their broken software. OpenSource programmers could prevent much of the abuse by learning how to write programs. I have blocked a customer that relayed viri through our mailserver and notified him via phone. First he nearly called me names then they tried to sue us. It's hard to find a judge that isn't ignorant and for whom sending viri is really something that is evil and not something that "you must live with". > So a system (whichever) must not rely on the ISP, but (IMHO) is better if > the ISP is "left out in the cold" if he doesn't conform. A system (whichever) must not rely on any human without a clue or it will not work. The best would be if everyone had to pay 10 bucks for every email that he'd like to send, to a worldwide central authority. 9.90 will go to some human organisations and 0.10 will be used to make the central authority. Then after about 6 weeks we can shut down email completely as all will fall back to send CDs and letters and make phone calls. Shutting down SMTP and email will then solve the spam problem. Mission accomplished. > Would the web have grown as fast as it did if people were forced to pay M$ > dollars for web servers ? Would we have so much spammers if email weren't free and cheap? Would the web be such a mess if HTML would be really complicated? Would the Internet be so fsck'ed up if everyone would have to do a really hard exam before getting access and an even harder one before s/he is allowed to connect a computer to the Internet? If you don't like your ISP, get a new one. If everyone does it the bad ISPs will die. BUT: the bad ISPs are cheap, so everyone chooses them and all cry about how bad the world is. Don't cry, do something about it. It costs money? Only death is for free - and then it costs life. \Maex -- SpaceNet AG | Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 | Fon: +49 (89) 32356-0 Research & Development | D-80807 Muenchen | Fax: +49 (89) 32356-299 "The security, stability and reliability of a computer system is reciprocally proportional to the amount of vacuity between the ears of the admin" _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 2 23:16:30 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA02301 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 23:16:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AROQv-0005Rs-Fv for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 23:16:13 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB34GDdQ020944 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 23:16:13 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AROQv-0005Rj-4Q for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 23:16:13 -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 XAA02256 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 23:15:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AROQt-0001H8-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 23:16:11 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AROQs-0001H5-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 23:16:10 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AROQk-0005O4-2M; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 23:16:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AROQa-0005N4-NY for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 23:15:52 -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 XAA02237 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 23:15:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AROQY-0001Gg-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 23:15:50 -0500 Received: from mail.chariot.net.au ([203.87.95.38]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AROQX-0001Gd-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 23:15:50 -0500 Received: from rebel (ppp-140.cust203-87-110.ghr.chariot.net.au [203.87.110.140]) by mail.chariot.net.au (Postfix) with SMTP id 7D2C16376C; Wed, 3 Dec 2003 14:45:46 +1030 (CST) From: "Chris" To: "Markus Stumpf" , "Chris" Cc: "ASRG" Subject: RE: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals - rDNS / MTA MARK 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: <20031203034816.GB68161@Space.Net> 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: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 14:49:34 +1030 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit and your point is? Regards Chris > -----Original Message----- > From: Markus Stumpf [mailto:maex-lists-spam-ietf-asrg@Space.Net] > Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 2:18 PM > To: Chris > Cc: Markus Stumpf; ASRG > Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals - rDNS / MTA MARK > > > On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 01:05:10PM +1030, Chris wrote: > > I think it has been amply shown in the past that any system > that relies on > > an ISP to "do the right thing" is destined to fail. > > This is also true for everything an end user does. And it is also true > for everything that so called "consultants" do. To cite a customer: > "no our mailserver can't be an open relay. we have just paid > 15000 bucks for a firewall and 10000 bucks for a consultant to set > things up". > This is also true for anything programmers do, just look at bugtraq. > > > ISP's could prevent much of the abuse (not just mail) that > occurs on the net > > today with such things as your example above, egress filtering. > but do they? > > Enduser could prevent much of the abuse by simply not being so ignorant > and updating their software. Microsoft could prevent much of the abuse > by fixing their broken software. OpenSource programmers could prevent > much of the abuse by learning how to write programs. > > I have blocked a customer that relayed viri through our mailserver and > notified him via phone. First he nearly called me names then they tried > to sue us. It's hard to find a judge that isn't ignorant and for whom > sending viri is really something that is evil and not something that > "you must live with". > > > So a system (whichever) must not rely on the ISP, but (IMHO) is > better if > > the ISP is "left out in the cold" if he doesn't conform. > > A system (whichever) must not rely on any human without a clue or it > will not work. The best would be if everyone had to pay 10 bucks for > every email that he'd like to send, to a worldwide central authority. > 9.90 will go to some human organisations and 0.10 will be used to > make the central authority. > Then after about 6 weeks we can shut down email completely as all will > fall back to send CDs and letters and make phone calls. Shutting down > SMTP and email will then solve the spam problem. Mission accomplished. > > > Would the web have grown as fast as it did if people were > forced to pay M$ > > dollars for web servers ? > > Would we have so much spammers if email weren't free and cheap? > Would the web be such a mess if HTML would be really complicated? > Would the Internet be so fsck'ed up if everyone would have to do a > really hard exam before getting access and an even harder one before > s/he is allowed to connect a computer to the Internet? > > If you don't like your ISP, get a new one. If everyone does it the bad > ISPs will die. BUT: the bad ISPs are cheap, so everyone chooses them and > all cry about how bad the world is. Don't cry, do something about it. > It costs money? Only death is for free - and then it costs life. > > \Maex > > -- > SpaceNet AG | Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 | Fon: +49 (89) 32356-0 > Research & Development | D-80807 Muenchen | Fax: +49 > (89) 32356-299 > "The security, stability and reliability of a computer system is > reciprocally > proportional to the amount of vacuity between the ears of the admin" _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 2 23:31:36 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA02660 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 23:31:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AROfY-0005uH-B1 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 23:31:20 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB34VK22022699 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 23:31:20 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AROfY-0005u2-5Z for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 23:31:20 -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 XAA02645 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 23:31:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AROfW-0001Sc-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 23:31:18 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AROfV-0001SZ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 23:31:17 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AROfF-0005q7-KE; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 23:31:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AROeG-0005or-6u for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 23:30:00 -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 XAA02615 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 23:29:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AROeE-0001S4-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 23:29:58 -0500 Received: from moebius2.space.net ([195.30.1.100]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AROeD-0001Rq-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 23:29:57 -0500 Received: (qmail 75743 invoked by uid 1013); 3 Dec 2003 04:29:56 -0000 From: Markus Stumpf To: Chris Cc: Markus Stumpf , ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals - rDNS / MTA MARK Message-ID: <20031203042956.GC68161@Space.Net> References: <20031203034816.GB68161@Space.Net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Organization: SpaceNet AG, Muenchen, Germany X-PGP-Fingerprint: 66 F3 75 79 01 D0 B8 5F 1A C7 77 88 4A B6 70 DF Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 05:29:56 +0100 On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 02:49:34PM +1030, Chris wrote: > and your point is? Bashing anyone will not solve the problem. Either you have some substantial comments to make or you better make no comments at all. Even more if you top quote some 10 unaltered lines just for 4 words. \Maex -- SpaceNet AG | Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 | Fon: +49 (89) 32356-0 Research & Development | D-80807 Muenchen | Fax: +49 (89) 32356-299 "The security, stability and reliability of a computer system is reciprocally proportional to the amount of vacuity between the ears of the admin" _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 2 23:34:26 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA02723 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 23:34:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AROiC-00067J-L5 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 23:34:09 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB34Y4c9023368 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 23:34:04 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AROiC-000640-5Q for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 23:34:04 -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 XAA02699 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 23:33:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AROiA-0001Uw-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 23:34:02 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AROi9-0001Ut-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 23:34:01 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AROi9-0005zq-3o; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 23:34:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AROhN-0005zC-CW for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 23:33:13 -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 XAA02686 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 23:32:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AROhK-0001UR-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 23:33:10 -0500 Received: from mail.chariot.net.au ([203.87.95.38]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AROhJ-0001UN-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 23:33:10 -0500 Received: from rebel (ppp-140.cust203-87-110.ghr.chariot.net.au [203.87.110.140]) by mail.chariot.net.au (Postfix) with SMTP id 8039960C86; Wed, 3 Dec 2003 15:03:08 +1030 (CST) From: "Chris" To: "ASRG" Cc: "Markus Stumpf" Subject: RE: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals - rDNS / MTA MARK 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: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 15:06:56 +1030 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Now I may be wrong but. It appears our Mr Markus Stumpf runs, administers or has something to do with an IP blacklist (blackhole) I must assume he has objected to comments I have made regarding blacklists. Therefore it seems he has dropped my ISP into his IP blackhole so rather than simply filter me out individually, he has blocked a few thousand subscribers (many are businesses) Sort of proves my point! Chris Reporting-MTA: dns; mail.chariot.net.au Arrival-Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 14:45:46 +1030 (CST) Final-Recipient: rfc822; maex-lists-spam-ietf-asrg@Space.Net Action: failed Status: 5.0.0 Diagnostic-Code: X-Postfix; host moebius.space.net[195.30.1.25] said: 553 Blocked (203.87.95.38 / 20031117) Your mailserver is sending spam/UCE, probably an open relay. See http://www.space.net/abuse/rbl/ (in reply to RCPT TO command) _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 2 23:38:22 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA02818 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 23:38:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AROm5-0006UN-II for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 23:38:05 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB34c5gl024937 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 23:38:05 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AROm4-0006U0-W0 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 23:38:05 -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 XAA02808 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 23:37:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AROm2-0001X3-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 23:38:03 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AROm2-0001X0-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 23:38:02 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AROm1-0006Qp-WE; Tue, 02 Dec 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 1AROkl-0006An-Uf for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 23:36:43 -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 XAA02787 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 23:36:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AROkj-0001WH-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 23:36:41 -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 1AROkj-0001WE-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 23:36:41 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-372-156.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.168.21]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HPA00CBPY48L3@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 03 Dec 2003 04:36:12 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich To: ASRG Message-id: <3FCD6838.6080102@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] 7. BCP - Status of subgroup Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2003 23:36:08 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT The BCP subgroup (asrg-bcp {at} ntp.org) is currently under review as part of our reorganization process. Its coordinator, Brad Knowles, resigned from his post and left the ASRG some time ago. 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 Tue Dec 2 23:47:33 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA03270 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 23:47:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AROuz-0006ov-CS for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 23:47:17 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB34lHFm026211 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 23:47:17 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AROuz-0006og-7D for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 23:47:17 -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 XAA03240 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 23:47:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AROuw-0001gk-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 23:47:14 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AROus-0001gc-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 23:47:10 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AROuk-0006ka-FG; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 23:47:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AROsG-0006iX-CH for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 23:44:28 -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 XAA02939 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 23:44:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AROsE-0001aH-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 23:44:26 -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 1AROsD-0001Zy-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 23:44:25 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-372-156.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.168.21]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HPA001JWYH3MW@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 03 Dec 2003 04:43:57 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals - rDNS / MTA MARK In-reply-to: To: Chris Cc: ASRG , Markus Stumpf Message-id: <3FCD6A08.9090603@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, 02 Dec 2003 23:43:52 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT This is not a message for the public list, bashing each other is not going to help. If you have a problem with someone in the group, PLEASE contact the person, or the co-chairs OFF-LIST first. If you look at the message closely, "Blocked (203.87.95.38 / 20031117)", the second number appears to be a date, which is at least three weeks earlier than today. If you want to follow up on this, do it off-list. Sincerely, Yakov Shafranovich Co-Chair, ASRG Chris wrote: > Now I may be wrong but. > > It appears our Mr Markus Stumpf runs, administers or has something to do > with an IP blacklist (blackhole) > > I must assume he has objected to comments I have made regarding blacklists. > > Therefore it seems he has dropped my ISP into his IP blackhole > > so rather than simply filter me out individually, he has blocked a few > thousand subscribers (many are businesses) > > Sort of proves my point! > > Chris > > > Reporting-MTA: dns; mail.chariot.net.au > Arrival-Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 14:45:46 +1030 (CST) > > Final-Recipient: rfc822; maex-lists-spam-ietf-asrg@Space.Net > Action: failed > Status: 5.0.0 > Diagnostic-Code: X-Postfix; host moebius.space.net[195.30.1.25] said: 553 > Blocked (203.87.95.38 / 20031117) Your mailserver is sending spam/UCE, > probably an open relay. See http://www.space.net/abuse/rbl/ (in reply to > RCPT TO command) > ------- 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 Wed Dec 3 00:06:26 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA03753 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 2003 00:06:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARPDG-0007NV-Hr for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 03 Dec 2003 00:06:10 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB356A0W028358 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 3 Dec 2003 00:06:10 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARPDG-0007NJ-DT for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 03 Dec 2003 00:06:10 -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 AAA03737 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 2003 00:05:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARPDD-0001wc-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 03 Dec 2003 00:06:08 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARPDD-0001wZ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 03 Dec 2003 00:06:07 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARPD7-0007JJ-95; Wed, 03 Dec 2003 00:06:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARPCe-0007IN-Ee for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 03 Dec 2003 00:05:32 -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 AAA03688 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 2003 00:05:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARPCc-0001us-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 03 Dec 2003 00:05:30 -0500 Received: from moebius2.space.net ([195.30.1.100]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARPCb-0001uo-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 03 Dec 2003 00:05:29 -0500 Received: (qmail 77113 invoked by uid 1013); 3 Dec 2003 05:05:29 -0000 From: Markus Stumpf To: Chris Cc: ASRG , Markus Stumpf Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals - rDNS / MTA MARK Message-ID: <20031203050529.GD68161@Space.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 Organization: SpaceNet AG, Muenchen, Germany X-PGP-Fingerprint: 66 F3 75 79 01 D0 B8 5F 1A C7 77 88 4A B6 70 DF Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 06:05:29 +0100 On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 03:06:56PM +1030, Chris wrote: > Now I may be wrong but. You are. > I must assume he has objected to comments I have made regarding blacklists. No you must not. Btw. I haven't seen/can't remember comments from you regarding blacklists and I don't care either. > Therefore it seems he has dropped my ISP into his IP blackhole No, it is because the mailserver is sending spam as the message says. The block was put in 17-11-2003 (22:30 GMT+1) See: http://rblsrv.space.net/history/203/87/95/38 These are a few samples. iconoclast@space.net btw. is an address for which we receive some 10 spams a day and the domain @bllv.de receives dictionary attacks every other week. > Blocked (203.87.95.38 / 20031117) Your mailserver is sending spam/UCE, > probably an open relay. See http://www.space.net/abuse/rbl/ (in reply to > RCPT TO command) If you have a problem with the block there is a contact form at http://www.space.net/abuse/rbl/ Use it. This list is not the appropriate place. At least I can understand now why you are bashing ISPs ... \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 Dec 3 00:49:31 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA04913 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 2003 00:49:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARPsx-0000Us-QB for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 03 Dec 2003 00:49:15 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB35nFqE001904 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 3 Dec 2003 00:49:15 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARPsx-0000Ud-MO for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 03 Dec 2003 00:49:15 -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 AAA04905 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 2003 00:49:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARPsu-0002SP-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 03 Dec 2003 00:49:13 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARPsu-0002SM-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 03 Dec 2003 00:49:12 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARPsj-0000SR-5s; Wed, 03 Dec 2003 00:49:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARPsf-0000SA-0A for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 03 Dec 2003 00:48:57 -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 AAA04901 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 2003 00:48:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARPsc-0002SJ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 03 Dec 2003 00:48:54 -0500 Received: from mail.chariot.net.au ([203.87.95.38]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARPsb-0002SG-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 03 Dec 2003 00:48:53 -0500 Received: from rebel (ppp-140.cust203-87-110.ghr.chariot.net.au [203.87.110.140]) by mail.chariot.net.au (Postfix) with SMTP id EFA0663E5C for ; Wed, 3 Dec 2003 16:18:50 +1030 (CST) From: "Chris" To: "ASRG" Subject: RE: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals - rDNS / MTA MARK 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: <20031203050529.GD68161@Space.Net> 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: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 16:22:39 +1030 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I must apologise to Markus He is correct my ISP has been blacklisted for a while and I have worked out why I have only just started receiving the bounces. (stupid of me not to figure it out earlier) Coincidence has a lot to do with this. I am sending this to the group not offlist because I want to make it public and because If I send directly to him it will bounce :( Regards Chris > -----Original Message----- > From: Markus Stumpf [mailto:maex-lists-spam-ietf-asrg@Space.Net] > Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 3:35 PM > To: Chris > Cc: ASRG; Markus Stumpf > Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals - rDNS / MTA MARK > > > On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 03:06:56PM +1030, Chris wrote: > > Now I may be wrong but. > > You are. > > > I must assume he has objected to comments I have made regarding > blacklists. > > No you must not. > Btw. I haven't seen/can't remember comments from you regarding blacklists > and I don't care either. > > > Therefore it seems he has dropped my ISP into his IP blackhole > > No, it is because the mailserver is sending spam as the message says. > The block was put in 17-11-2003 (22:30 GMT+1) > See: http://rblsrv.space.net/history/203/87/95/38 > These are a few samples. > iconoclast@space.net btw. is an address for which we receive > some 10 spams > a day and the domain @bllv.de receives dictionary attacks every > other week. > > > Blocked (203.87.95.38 / 20031117) Your mailserver is > sending spam/UCE, > > probably an open relay. See http://www.space.net/abuse/rbl/ > (in reply to > > RCPT TO command) > > If you have a problem with the block there is a contact form at > http://www.space.net/abuse/rbl/ > Use it. This list is not the appropriate place. > > At least I can understand now why you are bashing ISPs ... > > \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 Dec 3 01:20:40 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA05531 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 2003 01:20:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARQN6-0001mh-QX for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 03 Dec 2003 01:20:24 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB36KOtt006853 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 3 Dec 2003 01:20:24 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARQN6-0001mS-Lh for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 03 Dec 2003 01:20:24 -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 BAA05519 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 2003 01:20:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARQN3-0002mG-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 03 Dec 2003 01:20:21 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARQN3-0002m7-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 03 Dec 2003 01:20:21 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARQMl-0001iQ-0B; Wed, 03 Dec 2003 01:20:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARQKp-0001gJ-3P for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 03 Dec 2003 01:18:03 -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 BAA05466 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 2003 01:17:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARQKl-0002ko-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 03 Dec 2003 01:17:59 -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 1ARQKl-0002kM-01 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 03 Dec 2003 01:17:59 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-372-156.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.168.21]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HPB00GDS2RVN9@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 03 Dec 2003 06:16:47 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich To: ASRG Message-id: <3FCD7FCB.7040007@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] 7. BCP - ISPs - News Article Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2003 01:16:43 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT An interesting article (http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,8040330%255E421,00.html): --------snip----- "AUSTRALIA'S largest internet service provider Telstra BigPond will monitor its customers' e-mails and suspend the accounts of users suspected of sending spam, viruses or denial-of-service attacks under new rules to be introduced later this month. Under changes to its Acceptable Use Policy, BigPond company will investigate cable and ADSL Internet customers sending more than 20 e-mails in a 10-minute period. Customers sending more e-mails than the prescribed limit may be suspected of sending unsolicited e-mail, known as spam, and BigPond management "may suspend the (user's) account while the customer is contacted". "But Internet experts yesterday criticised BigPond's policy changes and warned they could unfairly cause problems for legitimate e-mail users trying to contact social groups and family members." " --------snip----- Also mentioned on SlashDot (http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/12/03/0044202). 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 Wed Dec 3 05:28:32 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA08620 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 2003 05:28:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARUEz-00052F-JH for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 03 Dec 2003 05:28:18 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB3ASHn3019353 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 3 Dec 2003 05:28:17 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARUEz-000524-5R for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 03 Dec 2003 05:28:17 -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 FAA08601 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 2003 05:28:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARUEv-0005c2-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 03 Dec 2003 05:28:13 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARUEv-0005bz-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 03 Dec 2003 05:28:13 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARUEi-0004zk-PE; Wed, 03 Dec 2003 05:28:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARUEg-0004zZ-El for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 03 Dec 2003 05:27:58 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA08597 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 2003 05:27:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARUEd-0005bk-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 03 Dec 2003 05:27:55 -0500 Received: from argon.connectinternetsolutions.com ([193.110.243.33] helo=argon.connect.org.uk) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARUEc-0005bg-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 03 Dec 2003 05:27:54 -0500 Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 1ARUEe-00075M-22; Wed, 03 Dec 2003 10:27:56 +0000 In-Reply-To: Subject: RE: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals - rDNS / MTA MARK To: "Chris" From: "Jon Kyme" Cc: "ASRG" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.10.1] 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, 03 Dec 2003 10:27:56 +0000 > > Now I may be wrong but. > http://openrbl.org/ip/203/87/95/38.htm -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Dec 3 09:25:35 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA16170 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 2003 09:25:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARXwN-00076S-Tn for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 03 Dec 2003 09:25:20 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB3EPJWt027298 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 3 Dec 2003 09:25:19 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARXwN-00076D-GY for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 03 Dec 2003 09:25:19 -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 JAA16163 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 2003 09:25:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARXwL-0001tv-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 03 Dec 2003 09:25:17 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARXwL-0001ts-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 03 Dec 2003 09:25:17 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARXw7-00073j-Gx; Wed, 03 Dec 2003 09:25:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARRdE-0006Ow-Rk for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 03 Dec 2003 02:41:09 -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 CAA04359 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 2003 02:40:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARRdA-0003fw-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 03 Dec 2003 02:41:04 -0500 Received: from [192.0.35.132] (helo=localhost.localdomain) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARRdA-0003ft-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 03 Dec 2003 02:41:04 -0500 Received: (from kent@localhost) by localhost.localdomain (8.11.6/8.11.6) id hB37f4Y13088 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 23:41:04 -0800 From: kent@icann.org To: ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Legal - Subject labeling - FTC response Message-ID: <20031203074104.GA11890@owl.songbird.com> Mail-Followup-To: ASRG References: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0111323E@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0111323E@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 23:41:04 -0800 On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 11:21:14AM -0800, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: [...] > * Responsibility for defining label terms and their use is properly the > domain of the FTC, the role of the IETF would appear to be limited to > defining the mechanism by which the labels are expressed. The IETF is global, and the standards it develops are not restricted to the US. While it is very tempting to simply use labels from CAN-SPAM, what if the Chines Government (for example) produced similar laws, but with different labels? (The US government has limited jurisdiction over email that originates from China.) [...] > * The principal difficulty with use of keyword terms is the risk of > collision. This risk may be mitigated by defining some form of prefix scheme > analogous to the namespace scheme employed in XML. Keyword labels might be > encoded as USFTC:Spam or possibly IETF:Spam. It is likely that IANA > registration will be sufficient to avoid prefix collisions. Perhaps, but there are other issues. The common case in an IANA registry is that one or more "technical experts" are annointed to pass on additions to the registry, but that doesn't seem appropriate here. There is another possible model, that of the urn/uri registries, where essentially anyone can register a schema, and obvious problems are vetted via a mailing list of interested parties. It's not clear that's appropriate, either. > Given that we are not the IETF and given that we report through the IAB and > given that political philosophy is out of scope that would appear to be the > sum total of the discussion of the topic here that has relevance. OK, but... the IANA registry being hinted at seems to me to have some fairly unique characteristics, and it would probably be worth trying to outline at least some possibilities of how the IANA would manage it. Regards Kent -- Kent Crispin "Be good, and you will be kent@icann.org,kent@songbird.com lonesome." p: +1 310 823 9358 f: +1 310 823 8649 -- Mark Twain _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Dec 3 09:58:40 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA17503 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 2003 09:58:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARYSO-000158-2g for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 03 Dec 2003 09:58:26 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB3EwOqS004152 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 3 Dec 2003 09:58:24 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARYSN-00014t-U4 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 03 Dec 2003 09:58:23 -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 JAA17471 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 2003 09:58:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARYSL-0002XM-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 03 Dec 2003 09:58:22 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARYSL-0002XJ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 03 Dec 2003 09:58:21 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARYS1-0000zq-KY; Wed, 03 Dec 2003 09:58:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARYRS-0000ym-5s for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 03 Dec 2003 09:57:26 -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 JAA17419 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 2003 09:57:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARYRP-0002W1-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 03 Dec 2003 09:57:23 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com ([65.205.251.73]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARYRP-0002Vk-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 03 Dec 2003 09:57:23 -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 hB3EvIfQ002361; Wed, 3 Dec 2003 06:57:18 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc03.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 3 Dec 2003 06:57:18 -0800 Message-ID: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E01113243@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Yakov Shafranovich'" , "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" Cc: ASRG Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - rDNS and DNS considerations 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, 3 Dec 2003 06:57:15 -0800 > Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > > Following on on the rDNS track I did some investigation on > the rDNS and DNS > > side. The following issues were raised off list: > > > > 1) Is rDNS stable enough to depend on? > > Maybe. The quality of the data registered for North America and > > European zones is 'reasonable'. It is not great but not > ridiculous. The > > quality of the data in the Asian zones is not at all good. > > > > One issue to consider is that some of the NICs have > been proposing > > to kill rDNS since "nobody uses it and it is no damn use". > > > > Are you refering to the regional registries (RIPE, APNIC, etc.)? Yes, but I can't be more specific. The feeling I got was that we are in a use it or loose it situation. IF we define a compelling use of the reverse DNS to help control spam and that becomes a killer application then the reverse DNS probably stays intact. I made another call today and got some additional info on rDNS. There is absolutely no problem putting TXT records in there. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Dec 3 11:11:37 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA21575 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 2003 11:11:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARZay-0005aB-1d for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 03 Dec 2003 11:11:24 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB3GBKjl021455 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 3 Dec 2003 11:11:20 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARZax-0005ZA-Tw for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 03 Dec 2003 11:11:19 -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 LAA21565 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 2003 11:11:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARZav-0003d8-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 03 Dec 2003 11:11:17 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARZau-0003d5-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 03 Dec 2003 11:11:16 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARZag-0005Ve-91; Wed, 03 Dec 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 1ARZaO-0005Ud-8i for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 03 Dec 2003 11:10:44 -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 LAA21544 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 2003 11:10:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARZaL-0003cZ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 03 Dec 2003 11:10:41 -0500 Received: from pigeon.verisign.com ([65.205.251.71]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARZaK-0003cW-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 03 Dec 2003 11:10:41 -0500 Received: from mou1wnexc01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.53]) by pigeon.verisign.com (8.12.10/) with ESMTP id hB3GAVAW000312; Wed, 3 Dec 2003 08:10:31 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 3 Dec 2003 08:10:31 -0800 Message-ID: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E01113244@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Markus Stumpf'" , ASRG Subject: RE: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals - rDNS / MTA MARK - DESCRIPtion not P ERMission 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, 3 Dec 2003 08:10:23 -0800 > There are people (even in IETF DNSOP) that think revDNS is obsolete > and if not for IPv4 it will be at least for IPv6 ;-) If there is a value it can be implemented. Given the rate of IPv6 progress I would not worry overmuch about it at this point, the principal of mapping addresses still holds, the difference is that you probably use a lot of wildcards and possibly even synthesized responses. > Currently we tend to a more structured approach like > > _perm._smtp._tcp.8.0.30.195.in-addr.arpa IN TXT "1" > _perm._smtp._tcp.1.0.30.195.in-addr.arpa IN TXT "0" > > or like > > _smtp._tcp.8.0.30.195.in-addr.arpa IN PERM 1 > _smtp._tcp.1.0.30.195.in-addr.arpa IN PERM 0 I would suggest that what is going on here is that you have a lookup application and that should be your primary key. Within the lookup application you have a specific protocol, transport and port. Then there is information about the lookup. This suggests to me that the ordering should be something like _perm.8.0.30.195.in-addr.arp The permission application _xxx.8.0.30.195.in-addr.arp Some other application _smtp._tcp._perm.8.0.30.195.in-addr.arp Permission data relating to smtp Now one issue to consider here is that we are talking about a reverse lookup. I do not think that the _smtp._tcp labelling is necessarily the right one. It is right for SRV which goes in the forward direction and could involve port swapping. I think that our application is the reverse, we receive a stimulus on an IP address, Port, Protocol tuple and want to look it up _80._tcp._perm.8.0.30.195.in-addr.arp Permission data for TCP port 80 *._perm.8.0.30.195.in-addr.arp Permission data for all protocols OK that is the search term, lets look at the right hand side. I dislike the binary approach suggested. The types of applications I am concerned about go beyond spam, I am also concerned about attacks on my root servers. I would want to be able to include contact information into the reverse DNS to be able to perform remediation. So an ISP can add into the rDNS a NAPTR pointer to its contact desk. That looks like a different application. From the spam side I would like to be able to broaden the problem. I do not want to express permission, I want to describe the port and address. If it is a question of Permission it should be enforced at the router. What we are talking about here is DESCRIPtion. _80._tcp._descrip.8.0.30.195.in-addr.arp ? "TBS" My discussion with Mark Kosters on TXT versus new record type was somewhat surprising. I mentioned TXT and got back the response, Oh thats OK that will work. This begs the question of the advantage of a new record type. The only advantage in the DNS protocol is that a record type is a search term. But it is already clear that we need additional search terms to be included here and from a management point of view the _descrip term is pretty nice to have. Go back to my hypothetical contact desk application. It is quite likely I would want to be able to separate management of the two data sets for the different applications by delegating to different resolvers. The DESCRIPtion resolver might well be some synthetic resolver working on the DHCP box. I can imaging my contact resolver being very different. I would like to have more description terms and to be able to impose some sort of taxonomy on them. It should be possible to combine search terms and for new terms to be defined independently of the specification. I see the search terms being expressed syntactically as a TXT record with a string of XML QName like terms: One A:Two B:Three If a prefix is specified it is defined by means of a URI in the same manner as XML namespaces. This may seem overly complex but DO NOT DISCOUNT EXTENSIBILITY, my experience is that if a protocol is to remain simple and relevant it should have the extension mechanism designed in. People always attack the extension mechanisms, particularly if they are unconstrained and do not involve a council of the great and the good handing out numbers like IANA does. The basic terms I think we need are: NotAllocated The address has not been allocated by a local registry NotInService The address has been allocated but is not in service Prohibited The address is prohibited from using the speicifed port Restricted The address is associated with a restricted service Annonymous The address is associated with annoynmous service, beware. Annonymous service is what I might provide to people who happened to be passing by and needed some 802.11b service ex gracia. Within Restricted and Annonymous I think there are some sub terms Pooled The address is allocated on a pooled basis, this would usually correspond to a dial up modem Fixed The address is allocated on a long term basis so that a single user is associated with the connection The point here is that there is no need to prohibit the use of Pooled or Fixed restricted connections to send mail provided that the receiver is warned and can take appropriate spam control measures. Since these are mutually exclusive they can be tied to the master term, something like Restricted.Pooled > A solution to that would be to make the RHS not a boolean but e.g. > a 64 bit integer and give it a meaning: > 0 dont allow connections > 1 allow unauthenticated connections (aka outgoing MTA) > 2 allow only authenticated connections > 3 allow only authenticated connections with ciphered passwords > The same could of course also be achieved with TXT records. TXT is much more extensible. Even if we do not have namespaces. > One question raised today was: > Why is this useful at all? MTA MARK could also be accomplished much > more effective by a firewall rule. > This is IMHO a good and valid question ;-) I would like to avoid closing down port 25 just because someone is working from a mass market connection. What do we do when it is no longer possible to get T1 connections to a house because the cable company has driven the competition out? If a service > An answer might be that firewalls rules are expensive, the more rules > a firewall has to check the more expensive they get. So with large > networks MTA MARK (or a more generalized form) could be a alternative. Firewall rules are a blunt instrument and encourage people to work arround. If port 25 starts being shut down everywhere there are going to be a lot of people setting up servers that accept email under submit - and many will end up being open. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Dec 3 11:35:35 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA22500 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 2003 11:35:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARZyD-0006p8-4i for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 03 Dec 2003 11:35:21 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB3GZLEO026224 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 3 Dec 2003 11:35:21 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARZyD-0006ot-0U for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 03 Dec 2003 11:35:21 -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 LAA22479 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 2003 11:35:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARZyC-0003zw-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 03 Dec 2003 11:35:20 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARZyB-0003zt-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 03 Dec 2003 11:35:19 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARZxt-0006mL-VW; Wed, 03 Dec 2003 11:35:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARZx9-0006lH-L7 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 03 Dec 2003 11:34:15 -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 LAA22447 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 2003 11:33:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARZx8-0003zM-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 03 Dec 2003 11:34:14 -0500 Received: from pigeon.verisign.com ([65.205.251.71]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARZx7-0003zJ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 03 Dec 2003 11:34:14 -0500 Received: from mou1wnexc01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.53]) by pigeon.verisign.com (8.12.10/) with ESMTP id hB3GYCAV006786; Wed, 3 Dec 2003 08:34:12 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 3 Dec 2003 08:34:12 -0800 Message-ID: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E01113245@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'kent@icann.org'" , ASRG Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Legal - Subject labeling - FTC response 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, 3 Dec 2003 08:34:10 -0800 > On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 11:21:14AM -0800, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > [...] > > * Responsibility for defining label terms and their use > is properly the > > domain of the FTC, the role of the IETF would appear to be > limited to > > defining the mechanism by which the labels are expressed. > > The IETF is global, and the standards it develops are not > restricted to > the US. While it is very tempting to simply use labels from CAN-SPAM, > what if the Chines Government (for example) produced similar laws, but > with different labels? (The US government has limited > jurisdiction over email that originates from China.) That is certainly possible. However there is a natural process that reduces this type of proliferation. The terms defined comprise a shared vocabulary, the use of those terms establishes an intersubjective understanding of the terms. If you use a term that is outside that vocabulary and it cannot be understood then it has no effect. There are actually two issues here. First China might define different terms with the same meaning. Second China might define different terms with a completely different meaning. The IETF could only actually address the first. Clearly there is an advantage if the prefix choosen is neutral. China is much less likely to attempt to define its own term in place of ietf:spam than it would usftc:spam. But that does not change the fact that the actual act of definition can be left to the FTC lawyers. The proliferation issue is not as severe here as it is in other areas since many spam filters use feedback and are thus capable of learning new terms and assigning appropriate weights. > Perhaps, but there are other issues. The common case in an IANA > registry is that one or more "technical experts" are annointed to pass > on additions to the registry, but that doesn't seem appropriate here. > There is another possible model, that of the urn/uri registries, where > essentially anyone can register a schema, and obvious problems are > vetted via a mailing list of interested parties. It's not > clear that's appropriate, either. How do we know who should be the experts? Perhaps we could try strange women lying about in ponds distributing swords? I prefer the URI model, but I think for this particular case the value of transporting the additional URI information required to disambiguate the term is not justified by the benefit. > > Given that we are not the IETF and given that we report > through the IAB and > > given that political philosophy is out of scope that would > appear to be the > > sum total of the discussion of the topic here that has relevance. > > OK, but... the IANA registry being hinted at seems to me to have some > fairly unique characteristics, and it would probably be worth > trying to > outline at least some possibilities of how the IANA would manage it. I don't think that an IANA registry is needed. People will avoid terms that are already in use when they want to define new semantics. Several hundred years ago the Academie Francaise was formed with the goal of promoting French as the international language by means of Napoleon's cannons and rigorously defining the meaning of each word in the French language. We can now see that this endeavor is a total failure, and not just because of Waterloo. The Academie Francaise did not promote the growth of the French language, it smothered it in beuracracy. Meanwhile English has been successful as the International language for exactly the reasons French failled, there is no central repository of 'experts' trying to control things. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Dec 3 13:19:52 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA27109 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 2003 13:19:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARbb4-0004yj-Mk for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 03 Dec 2003 13:19:39 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB3IJY72019131 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 3 Dec 2003 13:19:34 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARbb4-0004yU-Di for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 03 Dec 2003 13:19:34 -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 NAA27051 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 2003 13:19:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARbb2-0005k1-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 03 Dec 2003 13:19:32 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARbb2-0005jx-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 03 Dec 2003 13:19:32 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARbaX-0004u0-5N; Wed, 03 Dec 2003 13:19:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARbZX-0004sN-Qq for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 03 Dec 2003 13:17:59 -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 NAA26901 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 2003 13:17:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARbZV-0005fm-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 03 Dec 2003 13:17:57 -0500 Received: from pigeon.verisign.com ([65.205.251.71]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARbZU-0005fj-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 03 Dec 2003 13:17:56 -0500 Received: from mou1wnexc01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.53]) by pigeon.verisign.com (8.12.10/) with ESMTP id hB3IHtAV001994 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 2003 10:17:55 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 3 Dec 2003 10:17:55 -0800 Message-ID: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E01113248@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: ASRG MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: [Asrg] 0.? General? Openness, Blacklists and Accreditation and Network E ffects Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 10:17:52 -0800 All, I am just working on a revision of my authentication and accreditation paper. The point was raised that there is a potential for a 'lock in' situation similar to that created by the early web browsers which included a limited number of CA roots for SSL. Since this is an important point that has a widespread impact I think we should discuss it on the general list. First, do not assume that a static list is necessarily in the best interests of the CAs accreditation authorities or other trust providers. One of the weaknesses of the SSL and padlock scheme is that it limits the degree of trust to a binary choice, either there is trust or there is not. This prevents CAs from creating premium certification products that involve a higher degree of authentication and hence assurance for a specific purpose. I would like to be able to offer a certificate that is exclusively for doctors for example and would be identified by means of a specific logotype embedded in the certificate (this is being worked on in PKIX). There is also a leveling down effect, the binary trust criteria does not require the CA to accept any liability (VeriSign accepts up to $1 million) and some CAs do not actually perform any authentication beyond checking that the credit card payment clears. The risk here is that Gresham's law applies and bad certificates drive out the good. For the spam application we clearly do not want a binary accreditation system. Although our ultimate decision is going to be binary (accept/reject) or at best ternary (accept/questionable/reject) the data we use to make that decision is inherently shades of grey where the weighting factors are supplied by the end recipients. I am using the term accreditation here loosely to refer to any positive statement that is made concerning an email sender. This accreditation might consist of authenticating the business registration of the sender but I prefer when working in this particular context to reserve that term for authenication of the sender's right to use a particular domain name to originate spam. The lock in potential here is that we reach a point where it is effectively impossible to send email without providing some form of accreditation. It is easy to see how this will arrise, there is a strong positive feedback effect. As soon as a significant number of email senders authenticate their mail there will be a significant number of people who use that as a filter criteria. This will in turn create an incentive for others to become accredited etc. The network effect here is devastating. That is why it is such a good potential spam control. I believe that we need to differentiate between a requirement for accreditation becomming effectively compulsory and a requirement for accreditation from a particular source becomming effectively compulsory. The first may be a nuisance but so is spam. The only way to deal with spam origination is to have some means of holding senders accountable, that will inevitably mean the innocent bear some cost. Even if so the cost of accreditation is only the same as the cost of an SSL cert today ($350) it is a gain since most ISPs and email senders spend considerably more than that getting themselves re-accredited in bilateral negotiations with blacklists and major ISPs. The cost of accreditation is already there, deal with it. So we are down to the question of how an email sender can use a new form of accreditation that has never been seen before and for that credential to establish the appropriate reputation (from always legitimate to always spam). I think we need to extend the LMAP concepts to cover this, lets start from basics. We have a bunch of email servers for the domain example.com which is in turn accredited by three organizations. I think we need to have separate ways of encoding the two types of information: 8.0.30.195._smtp._lmap.example.com TXT "Yeah this cat can send email" 9.0.30.195._smtp._lmap.example.com TXT "Yeah this cat can send email" 10.0.30.195._smtp._lmap.example.com TXT "Yeah this cat can send email" 11.0.30.195._smtp._lmap.example.com TXT "Yeah this cat can send email" _accr._lmap.example.com TXT "Accreditation 1" _accr._lmap.example.com TXT "Accreditation 2" _accr._lmap.example.com TXT "Accreditation 3" Here I have deliberately used bogus text to get the idea across. The reciever looking to validate email from IP address 195.30.0.9 would look up the records for BOTH 9.0.30.195._smtp._lmap.example.com and _accr._lmap.example.com. The accreditation record needs to express the following information: The protocol by which the accreditation may be confirmed Unique key that identifies the source of the accreditation The protocol address (can be the same as the key for the source) Any additional data which might be required as a part of the accreditation protocol. For example imagine that there are accreditation services run by promisenottaspam.com. The accreditation record for their "accredit one" product might be something of the form: _accr._lmap.example.com TXT "DNS TXT accredit.promisenottaspam.com www" This would mean 'the accreditation is expressed by means of a TXT record www.example.com.accredit.promisenottaspam.com'. Note that we do not need to use the DNS to say whether this is a good or a bad thing, the decision to apply weight and what weight to give to this information lies with the recipient alone. Over a short period of time feedback filtering systems would quickly allocate the right weights to new accreditation schemes without the need for user intervention. The feedback could be short loop (spambayes) where the user provides direct feedback to an algorithm or long loop with a spam filtering company in the loop. The big advantage over this system over the current blacklist driven scheme is that the sender of the email gets to choose the criteria they agree to abide by, the recipient gets to choose the criteria they agree to accept. There is no coercion by external agencies. The accreditation source can measure who is relying on what information. One of the weaknesses of the current blacklist configuration is that in effect every blacklist is trying to control the whole world. Of course some people like this, it fits their ego. The downside is that quality is variable and there is no way to know how reliable a blacklist listing is. We might see some blacklists cutting down on the range of sources that they respond on. So for example if someone has a spam honeypot and is simply listing out the authenticated domain names they see sending to the pot people might advertise the existence of a new accreditation service even though it was not positively accrediting them, only providing negative accreditations of other sources. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Dec 4 08:47:12 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA25600 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 08:47:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARtom-0008MF-HR for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 08:46:56 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB4DkuL8032123 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 08:46:56 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARtom-0008M2-Dq for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 08:46:56 -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 IAA25590 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 08:46:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARtol-0001ZI-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 08:46:55 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARtok-0001ZF-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 08:46:54 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARtnt-0008Hh-OL; Thu, 04 Dec 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 1ARtn6-0008HC-Fy for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 08:45:12 -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 IAA25535 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 08:44:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARtn4-0001Ww-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 08:45:10 -0500 Received: from ntbbs.winserver.com ([208.247.131.9] helo=winserver.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARtn4-0001Wn-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 08:45:10 -0500 Received: by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v5.7.450.9b10) for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 08:45:25 -0500 Received: from ([68.156.224.105]) EHLO=FAMILY by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v5.7.450.9b10) with SMTP id 2779990625; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 08:45:24 -0500 Message-ID: <007401c3ba6c$d6857290$69e09c44@FAMILY> From: "Hector Santos" To: "Anti-Spam" Subject: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - No Solications Proposals - Allowable Hours 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: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 08:45:09 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Has there been any discussions about "When" spammers can be allow to send mail? If so, never mind. If not...... I was wondering it makes any sense to include a concept describing receiving server "Allowable Hours." for accepting mail. A client can use this target server information to help schedule mail/spam activities, thus respecting server loading issues, i.e, day vs. night operations. This can be added ion any of extended DNS records proposal TXT="Hours.Open=03-06 GMT" ; no domain, return path validation performed TXT="Hours.Open.Secret=123FX23" ; password to be used for compliance TXT="Hours.Closed=08-05 GMT" ; normal business hours for established relationships TXT="Hours.Closed.secret=232r223" ; password to be used for compliance The above are just an examples for illustrative purposes. I'm sure the attributes can be reduced. The compliant client will obtain the secret password to be used with an extended EHLO command. Nothing secured about it. The client simply needs to echo it with a new EHLO extension keyword: C: EHLO clientdomain S: 250- SECRET S 250 Help C: SECRET 123FX23 possible response codes: S: 250 - Ok, continue S: 452 - Sorry, wrong secret, try again S: 552 - Sorry, wrong hours, don't try again during closed hours The server can choose to change the secret every hour or daily or whatever. Its a simple method to make sure the client is compliant within the hours system. If a non-compliant client (does not issue the SECRET) connects during open hours, normal SMTP operational system policies apply. If a non-compliant client connects during closed hours, restriction, validation concepts may apply. In Mr. Malamud's No Soliciting proposal http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-malamud-no-soliciting-02.txt He can add a similar concept to the EHLO response. The compliant client can then quickly see when the system is open. However, this method would be redundant since a compliant client would need to be changed anyway. Might was well get the info from DNS if already compliant. The client can then avoid connecting to the server during non-solicitation hours. Benefits: - organizations would be able to reduce servers load during their main day/hours. - Scalability and/or overhead, redundancy issues with some of the proposals would be reduced since it would only be active during certain times of the day. - compliant clients (hence spammers) would now have the incentive to follow the protocol because it will help get their foot into the door in the future new "controlled" smtp environment. They now know they would be able to push mail during certain hours only. Cons: - Possibly concentrated bandwidth issues. If highly honored by spammers, it might result in periods during the day/night where network activities would be high. I guess this might be controlled with additional "hours.mail.limits" attributes. - Requires software change (or usage of a smtp proxy) The old Fidonet Network has a similar concept called global Zone Hour which allowed for unsolicited contact by any member in the network. The main goal was to guarantee network contact even for those systems who did not allow direct p2p during non-zone hours. Zone Mail was the only thing allowed during this period (No file attachments). Comments? Is it worth any more consideration? Hector Santos http://www.santronics.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Dec 4 10:49:58 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA02074 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 10:49:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARvjb-0006oa-C1 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 10:49:44 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB4FnhNT026193 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 10:49:43 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARvja-0006oO-Va for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 10:49:43 -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 KAA01989 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 10:49:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARvjY-0003eR-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 10:49:40 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARvjX-0003eO-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 10:49:39 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARviv-0006gv-8C; Thu, 04 Dec 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 1ARvic-0006dV-Jz for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 10:48:43 -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 KAA01892 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 10:48:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARviZ-0003by-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 10:48:39 -0500 Received: from argon.connectinternetsolutions.com ([193.110.243.33] helo=argon.connect.org.uk) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARviY-0003bV-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 10:48:38 -0500 Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 1ARviS-0000tx-9t; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 15:48:32 +0000 In-Reply-To: <007401c3ba6c$d6857290$69e09c44@FAMILY> Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - No Solications Proposals - Allowable Hours To: "Hector Santos" From: "Jon Kyme" Cc: "ASRG" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.10.1] X-connectmail-Originating-IP: 172.25.243.3 Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2003 15:48:32 +0000 > Has there been any discussions about "When" spammers can be allow to send > mail? > > > > I was wondering it makes any sense to include a concept describing > receiving > server "Allowable Hours." for accepting mail. > I can't see why. You should already control the maximum number of connections you accept (reserving a number for trusted peers perhaps). This spreads the load somewhat - and simply. -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Dec 4 14:03:18 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA08764 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 14:03:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARykh-0002hd-Rl for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 14:03:04 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB4J33sq010382 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 14:03:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARykh-0002hL-MQ for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 14:03:03 -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 OAA08747 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 14:02:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARykf-0006Zh-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 14:03:01 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARyke-0006Zd-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 14:03:00 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARyij-0002XV-Bo; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 14:01:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARyiS-0002X7-KA for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 14:00:45 -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 OAA08704 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 14:00:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARyiQ-0006XS-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 14:00:42 -0500 Received: from newgiles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ([205.150.200.131] helo=mail.nitros9.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARyiP-0006X0-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 14:00:41 -0500 Received: from newgiles.nitros9.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.nitros9.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75C3316CD1 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 14:00:58 -0500 (EST) From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals: LMAP proposals In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:50:21 PST." <3FCA823D.40803@elvey.com> Message-Id: <20031204190058.75C3316CD1@mail.nitros9.org> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2003 14:00:58 -0500 Matthew Elvey wrote: > And I forgot - of course MAIL FROM: <> needs to be mentioned as a > special case. Yes, I'll add that. > 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'll add it to the discussion draft. > 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. That's a local configuration issue. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Dec 4 14:21:43 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA09656 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 14:21:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARz2X-00048k-6E for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 14:21:29 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB4JLTbG015911 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 14:21:29 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARz2W-00048Y-Uz for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 14:21:28 -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 OAA09639 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 14:21:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARz2U-0006t8-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 14:21:26 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARz2U-0006t5-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 14:21:26 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARxb3-0004py-JQ; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 12:49:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARxUP-0004aA-56 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 12:42:09 -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 MAA06031 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 12:41:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARxUN-0005PT-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 12:42:07 -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 1ARxUM-0005P0-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 12:42:06 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-390-346.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.238.221]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HPD000M4T539C@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 17:41:34 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich To: ASRG Message-id: <3FCF71C8.8000908@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 - NIST Workshop on spam to be held Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2003 12:41:28 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT NIST/CSD Spam Technology Workshop will be held in February, information is available at this website: http://csrc.nist.gov/spam/ (For those outside the US, NIST or "National Institute of Standards and Technology", is the standards body of the US Federal Government) ----------------------------------------- February 17, 2004 NIST Gaithersburg Campus Building 101, Green Auditorium 9 am until 4 pm The workshop agenda topics will include filtering at the Internet/network and client sides (e.g., how to detect spam and how to reduce it), input from standards bodies on relevant current activities, Internet service providers' current and future plans to deal with spam, and technical issues regarding the efficacy of proposals to create "do not spam" lists. NIST is also interested in hearing about research challenges to developing and measuring improvements in spam control and reduction technology. NIST also wishes to discuss ideas for criteria and procedures (that might be developed by NIST and others, resources permitting) by which the effectiveness of spam controls products might be tested (e.g., by independent third party testing organizations). Given the one-day workshop format, it is anticipated that following a keynote presentation and other opening remarks, there will be two sessions/panels in the morning and two in the afternoon. Anyone interested in speaking or coordinating a panel discussion should submit a paper or panel proposal to Joan Hash by December 31, 2003 (see contact information below). Topics and proposed talks should not be "sales pitches" for specific commercial products or firms. Papers and additional information for distribution to workshop attendees and the website may also be submitted. (NIST may decide at its discretion not to include non-germane and product sales material.) Additional proposed agenda topics should be submitted immediately for consideration by the NIST planning committee. Registration information: Because of NIST security regulations, advance registration is mandatory; there will be no on-site, same-day registration. The online registration form (secured registration page) may also be printed and faxed to 301-948-2067 (Attn: Spam Technology Workshop) by February 3, 2004. Registration fee: $70 (Includes lunch) Payment can be made by credit card, check, purchase order, and government training form. ----------------------------------------- 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 Thu Dec 4 15:09:52 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA11696 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 15:09:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARzn5-0006UP-1i for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 15:09:38 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB4K9ZFi024939 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 15:09:35 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARzn4-0006UA-TT for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 15:09:34 -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 PAA11632 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 15:09:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARzn1-0007W1-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 15:09:31 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARzn1-0007Vy-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 15:09:31 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARzmY-0006Nd-1C; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 15:09:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARzm1-0006K8-3k for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 15:08:34 -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 PAA11484 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 15:08:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARzlx-0007Uz-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 15:08:25 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com ([65.205.251.73]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARzlw-0007Uw-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 15:08:25 -0500 Received: from mou1wnexc02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.54]) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.10/) with ESMTP id hB4K8GXC009019; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 12:08:20 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 12:08:16 -0800 Message-ID: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0111326E@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Alan DeKok'" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals: LMAP 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: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 12:08:11 -0800 One idea to add into the mix here that i just raised on the SPF list is that people should consider the use of dynamic dns to configure LMAP type proposals. Large ISPs have large number of outgoing mail servers with essentially random IP address configurations. These are further complicated by co-locs etc. Can we use dynamic dns to address the configuration issue? If so we can simplify the core protocol. > -----Original Message----- > From: Alan DeKok [mailto:aland@ox.org] > Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 2:01 PM > To: asrg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals: LMAP proposals > > > Matthew Elvey wrote: > > And I forgot - of course MAIL FROM: <> needs to be mentioned as a > > special case. > > Yes, I'll add that. > > > 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'll add it to the discussion draft. > > > 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. > > That's a local configuration issue. > > 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 Thu Dec 4 22:00:50 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA02941 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 22:00:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AS6Cq-0006Az-JY for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 22:00:36 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB530afV023735 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 22:00:36 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AS6Cp-0006Ak-DY for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 22:00:35 -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 WAA02889 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 22:00:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AS6Cm-00001R-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 22:00:32 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AS6Cm-00001O-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 22:00:32 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AS6CJ-000682-8m; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 22:00:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AS6CE-00067M-BO for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 21:59:58 -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 VAA02813 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 21:59:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AS6C9-0007m1-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 21:59:53 -0500 Received: from xuxa.iecc.com ([208.31.42.42]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AS6C8-0007lq-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 21:59:52 -0500 Received: (qmail 11071 invoked by uid 100); 5 Dec 2003 03:00:36 -0000 Message-ID: <20031205030036.11070.qmail@xuxa.iecc.com> From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - No Solications Proposals - Allowable Hours Newsgroups: iecc.lists.asrg In-Reply-To: <007401c3ba6c$d6857290$69e09c44@FAMILY> 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: 5 Dec 2003 03:00:36 -0000 > Has there been any discussions about "When" spammers can be allow to > send mail? No. On the other hand, everyone I know who runs a mail server is just as eager not to get spam at two in the morning as they are at two in the afternoon. Merely because it's possible to implement something doesn't mean that it's useful or a good idea. 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 -- 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 Thu Dec 4 22:47:08 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA04198 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 22:47:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AS6ve-0007gm-9N for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 22:46:54 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB53ksjd029550 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 22:46:54 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AS6ve-0007gX-4O for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 22:46:54 -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 WAA04174 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 22:46:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AS6va-0000fk-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 22:46:50 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AS6va-0000fh-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 22:46:50 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AS6un-0007bz-77; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 22:46:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AS6ug-0007bi-Uf for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 22:45:54 -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 WAA04161 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 22:45:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AS6ud-0000dl-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 22:45:51 -0500 Received: from ntbbs.winserver.com ([208.247.131.9] helo=winserver.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AS6uc-0000di-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 22:45:50 -0500 Received: by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v5.7.450.9b10) for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 22:46:16 -0500 Received: from ([68.154.113.199]) EHLO=FAMILY by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v5.7.450.9b10) with SMTP id 2830441500; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 22:46:15 -0500 Message-ID: <002a01c3bae2$506a60f0$c7719a44@FAMILY> From: "Hector Santos" To: "Anti-Spam" Subject: Fw: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - No Solications Proposals - Allowable Hours 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: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 22:46:02 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit "John R. Levine" wrote in message news:20031205030036.11070.qmail@xuxa.iecc.com... > > Has there been any discussions about "When" spammers can be allow to > > send mail? > > No. On the other hand, everyone I know who runs a mail server is just > as eager not to get spam at two in the morning as they are at two in > the afternoon. > > Merely because it's possible to implement something doesn't mean that > it's useful or a good idea. True, and you don't need a registry to implement it. It can a server design. I wouldn't had brought it up if I didn't think it does have "some merit." If we are to assume that spam is here to stay in some form or another some organizations might wish to advertise/inform to spammers to avoid certain periods of the day. But then again, this can be a server design. Anyway, thanks. Incidentally, your message came with newsgroup header attributes. This confused my mail client to respond as it was a newsgroup article. --- Hector Santos, CTO WINSERVER "Wildcat! Interactive Net Server" support: http://www.winserver.com sales: http://www.santronics.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "John R. Levine" Newsgroups: iecc.lists.asrg To: Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 10:00 PM Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - No Solications Proposals - Allowable Hours > > Has there been any discussions about "When" spammers can be allow to > > send mail? > > No. On the other hand, everyone I know who runs a mail server is just > as eager not to get spam at two in the morning as they are at two in > the afternoon. > > Merely because it's possible to implement something doesn't mean that > it's useful or a good idea. > > 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 > > > -- > John R. Levine, IECC, POB 727, Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 330 5711 > johnl@iecc.com, Village Trustee and Sewer Commissioner, http://iecc.com/johnl, > Member, Provisional board, Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Dec 4 23:37:33 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA05795 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 23:37:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AS7iO-0000ub-31 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 23:37:18 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB54bFl6003493 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 23:37:15 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AS7iN-0000u8-Fo for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 23:37:15 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA05784 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 23:36:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AS7iL-0001RT-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 23:37:13 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AS7iL-0001RP-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 23:37:13 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AS7i9-0000nV-3L; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 23:37:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AS7aL-0000e8-Hx for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 23:29:01 -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 XAA05596 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 23:28:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AS7aJ-0001Kd-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 23:28:55 -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 1AS7aJ-0001KM-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 23:28:55 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-389-371.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.235.17]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HPE00IS1N395B@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 05 Dec 2003 04:28:26 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich To: ASRG Cc: Alan DeKok Message-id: <3FD00967.5070605@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 - DNS-based - LMAP and 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: Thu, 04 Dec 2003 23:28:23 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Another LMAP-like variant has been posted as an Internet Draft: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-stout-antispam-00.txt 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 Dec 5 07:04:35 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA01930 for ; Fri, 5 Dec 2003 07:04:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ASEh2-0000oG-31 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 05 Dec 2003 07:04:22 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB5C4Jj3003106 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 5 Dec 2003 07:04:19 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ASEh1-0000o1-Q3 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 05 Dec 2003 07:04:19 -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 HAA01904 for ; Fri, 5 Dec 2003 07:04:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ASEgx-0007i5-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 05 Dec 2003 07:04:15 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ASEgx-0007i2-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 05 Dec 2003 07:04:15 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ASEgj-0000lZ-2j; Fri, 05 Dec 2003 07:04:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ASEfo-0000kk-9u for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 05 Dec 2003 07:03:09 -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 HAA01859 for ; Fri, 5 Dec 2003 07:02:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ASEfj-0007hA-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 05 Dec 2003 07:03:00 -0500 Received: from sccrmhc11.comcast.net ([204.127.202.55]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ASEfj-0007gT-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 05 Dec 2003 07:02:59 -0500 Received: from fda.zemos.net ([68.38.12.170]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc11) with ESMTP id <20031205120230011005005pe>; Fri, 5 Dec 2003 12:02:30 +0000 Received: from zemos.net (phil [10.0.0.2]) by fda.zemos.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id CECC618685; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 21:08:52 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3FD073E4.20904@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 , Alan DeKok , Marthin Stout Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - DNS-based - LMAP and related References: <3FD00967.5070605@solidmatrix.com> In-Reply-To: <3FD00967.5070605@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: Fri, 05 Dec 2003 07:02:44 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > Another LMAP-like variant has been posted as an Internet Draft: > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-stout-antispam-00.txt Here are my comments on this document, with the text they apply to quoted: "implementation recommendation" - BCP or STD? Readers should be able to tell from the first line. > Sender: FQDN (Fully qualified domain name) that is stated > to be the sender of the e-mail message, as provided via the > 'MAIL FROM' part of the (E-)SMTP dialogue (sender@domain.name). This definition is not consistent. Is it the MAIL FROM domain part, or is it the mailbox and domain parts? > Mail servers exchange e-mail with each other by way of the > (E-)SMTP protocol [1]. For any message to be received, the Receiving > MTA will acquire the following details during connection setup and > the SMTP dialogue [2]: > > o Sending MTA's IP address > o Sending MTA's host name > o Sender of the message (as provided via the 'MAIL FROM') The last 2 members of this 3-tuple can be forged. It should read "Sending MTA's claimed host name" and "Claimed sender of the message". > After an extensive analysis the conclusions to determine if you are > spammed are: > > 1. There can be no conclusion based on the existence of a > PTR-record for a Sending MTA's IP address. > > 2. There can be no conclusion based on a (mis-)match between the > supplied Sending MTA's host name and the reverse-DNS name (PTR). > > 3. There can be no conclusion based on the fact that the Sender's > e-mail address is valid. For the first 2, there may not be a direct correlation (no PTR -> SPAM!), but there could be a statistical correlation (no PTR -> SPAM with a 40% certainty), which a statistical filter could take advantage of. As for the third, Hector Santos would beg to differ, as he has shown that some spammers are stupid enough to give MAIL FROMs that do fail return-path validation. > The solution is to require from all domain names to register ALL > their mail servers (host names) within the DNS MX records. > > Send-only mail servers MUST also be registered in the MX records, > and they should be given the lowest possible MX priority (65535). I don't think this is a new idea; I remember a similar proposal by DJB some time back, although I can't find it now. Additionally, in the ASRG, we have concluded that this would be semantically incorrect, because sending MTAs that predate this standard will attempts to deliver mail to those MXs regardless of the possibility that the message will be rejected explicitly because that MTA rejects outside connections or assumed rejected by the sending MTA because the receiving MTA didn't accept it at some stage. I'll not go further now Philip Miller _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Dec 5 10:30:44 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA09831 for ; Fri, 5 Dec 2003 10:30:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ASHuX-0007j9-TE for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 05 Dec 2003 10:30:30 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB5FUTDe029697 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 5 Dec 2003 10:30:29 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ASHuX-0007iu-MP for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 05 Dec 2003 10:30:29 -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 KAA09815 for ; Fri, 5 Dec 2003 10:30:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ASHuS-0002qV-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 05 Dec 2003 10:30:25 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ASHuS-0002qS-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 05 Dec 2003 10:30:24 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ASHu5-0007fI-Cr; Fri, 05 Dec 2003 10:30:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ASHtU-0007ek-S5 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 05 Dec 2003 10:29:29 -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 KAA09801 for ; Fri, 5 Dec 2003 10:29:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ASHtS-0002qN-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 05 Dec 2003 10:29:22 -0500 Received: from newgiles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ([205.150.200.131] helo=mail.nitros9.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ASHtH-0002qJ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 05 Dec 2003 10:29:11 -0500 Received: from newgiles.nitros9.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.nitros9.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BF0B16FBB for ; Fri, 5 Dec 2003 10:29:29 -0500 (EST) From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - DNS-based - LMAP and related In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 05 Dec 2003 07:02:44 EST." <3FD073E4.20904@zemos.net> Message-Id: <20031205152929.5BF0B16FBB@mail.nitros9.org> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2003 10:29:29 -0500 Philip Miller wrote: > > Send-only mail servers MUST also be registered in the MX records, > > and they should be given the lowest possible MX priority (65535). > > I don't think this is a new idea; I remember a similar proposal by DJB some > time back, although I can't find it now. I believe it's been discussed multiple times on this list, and generally rejected, for the reasons you cited. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Dec 5 10:54:20 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA10553 for ; Fri, 5 Dec 2003 10:54:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ASIHO-0000CB-75 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 05 Dec 2003 10:54:07 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB5Fs6YU000745 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 5 Dec 2003 10:54:06 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ASIHO-0000Bw-1K for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 05 Dec 2003 10:54:06 -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 KAA10526 for ; Fri, 5 Dec 2003 10:53:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ASIHL-00036C-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 05 Dec 2003 10:54:03 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ASIHL-000369-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 05 Dec 2003 10:54:03 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ASIHI-00006r-U8; Fri, 05 Dec 2003 10:54:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ASIGS-00006D-F8 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 05 Dec 2003 10:53:08 -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 KAA10506 for ; Fri, 5 Dec 2003 10:52:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ASIGP-00035W-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 05 Dec 2003 10:53:05 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com ([65.205.251.73]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ASIGO-00035T-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 05 Dec 2003 10:53:04 -0500 Received: from mou1wnexc02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.54]) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.10/) with ESMTP id hB5Fr3W5019225; Fri, 5 Dec 2003 07:53:03 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Fri, 5 Dec 2003 07:53:03 -0800 Message-ID: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0111327C@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Alan DeKok'" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - DNS-based - LMAP and related 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, 5 Dec 2003 07:52:57 -0800 > Philip Miller wrote: > > > Send-only mail servers MUST also be registered in the > MX records, > > > and they should be given the lowest possible MX > priority (65535). > > > > I don't think this is a new idea; I remember a similar > proposal by DJB some > > time back, although I can't find it now. > > I believe it's been discussed multiple times on this list, and > generally rejected, for the reasons you cited. This was the basis of the original Paul Vixie proposal. There are a number of problems, 1) There may be too many mail servers for the resulting mx records to fit into a 500 byte UDP packet. 2) It requires active management of the mx list to include outgoing mail servers. 3) Mail programs may attempt to deliver to the outgoing servers. 4) It is bad practice to redefine the semantics and functionality of deployed infrastructure. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Dec 6 18:26:47 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA25502 for ; Sat, 6 Dec 2003 18:26:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ASlon-00023R-Cb for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 18:26:33 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB6NQXTh007891 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 6 Dec 2003 18:26:33 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ASlon-00023C-1g for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 18:26:33 -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 SAA25471 for ; Sat, 6 Dec 2003 18:26:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ASlok-0000zi-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 18:26:30 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ASloj-0000ze-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 18:26:29 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ASloI-00020f-G1; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 18:26:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ASlo5-000208-DG for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 18:25:49 -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 SAA25421 for ; Sat, 6 Dec 2003 18:25:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ASlo1-0000ye-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 18:25:46 -0500 Received: from ntbbs.winserver.com ([208.247.131.9] helo=winserver.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ASlo1-0000yP-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 18:25:45 -0500 Received: by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v5.7.450.9b10) for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 18:26:09 -0500 Received: from ([68.215.73.63]) EHLO=FAMILY by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v5.7.450.9b10) with SMTP id 2987634343; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 18:26:08 -0500 Message-ID: <003401c3bc50$47094020$6501a8c0@FAMILY> From: "Hector Santos" To: "Anti-Spam" Subject: [Asrg] 0. General - Yahoo proposes new Internet anti-spam structure 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, 6 Dec 2003 18:25:41 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit FYI, http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techinnovations/2003-12-05-yahoo-spam-switch_x.htm --Hector _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Dec 6 18:36:43 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA25820 for ; Sat, 6 Dec 2003 18:36:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ASlyO-0002VV-Rr for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 18:36:29 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB6NaSn4009626 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 6 Dec 2003 18:36:28 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ASlyO-0002V6-EI for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 18:36:28 -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 SAA25811 for ; Sat, 6 Dec 2003 18:36:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ASlyL-00017t-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 18:36:25 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ASlyK-00017h-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 18:36:24 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ASlxz-0002JY-EK; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 18:36:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ASixN-0005SQ-Ts for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 15:23:14 -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 PAA19298 for ; Sat, 6 Dec 2003 15:22:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ASixM-00067I-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 15:23:12 -0500 Received: from out2.smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.26]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ASixL-00067F-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 15:23:11 -0500 X-Sasl-enc: Mo7gPm0K94p/mwgjDa6emg 1070742189 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 37A1D462105; Sat, 6 Dec 2003 15:23:08 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3FD23AAB.1060709@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: esr@thyrsus.com Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Legal - Subject labeling - FTC response - more discussion needed References: <3FCBB5D1.30400@solidmatrix.com> <20031201223524.GA16979@thyrsus.com> In-Reply-To: <20031201223524.GA16979@thyrsus.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, 06 Dec 2003 12:23:07 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I believe that rough consensus exists: We believe that the labeling requirement in S.877 will not result in significant sender compliance. The reasons being that S.877 provides weak enforcement mechanisms for its labeling requirement - and that California tried a similar requirement for years and it had no notable positive effect. Based on the postings I've seen here and in other forums, the bill is unpopular among people who fight spam, despite its good points. http://www.junkbusters.com/spams.html lists the following as not liking the bill: Jason Catlett, President, Junkbusters Corp. Jeff Chester, Executive Director, Center for Digital Democracy Tom Geller, Secretary, SpamCon Foundation Beth Givens, Director, Privacy Rights Clearing House Ken McEldowney, Executive Director, Consumer Action Scott Hazen Mueller, Chairman, CAUCE.org (Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial Email) Chris Murray, Legislative Counsel, Consumers Union Gary Ruskin, Executive Director, Commercial Alert The only counterargument I've seen is that the US isn't California (a really weak argument, especially given that CA is perhaps 1/4 of the US tech economy). The following S.877 excerpt is equally true with respect to labeling with 'States' meaning states of the world, not states of the union: // / (11) Many States have enacted legislation intended to regulate or reduce unsolicited commercial electronic mail, but these statutes impose different standards and requirements. As a result, they do not appear to have been successful in addressing the problems associated with unsolicited commercial electronic mail, in part because, since an electronic mail address does not specify a geographic location, it can be extremely difficult for law-abiding businesses to know with which of these disparate statutes they are required to comply./ (Further comments interspersed below.) On 12/1/2003 2:35 PM, Eric S. Raymond sent forth electrons to convey: >Yakov Shafranovich : > >We MUST have a constructive response in *addition* to whatever >else we do, or lose future influence on the interpretation >and implementation of CAN-SPAM. > > Yes, we do need to respond with a labeling standard. Would a response that ALSO states that we believe the labeling requirement that the response standardizes will not result in significant compliance, and how it can be fixed, be constructive? I think so. Or do you believe we need to make it seem that we think this is a great bill? I think the FTC thinks that this is a good bill; other than prohibiting using false claims that an unsolicited e-mail was solicited, and supporting consumer action, it's what they asked for:http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2003/07/spamtest.htm. >I have a draft RFC, to which I've seen the following responses: > You didn't mention that I'd also made some suggestions, which I referred to Mon, 01 Dec 2003 12:36:51 -0800. Here they are, rephrased/refined: While providing a standard to which the law may require compliance, we must not provide it the appearance of any legitimacy or IETF stamp of approval. I PROPOSE that the letter referred to above (Posted at http://www.junkbusters.com/spams.html) be the basis for a section of the draft. It's language that a bunch of respected folks have already agreed upon. It hits the key points that need to be addressed very well. Others, some less key: the labeling requirement in S.877 will not result in significant sender compliance, long arm provisions to make it apply to assets/spammers/advertisers outside the US but within reach of US law. Let's not get into the individual items in that letter, at least for a few days. Rather, let's confirm (or deny) a rough consensus on two issues: 1)True or false: the labeling requirement in S.877 will not result in significant sender compliance. 2)True or false: the labeling standard should speak of the bill's deficiencies and/or the IETF's non-approval/endorsement. I don't think these have been discussed, I don't think the ASRG has exhausted its mandate on this topic; if this draft is being discussed on the ietf-822 or main list (http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/maillist.html) I haven't seen it; wherever it's on topic, I'd like to see these discussed. > >3. One misunderstanding about the scope of "commercial email" in CAN-SPAM > and my draft. > [explained away as] CAN-SPAM's "CE" is your "UCE". > > Sorry. The definitions are more alike than I had believed. (S.877's definition is short and good enough, even if it isn't clear or wrong on some edge cases that, for example, http://mail-abuse.org/standard.html deals with.) Still, it's not ideal that the draft uses a phrase that S.877 redefines to be something quite different from its plain language meaning. The draft defines and uses "porn email" instead of using S.877's definition of /`sexually oriented material'/ >I'm volunteering to be the point guy on this. The issue interests me, and my >public fame might turn out to be a useful tool when it comes time to talk >the FTC and Congress out of peeing in the proposal so they'll like the >flavor better. > >Let me reiterate that I do not view this effort as competitive with >any of the other proposals on the table (LMAP, callback, pull, MTA >labeling, whatever) but as complementary with them. > >Those of you with interest in this issue, please work with me to >improve the draft. > > Hope so; agreed; trying. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Dec 6 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 SAA25821 for ; Sat, 6 Dec 2003 18:36:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ASlyO-0002VW-S9 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 18:36:29 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB6NaS7s009622 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 6 Dec 2003 18:36:28 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ASlyO-0002V5-C2 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 18:36:28 -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 SAA25809 for ; Sat, 6 Dec 2003 18:36:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ASlyL-00017s-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 18:36:25 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ASlyK-00017g-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 18:36:24 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ASlxy-0002JE-DJ; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 18:36:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ASfYZ-0006g0-Gu for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 11:45:24 -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 LAA13300 for ; Sat, 6 Dec 2003 11:45:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ASfYY-0003M1-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 11:45:22 -0500 Received: from out2.smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.26]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ASfYX-0003Ly-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 11:45:21 -0500 X-Sasl-enc: d+Y9aojUa4HDua+lKdpZAA 1070729119 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 1AFAF461779; Sat, 6 Dec 2003 11:45:18 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3FD2079B.80106@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: Tomi Panula-Ontto Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals: MTA MARK References: <00e001c3b5ac$ab5f55a0$6400a8c0@INTRA.KOODIA.FI> <3FC78099.8080409@elvey.com> <004c01c3b650$60c77870$0323a8c0@Jimiboy> <3FC92518.2020604@elvey.com> <008e01c3b81b$53cbaa70$6400a8c0@INTRA.KOODIA.FI> In-Reply-To: <008e01c3b81b$53cbaa70$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 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 06 Dec 2003 08:45:15 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 12/1/2003 6:56 AM, Tomi Panula-Ontto sent forth electrons to convey: >On 11/30/2003 1:00 AM, Matthew Elvey said: > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Matthew Elvey" >To: "Tomi Panula-Ontto" >Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2003 1:00 AM >Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals: LMTP vs. rDNS / Reverse MX [RMX] >proposals > > > > >>Reply below. Please reply to the list, quoting me. >>On 11/29/2003 12:11 AM, Tomi Panula-Ontto sent forth electrons to convey: >> >> >> >>>[cut] >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>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). >>> >>> >>> >>> >>So you are no longer against TXT records, yes? >> >> >> > >I'm still against both TXT record and parsing. >I don't like the idea of receiving multiple ASRG.= >that I'm supposed to parse and make the decision. >I want to keep things simple. > >The original reverse mx proposition suggested that we should have >a list of IP addresses [=authorized/trusted MTAs] for a given network. >Scenario: "IP is listed => Allow" >Scenario: "IP not listed => Deny" >Scenario: "IP not listed (no list) = Work as before (Allow)" (Deny if timed >policy change?) > >MTAMark was in this sence a bit better; instead of getting the LIST of IP >addresses (and using multiple dns queries) there would be one simple answer; >ASRG.MTA=YES or ASRG.MTA=NO - so there is no need to determine >whether the network admin has done the job. > >Reverse MX proposition has been updated after this. > >4.3.2.1.in-addr.arpa IN PTR mail.company.dom. >4.3.2.1.in-addr.arpa IN MX 10 127.0.0.2 > >127.0.0.2=Allow, 127.0.0.3=Deny > >(I'd say priority field should be reserved and should be 10, any comments?) > >If one wishes, it's still legitimate to inform reason (or whatever) >in TXT record > >4.3.2.1.in-addr.arpa IN PTR dialup-127.company.dom. >4.3.2.1.in-addr.arpa IN MX 10 127.0.0.3 >4.3.2.1.in-addr.arpa IN TXT "DIALUP" > >There is a record type for this purpose, so why not use it? >Why invent a system on top of a system? > > Well, for one thing, I fear people like me (one static DSL IP on SBC) or using dyndns on a dynamic IP are unlikely to be able to convince their ISPs to put such entries in DNS. > > >>I suppose it might make RBLs need fewer entries. But should my ISP, a >>common carrier, have any business deciding whether or not I should be >>able to run a non-abusive mail server? I'd rather they not, when the >>benefit is a very slight impact on spam that can be achieved without >>such restrictions. I prefer to have RBL runners in control to ISPs in >>control, but I guess that's a political question. I'd most like to have >>LMTP in control. >> >> > >Fewer entries? A LOT fewer entries. No more spamming from dialups, >or from unauthorized IPs, etc. > >Are you saying that if this MTA registering would be mandatory >to the network owners and receiving MTAs would start using it >it would not cause any or irrelevant amount of reduction in spam? > > Not that I recall. These protocols only become 'mandatory' if they catch on and become broadly used. The IETF has no power to force people to follow their rules. MTAmark has less of a chance to catch on than LMTP, because it provides a smaller incentive to adoption, as I've explained in a previous post. If your domain is being forged, you're highly likely to adopt LMTP. If a ISP's IPs are being used to spam, they may well not adopt MTAmark. I'm not against MTAmark; I think LMTP should be a higher priority. >It's LOT easier to spot bad behaving IP addresses from a set of >500 000 registered MTAs than from a set of approx. 4^32 (not to mention >IPv6). >It gives us a more control; the network abuse team can block it and if they >don't or do it late, we can still RBL the spammer out. > >Your network provider (aka. reverse zone administrator) should ask >you "Hey, in order to fight solicited email, we have to register all MTAs. >What's your MTA IP address?" You give them your IP(s), they add >it to the dns and everybody should be happy. > > Should, should.... The ones that will are the ones that terminate their spamming customers. I don't see MTAmark providing any incentive for ISPs to be more responsible than they are now. >This is a little change, little check, which is easy to maintain and >easy to develop support for it. If there are no major problems with >it, then why not? > > I think Eric Raymond explained why a try everything and see what sticks plan isn't ideal. It dilutes resources. PHB: You contribute valuably, but please stop repeatedly whining OT about DNSSEC WG's 'bad' practices when your company's ongoing wrongdoings (which folks don't whine about here) are so egregious, and your proposals often promote Verisign's (patented, proprietary, contrary to IETF policy) technology. Not to mention that certs don't cost $350 as you claimed, if bought from Verisign competitors who charge much less. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Dec 6 20:19:25 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA27819 for ; Sat, 6 Dec 2003 20:19:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ASnZl-00053C-7M for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 20:19:09 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB71J9l4019408 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 6 Dec 2003 20:19:09 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ASnZl-00052x-1Z for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 20:19:09 -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 UAA27796 for ; Sat, 6 Dec 2003 20:18:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ASnZi-0002En-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 20:19:07 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ASnZi-0002Ek-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 20:19:06 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ASnZd-00050h-0C; Sat, 06 Dec 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 1ASnY4-0004yW-SV for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 20:17:24 -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 UAA27771 for ; Sat, 6 Dec 2003 20:17:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ASnY2-0002EI-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 20:17:22 -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 1ASnY2-0002CB-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 20:17:22 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-390-908.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.241.12]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HPI006MP3IY6R@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 01:16:15 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich To: ASRG Message-id: <3FD27F58.1090009@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 - XMPP Chatroom Has Been Setup 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: Sat, 06 Dec 2003 20:16:08 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT As part of an overall service to both IETF and IRTF, folks from Jabber have setup chatrooms for the IETF and IRTF groups including the ASRG. Instructions can be found at: http://www.xmpp.org/ietf-chat.html The ASRG chatroom is called 'asrg' and is located on Jabber server 'irtf.xmpp.org'. You need an XMPP/Jabber compatible client to access the chatroom. All conversations in the chatroom are logged automatically, and the logs can be found at: http://www.xmpp.org/irtf-logs/ This primary use of this chatroom will for formal and informal ASRG meetings. Yakov ------- Yakov Shafranovich / asrg shaftek.org SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / research solidmatrix.com "Some lies are easier to believe than the truth" (Dune) ------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Dec 6 20:32:25 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA28055 for ; Sat, 6 Dec 2003 20:32:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ASnmL-0005Ns-BZ for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 20:32:09 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB71W9cb020690 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 6 Dec 2003 20:32:09 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ASnmL-0005K7-4b for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 20:32:09 -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 UAA28052 for ; Sat, 6 Dec 2003 20:31:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ASnmG-0002Kz-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 20:32:04 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ASnmF-0002Kw-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 20:32:03 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ASnmC-0005Hw-Tp; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 20:32:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ASnj4-0005Dk-NB for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 20:28:46 -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 UAA27890 for ; Sat, 6 Dec 2003 20:28:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ASnj2-0002I3-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 20:28:44 -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 1ASnj2-0002Hv-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 20:28:44 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-390-908.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.241.12]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HPI00A7B414MJ@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 01:27:10 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich To: ASRG Message-id: <3FD281E8.5020305@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 - DNS + PKI - Yahoo's "Domain Keys" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 06 Dec 2003 20:27:04 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT [Subject was "Re: [Asrg] 0. General - Yahoo proposes new Internet anti-spam structure", changed as per posting guidelines. Mod.] Hector Santos wrote: > FYI, > > http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techinnovations/2003-12-05-yahoo-spam-switch_x.htm > > --Hector > Thanks Hector for the link, this story has already been mentioned in a few other places as well. The basic thrust of this proposal is that the sending domain will have a public key stored in DNS, and sign every email from that domain with the private key. The receiver can check validity by getting the public key from DNS, and verifying the digital signature. Same purpose as LMAP, but via PKI. 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 Dec 6 23:46:31 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA00995 for ; Sat, 6 Dec 2003 23:46:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ASqoB-0001V0-Sa for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 23:46:16 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB74kFYw005756 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 6 Dec 2003 23:46:15 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ASqoB-0001Ul-Nh for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 23:46:15 -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 XAA00981 for ; Sat, 6 Dec 2003 23:46:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ASqo9-0003uX-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 23:46:13 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ASqo9-0003uU-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 23:46:13 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ASqny-0001S5-J2; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 23:46:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ASqnV-0001Rg-Q8 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 23:45:33 -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 XAA00958 for ; Sat, 6 Dec 2003 23:45:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ASqnT-0003u8-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 23:45:31 -0500 Received: from rwcrmhc12.comcast.net ([216.148.227.85]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ASqnT-0003td-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 23:45:31 -0500 Received: from fda.zemos.net ([68.38.12.170]) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc12) with ESMTP id <2003120704445601400dk5pre>; Sun, 7 Dec 2003 04:44:56 +0000 Received: from zemos.net (phil [10.0.0.2]) by fda.zemos.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 458A718685 for ; Sat, 6 Dec 2003 13:51:32 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3FD2B052.9090307@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 Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - DNS + PKI - Yahoo's "Domain Keys" References: <3FD281E8.5020305@solidmatrix.com> In-Reply-To: <3FD281E8.5020305@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, 06 Dec 2003 23:45:06 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Here's a quick, off-the-cuff comparison of these two approaches: LMAP Purpose: prevent domain name forgery of HELO/FROM Domain Keys Purpose: prevent domain name forgery within message headers LMAP Costs: single DNS lookup and maybe a comparison Domain Keys Cost: DNS Lookup, cryptographic function, possibly once per transitted MTA LMAP advantages: simple to implement - replace rDNS/A lookups by current MTAs LMAP disadvantages: continuing question of forwarding in various scenarios DK advantages: prevents forgery in forwarded situations, such as if a mailing list owner inserts a forged message on the list. DK disadvantages: high burden of software implementation, requires receipt of DATA before an authoritative check can be done I think that if the design of these two approaches is coordinated, they can be quite complimentary. Unfortunately, I haven't seen any Yahoo representatives on this list yet, so I'm a little bit worried. Philip Miller _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Dec 6 23:55:27 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA01125 for ; Sat, 6 Dec 2003 23:55:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ASqwl-0001lu-MN for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 23:55:12 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB74t70p006804 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 6 Dec 2003 23:55:07 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ASqwl-0001lf-Hi for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 23:55:07 -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 XAA01119 for ; Sat, 6 Dec 2003 23:54:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ASqwj-0003zs-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 23:55:05 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ASqwi-0003zp-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 23:55:04 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ASqwh-0001jU-9B; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 23:55:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ASqwT-0001j3-RK for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 23:54:51 -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 XAA01116 for ; Sat, 6 Dec 2003 23:54:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ASqwR-0003zg-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 23:54:47 -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 1ASqwQ-0003zc-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 23:54:47 -0500 Received: from [192.168.254.12] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by toaster.scconsult.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8D60B1C2B for ; Sat, 6 Dec 2003 23:54:39 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: bill@fireproof.scconsult.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3FD2B052.9090307@zemos.net> References: <3FD281E8.5020305@solidmatrix.com> <3FD2B052.9090307@zemos.net> To: ASRG From: Bill Cole Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - DNS + PKI - Yahoo's "Domain Keys" 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, 6 Dec 2003 23:54:35 -0500 At 11:45 PM -0500 12/6/03, Philip Miller wrote: >Here's a quick, off-the-cuff comparison of these two approaches: > >LMAP Purpose: prevent domain name forgery of HELO/FROM >Domain Keys Purpose: prevent domain name forgery within message headers Do we really know anything technical about DK? All I've seen is that Yahoo press release, and it is pretty fuzzy. I wouldn't want to make much in the way of technical conclusions cased on that. -- Bill Cole bill@scconsult.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Dec 7 00:15:26 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA01480 for ; Sun, 7 Dec 2003 00:15:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ASrG9-0002qe-8b for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 00:15:11 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB75F9fm010942 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 7 Dec 2003 00:15:09 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ASrG9-0002qP-17 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 00:15:09 -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 AAA01477 for ; Sun, 7 Dec 2003 00:14:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ASrG6-0004DN-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 00:15:06 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ASrG6-0004DK-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 00:15:06 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ASrG2-0002oE-T1; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 00:15:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ASrFf-0002nl-3E for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 00:14:39 -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 AAA01474 for ; Sun, 7 Dec 2003 00:14:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ASrFc-0004Cl-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 00:14:36 -0500 Received: from rwcrmhc12.comcast.net ([216.148.227.85]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ASrFc-0004Cb-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 00:14:36 -0500 Received: from fda.zemos.net ([68.38.12.170]) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc12) with ESMTP id <2003120705140701400bd3ige>; Sun, 7 Dec 2003 05:14:07 +0000 Received: from zemos.net (phil [10.0.0.2]) by fda.zemos.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 491CD18685; Sat, 6 Dec 2003 14:20:43 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3FD2B729.1090600@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: Bill Cole Cc: ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - DNS + PKI - Yahoo's "Domain Keys" References: <3FD281E8.5020305@solidmatrix.com> <3FD2B052.9090307@zemos.net> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2003 00:14:17 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bill Cole wrote: > At 11:45 PM -0500 12/6/03, Philip Miller wrote: > >> Here's a quick, off-the-cuff comparison of these two approaches: >> >> LMAP Purpose: prevent domain name forgery of HELO/FROM >> Domain Keys Purpose: prevent domain name forgery within message headers > > Do we really know anything technical about DK? All I've seen is that > Yahoo press release, and it is pretty fuzzy. I wouldn't want to make > much in the way of technical conclusions cased on that. I based that assessment on the text > Under Yahoo's new architecture, a system sending an e-mail message would > embed a secure, private key in a message header. The receiving system > would check the Internet's Domain Name System for the public key > registered to the sending domain. > > If the public key is able to decrypt the private key embedded in the > message, then the e-mail is considered authentic and can be delivered. If > not, then the message is assumed not to be an authentic one from the > sender and is blocked. Yes, it gets the mechnics of public-key crypto wrong, but the idea is pretty clear. Philip Miller _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Dec 7 01:26:27 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA02545 for ; Sun, 7 Dec 2003 01:26:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ASsMs-0004de-P5 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 01:26:11 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB76QAG4017824 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 7 Dec 2003 01:26:10 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ASsMs-0004dP-K4 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 01:26:10 -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 BAA02540 for ; Sun, 7 Dec 2003 01:25:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ASsMp-0004mv-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 01:26:07 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ASsMp-0004ms-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 01:26:07 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ASsMj-0004ax-Kc; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 01:26:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ASsK3-0004Yq-Oj for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 01:23:15 -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 BAA02522 for ; Sun, 7 Dec 2003 01:23:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ASsK0-0004m3-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 01:23:12 -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 1ASsK0-0004lv-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 01:23:12 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-390-908.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.241.12]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HPI0077NHPRNK@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 06:22:43 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich To: ASRG Message-id: <3FD2C72F.5000007@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 - Closure of the BCP Subgroup Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2003 01:22:39 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT As part of our reorganization process, the BCP subgroup is being shutdown. We will continue to pursue the BCP area, and will be discussing on the main list the scope of these efforts. If you have any comments, please direct them to the main list or to the chairs off-list. The BCP mailing list will be permanently shutdown within a week, and the list archive will be put up on the main ASRG site. Sincerely, Yakov Shafranovich Co-Chair, 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 Sun Dec 7 01:43:23 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA02734 for ; Sun, 7 Dec 2003 01:43:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ASsdH-0005ED-Kv for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 01:43:07 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB76h7Ut020091 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 7 Dec 2003 01:43:07 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ASsdH-0005Dy-Gz for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 01:43:07 -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 BAA02731 for ; Sun, 7 Dec 2003 01:42:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ASsdE-0004tX-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 01:43:04 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ASsdE-0004tU-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 01:43:04 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ASsdB-0005Bm-Ex; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 01:43:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ASsWm-0004qw-TB for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 01:36:29 -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 BAA02664 for ; Sun, 7 Dec 2003 01:35:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ASsWP-0004rS-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 01:36:01 -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 1ASsWP-0004rO-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 01:36:01 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-390-908.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.241.12]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HPI00DMGIB20O@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 06:35:32 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich To: ASRG Message-id: <3FD2CA2A.2040306@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] 7. BCP - Areas of research Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2003 01:35:22 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT As part of our BCP efforts, we want to determine which areas we should pursue, and how to proceed in them. Below is a copy of a message from the old BCP list outlining some of the areas we can be looking into. We are seeking comments from list members about this, and will consider creating subgroups to pursue specific efforts. Sincerely, Yakov Shafranovich Co-Chair, ASRG ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 16:47:36 -0500 > From: Philip Miller > To: ASRG-BCP Mailing List > > In light of the recent discussions on the list involving how a recipient MTA > should respond to the current practices of senders, I thought we should try > to assemble a list of everyone whose practices we might make recommendations > for. > > Here's my first cut at such a list: > 1. Message originators - human users, automated software > {developers,administrators} (order confimation/receipt systems) > 2. Message originating system {administrators,developers} - the MTA which > the originators connect to. Normally, this is a corporate or ISP MTA. In > this role, an MTA is moving a message from submission to transport. > 3. Relaying MTA {administrators,developers} > 4. Recipient MTA {administrators,developers} > 5. Final recipients - human users, automated software {admins,devs} > 6. MUA Authors > 7. Support personnel (corporate IT/help desk, ISP installers, etc.) > 8. Message examination software {devs,admins} - Spam filters, virus scanners > 9. Mailing list software - developers, admins, subscribers, users > > I expect that I've missed a few here. > > Once we have a relatively comprehensive list, we should assemble all of the > 'common sense' best practices that have been somewhat implicit in > discussions on this list, but may not be eminently apparent to any random > person. We can collect them for draft publication, but we should probably > evaluate them first in light of their effect. > One practice that is assumed but rarely explicitly stated is strictly > following the relevant standards and pushing users to do the same. For > example, the Postfix documentation recommends using a domain name in the > $myorigin configuration setting (used as its outgoing HELO/EHLO argument), > but it doesn't make it clear that there are relevant standards that have > place requirements on the contents of this field. It's quite possible to > place random garbage here instead of an FQDN, and I don't think Postfix even > prints a warning if one does. > > Philip Miller ------- Yakov Shafranovich / asrg shaftek.org SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / research solidmatrix.com "Some lies are easier to believe than the truth" (Dune) ------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Dec 7 05:16:27 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA19266 for ; Sun, 7 Dec 2003 05:16:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ASvxT-0007Bu-RX for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 05:16:12 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB7AGBhP027638 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 7 Dec 2003 05:16:11 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ASvxT-0007Bh-MG for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 05:16:11 -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 FAA19252 for ; Sun, 7 Dec 2003 05:15:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ASvxQ-0006u0-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 05:16:08 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ASvxP-0006tx-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 05:16:07 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ASvxK-00078l-1U; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 05:16:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ASvwW-00077j-Og for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 05:15:12 -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 FAA19231 for ; Sun, 7 Dec 2003 05:14:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ASvwT-0006tG-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 05:15:09 -0500 Received: from argon.connectinternetsolutions.com ([193.110.243.33] helo=argon.connect.org.uk) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ASvwS-0006tD-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 05:15:09 -0500 Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 1ASvwU-0003fj-4z for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 10:15:10 +0000 In-Reply-To: <3FD23AAB.1060709@elvey.com> Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Legal - Subject labeling - FTC response - more discussion needed To: "ASRG" From: "Jon Kyme" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.10.1] 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, 07 Dec 2003 10:15:10 +0000 > let's confirm (or deny) a rough consensus on two > issues: > 1)True or false: the labeling requirement in S.877 will not result in > significant sender compliance. Not being a purely technical issue, there are considerations (attitudes of regulators, law enforcement, courts, jurisdictions inhabited by spammers / spammer operations relocatability, etc) which make this question difficult to answer (except by considering those things). So as a start: What proportion of spam can be reliably attributed to operators based in the US (or any other particular state). How committed are the (for instance) US regulators / law enforcement to prosecuting? How easy is it for a spammer to relocate? > 2)True or false: the labeling standard should speak of the bill's > deficiencies and/or the IETF's non-approval/endorsement. > False. I'm not sure that it's wise to produce a technical document which discusses the rights/wrongs of a particular bill (of a particular jurisdiction). I'd be happier seeing a technical document referring to this bill only as an *example* of the kind of legislation that a labelling mechanism might support and discusses the strengths/weaknesses of the mechanism proposed. > I don't think these have been discussed, I don't think the ASRG has > exhausted its mandate on this topic; I agree. -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Dec 7 10:27:32 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA26145 for ; Sun, 7 Dec 2003 10:27:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AT0oX-0007ok-5z for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 10:27:17 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB7FRHBR030044 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 7 Dec 2003 10:27:17 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AT0oW-0007oU-Nb for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 10:27:16 -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 KAA26125 for ; Sun, 7 Dec 2003 10:27:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AT0oU-00027j-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 10:27:14 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AT0oT-00027g-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 10:27:13 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AT0oH-0007mH-5b; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 10:27:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AT0nZ-0007m2-OX for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 10:26:17 -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 KAA26121 for ; Sun, 7 Dec 2003 10:26:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AT0nX-00027Z-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 10:26:15 -0500 Received: from newgiles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ([205.150.200.131] helo=mail.nitros9.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AT0nU-00027W-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 10:26:12 -0500 Received: from newgiles.nitros9.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.nitros9.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F43A16CD1 for ; Sun, 7 Dec 2003 10:26:29 -0500 (EST) From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - DNS + PKI - Yahoo's "Domain Keys" In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 06 Dec 2003 23:45:06 EST." <3FD2B052.9090307@zemos.net> Message-Id: <20031207152629.6F43A16CD1@mail.nitros9.org> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2003 10:26:29 -0500 Philip Miller wrote: > DK advantages: prevents forgery in forwarded situations, such as if a > mailing list owner inserts a forged message on the list. > DK disadvantages: high burden of software implementation, requires receipt > of DATA before an authoritative check can be done It has other issues. If the outgoing MTA signs the packets, then all users for that domain are required to send mail through machines administered in the same domain. i.e. no roaming users being "lazy", and just sending mail directly to the recipient. All of the objections to LMAP about this problem then apply to DK. Even worse, LMAP allows the domain owner to permit roaming users to continue their existing behaviour. Having the domain owner force users to send mail through the domain's MTA is an *option* in LMAP. So LMAP gives the users and domain owners more options than DK. If DK means that each sender signs the message, then you have two choices. One is to have a domain-wide private key, in which case it must change regularly, as spammers will quickly obtain it. The second is to have per-user private keys, in which case DNS lookups have to be done to get the key for each user, which is problematic. (Why not just then have every domain put user authentication information in DNS, and have every recipient MTA do SMTP AUTH? It's entirely equivalent, and doesn't require much in the way of user-agent changes.) I don't think the second option is useful. The first option means that not only do we have to update each user agent to sign the keys (updating millions of clients is a difficult problem, even for AOL), but we also have to distribute new keys every so often. This will be a signficant ongoing maintenance cost. The key distribution will be problematic (what if you've been off-line for a week?)... In contrast, LMAP has a small additional cost when a new MTA for a domain is configured, or when MTA's change IP address. It has no continual maintenace required, like DK does. I'd be *very* surprised if DK had a lower ongoing maintenance cost than LMAP. Further, if the user agents sign the messages, then we can be pretty much guaranteed that spammers will have, and abuse, the keys in seconds. Spammers already maintain distributed databases of open proxies. Distributing new keys for a domain is no more expensive. So the system has signficant cost to deploy, and will do *nothing* to prevent spammers from sending messages, even forged messages from "owned" machines, or open proxies/relays, like they do today. While LMAP also permits spammers to continue to send spam "from" a domain, they can do so only under two conditions. One is with the agreement of the domain owner (who lets roaming users forge, too.). The second is if they "own" machines in a domain, and abuse those to send spam. The first scenario doesn't interest me. The second is more useful. It means that spammers can continue forging ONLY if they engage in behaviour which is criminal in many jurisdictions. So LMAP leverages additional anti-spam resources, making it more effective than it would have been on it's own. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Dec 7 15:14:28 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA02323 for ; Sun, 7 Dec 2003 15:14:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AT5IB-0007aj-30 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 15:14:11 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB7KEB0r029175 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 7 Dec 2003 15:14:11 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AT5IA-0007aU-VP for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 15:14:11 -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 PAA02279 for ; Sun, 7 Dec 2003 15:13:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AT5I9-0004nd-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 15:14:09 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AT5I9-0004na-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 15:14:09 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AT5I1-0007YJ-DS; Sun, 07 Dec 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 1AT5Hx-0007Y6-IU for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 15:13:57 -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 PAA02259 for ; Sun, 7 Dec 2003 15:13:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AT5Hw-0004nJ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 15:13:56 -0500 Received: from out2.smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.26]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AT5Hv-0004nC-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 15:13:55 -0500 X-Sasl-enc: omTqjaEDxSR3BzB1RXKUGg 1070828034 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 3850E463D80; Sun, 7 Dec 2003 15:13:53 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3FD389FE.8030602@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] 6. Proposals - DNS + PKI - Yahoo's "Domain Keys" References: <3FD281E8.5020305@solidmatrix.com> In-Reply-To: <3FD281E8.5020305@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: Sun, 07 Dec 2003 12:13:50 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Add'l problems already evident: 1)Not an open standard (not a standard at all.) 2)Not even a press release about it at http://promo.yahoo.com/pressroom/releases.html - I searched for a while; the ONLY source for any info seems to be a Reuters article !!! I see no evidence that the software that the article mentions even exists. Yahoo isn't claimed to be offering it free to proprietary developers. 3)Makes deniability more difficult than LMAP (mostly a good thing). 4)Requires all authorized SMTP servers have new software, be configured to use it and the domain's secret key, AND be secure. I could implement an LMAP scheme today; I couldn't implement anything based on Yahoo's idea, even if it was fully specified because I don't have admin rights to any of the various SMTP servers used to send email for my domain. 5)Yahoo lacks credibility in the antispam community because of its bad reputation. Here's someone's blog entry reviewing the proposal: http://www.megacity.org/blog/archives/001288.php _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Dec 7 15:53:24 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA03370 for ; Sun, 7 Dec 2003 15:53:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AT5ts-0000Er-A4 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 15:53:08 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB7Kr8i2000911 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 7 Dec 2003 15:53:08 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AT5ts-0000Ec-6C for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 15:53:08 -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 PAA03364 for ; Sun, 7 Dec 2003 15:52:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AT5tq-0005UI-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 15:53:06 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AT5tq-0005UF-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 15:53:06 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AT5tl-0000CG-6R; Sun, 07 Dec 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 1AT5tg-0000C5-3r for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 15:52:56 -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 PAA03361 for ; Sun, 7 Dec 2003 15:52:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AT5te-0005Ty-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 15:52:54 -0500 Received: from out2.smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.26]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AT5te-0005Tu-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 15:52:54 -0500 X-Sasl-enc: mtu+DTLzJRmx/Fw3u/Zd2A 1070830372 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 A3D24464050; Sun, 7 Dec 2003 15:52:51 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3FD39321.8050400@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] 7. BCP - Areas of research References: <3FD2CA2A.2040306@solidmatrix.com> In-Reply-To: <3FD2CA2A.2040306@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: Sun, 07 Dec 2003 12:52:49 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 12/6/2003 10:35 PM, Yakov Shafranovich sent forth electrons to convey: > As part of our BCP efforts, we want to determine which areas we should > pursue, and how to proceed in them. Below is a copy of a message from > the old BCP list outlining some of the areas we can be looking into. > We are seeking comments from list members about this, and will > consider creating subgroups to pursue specific efforts. > >> Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 16:47:36 -0500 >> From: Philip Miller >> >> ...Here's my first cut at such a list:... > http://www.bestprac.org/principles.htm has a pretty extensive list, and someone's opinion of what the BCPs are, laid out in extensive detail. I'd like to see prepay forfeit, deposits and/or cleanup fees be BCP. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Dec 7 16:50:28 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA04619 for ; Sun, 7 Dec 2003 16:50:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AT6n6-0001ny-Pk for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 16:50:13 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB7LoC08006929 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 7 Dec 2003 16:50:12 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AT6n6-0001nO-Iy for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 16:50:12 -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 QAA04609 for ; Sun, 7 Dec 2003 16:49:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AT6n4-0006gs-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 16:50:10 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AT6n4-0006gp-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 16:50:10 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AT6mw-0001j9-Cl; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 16:50:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AT6hb-0001fd-OY for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 16:44:31 -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 QAA04527 for ; Sun, 7 Dec 2003 16:44:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AT6hZ-0006Yc-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 16:44:29 -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 1AT6hZ-0006Xh-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 16:44:29 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-393-156.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.249.204]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HPJ00HYLOBFSE@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 21:42:55 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 7. BCP - Areas of research In-reply-to: <3FD39321.8050400@elvey.com> To: Matthew Elvey Cc: ASRG Message-id: <3FD39EDE.7020201@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: <3FD2CA2A.2040306@solidmatrix.com> <3FD39321.8050400@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: Sun, 07 Dec 2003 16:42:54 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Matthew Elvey wrote: > On 12/6/2003 10:35 PM, Yakov Shafranovich sent forth electrons to convey: > >> As part of our BCP efforts, we want to determine which areas we should >> pursue, and how to proceed in them. Below is a copy of a message from >> the old BCP list outlining some of the areas we can be looking into. >> We are seeking comments from list members about this, and will >> consider creating subgroups to pursue specific efforts. >> >>> Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 16:47:36 -0500 >>> From: Philip Miller >>> >>> ...Here's my first cut at such a list:... >> >> > http://www.bestprac.org/principles.htm has a pretty extensive list, and > someone's opinion of what the BCPs are, laid out in extensive detail. > I'd like to see prepay forfeit, deposits and/or cleanup fees be BCP. > I took a quick look at that site, the information seems to be very concise. We were thinking of something more along the lines of RFCs 2505, 2635 and 3098, outlining the information and the reasons behind it, as well as adressing some of the conflicts with existing RFCs such as permissibility of filtering during SMTP, etc. We can definatly use that information and it will probably need to be expanded further. 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 Dec 7 17:00:30 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA04907 for ; Sun, 7 Dec 2003 17:00:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AT6wp-00027h-7Z for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 17:00:15 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB7M0Fc5008131 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 7 Dec 2003 17:00:15 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AT6wn-00026z-BK for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 17:00:13 -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 QAA04803 for ; Sun, 7 Dec 2003 16:59:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AT6wl-0006sD-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 17:00:11 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AT6wk-0006rg-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 17:00:10 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AT6wf-0001zM-2m; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 17:00:05 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AT6vA-0001y7-AW for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 16:58:32 -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 QAA04753 for ; Sun, 7 Dec 2003 16:58:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AT6v8-0006pE-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 16:58:30 -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 1AT6v7-0006oT-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 16:58:29 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-393-156.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.249.204]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HPJ00IIWOZCT7@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 21:57:18 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - DNS + PKI - Yahoo's "Domain Keys" In-reply-to: <3FD2B052.9090307@zemos.net> To: Philip Miller Cc: ASRG Message-id: <3FD3A23B.2090707@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: <3FD281E8.5020305@solidmatrix.com> <3FD2B052.9090307@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: Sun, 07 Dec 2003 16:57:15 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Philip Miller wrote: [..] > > DK advantages: prevents forgery in forwarded situations, such as if a > mailing list owner inserts a forged message on the list. > DK disadvantages: high burden of software implementation, requires > receipt of DATA before an authoritative check can be done > The DATA problem can be solved with an ESMTP extension or some creative use of MAIL FROM AUTH extension. BUT, I want you all to consider one more possibility - digital signatures implies digital keys, digital keys imply digital certificates. Another advantage of this approach is that the public key of the sending system can be signed by someone else. While DNS limits packet size (512 bytes for UDP), it is not unfeasible to have an external system with a database of digital keys signed by that authority. Sounds like a "Trusted Sender" approach that was proposed by Project Lumos. Having the ability of someone else vouch for a domain, is another advantage of this approach (DK) over LMAP, although the possibility of spammers getting on the "approved" listed fraudently and centralized power problems, are issues. 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 Dec 7 18:09:30 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA06671 for ; Sun, 7 Dec 2003 18:09:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AT81Z-0004Hk-5n for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 18:09:15 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB7N9DrI016473 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 7 Dec 2003 18:09:13 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AT81Y-0004Hc-UR for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 18:09:13 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA06620 for ; Sun, 7 Dec 2003 18:08:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AT81W-0000WN-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 18:09:10 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AT81V-0000WK-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 18:09:09 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AT81N-0004FO-Ef; Sun, 07 Dec 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 1AT814-0004Eu-U1 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 18:08:43 -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 SAA06558 for ; Sun, 7 Dec 2003 18:08:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AT812-0000VT-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 18:08:40 -0500 Received: from sj-iport-4.cisco.com ([171.68.10.86]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AT811-0000UM-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 18:08:39 -0500 Received: from mbaugher-w2k07.cisco.com (sjc-vpn3-232.cisco.com [10.21.64.232]) by sj-core-3.cisco.com (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id hB7N7arY020586; Sun, 7 Dec 2003 15:07:46 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <6.0.0.22.2.20031207145757.03cc7c40@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 + PKI - Yahoo's "Domain Keys" Cc: asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <20031207152629.6F43A16CD1@mail.nitros9.org> References: <20031207152629.6F43A16CD1@mail.nitros9.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2003 15:04:16 -0800 Alan, At 07:26 AM 12/7/2003, Alan DeKok wrote: <...> > If DK means that each sender signs the message, then you have two >choices. One is to have a domain-wide private key, in which case it >must change regularly, as spammers will quickly obtain it. I don't know why you would assume this. >The second >is to have per-user private keys, in which case DNS lookups have to be >done to get the key for each user, which is problematic. A big problem with per-user private keys is that these private keys are vulnerable when user machines are infected with viruses. I don't expect the mail operator's machines to be so vulnerable. Also, past experience has shown that most users hate to use cryptographic technologies for email or anything else when they have a choice. >(Why not >just then have every domain put user authentication information in >DNS, and have every recipient MTA do SMTP AUTH? It's entirely >equivalent, and doesn't require much in the way of user-agent >changes.) This sounds like a very good approach from MTA(s)->MTA(r), but what about the case of MTA(s)->MTA(i)->MTA(r), which is a rare case that nonetheless needs to be supported? Mark > I don't think the second option is useful. > > The first option means that not only do we have to update each user >agent to sign the keys (updating millions of clients is a difficult >problem, even for AOL), but we also have to distribute new keys every >so often. This will be a signficant ongoing maintenance cost. The >key distribution will be problematic (what if you've been off-line for >a week?)... > > In contrast, LMAP has a small additional cost when a new MTA for a >domain is configured, or when MTA's change IP address. It has no >continual maintenace required, like DK does. I'd be *very* surprised >if DK had a lower ongoing maintenance cost than LMAP. > > Further, if the user agents sign the messages, then we can be pretty >much guaranteed that spammers will have, and abuse, the keys in >seconds. Spammers already maintain distributed databases of open >proxies. Distributing new keys for a domain is no more expensive. > > So the system has signficant cost to deploy, and will do *nothing* >to prevent spammers from sending messages, even forged messages from >"owned" machines, or open proxies/relays, like they do today. > > While LMAP also permits spammers to continue to send spam "from" a >domain, they can do so only under two conditions. One is with the >agreement of the domain owner (who lets roaming users forge, too.). >The second is if they "own" machines in a domain, and abuse those to >send spam. > > The first scenario doesn't interest me. The second is more useful. >It means that spammers can continue forging ONLY if they engage in >behaviour which is criminal in many jurisdictions. So LMAP leverages >additional anti-spam resources, making it more effective than it would >have been on it's own. > > 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 Dec 8 10:37:56 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA14684 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 10:37:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATNRa-0003Eo-Hk for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 10:37:07 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB8Fb6E4012425 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 10:37:06 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATNRZ-0003E1-A2 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 10:37:05 -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 KAA14581 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 10:36:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATNRW-0006bR-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 10:37:02 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATNRW-0006bM-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 10:37:02 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATNQX-00032T-Sd; Mon, 08 Dec 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 1ATNPs-00030Z-8H for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 10:35:24 -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 KAA14358 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 10:35:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATNPn-0006Vt-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 10:35:15 -0500 Received: from newgiles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ([205.150.200.131] helo=mail.nitros9.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATNPd-0006VV-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 10:35:05 -0500 Received: from newgiles.nitros9.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.nitros9.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DF5716CD1 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 10:35:06 -0500 (EST) From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - DNS + PKI - Yahoo's "Domain Keys" In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 07 Dec 2003 15:04:16 PST." <6.0.0.22.2.20031207145757.03cc7c40@mira-sjc5-6.cisco.com> Message-Id: <20031208153506.9DF5716CD1@mail.nitros9.org> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2003 10:35:06 -0500 Mark Baugher wrote: > > If DK means that each sender signs the message, then you have two > >choices. One is to have a domain-wide private key, in which case it > >must change regularly, as spammers will quickly obtain it. > > I don't know why you would assume this. If every user has access to the private key to sign outgoing messages, then spammers have access to it, too. After all, spammers can sign up for accounts at ISP's... > A big problem with per-user private keys is that these > private keys are vulnerable when user machines are infected with > viruses. That's really outside of the scope of the solution. However, having *signed* viruses means you're pretty sure whose machine is infected. > I don't expect the mail operator's machines to be so vulnerable. > Also, past experience has shown that most users hate to use > cryptographic technologies for email or anything else when they have > a choice. I thought the whole point of the solution was that users wouldn't even know their messages were being signed. > >(Why not > >just then have every domain put user authentication information in > >DNS, and have every recipient MTA do SMTP AUTH? It's entirely > >equivalent, and doesn't require much in the way of user-agent > >changes.) > > This sounds like a very good approach from MTA(s)->MTA(r), but > what about the case of MTA(s)->MTA(i)->MTA(r), which is a rare > case that nonetheless needs to be supported? See the LMAP discussion document for ways to do this. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 8 10:50:23 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA15495 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 10:50:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATNeE-0004UN-GF for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 10:50:10 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB8FoAsP017249 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 10:50:10 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATNeE-0004U8-A7 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 10:50:10 -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 KAA15466 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 10:49:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATNeB-0006zA-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 10:50:07 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATNeB-0006z7-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 10:50:07 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATNe6-0004QM-SZ; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 10:50:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATNe0-0004Pd-5W for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 10:49:56 -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 KAA15463 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 10:49:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATNdx-0006yu-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 10:49:53 -0500 Received: from narn.megacity.org ([65.242.171.25]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATNdx-0006yr-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 10:49:53 -0500 Received: from [192.168.123.172] (24-161-102-179.hvc.rr.com [24.161.102.179]) (authenticated bits=0) by narn.megacity.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Debian-5) with ESMTP id hB8FnXi0013516 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Mon, 8 Dec 2003 10:49:33 -0500 In-Reply-To: <6.0.0.22.2.20031207145757.03cc7c40@mira-sjc5-6.cisco.com> References: <20031207152629.6F43A16CD1@mail.nitros9.org> <6.0.0.22.2.20031207145757.03cc7c40@mira-sjc5-6.cisco.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v606) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <1E8EFB23-2996-11D8-8EEC-000A27AF5202@megacity.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "Alan DeKok" , asrg@ietf.org From: "Derek J. Balling" Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - DNS + PKI - Yahoo's "Domain Keys" To: Mark Baugher X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.606) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 10:49:34 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Dec 7, 2003, at 6:04 PM, Mark Baugher wrote: >> If DK means that each sender signs the message, then you have two >> choices. One is to have a domain-wide private key, in which case it >> must change regularly, as spammers will quickly obtain it. > > I don't know why you would assume this. If I am $BIGCORP with $BIGNUM of employees, there's going to be less-than-honorable employees, there's going to be disgruntled ex-employees. If the sender signs their own message then your company's keys WILL get out into the wild. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 8 11:43:33 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA17661 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 11:43:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATOTc-0006nS-8O for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 11:43:19 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB8GhGrf026122 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 11:43:16 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATOTc-0006nF-37 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 11:43:16 -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 LAA17653 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 11:42:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATOTb-00000O-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 11:43:15 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATOTa-00000L-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 11:43:14 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATOTN-0006jR-7N; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 11:43:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATOT2-0006j7-Cm for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 11:42:40 -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 LAA17636 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 11:42:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATOT1-0007nZ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 11:42:39 -0500 Received: from sj-iport-5.cisco.com ([171.68.10.87]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATOT0-0007nE-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 11:42:38 -0500 Received: from sj-core-3.cisco.com (171.68.223.137) by sj-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 08 Dec 2003 16:42:50 +0000 Received: from mbaugher-w2k07.cisco.com (sjc-vpn3-57.cisco.com [10.21.64.57]) by sj-core-3.cisco.com (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id hB8GfbrY026762; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 08:41:37 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <6.0.0.22.2.20031208083946.03d38c18@mira-sjc5-6.cisco.com> X-Sender: mbaugher@mira-sjc5-6.cisco.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.0.22 To: "Derek J. Balling" From: Mark Baugher Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - DNS + PKI - Yahoo's "Domain Keys" Cc: "Alan DeKok" , asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <1E8EFB23-2996-11D8-8EEC-000A27AF5202@megacity.org> References: <20031207152629.6F43A16CD1@mail.nitros9.org> <6.0.0.22.2.20031207145757.03cc7c40@mira-sjc5-6.cisco.com> <1E8EFB23-2996-11D8-8EEC-000A27AF5202@megacity.org> 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, 08 Dec 2003 08:41:36 -0800 At 07:49 AM 12/8/2003, Derek J. Balling wrote: >On Dec 7, 2003, at 6:04 PM, Mark Baugher wrote: >>> If DK means that each sender signs the message, then you have two >>>choices. One is to have a domain-wide private key, in which case it >>>must change regularly, as spammers will quickly obtain it. >> >>I don't know why you would assume this. > >If I am $BIGCORP with $BIGNUM of employees, there's going to be >less-than-honorable employees, there's going to be disgruntled >ex-employees. If the sender signs their own message then your company's >keys WILL get out into the wild. I assumed that the MTA would have the private key and sign; not that the mail operator would hand our a *copy* of a public/private keypair to each sender. I have never heard of such a thing. Sorry that I missed that aspect of the yahoo proposal, where did they say that? Mark _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 8 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 LAA17841 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 11:50:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATOaC-0007EE-Sd for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 11:50:04 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB8Go4Nu027783 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 8 Dec 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 1ATOaC-0007E2-ES for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 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 LAA17830 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 11:49:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATOaB-00008p-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 11:50:03 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATOaA-00008m-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 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 1ATOa9-0007Be-Ab; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 11:50:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATOa7-0007BM-9V for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 11:49:59 -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 LAA17826 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 11:49:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATOa6-00008i-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 11:49:58 -0500 Received: from narn.megacity.org ([65.242.171.25]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATOa5-00008e-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 11:49:57 -0500 Received: from [192.168.123.172] (24-161-102-179.hvc.rr.com [24.161.102.179]) (authenticated bits=0) by narn.megacity.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Debian-5) with ESMTP id hB8GnHi0014976 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Mon, 8 Dec 2003 11:49:19 -0500 In-Reply-To: <6.0.0.22.2.20031208083946.03d38c18@mira-sjc5-6.cisco.com> References: <20031207152629.6F43A16CD1@mail.nitros9.org> <6.0.0.22.2.20031207145757.03cc7c40@mira-sjc5-6.cisco.com> <1E8EFB23-2996-11D8-8EEC-000A27AF5202@megacity.org> <6.0.0.22.2.20031208083946.03d38c18@mira-sjc5-6.cisco.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v606) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <76E54AAE-299E-11D8-8EEC-000A27AF5202@megacity.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "Alan DeKok" , asrg@ietf.org From: "Derek J. Balling" Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - DNS + PKI - Yahoo's "Domain Keys" To: Mark Baugher X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.606) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 11:49:18 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Dec 8, 2003, at 11:41 AM, Mark Baugher wrote: > At 07:49 AM 12/8/2003, Derek J. Balling wrote: > >> On Dec 7, 2003, at 6:04 PM, Mark Baugher wrote: >>>> If DK means that each sender signs the message, then you have two >>>> choices. One is to have a domain-wide private key, in which case it >>>> must change regularly, as spammers will quickly obtain it. >>> >>> I don't know why you would assume this. >> >> If I am $BIGCORP with $BIGNUM of employees, there's going to be >> less-than-honorable employees, there's going to be disgruntled >> ex-employees. If the sender signs their own message then your >> company's keys WILL get out into the wild. > > I assumed that the MTA would have the private key and sign; not that > the mail operator would hand our a *copy* of a public/private keypair > to each sender. I have never heard of such a thing. Sorry that I > missed that aspect of the yahoo proposal, where did they say that? There are two basic scenarios, both with flaws: 1.) The MTA signs the message: This is problematic in the "traveling salesperson" type scenario, because often then cannot use their company mail server due to ISP filtering, etc. 2.) The MUA signs the message: This yields one of two subproblems: 2.a.) The MUA signs using a "per-user" key : You now have to maintain in DNS several thousand keys for your large organizations 2.b.) The MUA signs using a "domain-wide" key : Every time you fire an employee you have to change the key or risk its misuse Which of the three scenarios Yahoo intends to write into the spec is unknown, but all three are flawed. :-) Cheers, D _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 8 12:08:34 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA18685 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 12:08:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATOrn-0000JC-AZ for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 12:08:19 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB8H8E3W001175 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 12:08:14 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATOrm-0000Is-Nc for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 12:08:14 -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 MAA18645 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 12:07:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATOrl-0000Qk-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 12:08:13 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATOrl-0000Qf-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 12:08:13 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATOrc-00007i-N2; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 12:08:04 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATOrM-0008Tz-I8 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 12:07:48 -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 MAA18605 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 12:07:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATOrL-0000PZ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 12:07:47 -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 1ATOrJ-0000PQ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 12:07:46 -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 1ATOqv-0000SF-V3 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 17:07:21 +0000 Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - DNS + PKI - Yahoo's "Domain Keys" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v552) From: Jonathan Morton To: asrg@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <76E54AAE-299E-11D8-8EEC-000A27AF5202@megacity.org> Message-Id: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.552) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 17:07:15 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > There are two basic scenarios, both with flaws: > > 1.) The MTA signs the message: This is problematic in the "traveling > salesperson" type scenario, because often then cannot use their > company mail server due to ISP filtering, etc. > > 2.) The MUA signs the message: This yields one of two subproblems: > 2.a.) The MUA signs using a "per-user" key : You now have to > maintain in DNS several thousand keys for your large organizations > 2.b.) The MUA signs using a "domain-wide" key : Every time you fire > an employee you have to change the key or risk its misuse or: 3) The signing is done by the MUA, but the key and crypto are all done by a separate entity, which I have called an MAA in the past. The MUA authenticates to the MAA and sends a digest of the message, then gets a signature back to attach to the message. The MAA may be physically colocated on the MTA, but is logically separate, uses a different protocol, and should avoid filtering by most ISPs. This last scenario is what I suggested some time ago, and may yet be used as a component of the consent framework. -------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Dec 8 12:36:30 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA20148 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 12:36:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATPIu-0001hL-D4 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 12:36:16 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB8HaG22006521 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 12:36:16 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATPIu-0001h6-89 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 12:36:16 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA20140 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 12:35:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATPIs-00014H-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 12:36:14 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATPIs-00014E-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 12:36:14 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATPIg-0001cw-8o; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 12:36:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATPIa-0001bN-08 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 12:35:56 -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 MAA20100 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 12:35:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATPIY-00013U-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 12:35:54 -0500 Received: from sj-iport-4.cisco.com ([171.68.10.86]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATPIX-00013D-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 12:35:54 -0500 Received: from mbaugher-w2k07.cisco.com (sjc-vpn3-57.cisco.com [10.21.64.57]) by sj-core-3.cisco.com (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id hB8HZKrY008044; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 09:35:21 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <6.0.0.22.2.20031208093007.03bbc948@mira-sjc5-6.cisco.com> X-Sender: mbaugher@mira-sjc5-6.cisco.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.0.22 To: Jonathan Morton From: Mark Baugher Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - DNS + PKI - Yahoo's "Domain Keys" Cc: asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: References: <76E54AAE-299E-11D8-8EEC-000A27AF5202@megacity.org> 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, 08 Dec 2003 09:35:19 -0800 It's not clear to me what Yahoo is proposing since the descriptions I have read don't make much sense. But the first question I have with any signature proposal is "what does the signature attest to?" The signature might attest to the fact that the sender is legitimately sending from a particular address. Or the signature might make no assertion about the address but only that the message originates from a particular key holder. Or the signature might attest to the fact that the message originates from a particular mail operator who has a certain antispam policy. Mark At 09:07 AM 12/8/2003, Jonathan Morton wrote: >>There are two basic scenarios, both with flaws: >> >>1.) The MTA signs the message: This is problematic in the "traveling >>salesperson" type scenario, because often then cannot use their company >>mail server due to ISP filtering, etc. >> >>2.) The MUA signs the message: This yields one of two subproblems: >> 2.a.) The MUA signs using a "per-user" key : You now have to >> maintain in DNS several thousand keys for your large organizations >> 2.b.) The MUA signs using a "domain-wide" key : Every time you >> fire an employee you have to change the key or risk its misuse > >or: > >3) The signing is done by the MUA, but the key and crypto are all done by >a separate entity, which I have called an MAA in the past. The MUA >authenticates to the MAA and sends a digest of the message, then gets a >signature back to attach to the message. The MAA may be physically >colocated on the MTA, but is logically separate, uses a different >protocol, and should avoid filtering by most ISPs. > >This last scenario is what I suggested some time ago, and may yet be used >as a component of the consent framework. > >-------------------------------------------------------------- >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 _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 8 13:34:42 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA23308 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 13:34:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATQDD-0005y3-HK for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 13:34:27 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB8IYRIn022933 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 13:34:27 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATQDD-0005xo-CS for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 13:34:27 -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 NAA23290 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 13:34:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATQDB-0002GH-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 13:34:25 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATQDA-0002GE-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 13:34:24 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATQCm-0005tw-P9; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 13:34:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATQC8-0005tS-Er for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 13:33:20 -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 NAA23261 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 13:33:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATQC6-0002FV-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 13:33:18 -0500 Received: from newgiles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ([205.150.200.131] helo=mail.nitros9.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATQC5-0002FS-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 13:33:17 -0500 Received: from newgiles.nitros9.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.nitros9.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1857A16CD1 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 13:33:44 -0500 (EST) From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - DNS + PKI - Yahoo's "Domain Keys" In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 08 Dec 2003 09:35:19 PST." <6.0.0.22.2.20031208093007.03bbc948@mira-sjc5-6.cisco.com> Message-Id: <20031208183344.1857A16CD1@mail.nitros9.org> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2003 13:33:44 -0500 Mark Baugher wrote: > It's not clear to me what Yahoo is proposing since the descriptions I have > read don't make much sense. But the first question I have with any > signature proposal is "what does the signature attest to?" The signature is most likely done on a hash of the message body and/or some headers from the envelope. What it *means* is another question entirely. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 8 13:42:23 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA23518 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 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 1ATQKf-0006er-0p for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 13:42:09 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB8Ig87w025587 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 13:42:08 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATQKe-0006ec-RZ for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 13:42:08 -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 NAA23513 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 13:41:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATQKc-0002Ll-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 13:42:06 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATQKc-0002Li-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 13:42:06 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATQKX-0006aK-7a; Mon, 08 Dec 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 1ATQKM-0006Zk-Lw for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 13:41:50 -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 NAA23496 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 13:41:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATQKK-0002LH-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 13:41:48 -0500 Received: from newgiles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ([205.150.200.131] helo=mail.nitros9.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATQKJ-0002LD-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 13:41:48 -0500 Received: from newgiles.nitros9.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.nitros9.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7CB916CD1 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 13:42:13 -0500 (EST) From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - DNS + PKI - Yahoo's "Domain Keys" In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 07 Dec 2003 16:57:15 EST." <3FD3A23B.2090707@solidmatrix.com> Message-Id: <20031208184213.A7CB916CD1@mail.nitros9.org> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2003 13:42:13 -0500 Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > Having the ability of someone else vouch for a domain, is another > advantage of this approach (DK) over LMAP, Current blacklists can be viewed as a way of third parties vouching for a domain. The MTAMark proposal is similar. Though the various documents don't say so, there's nothing to stop an MTA from looking up LMAP information in a third-party database, too. e.g. "domain.com._lmap_.example.com", or "4.3.2.1.domain.com._lmap_.example.com" Hmm... I'll add that to the discussion document as a possible method of blacklisting domains which are known to host spammers. Leveraging the LMAP infrastructure for a domain-based blacklist just makes sense... Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 8 13:47:24 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA23664 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 13:47:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATQPT-0006sM-O6 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 13:47:09 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB8Il7cJ026424 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 13:47:07 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATQPT-0006s7-IO for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 13:47:07 -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 NAA23654 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 13:46:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATQPR-0002Pe-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 13:47:05 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATQPQ-0002Pb-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 13:47:04 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATQPN-0006oK-UZ; Mon, 08 Dec 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 1ATQPD-0006o8-An for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 13:46:51 -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 NAA23648 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 13:46:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATQPB-0002OD-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 13:46:49 -0500 Received: from mail.crlf.net ([216.126.92.195]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATQPA-0002OA-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 13:46:48 -0500 Received: by mail.crlf.net (Postfix, from userid 100) id 3E7CF1F07E; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 13:50:18 -0500 (EST) From: David Maxwell To: Mark Baugher Cc: Alan DeKok , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - DNS + PKI - Yahoo's "Domain Keys" Message-ID: <20031208185018.GA19701@mail> References: <3FD2B052.9090307@zemos.net> <20031207152629.6F43A16CD1@mail.nitros9.org> <6.0.0.22.2.20031207145757.03cc7c40@mira-sjc5-6.cisco.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <6.0.0.22.2.20031207145757.03cc7c40@mira-sjc5-6.cisco.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 13:50:18 -0500 On Sun, Dec 07, 2003 at 03:04:16PM -0800, Mark Baugher wrote: > At 07:26 AM 12/7/2003, Alan DeKok wrote: > <...> > > If DK means that each sender signs the message, then you have two > >choices. One is to have a domain-wide private key, in which case it > >must change regularly, as spammers will quickly obtain it. > > I don't know why you would assume this. Probably because the mechanism hasn't been properly described in a standards-track document - only as marketing material. > Also, past experience has shown that most users hate > to use cryptographic technologies for email or anything else when > they have a choice. I would say instead that "most users hate to use technologies that require effort". Take SSL, which has been very widely adopted for transactions, as a contradiction of your statement. -- David Maxwell, david@vex.net|david@maxwell.net --> Unless you have a solution when you tell them things like that, most people collapse into a gibbering, unthinking mass. This is the same reason why you probably don't tell your boss about everything you read on BugTraq! - Signal 11 _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 8 15:29:31 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA29641 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 15:29:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATS0K-0003F2-8G for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 15:29:16 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB8KTGiB012454 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 15:29:16 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATS0K-0003En-31 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 15:29:16 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA29635 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 15:29:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATS0I-0004GB-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 15:29:14 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATS0I-0004G8-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 15:29:14 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATS05-0003CV-Ic; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 15:29:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATRyG-0003BI-OJ for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 15:27:08 -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 PAA29592 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 15:26:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATRyF-0004Ez-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 15:27:07 -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 1ATRyE-0004Dy-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 15:27:06 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-370-125.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.160.46]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HPL00H5OFG85Q@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 20:26:37 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich To: ASRG Message-id: <3FD4DE7C.1080000@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 - Review of the CRI subgroup Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2003 15:26:36 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT The CRI subgroup was created to work on the development of the CRI proposal to allow C/R systems to communicate. The group public homepage is at: http://asrg.kavi.com/apps/group_public/workgroup.php?wg_abbrev=cri The CRI proposal is located at: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-irtf-asrg-cri-00.txt We are currently reviewing this subgroup since it appears to lack enough interested participants. If you would like to participate in this subgroup, have comments on it, or any other questions, please let us know. If not enough interest is shown, we intend to shutdown this subgroup. Sincerely, Yakov Shafranovich Co-Chair, ASRG ------- 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 Mon Dec 8 15:33:18 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA29874 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 15:33:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATS3z-0003XH-P5 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 15:33:03 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB8KX379013585 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 15:33:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATS3z-0003X2-Jk for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 15:33:03 -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 PAA29793 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 15:32:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATS3y-0004L5-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 15:33:02 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATS3x-0004L0-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 15:33:01 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATS3x-0003RF-Da; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 15:33:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATS3W-0003QH-CV for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 15:32:36 -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 PAA29740 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 15:32:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATS3U-0004Jx-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 15:32:33 -0500 Received: from sj-iport-5.cisco.com ([171.68.10.87]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATS3U-0004H5-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 15:32:32 -0500 Received: from sj-core-3.cisco.com (171.68.223.137) by sj-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 08 Dec 2003 20:32:46 +0000 Received: from mbaugher-w2k07.cisco.com (sjc-vpn3-57.cisco.com [10.21.64.57]) by sj-core-3.cisco.com (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id hB8KVxrY003594; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 12:32:00 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <6.0.0.22.2.20031208123040.0398f920@mira-sjc5-6.cisco.com> X-Sender: mbaugher@mira-sjc5-6.cisco.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.0.22 To: David Maxwell From: Mark Baugher Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - DNS + PKI - Yahoo's "Domain Keys" Cc: asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <20031208185018.GA19701@mail> References: <3FD2B052.9090307@zemos.net> <20031207152629.6F43A16CD1@mail.nitros9.org> <6.0.0.22.2.20031207145757.03cc7c40@mira-sjc5-6.cisco.com> <20031208185018.GA19701@mail> 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, 08 Dec 2003 12:31:57 -0800 At 10:50 AM 12/8/2003, David Maxwell wrote: <...> >Take SSL, which has been very widely adopted for transactions, as a >contradiction of your statement. I'm referring to cases where the user actually has to sign something, see http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~alma/johnny.pdf Mark >-- >David Maxwell, david@vex.net|david@maxwell.net --> Unless you have a solution >when you tell them things like that, most people collapse into a gibbering, >unthinking mass. This is the same reason why you probably don't tell your >boss about everything you read on BugTraq! - Signal 11 _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 8 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 PAA00451 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 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 1ATS76-0003f4-Fw for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 15:36:19 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB8KaGKq014068 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 15:36:16 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATS74-0003ep-So for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 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 PAA00334 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 15:35:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATS73-0004Z8-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 15:36:13 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATS73-0004Z5-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 15:36:13 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATS6r-0003cL-Qa; Mon, 08 Dec 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 1ATS4p-0003Zf-GO for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 15:33:58 -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 PAA29917 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 15:33:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATS4n-0004Ox-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 15:33:54 -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 1ATS4n-0004M7-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 15:33:53 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-370-125.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.160.46]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HPL00IT1FQOZR@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 20:32:54 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - DNS + PKI - Yahoo's "Domain Keys" In-reply-to: <76E54AAE-299E-11D8-8EEC-000A27AF5202@megacity.org> To: "Derek J. Balling" Cc: Mark Baugher , Alan DeKok , asrg@ietf.org Message-id: <3FD4DFF1.3060405@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: <20031207152629.6F43A16CD1@mail.nitros9.org> <6.0.0.22.2.20031207145757.03cc7c40@mira-sjc5-6.cisco.com> <1E8EFB23-2996-11D8-8EEC-000A27AF5202@megacity.org> <6.0.0.22.2.20031208083946.03d38c18@mira-sjc5-6.cisco.com> <76E54AAE-299E-11D8-8EEC-000A27AF5202@megacity.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: Mon, 08 Dec 2003 15:32:49 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Derek J. Balling wrote: > > On Dec 8, 2003, at 11:41 AM, Mark Baugher wrote: > >> At 07:49 AM 12/8/2003, Derek J. Balling wrote: >> >>> On Dec 7, 2003, at 6:04 PM, Mark Baugher wrote: >>> >>>>> If DK means that each sender signs the message, then you have two >>>>> choices. One is to have a domain-wide private key, in which case it >>>>> must change regularly, as spammers will quickly obtain it. >>>> >>>> >>>> I don't know why you would assume this. >>> >>> >>> If I am $BIGCORP with $BIGNUM of employees, there's going to be >>> less-than-honorable employees, there's going to be disgruntled >>> ex-employees. If the sender signs their own message then your >>> company's keys WILL get out into the wild. >> >> >> I assumed that the MTA would have the private key and sign; not that >> the mail operator would hand our a *copy* of a public/private keypair >> to each sender. I have never heard of such a thing. Sorry that I >> missed that aspect of the yahoo proposal, where did they say that? > > > There are two basic scenarios, both with flaws: > > 1.) The MTA signs the message: This is problematic in the "traveling > salesperson" type scenario, because often then cannot use their company > mail server due to ISP filtering, etc. > > 2.) The MUA signs the message: This yields one of two subproblems: > 2.a.) The MUA signs using a "per-user" key : You now have to > maintain in DNS several thousand keys for your large organizations > 2.b.) The MUA signs using a "domain-wide" key : Every time you fire > an employee you have to change the key or risk its misuse > > > Which of the three scenarios Yahoo intends to write into the spec is > unknown, but all three are flawed. :-) Based on the information available to us, its the first scenario. 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 Mon Dec 8 15:38:24 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA00729 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 15:38:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATS8v-00049a-0L for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 15:38:09 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB8Kc82h015958 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 15:38:08 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATS8t-000480-OY for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 15:38:07 -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 PAA00655 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 15:37:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATS8s-0004ht-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 15:38:06 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATS8r-0004hq-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 15:38:05 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATS8n-00040Z-S1; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 15:38:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATS6u-0003d0-PY for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 15:36:04 -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 PAA00306 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 15:35:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATS6t-0004YR-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 15:36:03 -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 1ATS6s-0004WH-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 15:36:02 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-370-125.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.160.46]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HPL004UYFV449@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 20:35:33 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - DNS + PKI - Yahoo's "Domain Keys" In-reply-to: <20031208183344.1857A16CD1@mail.nitros9.org> To: Alan DeKok Cc: asrg@ietf.org Message-id: <3FD4E090.8000808@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: <20031208183344.1857A16CD1@mail.nitros9.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: Mon, 08 Dec 2003 15:35:28 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Alan DeKok wrote: > Mark Baugher wrote: > >>It's not clear to me what Yahoo is proposing since the descriptions I have >>read don't make much sense. But the first question I have with any >>signature proposal is "what does the signature attest to?" > > > The signature is most likely done on a hash of the message body > and/or some headers from the envelope. > > What it *means* is another question entirely. > The signature attests to the fact that the domain name or server from which the message originated, is not forged. 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 Mon Dec 8 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 QAA05875 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 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 1ATTLY-0006k0-6D for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 16:55:17 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB8LtGa9025906 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 16:55:16 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATTLY-0006jl-2M for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 16:55:16 -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 QAA05815 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 16:54:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATTLV-0006kz-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 16:55:14 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATTLV-0006kw-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 16:55:13 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATTLK-0006g1-OM; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 16:55:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATTKU-0006f5-NC for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 16:54:10 -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 QAA05744 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 16:53:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATTKS-0006jL-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 16:54:08 -0500 Received: from rwcrmhc12.comcast.net ([216.148.227.85]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATTKS-0006is-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 16:54:08 -0500 Received: from fda.zemos.net ([68.38.12.170]) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc12) with ESMTP id <2003120821533701400bpt4fe>; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 21:53:37 +0000 Received: from zemos.net (phil [10.0.0.2]) by fda.zemos.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3A1318685; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 07:00:27 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3FD4F2EC.7040903@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: Alan DeKok Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - DNS + PKI - Yahoo's "Domain Keys" References: <20031208184213.A7CB916CD1@mail.nitros9.org> In-Reply-To: <20031208184213.A7CB916CD1@mail.nitros9.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: Mon, 08 Dec 2003 16:53:48 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Alan DeKok wrote: > Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > >>Having the ability of someone else vouch for a domain, is another >>advantage of this approach (DK) over LMAP, > > > Current blacklists can be viewed as a way of third parties vouching > for a domain. The MTAMark proposal is similar. > > Though the various documents don't say so, there's nothing to stop > an MTA from looking up LMAP information in a third-party database, > too. e.g. "domain.com._lmap_.example.com", or > "4.3.2.1.domain.com._lmap_.example.com" > > Hmm... I'll add that to the discussion document as a possible method > of blacklisting domains which are known to host spammers. Leveraging > the LMAP infrastructure for a domain-based blacklist just makes > sense... Domain black-lists aren't particularly useful, because domains are cheap enough to register that spammers could send one load of spam from a given domain and then abandon it. If a spammer is stupid enough to stick around, or they have some pretense of legitimacy, then a blacklist could have some effect. I thought the point was that white lists would become meaningful because people couldn't ride on someone else's good reputation, as they can now, and service providers could be held accountable for bad users sending mail within their domain. Philip Miller _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 8 17:11:27 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA06617 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 17:11:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATTaz-0007oi-FA for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 17:11:13 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB8MBDF4030042 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 17:11:13 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATTaz-0007oT-41 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 17:11:13 -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 RAA06606 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 17:10:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATTaw-000758-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 17:11:11 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATTaw-000755-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 17:11:10 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATTan-0007kV-Cx; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 17:11:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATTag-0007kA-VI for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 17:10:54 -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 RAA06585 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 17:10:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATTae-00074Y-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 17:10:52 -0500 Received: from newgiles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ([205.150.200.131] helo=mail.nitros9.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATTae-00074V-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 17:10:52 -0500 Received: from newgiles.nitros9.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.nitros9.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76E381706A for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 17:11:20 -0500 (EST) From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - DNS + PKI - Yahoo's "Domain Keys" In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 08 Dec 2003 16:53:48 EST." <3FD4F2EC.7040903@zemos.net> Message-Id: <20031208221120.76E381706A@mail.nitros9.org> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2003 17:11:20 -0500 Philip Miller wrote: > Domain black-lists aren't particularly useful, because domains are cheap > enough to register that spammers could send one load of spam from a given > domain and then abandon it. If a spammer is stupid enough to stick around, > or they have some pretense of legitimacy, then a blacklist could have some > effect. Blacklists can be updated during a spam run, which makes them somewhat useful. Also, the domain-based blacklists can be mined to discover registrants (or registrars) who are associated with spam. > I thought the point was that white lists would become meaningful because > people couldn't ride on someone else's good reputation, as they can now, and > service providers could be held accountable for bad users sending mail > within their domain. LMAP isn't a whitelist. It's a publication of consent information. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 8 21:13:47 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA20727 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 21:13:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATXNU-0001n5-1j for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 21:13:33 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB92DWq3006879 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 21:13:32 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATXNT-0001ms-Tw for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 21:13:31 -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 VAA20692 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 21:13:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATXNR-000526-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 21:13:29 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATXNQ-000523-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 21:13:28 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATXMz-0001kH-F1; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 21:13:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATXM9-0001j0-T1 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 21:12:11 -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 VAA20648 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 21:11:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATXM7-000519-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 21:12:07 -0500 Received: from ntbbs.winserver.com ([208.247.131.9] helo=winserver.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATXM6-000516-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 21:12:06 -0500 Received: by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v5.7.450.9b10) for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 21:12:29 -0500 Received: from ([68.215.99.227]) EHLO=FAMILY by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v5.7.450.9b10) with SMTP id 3170415296; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 21:12:29 -0500 Message-ID: <000701c3bdf9$d856cf20$6401a8c0@FAMILY> From: "Hector Santos" To: "Yakov Shafranovich" , "Alan DeKok" Cc: References: <20031208183344.1857A16CD1@mail.nitros9.org> <3FD4E090.8000808@solidmatrix.com> Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - DNS + PKI - Yahoo's "Domain Keys" 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: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 21:12:06 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Keep in mind that this proposal will only work if the RFC specifications are clarified due to one its central criteria. Quoting Yahoo: "If the receiving system can decrypt that private key with a public key registered by the Internet's Domain Name System, then it will be assumed the message is authentic. If it can't, the message is bounced back from whence it came." Therefore, like other proposals, if the bounce system is not reliable or considered or interpreted as "optional", then there can only be one assumption to be made; throw the message away. In other words, what will be the RFC guidelines on handling an unreliable or incomplete bounce due to a failed decryption of a private key? This still needs to be addressed. You guys need to get going with this because whether you understand this or not, once YAHOO implement it, software vendors, such as myself have no choice but to add support for it. The way I view this or any proposal for that matter, is how will it fit into the complete integrated mail system of our product, where will the validation process take place? For example, if YDK is to be deployed, we might consider the implementation to be placed at various points of the process. In essence, the baseline compliance for this proposal is two MUA systems. The middle ware is not really required. However, trust increases as a 3rd party component is involved in the validation process. If a compliant MUA sender is used, does the SMTP route have a role of validating the key or simply pass it on to the final destination? If a non-compliant MUA sender is used, where in the SMTP process does it add the private key? or does it? Is there sufficient trust when the MUA receiver is not compliant and the SENDER is validated by SMTP? Does the POP3 server play a role? Can an enhanced MUA POP3 client informed the enhanced POP3 server to accept or not accept non-validated YDK mail. In short, once this or any system is put in place, the users will ultimately have to decide if the non-validated private key email should be received by the system and that's something that needs to be programmed in the SMTP software. Private key or not, vendors will have to offer the option to the admins on how to handle mail that has yet in compliance with the system. Quick example: Confirmed YDK-Ready Mail Sender -> SMTP passes on the mail. Unconfirmed YDK-Ready Mail Sender -> What happens with unreliable bounce? No YDK header Mail Sender -> Should SMTP confirm the sender (and how?) and add the header? It just seems to me that YDK works with widely deployed. In the mean time, the RFC needs to be updated to provided the control mechanisms when ANY NEW SYSTEM is not confirmable or validated or used. That all boils down to the bounce concept. Bounce is possible - GREAT! Bounce not possible - scratch your head. --- Hector Santos, CTO WINSERVER "Wildcat! Interactive Net Server" support: http://www.winserver.com sales: http://www.santronics.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Yakov Shafranovich" To: "Alan DeKok" Cc: Sent: Monday, December 08, 2003 3:35 PM Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - DNS + PKI - Yahoo's "Domain Keys" > Alan DeKok wrote: > > > Mark Baugher wrote: > > > >>It's not clear to me what Yahoo is proposing since the descriptions I have > >>read don't make much sense. But the first question I have with any > >>signature proposal is "what does the signature attest to?" > > > > > > The signature is most likely done on a hash of the message body > > and/or some headers from the envelope. > > > > What it *means* is another question entirely. > > > > The signature attests to the fact that the domain name or server from > which the message originated, is not forged. > > 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 Mon Dec 8 22:44:06 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA24296 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 22:44:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATYmu-0005JE-U5 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 22:43:53 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB93hqe2020402 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 22:43:52 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATYmu-0005Iz-Kz for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 22:43:52 -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 WAA24262 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 22:43:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATYmr-0006a3-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 22:43:49 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATYmq-0006Zg-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 22:43:48 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATYm5-0005Ey-DT; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 22:43:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATYlz-0005En-CH for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 22:42:59 -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 WAA24211 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 22:42:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATYlv-0006Yl-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 22:42:51 -0500 Received: from sj-iport-4.cisco.com ([171.68.10.86]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATYlv-0006YQ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 22:42:51 -0500 Received: from mbaugher-w2k07.cisco.com (sjc-vpn2-908.cisco.com [10.21.115.140]) by sj-core-4.cisco.com (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id hB93gEiO021327; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 19:42:15 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <6.0.0.22.2.20031208194023.03bd6958@mira-sjc5-6.cisco.com> X-Sender: mbaugher@mira-sjc5-6.cisco.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.0.22 To: "Hector Santos" From: Mark Baugher Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - DNS + PKI - Yahoo's "Domain Keys" Cc: "Yakov Shafranovich" , "Alan DeKok" , In-Reply-To: <000701c3bdf9$d856cf20$6401a8c0@FAMILY> References: <20031208183344.1857A16CD1@mail.nitros9.org> <3FD4E090.8000808@solidmatrix.com> <000701c3bdf9$d856cf20$6401a8c0@FAMILY> 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, 08 Dec 2003 19:42:13 -0800 You're assuming that "system" means "MUA." I did not assume that. It is going to be hard to get going on this unless someone produces a meaningful and complete description. It is also not clear how this plays with the Microsoft/AOL signing proposal that was also in the news. Mark At 06:12 PM 12/8/2003, Hector Santos wrote: >Keep in mind that this proposal will only work if the RFC specifications are >clarified due to one its central criteria. Quoting Yahoo: > >"If the receiving system can decrypt that private key with a public key >registered by the Internet's Domain Name System, then it will be assumed the >message is authentic. If it can't, the message is bounced back from whence >it came." > >Therefore, like other proposals, if the bounce system is not reliable or >considered or interpreted as "optional", then there can only be one >assumption to be made; throw the message away. > >In other words, what will be the RFC guidelines on handling an unreliable >or incomplete bounce due to a failed decryption of a private key? > >This still needs to be addressed. You guys need to get going with this >because whether you understand this or not, once YAHOO implement it, >software vendors, such as myself have no choice but to add support for it. > >The way I view this or any proposal for that matter, is how will it fit into >the complete integrated mail system of our product, where will the >validation process take place? > >For example, if YDK is to be deployed, we might consider the implementation >to be placed at various points of the process. > >In essence, the baseline compliance for this proposal is two MUA systems. >The middle ware is not really required. However, trust increases as a 3rd >party component is involved in the validation process. > >If a compliant MUA sender is used, does the SMTP route have a role of >validating the key or simply pass it on to the final destination? > >If a non-compliant MUA sender is used, where in the SMTP process does it >add the private key? or does it? > >Is there sufficient trust when the MUA receiver is not compliant and the >SENDER is validated by SMTP? > >Does the POP3 server play a role? Can an enhanced MUA POP3 client informed >the enhanced POP3 server to accept or not accept non-validated YDK mail. > >In short, once this or any system is put in place, the users will >ultimately have to decide if the non-validated private key email should be >received by the system and that's something that needs to be programmed in >the SMTP software. > >Private key or not, vendors will have to offer the option to the admins on >how to handle mail that has yet in compliance with the system. > >Quick example: > >Confirmed YDK-Ready Mail Sender -> SMTP passes on the mail. > >Unconfirmed YDK-Ready Mail Sender -> What happens with unreliable bounce? > >No YDK header Mail Sender -> Should SMTP confirm the sender (and how?) and >add the header? > >It just seems to me that YDK works with widely deployed. In the mean time, >the RFC needs to be updated to provided the control mechanisms when ANY NEW >SYSTEM is not confirmable or validated or used. > >That all boils down to the bounce concept. > >Bounce is possible - GREAT! >Bounce not possible - scratch your head. > >--- >Hector Santos, CTO >WINSERVER "Wildcat! Interactive Net Server" >support: http://www.winserver.com >sales: http://www.santronics.com > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Yakov Shafranovich" >To: "Alan DeKok" >Cc: >Sent: Monday, December 08, 2003 3:35 PM >Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - DNS + PKI - Yahoo's "Domain Keys" > > > > Alan DeKok wrote: > > > > > Mark Baugher wrote: > > > > > >>It's not clear to me what Yahoo is proposing since the descriptions I >have > > >>read don't make much sense. But the first question I have with any > > >>signature proposal is "what does the signature attest to?" > > > > > > > > > The signature is most likely done on a hash of the message body > > > and/or some headers from the envelope. > > > > > > What it *means* is another question entirely. > > > > > > > The signature attests to the fact that the domain name or server from > > which the message originated, is not forged. > > > > 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 _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 8 22:50:18 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA24498 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 22:50:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATYsv-0005XY-74 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 22:50:05 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB93o5v6021296 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 22:50:05 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATYsu-0005XP-PM for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 22:50:04 -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 WAA24484 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 22:49:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATYsr-0006ge-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 22:50:01 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATYsq-0006gb-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 22:50:00 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATYsr-0005TS-Ab; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 22:50:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATYrC-0005R8-DX for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 22:48:18 -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 WAA24430 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 22:48:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATYr8-0006es-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 22:48:14 -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 1ATYr8-0006e5-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 22:48:14 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-394-419.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.254.182]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HPL00LUMZVEQE@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 03:47:45 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - DNS + PKI - Yahoo's "Domain Keys" In-reply-to: <6.0.0.22.2.20031208194023.03bd6958@mira-sjc5-6.cisco.com> To: Mark Baugher Cc: Hector Santos , Alan DeKok , asrg@ietf.org Message-id: <3FD545DD.7010401@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: <20031208183344.1857A16CD1@mail.nitros9.org> <3FD4E090.8000808@solidmatrix.com> <000701c3bdf9$d856cf20$6401a8c0@FAMILY> <6.0.0.22.2.20031208194023.03bd6958@mira-sjc5-6.cisco.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, 08 Dec 2003 22:47:41 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Mark Baugher wrote: [..] > It is also not clear how this plays with the Microsoft/AOL signing > proposal that was also in the news. > [..] Yahoo is part of the MSFT/AOL consortium, and it looks like it is the exact same proposal. The question is why Yahoo is marketing it all by itself... 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 Mon Dec 8 22:59:21 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA25058 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 22:59:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATZ1h-0005ux-0Y for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 22:59:09 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB93x8Cv022741 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 22:59:08 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATZ1g-0005ui-S9 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 22:59:08 -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 WAA25037 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 22:58:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATZ1d-0006rQ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 22:59:05 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATZ1c-0006rN-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 22:59:04 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATZ1Z-0005qy-AC; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 22:59:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATZ0G-0005k2-G1 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 22:57:40 -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 WAA24783 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 22:57:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATZ0C-0006mm-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 22:57:36 -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 1ATZ0C-0006lI-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 22:57:36 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-394-419.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.254.182]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HPM00L0E0B2QE@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 03:57:07 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - DNS + PKI - Yahoo's "Domain Keys" In-reply-to: <000701c3bdf9$d856cf20$6401a8c0@FAMILY> To: Hector Santos Cc: Alan DeKok , asrg@ietf.org Message-id: <3FD54812.1040503@solidmatrix.com> Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, he, ru User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007 X-Enigmail-Version: 0.82.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime References: <20031208183344.1857A16CD1@mail.nitros9.org> <3FD4E090.8000808@solidmatrix.com> <000701c3bdf9$d856cf20$6401a8c0@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: Mon, 08 Dec 2003 22:57:06 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Hector Santos wrote: > Keep in mind that this proposal will only work if the RFC specifications are > clarified due to one its central criteria. Quoting Yahoo: > > "If the receiving system can decrypt that private key with a public key > registered by the Internet's Domain Name System, then it will be assumed the > message is authentic. If it can't, the message is bounced back from whence > it came." > > Therefore, like other proposals, if the bounce system is not reliable or > considered or interpreted as "optional", then there can only be one > assumption to be made; throw the message away. > > In other words, what will be the RFC guidelines on handling an unreliable > or incomplete bounce due to a failed decryption of a private key? > I would not rely on their press releases or news stories based on their press releases until concrete specs for their proposal is released. I would assume their "bounce" here is referring to the industry standard way of doing bounces today, not anything esoteric. [..] > In essence, the baseline compliance for this proposal is two MUA systems. > The middle ware is not really required. However, trust increases as a 3rd > party component is involved in the validation process. > > If a compliant MUA sender is used, does the SMTP route have a role of > validating the key or simply pass it on to the final destination? > > If a non-compliant MUA sender is used, where in the SMTP process does it > add the private key? or does it? > [..] This proposal is specifically geared toward MTA signing messages, NOT MUAs. Trust between the MUAs and MTAs is accomplished via SMTP AUTH, and then the MTA signs the message before it is sent out. While it can be done through the MUAs, based on all information that is available to us, it is done on MTA level. [..] ------- 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 Mon Dec 8 23:50:37 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA27264 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 23:50:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATZpH-0007Nb-5Y for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 23:50:23 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB94oNEk028368 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 23:50:23 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATZpG-0007NT-VK for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 23:50:22 -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 XAA27255 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 23:50:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATZpE-0000AW-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 23:50:20 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATZpE-0000AT-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 23:50:20 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATZow-0007JX-HI; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 23:50:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATZo1-0007Id-UY for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 23:49:05 -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 XAA27243 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 23:48:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATZnz-00009a-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 23:49:03 -0500 Received: from ntbbs.winserver.com ([208.247.131.9] helo=winserver.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATZnz-00009W-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 23:49:03 -0500 Received: by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v5.7.450.9b10) for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 23:49:27 -0500 Received: from ([68.215.99.227]) EHLO=FAMILY by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v5.7.450.9b10) with SMTP id 3179831906; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 23:49:25 -0500 Message-ID: <003901c3be0f$c59a0c60$6401a8c0@FAMILY> From: "Hector Santos" To: References: <20031208183344.1857A16CD1@mail.nitros9.org> <3FD4E090.8000808@solidmatrix.com> <000701c3bdf9$d856cf20$6401a8c0@FAMILY> <3FD54812.1040503@solidmatrix.com> Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - DNS + PKI - Yahoo's "Domain Keys" 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: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 23:49:02 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ----- Original Message ----- From: "Yakov Shafranovich" To: "Hector Santos" Cc: "Alan DeKok" ; Sent: Monday, December 08, 2003 10:57 PM Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - DNS + PKI - Yahoo's "Domain Keys" > "If the receiving system can decrypt that private key with a public key > registered by the Internet's Domain Name System, then it will be assumed the > message is authentic. If it can't, the message is bounced back from whence > it came." > > In other words, what will be the RFC guidelines on handling an unreliable > > or incomplete bounce due to a failed decryption of a private key? > > I would not rely on their press releases or news stories based on their > press releases until concrete specs for their proposal is released. duh. I presumed you are privy to any timeline information? Yahoo does say early 2004. Doesn't give developers much time which is why I say that they are basing this on a minimum compliance with MUAs only, like Outlook augmented with their mail server. Looks to me they are going to apply this to thier moronic DATA level validation logic. > I would assume their "bounce" here is referring to the industry standard > way of doing bounces today, not anything esoteric. Of course, no details. But any intelligent person can see any generic concept applied here. Whether its the MUA or MTA adding the private key, when that message come to my SMTP server, it sounds to me we are back to the original issues of MX, PTR, and Return Path validation concepts. The burden is still on the SMTP system to "determine" how much trust can be put into a transaction with or without a private key. No "KEY" from a YAHOO return path message: What steps should a SMTP server take? Or is what YAHOO is telling the world that starting in 2004, any message that does not have a private key, should not be trusted? Plain and simple? Then as you mentioned, we are left with possible forgery issues. The key to any successful technology is to tell the SMTP receiver not to take any further action or minimum action on validating a transaction and it needs to be done before DATA is received. -- Hector _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 9 00:13:19 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA27757 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 00:13:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATaBG-0008CA-9G for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 00:13:06 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB95D6FC031496 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 00:13:06 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATaBG-0008Bv-4i for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 00:13:06 -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 AAA27747 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 00:12:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATaBD-0000SR-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 00:13:03 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATaBD-0000SO-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 00:13:03 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATaBB-000885-ON; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 00:13:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATaA9-000878-7d for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 00:11:57 -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 AAA27728 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 00:11:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATaA6-0000RX-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 00:11:54 -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 1ATaA6-0000RC-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 00:11:54 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-394-419.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.254.182]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HPM009F83PDSI@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 05:10:30 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - DNS + PKI - Yahoo's "Domain Keys" In-reply-to: <003901c3be0f$c59a0c60$6401a8c0@FAMILY> To: Hector Santos Cc: asrg@ietf.org Message-id: <3FD55942.8020900@solidmatrix.com> Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, he, ru User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007 X-Enigmail-Version: 0.82.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime References: <20031208183344.1857A16CD1@mail.nitros9.org> <3FD4E090.8000808@solidmatrix.com> <000701c3bdf9$d856cf20$6401a8c0@FAMILY> <3FD54812.1040503@solidmatrix.com> <003901c3be0f$c59a0c60$6401a8c0@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: Tue, 09 Dec 2003 00:10:26 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Hector Santos wrote: [..] > I presumed you are privy to any time line information? Yahoo does say early > 2004. [..] Nope, I am just as clueless about the time line as everyone else is. [..] > No "KEY" from a YAHOO return path message: > > What steps should a SMTP server take? > > Or is what YAHOO is telling the world that starting in 2004, any message > that does not have a private key, should not be trusted? Plain and simple? > Then as you mentioned, we are left with possible forgery issues. [..] I would venture to say that for domains that DO have the public key in DNS, any email originating from any other SMTP server with that domain as the "From" address inside the message, and not signed, can be rejected or given higher score in Spam Assassin. This of course would be a problem for users that use a different SMTP server to relay email, unless private keys are shared. Therefore, this proposal would give immidaete benefit for those sites that utilize it, by reducing "joe jobs" forging that domain, and it will not require the entire Internet to adopt it on the sender's end unless they want to use it. This is similar to LMAP in that respect, but does present more overhead. > > The key to any successful technology is to tell the SMTP receiver not to > take any further action or minimum action on validating a transaction and it > needs to be done before DATA is received. Since this proposal signs messages themselves that are transfered within the DATA command, this cannot be done before the DATA command. Therefore, unlike LMAP proposals it cannot be used at the MAIL FROM point. 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 Tue Dec 9 05:03:34 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA20194 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 05:03:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATei7-0006Rc-UB for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 05:03:20 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB9A3Jew024766 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 05:03:19 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATei6-0006RN-EQ for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 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 FAA20188 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 05:03:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATei3-0004j6-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 05:03:15 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATei2-0004j3-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 05:03:14 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATehq-0006P6-FQ; Tue, 09 Dec 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 1ATehb-0006Op-DJ for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 05:02:47 -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 FAA20182 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 05:02:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATehY-0004iu-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 05:02:44 -0500 Received: from guttormur.frisk-software.com ([213.220.100.9]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATehX-0004il-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 05:02:43 -0500 Received: by guttormur.frisk-software.com (Postfix, from userid 517) id 5F2C538031; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 10:02:14 +0000 (GMT) Received: from localhost.localdomain. (pc28.frisk-software.com [172.16.5.2]) by guttormur.frisk-software.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2965B38014 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 10:02:14 +0000 (GMT) Received: by localhost.localdomain. (8.9.3/client-1.3) id KAA12314; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 10:02:15 GMT From: Fridrik Skulason To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - DNS + PKI - Yahoo's "Domain Keys"] Message-ID: <20031209100215.GL6117@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: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 10:02:15 +0000 > 1.) The MTA signs the message: This is problematic in the "traveling > salesperson" type scenario, because often then cannot use their company > mail server due to ISP filtering, etc. Is there *any* authentication proposal that does not have that problem? -- 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 Tue Dec 9 05:07:21 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA20324 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 05:07:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATeln-0006ld-Pn for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 05:07:08 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB9A77fU025991 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 05:07:07 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATelk-0006hn-VB for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 05:07:04 -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 FAA20320 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 05:06:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATelh-0004lg-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 05:07:01 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATelh-0004ld-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 05:07:01 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATeli-0006fC-34; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 05:07:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATeld-0006ep-Ix for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 05:06:57 -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 FAA20316 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 05:06:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATela-0004la-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 05:06:54 -0500 Received: from argon.connectinternetsolutions.com ([193.110.243.33] helo=argon.connect.org.uk) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATelZ-0004lX-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 05:06:53 -0500 Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 1ATela-0002DX-Kp for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 10:06:54 +0000 In-Reply-To: <3FD55942.8020900@solidmatrix.com> Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - DNS + PKI - Yahoo's "Domain Keys" To: "ASRG" From: "Jon Kyme" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.10.1] 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, 09 Dec 2003 10:06:54 +0000 > > Therefore, this proposal would give immidaete benefit for those sites > that utilize it, by reducing "joe jobs" forging that domain, and it will > not require the entire Internet to adopt it on the sender's end unless > they want to use it. This is similar to LMAP in that respect, but does > present more overhead. > It smells of magical belief to me. Just sprinkle on some public key fairy dust and the problem just shrivels up. Ho hum. I can't really see what such a scheme would offer which something like SPF/LMAP wouldn't. I believe this is a "run it up the flagpole and see who salutes" kind of experiment. I guess that people plant these stories so that they can (a) see what happens to stock prices and (b) count the cheers vs. jeers. -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 9 05:20:28 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA20674 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 05:20:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATeyU-0007RJ-DZ for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 05:20:14 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB9AKDbP028591 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 05:20:13 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATeyS-0007R4-EL for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 05:20:12 -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 FAA20661 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 05:19:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATeyP-0004wn-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 05:20:09 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATeyO-0004wk-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 05:20:08 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATeyH-0007My-IL; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 05:20:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATeyD-0007MV-9u for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 05:19:57 -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 FAA20653 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 05:19:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATey9-0004wV-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 05:19:53 -0500 Received: from argon.connectinternetsolutions.com ([193.110.243.33] helo=argon.connect.org.uk) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATey9-0004wS-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 05:19:53 -0500 Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 1ATeyA-0004tt-QT; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 10:19:54 +0000 In-Reply-To: <20031209100215.GL6117@f-prot.com> Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - DNS + PKI - Yahoo's "Domain Keys"] To: "Fridrik Skulason" From: "Jon Kyme" Cc: "ASRG" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.10.1] 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, 09 Dec 2003 10:19:54 +0000 >> 1.) The MTA signs the message: This is problematic in the "traveling >> salesperson" type scenario, because often then cannot use their company >> mail server due to ISP filtering, etc. > > >Is there *any* authentication proposal that does not have that problem? > A. I need some way of allowing 0.0.0.0/0 for example.com if I don't want the trouble of setting up some kind of authSMTP (and/or proxy/tunnel kit) for my roaming users. Of course - the whole world's going to block me pretty soon and then there's a strong incentive for me to fix my setup. B. Or just give them all a webmail interface. Does anyone need a webmail system? I'll write you one :-) -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 9 05:59:23 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA21792 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 05:59:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATfaA-00007I-Hh for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 05:59:10 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB9AxA5u000449 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 05:59:10 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATfaA-00007A-DJ for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 05:59:10 -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 FAA21786 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 05:58:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATfa6-0005T5-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 05:59:06 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATfa6-0005T2-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 05:59:06 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATfa1-0008V4-H4; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 05:59:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATfZa-0008UO-G0 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 05:58:34 -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 FAA21783 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 05:58:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATfZW-0005Sy-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 05:58:30 -0500 Received: from [194.197.204.198] (helo=netcityzen.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATfZV-0005Sv-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 05:58:29 -0500 Received: (qmail 15494 invoked from network); 9 Dec 2003 10:58:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO JIM) (195.165.168.88) by www.netcityzen.com with SMTP; 9 Dec 2003 10:58:17 -0000 Message-ID: <009a01c3be43$5d74fc60$6400a8c0@INTRA.KOODIA.FI> From: "Tomi Panula-Ontto" To: References: <00e001c3b5ac$ab5f55a0$6400a8c0@INTRA.KOODIA.FI> <3FC78099.8080409@elvey.com> <004c01c3b650$60c77870$0323a8c0@Jimiboy> <3FC92518.2020604@elvey.com> <008e01c3b81b$53cbaa70$6400a8c0@INTRA.KOODIA.FI> <3FD2079B.80106@elvey.com> Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals: MTA MARK MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 12:58:20 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 12/09/2003 6:45 PM, Matthew Elvey said: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Matthew Elvey" To: "Tomi Panula-Ontto" Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2003 6:45 PM Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals: MTA MARK > On 12/1/2003 6:56 AM, Tomi Panula-Ontto sent forth electrons to convey: > > >On 11/30/2003 1:00 AM, Matthew Elvey said: > > [cut] > Well, for one thing, I fear people like me (one static DSL IP on SBC) or > using dyndns on a dynamic IP are unlikely to be able to convince their > ISPs to put such entries in DNS. If that's the case, I suggest you change to more responsible ISP. I don't think we are doing very good work, if we just leave the ISPs out. ["They are bad people anyway and yeah, they let their customers spam all day long" - not in my experience] IMHO, people using dynamic IPs should not be allowed to run (trusted) smtp servers anyway. Why so? According to some recent studies one third of the spam is generated in some compromised home computers [Exact wording may differ]. People behind dynamic IPs should either use some SMTP AUTH relay service (like www.asmtp.com) or use the mail server provided by their ISP. They should not be allowed to take direct contact to any SMTP server in the world. But hey, that's me, you don't have to agree. > Not that I recall. These protocols only become 'mandatory' if they > catch on and become broadly used. The IETF has no power to force people > to follow their rules. I'm aware of that. IETF is here to public and open discussions of the means (protocols, etc) to do the job. IETF is just one step. Discuss and design the protocol. Other people will implement it (if they feel it's worth implementing). Other people will use it (if it's worth using). > MTAmark has less of a chance to catch on than LMTP, because it provides > a smaller incentive to adoption, as I've explained in a previous post. > If your domain is being forged, you're highly likely to adopt LMTP. If > a ISPs IPs are being used to spam, they may well not adopt MTAmark. > I'm not against MTAmark; I think LMTP should be a higher priority. Let's just clear out one thing. When you say LMTP, do you actually mean LMAP? (http://asrg.kavi.com/apps/group_public/download.php/15/draft-irtf-asrg-lmap -discussion-00.txt) LMAP is based on two concepts: publication of policy by a domain, and application of that policy by a recipient MTA. I fear that LMAP doesn't address the problem. Why so? Who can prevent spammers from stealing credit cards and registering thousands of domains to use in their spamming business? See LMAP discussion paper [5.1.4] " Spammers may bypass this scheme through a number of methods, such as: - Claiming association with a domain not implementing LMAP - Claiming association with a domain implementing LMAP, but which has a policy stating anyone can claim such association. - "Hijacking" systems or MTAs within a domain to send spam. - DNS poisoning, to force particular LMAP information on an MTA - Registering domains, and implement LMAP. Recipients can use methods other than LMAP to defend against such attacks. These methods may include whitelists, blacklists, greylists [ref], and content filtering. There is no requirement that LMAP be the only source of information for implementing site policy. " ReverseMX or MTAMark are simply distributed whitelists managed by the network owners (ISPs). Even though I think in my humble mind that ISPs should be forced to adopt such policy, there is no way to do that, until the protocol is well functioning and easily adoptable by the organizations. If we ever finish the "protocol" and get working implementations, then maybe we can get some acceptance and perhaps even widespread usage to it. If we ever reach that point, then it's time to start discussions with IANA, RIPE, ARIN, APNIC, etc. to enforce the rule. > Should, should.... The ones that will are the ones that terminate their > spamming customers. I don't see MTAmark providing any incentive for > ISPs to be more responsible than they are now. Well, if that's the case then I'm sure the ISPs are happy to sell their massmailers err.. MTAs for spammers. > I think Eric Raymond explained why a try everything and see what sticks > plan isn't ideal. It dilutes resources. So we should go and try LMAP and see them exploit it in matter of days, right? And whos resources? I don't know how spammers operate, but they really seem quite professional at it, since whenever I have added a new RBL sources to my blacklisting MTA the amount of spam is reduced only for few days or perhaps weeks. Pretty soon, they are able to reroute whole damn thing and we are back on the same level we started from. And they are doing the very same thing in message headers, the message itself. They are trying to keep ahead of the spam prevention and they're really doing pretty good job there. They get their living out of it. Do you really think they would not do it for LMAP? Or any other means? Of course they will. As long as they can. If there are easy, and relatively cheap ways to circumvent a problem, then they'll do it. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 9 10:30:42 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA00260 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 10:30:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATjoh-0001Wu-Eb for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 10:30:28 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB9FURmd005880 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 10:30:27 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATjoh-0001Wl-6c for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 10:30:27 -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 KAA00223 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 10:30:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATjoe-0001fX-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 10:30:24 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATjoe-0001fU-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 10:30:24 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATjoH-0001Tw-Nj; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 10:30:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATjnM-0001T4-Hl for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 10:29:06 -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 KAA00194 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 10:28:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATjnI-0001eg-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 10:29:00 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com ([65.205.251.73]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATjnI-0001eW-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 10:29:00 -0500 Received: from mou1wnexc02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.54]) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.10/) with ESMTP id hB9FSrd3024832; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 07:28:53 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 07:28:52 -0800 Message-ID: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0111329A@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Alan DeKok'" , "'asrg@ietf.org'" Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - DNS + PKI - Yahoo's "Domain Keys" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 07:28:46 -0800 The problem here is that you get a browser root key issue, the only people who can offer service are the people who get looked at. A beter approach is to add in a capability that allows people to say which services have given them positive accreditations. This way the accreditatio web is self booting. The accreditation services could state that they should only be consulted if cited as reference or that they have wider scope. -----Original Message----- From: Alan DeKok Sent: Mon Dec 08 10:42:58 2003 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - DNS + PKI - Yahoo's "Domain Keys" Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > Having the ability of someone else vouch for a domain, is another > advantage of this approach (DK) over LMAP, Current blacklists can be viewed as a way of third parties vouching for a domain. The MTAMark proposal is similar. Though the various documents don't say so, there's nothing to stop an MTA from looking up LMAP information in a third-party database, too. e.g. "domain.com._lmap_.example.com", or "4.3.2.1.domain.com._lmap_.example.com" Hmm... I'll add that to the discussion document as a possible method of blacklisting domains which are known to host spammers. Leveraging the LMAP infrastructure for a domain-based blacklist just makes sense... 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 Dec 9 13:06:49 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA06137 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 13:06:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATmFm-0000cw-M9 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 13:06:36 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB9I6Ydr002404 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 13:06:34 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATmFm-0000ch-Fq for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 13:06:34 -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 NAA06104 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 13:06:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATmFk-0004Xu-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 13:06:32 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATmFk-0004Xq-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 13:06:32 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATmFG-0000aC-11; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 13:06:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATmEa-0000Ym-Kj for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 13:05:20 -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 NAA06070 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 13:05:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATmEY-0004Wz-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 13:05:18 -0500 Received: from newgiles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ([205.150.200.131] helo=mail.nitros9.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATmEY-0004Ww-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 13:05:18 -0500 Received: from newgiles.nitros9.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.nitros9.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DED016CCA for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 13:05:49 -0500 (EST) From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - DNS + PKI - Yahoo's "Domain Keys" In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 09 Dec 2003 10:06:54 GMT." Message-Id: <20031209180549.2DED016CCA@mail.nitros9.org> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2003 13:05:49 -0500 "Jon Kyme" wrote: > It smells of magical belief to me. Just sprinkle on some public key fairy > dust and the problem just shrivels up. Ho hum. I can't really see what such > a scheme would offer which something like SPF/LMAP wouldn't. Slightly lower administrative costs, perhaps. Possibly better ability to transit mailing lists. The drawback is you can't delegate authority like you can in LMAP. You can't use permit '0/0' like you can in LMAP. The benefit is that admins don't have to contact the central DNS server when outgoing MTA's change IP's. Since in many, many, systems those outgoing MTA's are also the MX's for a domain, that benefit is near non-existent. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 9 13:11:17 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA06237 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 13:11:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATmK8-00018S-Db for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 13:11:04 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB9IB4pR004358 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 13:11:04 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATmK8-00018D-8g for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 13:11:04 -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 NAA06214 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 13:10:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATmK6-0004b3-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 13:11:02 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATmK6-0004b0-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 13:11:02 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATmK6-00014g-6w; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 13:11:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATmJ6-00012o-UV for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 13:10:00 -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 NAA06187 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 13:09:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATmJ5-0004a3-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 13:09:59 -0500 Received: from newgiles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ([205.150.200.131] helo=mail.nitros9.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATmJ3-0004Zz-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 13:09:57 -0500 Received: from newgiles.nitros9.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.nitros9.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8D8216FAC for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 13:10:28 -0500 (EST) From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals: MTA MARK In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 09 Dec 2003 12:58:20 +0200." <009a01c3be43$5d74fc60$6400a8c0@INTRA.KOODIA.FI> Message-Id: <20031209181028.D8D8216FAC@mail.nitros9.org> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2003 13:10:28 -0500 "Tomi Panula-Ontto" wrote: > LMAP is based on two concepts: publication of policy by a domain, and > application of that policy by a recipient MTA. Exactly. > I fear that LMAP doesn't address the problem. Why so? > Who can prevent spammers from stealing credit cards and > registering thousands of domains to use in their spamming > business? Law enforcement. Theft of credit cards isn't an issue we can solve in the network. Right now, much of spammers behaviour is already illegal. LMAP makes it more likely for them to engage in more illegal behaviour. This makes them easier to catch, and gives law enforcement more inducement to catch them. It also gives registrars more inducement to do sanity checking on registration, if large percentages of registrations are found to be fraudulent & criminal. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 9 14:37:35 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA09582 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 14:37:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATnfc-0004ak-I6 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 14:37:21 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB9JbKdB017644 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 14:37:20 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATnfb-0004Yj-U2 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 14:37:19 -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 OAA09575 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 14:37:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATnfZ-00060a-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 14:37:17 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATnfY-00060X-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 14:37:16 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATnfK-0004RN-Fn; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 14:37:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATnfI-0004Qe-0g for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 14:37:00 -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 OAA09559 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 14:36:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATnfD-00060A-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 14:36:55 -0500 Received: from moebius2.space.net ([195.30.1.100]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATnfD-000605-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 14:36:55 -0500 Received: (qmail 86623 invoked by uid 1013); 9 Dec 2003 19:36:52 -0000 From: Markus Stumpf To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - DNS + PKI - Yahoo's "Domain Keys" Message-ID: <20031209193652.GA76454@Space.Net> References: <20031208183344.1857A16CD1@mail.nitros9.org> <3FD4E090.8000808@solidmatrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3FD4E090.8000808@solidmatrix.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Organization: SpaceNet AG, Muenchen, Germany X-PGP-Fingerprint: 66 F3 75 79 01 D0 B8 5F 1A C7 77 88 4A B6 70 DF Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 20:36:52 +0100 On Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 03:35:28PM -0500, Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > The signature attests to the fact that the domain name or server from > which the message originated, is not forged. *lol* I don't see any more security here as with a "paranoid" dns lookup. If I do a reverse DNS lookup and get a name and do a lookup of the name and get the IP I can assume#1 that it is correct. #1 with drawbacks as to DNS spoofing and DNS security. Now, if the sending MTA has a signature on the message and I use DNS to get the public key to verify the signature #1 from above still applies. So the win for using PKI and not paranoid DNS lookups is zero. If people don't get simple things right like a correct HELO hosts and DNS for their mailservers, does anyone seriously believe they will get PKI working? I surely don't believe that. On one of our mailservers out of 143013 connections 66619 had non-matching HELO hosts sent. That's about 47 percent. Any more questions? Oh, and no, it's not only evil spammers: smtp5.wanadoo.fr:193.252.22.26 HELO mwinf0502.wanadoo.fr daedalus.apache.org:208.185.179.12 HELO mail.apache.org nlpproxy03.prodigy.net.mx:148.235.52.23 HELO smtp.prodigy.net.mx sc8-sf-sshgate.sourceforge.net:66.35.250.220 HELO sc8-sf-netmisc.sourceforge.net mxpool16.ebay.com:66.135.197.22 HELO mx40.sjc.ebay.com That's a kewl one: mx40.sjc.ebay.com -> 10.6.182.160 leaking RFC addresses to the public Internet smtp05.web.de:217.72.192.209 HELO smtp.web.de datatracker.ietf.org:132.151.6.22 HELO optimus.ietf.org pluto3.daimler-benz.com:53.122.2.33 HELO daimler-benz.com These few "well known names" were taken from a 10 minutes snapshot of the mailer logfile. But PKI always sounds kewl and wasn't it a nice press release for Yahoo that made it all around the world? Not too bad for some hot air, I'd say. \Maex -- SpaceNet AG | Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 | Fon: +49 (89) 32356-0 Research & Development | D-80807 Muenchen | Fax: +49 (89) 32356-299 "The security, stability and reliability of a computer system is reciprocally proportional to the amount of vacuity between the ears of the admin" _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 9 14:56:22 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA10274 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 14:56:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATnxo-0005Bd-0q for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 14:56:08 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB9Ju7A1019931 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 14:56:07 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATnxn-0005BO-N3 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 14:56:07 -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 OAA10252 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 14:55:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATnxk-0006Mp-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 14:56:04 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATnxk-0006Mm-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 14:56:04 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATnxh-00058x-F1; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 14:56:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATnpV-0004zo-Tg for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 14:47:34 -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 OAA09953 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 14:47:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATnpT-0006Be-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 14:47:31 -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 1ATnpS-00069s-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 14:47:30 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-380-533.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.200.174]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HPN00CX98A3WS@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 19:47:00 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - DNS + PKI - Yahoo's "Domain Keys" In-reply-to: <20031209193652.GA76454@Space.Net> To: Markus Stumpf Cc: asrg@ietf.org Message-id: <3FD626AC.9010002@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: <20031208183344.1857A16CD1@mail.nitros9.org> <3FD4E090.8000808@solidmatrix.com> <20031209193652.GA76454@Space.Net> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2003 14:46:52 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Markus Stumpf wrote: > On Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 03:35:28PM -0500, Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > >>The signature attests to the fact that the domain name or server from >>which the message originated, is not forged. > > > *lol* > I don't see any more security here as with a "paranoid" dns lookup. > If I do a reverse DNS lookup and get a name and do a lookup of the name > and get the IP I can assume#1 that it is correct. > #1 with drawbacks as to DNS spoofing and DNS security. > Now, if the sending MTA has a signature on the message and I use DNS > to get the public key to verify the signature #1 from above still > applies. So the win for using PKI and not paranoid DNS lookups is zero. > [..] Would there be a difference if the message is forwarded through a list, or is transfered via multiple MTAs? Yakov ------- Yakov Shafranovich / asrg shaftek.org SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / research solidmatrix.com "Be liberal in what you accept, and conservative in what you send" (Jon Postel) ------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 9 15:09:27 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA11775 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 15:09:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AToAT-00064y-Bo for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 15:09:14 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB9K9DlA023362 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 15:09:13 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AToAT-00064j-6Q for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 15:09:13 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA11693 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 15:08:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AToAQ-0006kv-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 15:09:10 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AToAP-0006ks-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 15:09:09 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AToAG-00061D-Vg; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 15:09:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATo04-0005JC-BB for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 14:58:28 -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 OAA10359 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 14:58:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATo01-0006PI-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 14:58:25 -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 1ATo01-0006OL-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 14:58:25 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-380-533.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.200.174]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HPN005SU8QCLZ@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 19:56:41 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals: MTA MARK In-reply-to: <20031209181028.D8D8216FAC@mail.nitros9.org> To: Alan DeKok Cc: asrg@ietf.org Message-id: <3FD628F6.2030906@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: <20031209181028.D8D8216FAC@mail.nitros9.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2003 14:56:38 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Alan DeKok wrote: > "Tomi Panula-Ontto" wrote: [..] >>I fear that LMAP doesn't address the problem. Why so? >>Who can prevent spammers from stealing credit cards and >>registering thousands of domains to use in their spamming >>business? > > > Law enforcement. Theft of credit cards isn't an issue we can solve > in the network. > > Right now, much of spammers behaviour is already illegal. LMAP > makes it more likely for them to engage in more illegal behaviour. > This makes them easier to catch, and gives law enforcement more > inducement to catch them. > > It also gives registrars more inducement to do sanity checking on > registration, if large percentages of registrations are found to be > fraudulent & criminal. > LMAP is only one piece of the puzzle, its intent is to reduce some forms of forgery and give greater traceability. With LMAP it is much easier to trace a spammer to a specific domain, and from that point on trace the money trail used to register that domain. Yakov ------- Yakov Shafranovich / asrg shaftek.org SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / research solidmatrix.com "All that is gold does not glitter" (LOTR) ------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 9 15:14:19 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA12389 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 15:14:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AToFA-0006L0-LE for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 15:14:04 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB9KE4Le024356 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 15:14:04 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AToFA-0006Kl-Eu for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 15:14:04 -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 PAA12333 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 15:13:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AToF9-0006pM-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 15:14:03 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AToF8-0006pJ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 15:14:02 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AToF7-0006IS-IU; Tue, 09 Dec 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 1AToF3-0006Hi-Rv for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 15:13:59 -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 PAA12317 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 15:13:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AToF2-0006om-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 15:13:56 -0500 Received: from sj-iport-4.cisco.com ([171.68.10.86]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AToF1-0006oN-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 15:13:55 -0500 Received: from mbaugher-w2k07.cisco.com (sjc-vpn3-38.cisco.com [10.21.64.38]) by sj-core-3.cisco.com (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id hB9KDMrY021078; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 12:13:23 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <6.0.0.22.2.20031209120948.03aeff30@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: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - DNS + PKI - Yahoo's "Domain Keys" Cc: asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <3FD626AC.9010002@solidmatrix.com> References: <20031208183344.1857A16CD1@mail.nitros9.org> <3FD4E090.8000808@solidmatrix.com> <20031209193652.GA76454@Space.Net> <3FD626AC.9010002@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: Tue, 09 Dec 2003 12:13:20 -0800 Yakov, At 11:46 AM 12/9/2003, Yakov Shafranovich wrote: >Markus Stumpf wrote: >>On Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 03:35:28PM -0500, Yakov Shafranovich wrote: >> >>>The signature attests to the fact that the domain name or server from >>>which the message originated, is not forged. >> >>*lol* >>I don't see any more security here as with a "paranoid" dns lookup. >>If I do a reverse DNS lookup and get a name and do a lookup of the name >>and get the IP I can assume#1 that it is correct. >> #1 with drawbacks as to DNS spoofing and DNS security. >>Now, if the sending MTA has a signature on the message and I use DNS >>to get the public key to verify the signature #1 from above still >>applies. So the win for using PKI and not paranoid DNS lookups is zero. >>[..] > >Would there be a difference if the message is forwarded through a list, or >is transfered via multiple MTAs? Is it fair to say that there may be many MTAs at the sender's domain, many at the receiver's domain, but there should at most be one MTA(i) in the forwarding path? From the standpoint of mail signing, might the multiple MTAs at the sender be considered as a single MTA and similarly for the receiver? Mark >Yakov > >------- >Yakov Shafranovich / asrg shaftek.org >SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / research solidmatrix.com >"Be liberal in what you accept, and conservative in what you send" (Jon >Postel) >------- > > >_______________________________________________ >Asrg mailing 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 Dec 9 15:18:18 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA12829 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 15:18:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AToJ1-0006Yo-64 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 15:18:03 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB9KI3tA025212 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 15:18:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AToJ1-0006YZ-2N for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 15:18:03 -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 PAA12794 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 15:17:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AToIz-0006wH-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 15:18:01 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AToIz-0006wE-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 15:18:01 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AToIy-0006W1-QM; Tue, 09 Dec 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 1AToIC-0006Uq-Ko for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 15:17:12 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA12697 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 15:16:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AToIA-0006uz-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 15:17:10 -0500 Received: from moebius2.space.net ([195.30.1.100]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AToIA-0006uv-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 15:17:10 -0500 Received: (qmail 88669 invoked by uid 1013); 9 Dec 2003 20:17:09 -0000 From: Markus Stumpf To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - DNS + PKI - Yahoo's "Domain Keys" Message-ID: <20031209201709.GC76454@Space.Net> References: <20031208183344.1857A16CD1@mail.nitros9.org> <3FD4E090.8000808@solidmatrix.com> <20031209193652.GA76454@Space.Net> <3FD626AC.9010002@solidmatrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3FD626AC.9010002@solidmatrix.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Organization: SpaceNet AG, Muenchen, Germany X-PGP-Fingerprint: 66 F3 75 79 01 D0 B8 5F 1A C7 77 88 4A B6 70 DF Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 21:17:09 +0100 On Tue, Dec 09, 2003 at 02:46:52PM -0500, Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > Would there be a difference if the message is forwarded through a list, > or is transfered via multiple MTAs? No. Because MTAs add headers and zillions of maillinglists add nice (commercial/informational) trailers or remove attachments. Same for large companies that think adding pseudo legal disclaimers makes any difference. All these destroy the structure of the email. These are problems that e.g. PGP signers noticed long ago. Now you can add headers to the sign. Which one would you add? Date fields? How many mailservers have broken timezones. How many mailservers are offline for 4 hours to 7 days? Add a special tag? So what, I use this tag with my faked headers. And the easiest solution: a) get a Yahoo! account b) login and send a email to joe@example.com with the exact message you want to spam with. c) login as joe@example.com and save away the messages. d) now you have a totally legal email signed by Yahoo! itself. e) $ sendmail -ti [some 10000 addresses] < signed.mail Now what problem does signing solve? Ok, it solves the problem for a lot of people, but it makes it *really* easy to "legally" spam with messages signed by public mail service providers and these are really easy to get ;-)) \Maex -- SpaceNet AG | Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 | Fon: +49 (89) 32356-0 Research & Development | D-80807 Muenchen | Fax: +49 (89) 32356-299 "The security, stability and reliability of a computer system is reciprocally proportional to the amount of vacuity between the ears of the admin" _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 9 15:26:25 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA13836 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 15:26:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AToQs-0007Ee-IE for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 15:26:10 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB9KQA7W027806 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 15:26:10 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AToQs-0007EP-DX for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 15:26:10 -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 PAA13808 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 15:25:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AToQr-0007Go-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 15:26:09 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AToQq-0007Gl-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 15:26:08 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AToQk-0007AT-3G; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 15:26:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AToQc-0007A3-5O for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 15:25:54 -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 PAA13797 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 15:25:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AToQa-0007GT-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 15:25:52 -0500 Received: from newgiles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ([205.150.200.131] helo=mail.nitros9.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AToQZ-0007GQ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 15:25:52 -0500 Received: from newgiles.nitros9.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.nitros9.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC4CC16CCA for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 15:26:22 -0500 (EST) From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - DNS + PKI - Yahoo's "Domain Keys" In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 09 Dec 2003 15:06:58 EST." <3FD62B62.4040602@solidmatrix.com> Message-Id: <20031209202622.AC4CC16CCA@mail.nitros9.org> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2003 15:26:22 -0500 Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > Another difference here is that LMAP addresses MAIL FROM forgery in the > SMTP transaction, while DK addresses forgery in the mail headers and > email message itself. Which makes me wonder what STARTTLS was for. That's not entirely true... STARTTLS encrypts a message hop by hop, but you've got no guarantee that the hop you're talking to isn't lying about the existence of previous hops. But for the vast majority of email, which flows directly from MTA to MTA, DK is equivalent to using STARTTLS, with public keys looked up in DNS. Why sign the message, and then distribute it in the clear, when you can instead distribute the message via an encrypted tunnel? But why use an encrypted tunnel or sign a message when it's being delivered from your user, using your MX, to my MX, for my user? The audit trail is pretty straightforward there. > > The drawback is you can't delegate authority like you can in LMAP. > > What about if you use subkeys? Then the DK headers will have to include not just the domain information, but which sub-key to use. The extreme is that each user will have their own sub-key, in which case spammers will have them, and key maintenance become a nightmare. LMAP allows you to say that a machine is permitted to send mail, without giving that machine permission to make those statements itself. DK gives a machine the ability to "hand-off" it's delegated authority to third parties, without the knowledge, or consent, of the originating authority. If you're going to have roaming users, you MUST use sub-keys, which will be impossible to keep secure. LMAP doesn't have this problem. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 9 15:35:27 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA14342 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 15:35:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AToZZ-0007ab-U4 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 15:35:12 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB9KZ9DG029166 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 15:35:09 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AToZZ-0007aL-Oo for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 15:35:09 -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 PAA14289 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 15:34:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AToZY-0007SD-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 15:35:08 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AToZX-0007S9-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 15:35:07 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AToZS-0007VQ-Rl; Tue, 09 Dec 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 1AToYs-0007UW-Mn for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 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 PAA14160 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 15:34:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AToYr-0007RG-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 15:34:25 -0500 Received: from ntbbs.winserver.com ([208.247.131.9] helo=winserver.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AToYq-0007Qz-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 15:34:24 -0500 Received: by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v5.7.450.9b10) for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 14:03:26 -0500 Received: from ([68.215.99.227]) EHLO=FAMILY by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v5.7.450.9b10) with SMTP id 3231072046; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 14:03:26 -0500 Message-ID: <00ed01c3be87$15f0c970$6401a8c0@FAMILY> From: "Hector Santos" To: , "Alan DeKok" Cc: "Yakov Shafranovich" References: <20031209181028.D8D8216FAC@mail.nitros9.org> Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals: MTA MARK 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: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 14:03:07 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > Right now, much of spammers behaviour is already illegal. LMAP > makes it more likely for them to engage in more illegal behaviour. > This makes them easier to catch, and gives law enforcement more > inducement to catch them. > > It also gives registrars more inducement to do sanity checking on > registration, if large percentages of registrations are found to be > fraudulent & criminal. > Question, I have not seen the CAN-SPAM bill (any one with a link to it? I can't seen to find it) Nonetheless, from what I know of it, spammers are only required to provide a valid return address. How will LMAP address this CAN-SPAM legal requirement? I like LMAP, I already have begun implementing the LMAP-based design as options for admins. However, maybe I'm wrong, but it doesn't seem to go far enough if CAN-SPAM is to be followed. Remember, as a developer, I need to be able to provide the functionality to the admins. We are going to be bombarded by the "layman" admins who will be asked by their boss because he heard of the new buzz word, CAN-SPAM, if their mail system supports it. In short, is LMAP CAN-SPAM Ready? - Hector _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 9 15:37:21 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA14440 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 15:37:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATobT-00081H-01 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 15:37:07 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB9Kb6dg030781 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 15:37:06 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATobQ-000806-SZ for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 15:37:04 -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 PAA14415 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 15:36:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATobP-0007V5-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 15:37:03 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATobO-0007Uz-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 15:37:02 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATobN-0007ou-0t; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 15:37:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATo5k-0005Wr-SF for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 15:04:20 -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 PAA11010 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 15:04:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATo5h-0006g7-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 15:04:17 -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 1ATo5h-0006fS-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 15:04:17 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-380-533.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.200.174]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HPN00JRX925MS@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 20:03:48 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals: MTA MARK In-reply-to: <009a01c3be43$5d74fc60$6400a8c0@INTRA.KOODIA.FI> To: Tomi Panula-Ontto Cc: asrg@ietf.org Message-id: <3FD62AA0.8000606@solidmatrix.com> Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, he, ru User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007 X-Enigmail-Version: 0.82.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime References: <00e001c3b5ac$ab5f55a0$6400a8c0@INTRA.KOODIA.FI> <3FC78099.8080409@elvey.com> <004c01c3b650$60c77870$0323a8c0@Jimiboy> <3FC92518.2020604@elvey.com> <008e01c3b81b$53cbaa70$6400a8c0@INTRA.KOODIA.FI> <3FD2079B.80106@elvey.com> <009a01c3be43$5d74fc60$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: Tue, 09 Dec 2003 15:03:44 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Tomi Panula-Ontto wrote: [..] > I don't know how spammers operate, but they really seem quite > professional at it, since whenever I have added a new RBL > sources to my blacklisting MTA the amount of spam is reduced > only for few days or perhaps weeks. Pretty soon, they are able > to reroute whole damn thing and we are back on the same level > we started from. > > And they are doing the very same thing in message headers, > the message itself. They are trying to keep ahead of the spam > prevention and they're really doing pretty good job there. > They get their living out of it. > > Do you really think they would not do it for LMAP? Or any > other means? Of course they will. As long as they can. > If there are easy, and relatively cheap ways to circumvent > a problem, then they'll do it. > If spam can be looked at as a disease than RBLs are treating the symptoms by listing IPs that are likely to abuse the network. LMAP, MTA MARK and related proposals are more geared towards treating the causes of the disease by addressing some of the architechtural issues on the Internet that allow spam to proliferate. For example, spammers are free to forge the MAIL FROM address with any domain in place. LMAP addresses this forgery issue forcing spammers to use their own domains. MTA MARK addresses the issue of hijacked computers being used for sending spam. All of these simply reduce the freedom that spammers currently have to do their deeds. With that freedom reduced spammers will be left with less methods to be used, all of which would allow greater traceability. Combined with proper law enforcement, cooperating ISPs, and registrars, this can help reduce the problem by tracing spam to the real world. Yakov ------- Yakov Shafranovich / asrg shaftek.org SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / research solidmatrix.com "Be liberal in what you accept, and conservative in what you send" (Jon Postel) ------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 9 15:37:24 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA14455 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 15:37:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATobS-00081C-QN for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 15:37:09 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB9Kb6kb030780 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 15:37:06 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATobQ-000807-VW for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 15:37:05 -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 PAA14417 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 15:36:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATobP-0007V8-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 15:37:03 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATobO-0007V2-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 15:37:03 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATobN-0007pR-SR; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 15:37:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AToAQ-00062o-A7 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 15:09:10 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA11684 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 15:08:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AToAN-0006kp-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 15:09:07 -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 1AToAM-0006jw-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 15:09:06 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-380-533.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.200.174]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HPN005YJ97LLZ@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 20:07:02 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - DNS + PKI - Yahoo's "Domain Keys" In-reply-to: <20031209180549.2DED016CCA@mail.nitros9.org> To: Alan DeKok Cc: asrg@ietf.org Message-id: <3FD62B62.4040602@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: <20031209180549.2DED016CCA@mail.nitros9.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2003 15:06:58 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Alan DeKok wrote: > "Jon Kyme" wrote: > >>It smells of magical belief to me. Just sprinkle on some public key fairy >>dust and the problem just shrivels up. Ho hum. I can't really see what such >>a scheme would offer which something like SPF/LMAP wouldn't. > > > Slightly lower administrative costs, perhaps. Possibly better > ability to transit mailing lists. > Another difference here is that LMAP addresses MAIL FROM forgery in the SMTP transaction, while DK addresses forgery in the mail headers and email message itself. > The drawback is you can't delegate authority like you can in LMAP. What about if you use subkeys? 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 Tue Dec 9 15:37:25 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA14470 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 15:37:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATobS-00081D-Qp for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 15:37:08 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB9Kb62V030782 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 15:37:06 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATobQ-000805-Ol for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 15:37:04 -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 PAA14412 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 15:36:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATobP-0007V1-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 15:37:03 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATobO-0007Ux-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 15:37:02 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATobM-0007oH-Fe; Tue, 09 Dec 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 1AToar-0007nN-Tf for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 15:36:29 -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 PAA14388 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 15:36:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AToaq-0007UL-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 15:36:28 -0500 Received: from argon.connectinternetsolutions.com ([193.110.243.33] helo=argon.connect.org.uk) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AToap-0007U5-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 15:36:27 -0500 Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 1AToaj-0004qk-Lg; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 20:36:21 +0000 In-Reply-To: <20031209193652.GA76454@Space.Net> Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - DNS + PKI - Yahoo's "Domain Keys" To: "Markus Stumpf" From: "Jon Kyme" Cc: "ASRG" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.10.1] 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, 09 Dec 2003 20:36:21 +0000 > questions? Oh, and no, it's not only evil spammers: > smtp5.wanadoo.fr:193.252.22.26 HELO mwinf0502.wanadoo.fr dig mwinf0502.wanadoo.fr ;; ANSWER SECTION: mwinf0502.wanadoo.fr. 86302 IN CNAME smtp5.wanadoo.fr. smtp5.wanadoo.fr. 3486 IN A 193.252.22.26 what's wrong with this? it's a FQDN. or is it that you think they shouldn't use something with a CNAME? Is that not right? problem is, IP 1---n Name, I think. And these are all "legit", which just goes to show that "paranoid reverse lookups" don't work. Or have I misunderstood? -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 9 16:03:27 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA17157 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 16:03:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATp0h-00014R-0O for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 16:03:13 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB9L3Agc004109 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 16:03:10 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATp0g-00014C-Mg for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 16:03:10 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA17145 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 16:02:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATp0e-0000qX-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 16:03:08 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATp0e-0000qU-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 16:03:08 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATp0Y-00011k-29; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 16:03:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AToza-0000zV-Mz for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 16:02:03 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA17128 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 16:01:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATozY-0000oR-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 16:02:00 -0500 Received: from newgiles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ([205.150.200.131] helo=newgiles.nitros9.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATozY-0000oI-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 16:02:00 -0500 Received: (from aland@localhost) by newgiles.nitros9.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id hB9L27L08496; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 16:02:07 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200312092102.hB9L27L08496@newgiles.nitros9.org> From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org, asrg-rmx@ntp.org Subject: [Asrg] Latest version of the LMAP 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: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 16:02:07 -0500 (EST) I've updated the LMAP discussion paper, and put the latest copy on my web site at: http://www.striker.ottawa.on.ca/~aland/draft-irtf-asrg-lmap-discussion-00.txt It's also called -00 (like the previous one), because I've asked Yakov to submit it as an Internet-Draft, and I expect that they will number it -00. I've corrected a number of typos, and added suggested text. I've also removed some of the rants. Comments and suggestions are welcome. I have a little more time than I had a month ago, so I'm better able to discuss the document. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 9 16:05:20 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA17254 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 16:05:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATp2Y-0001KZ-12 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 16:05:06 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB9L5520005107 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 16:05:05 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATp2X-0001Jt-RL for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 16:05:05 -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 QAA17239 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 16:04:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATp2U-0000sJ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 16:05:02 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATp2U-0000sG-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 16:05:02 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATp2U-0001C9-0p; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 16:05:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATp1d-0001B7-Lm for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 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 QAA17193 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 16:03:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATp1b-0000rV-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 16:04:07 -0500 Received: from moebius2.space.net ([195.30.1.100]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATp1b-0000rQ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 16:04:07 -0500 Received: (qmail 91093 invoked by uid 1013); 9 Dec 2003 21:04:07 -0000 From: Markus Stumpf To: Jon Kyme Cc: Markus Stumpf , ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - DNS + PKI - Yahoo's "Domain Keys" Message-ID: <20031209210407.GF76454@Space.Net> References: <20031209193652.GA76454@Space.Net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Organization: SpaceNet AG, Muenchen, Germany X-PGP-Fingerprint: 66 F3 75 79 01 D0 B8 5F 1A C7 77 88 4A B6 70 DF Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 22:04:07 +0100 On Tue, Dec 09, 2003 at 08:36:21PM +0000, Jon Kyme wrote: > dig mwinf0502.wanadoo.fr > ;; ANSWER SECTION: > mwinf0502.wanadoo.fr. 86302 IN CNAME smtp5.wanadoo.fr. > smtp5.wanadoo.fr. 3486 IN A 193.252.22.26 > > what's wrong with this? it's a FQDN. or is it that you think they shouldn't > use something with a CNAME? Is that not right? Ok, my error. But look at datatracker.ietf.org:132.151.6.22 HELO optimus.ietf.org datatracker.ietf.org -> 132.151.6.22 22.6.151.132.in-addr.arpa -> datatracker.ietf.org optimus.ietf.org -> 132.151.1.19 19.1.151.132.in-addr.arpa. -> ietf.org. ietf.org. -> 132.151.1.19 > problem is, IP 1---n Name, I think. And these are all "legit", which just No that is not the problem, there is no problem having multiple PTR records. Look at e.g. pop.gmx.net: pop.gmx.net -> 213.165.64.20 20.64.165.213.in-addr.arpa. -> mail.gmx.net. 20.64.165.213.in-addr.arpa. -> pop.gmx.de. 20.64.165.213.in-addr.arpa. -> pop.gmx.net. 20.64.165.213.in-addr.arpa. -> imap.gmx.net. 20.64.165.213.in-addr.arpa. -> mail.gmx.de. > goes to show that "paranoid reverse lookups" don't work. > Or have I misunderstood? No you have exactly support my point of view ;-) They can't get revDNS, forward DNS and HELO consistent. How should they manage to get a PKI structure to work. \Maex -- SpaceNet AG | Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 | Fon: +49 (89) 32356-0 Research & Development | D-80807 Muenchen | Fax: +49 (89) 32356-299 "The security, stability and reliability of a computer system is reciprocally proportional to the amount of vacuity between the ears of the admin" _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 9 16:05:27 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA17276 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 16:05:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATp2e-0001Q7-V7 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 16:05:12 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB9L5CNX005453 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 16:05:12 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATp2e-0001Ps-QH for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 16:05:12 -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 QAA17244 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 16:04:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATp2d-0000sR-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 16:05:11 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATp2c-0000sO-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 16:05:10 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATp2X-0001Jp-Hy; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 16:05:05 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATp2I-0001Bt-FO for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 16:04:50 -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 QAA17234 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 16:04:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATp2G-0000sB-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 16:04:48 -0500 Received: from ntbbs.winserver.com ([208.247.131.9] helo=winserver.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATp2G-0000s8-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 16:04:48 -0500 Received: by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v5.7.450.9b10) for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 16:05:04 -0500 Received: from ([68.215.99.227]) EHLO=FAMILY by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v5.7.450.9b10) with SMTP id 3238369859; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 16:05:03 -0500 Message-ID: <017a01c3be98$14332b30$6401a8c0@FAMILY> From: "Hector Santos" To: "Yakov Shafranovich" , "Alan DeKok" Cc: References: <20031209181028.D8D8216FAC@mail.nitros9.org> <3FD628F6.2030906@solidmatrix.com> Subject: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals: Implementing LMAP (or LMAP-based) proposals 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: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 16:04:46 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Yakov, Alan, I need some input here. Ok, Now that I am sold on LMAP or implementing a LMAP-based solution in our software, I have to see how best this is: 1) Introduced and offered to our customers, 2) Setup or configured to automate the support process. Keep in mind the following: A) Wildcat is 100% GUI configuration, hence the majority of our customers expect anything new to be easy to setup and implement using a GUI setup. We also do this to minimize our support overhead, and B) I am not a DNS administrator. So when it comes to "records", I have limited knowledge on setup. So tell me, what do I need to add to our SMTP Server Setup dialogs? I'm thinking that they need to "Help" in defining their MX and TXT LMAP records? So in our Anti-Spam Property Sheet, it could be something like: This is for per-domain. Domain: XXXXXXX.COM [ Anti-Spam Controls ] [X] Enable RBL [ Settings...] [X] Enable LMAP [ Settings...] [X] Enable HELO/EHLO Controls [ Settings...] [X] Enable MAIL FROM Controls (WCSAP) [ Settings...] [X] Enable RCPT TO Controls [ Settings...] [X] Enable DATA Controls [ Settings...] [OK] [Cancel] [Help] For LMAP control settings: [ Ant-Spam-LMAP Controls ] [X] Enable or [_] Enable LMAP-based XXXX [X] Enable LMAP-based YYYY [_] Enable LMAP-based ZZZZ ???? LMAP TXT RECORD: _______________________ [ Save to DNS ] I read the various proposals So if you assist with what needs to be done in the LMAP settings, this will help me getting a basic understanding on helping our customers get deploed quickly. Thanks --- Hector _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 9 16:16:21 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA17736 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 16:16:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATpDD-00020v-9d for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 16:16:07 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB9LG7RQ007734 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 16:16:07 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATpDD-00020R-3V for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 16:16:07 -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 QAA17715 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 16:15:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATpDB-000127-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 16:16:05 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATpDA-000121-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 16:16:04 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATpD8-0001w7-RU; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 16:16:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATpAy-0001tq-V5 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 16:13:48 -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 QAA17630 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 16:13:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATpAx-00010P-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 16:13:47 -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 1ATpAw-0000zn-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 16:13:46 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-380-533.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.200.174]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HPN000J9CA1ZU@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 21:13:17 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - DNS + PKI - Yahoo's "Domain Keys" In-reply-to: <6.0.0.22.2.20031209120948.03aeff30@mira-sjc5-6.cisco.com> To: Mark Baugher Cc: asrg@ietf.org Message-id: <3FD63AEA.2020907@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: <20031208183344.1857A16CD1@mail.nitros9.org> <3FD4E090.8000808@solidmatrix.com> <20031209193652.GA76454@Space.Net> <3FD626AC.9010002@solidmatrix.com> <6.0.0.22.2.20031209120948.03aeff30@mira-sjc5-6.cisco.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, 09 Dec 2003 16:13:14 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Mark Baugher wrote: > Yakov, > > At 11:46 AM 12/9/2003, Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > >> Markus Stumpf wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 03:35:28PM -0500, Yakov Shafranovich wrote: >>> >>>> The signature attests to the fact that the domain name or server >>>> from which the message originated, is not forged. >>> >>> >>> *lol* >>> I don't see any more security here as with a "paranoid" dns lookup. >>> If I do a reverse DNS lookup and get a name and do a lookup of the name >>> and get the IP I can assume#1 that it is correct. >>> #1 with drawbacks as to DNS spoofing and DNS security. >>> Now, if the sending MTA has a signature on the message and I use DNS >>> to get the public key to verify the signature #1 from above still >>> applies. So the win for using PKI and not paranoid DNS lookups is zero. >>> [..] >> >> >> Would there be a difference if the message is forwarded through a >> list, or is transfered via multiple MTAs? > > > Is it fair to say that there may be many MTAs at the sender's domain, > many at the receiver's domain, but there should at most be one MTA(i) in > the forwarding path? If I understand correctly, that would mean that three MTAs are involved: sender's (s), intermediate(i) and receiver's(r). Therefore, LMAP will work for MTA(s) to MTA(i) connection, but will fail at MTA(i) to MTA(r) connection unless the sender's domain lists MTA(i) in LMAP. This presents a problem mainly for forwarding and is addressed in the LMAP discussion draft, section 3.4. > From the standpoint of mail signing, might the > multiple MTAs at the sender be considered as a single MTA and similarly > for the receiver? For DK, since the message itself is signed, forwarding is not as big of an issue, and how many MTAs are there does not matter, since they are not been authenticated anyway (unless some kind of a ESMTP extension is used, like Hector mentioned, or modified STARTTLS like Alan mentioned). The point is that while LMAP does need some minor changes in forwarding, DK does not. BUT, as stated in the LMAP discussion draft, that is not a reason to choose one over the other, unless significant negative impact can be shown. But then again, it is unclear what exactly is being done, since not too many details are available. Yakov ------- Yakov Shafranovich / asrg shaftek.org SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / research solidmatrix.com "Be liberal in what you accept, and conservative in what you send" (Jon Postel) ------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 9 16:16:23 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA17751 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 16:16:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATpDD-00020m-8w for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 16:16:09 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB9LG7Mc007720 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 16:16:07 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATpDD-00020Q-1o for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 16:16:07 -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 QAA17713 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 16:15:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATpDB-000124-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 16:16:05 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATpDA-000120-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 16:16:04 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATpD8-0001vi-Bc; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 16:16:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATp87-0001rJ-OO for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 16:10:51 -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 QAA17512 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 16:10:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATp85-0000yF-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 16:10:50 -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 1ATp85-0000xv-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 16:10:49 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-380-533.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.200.174]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HPN000DCC50ZU@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 21:10:19 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich In-reply-to: <200312092102.hB9L27L08496@newgiles.nitros9.org> To: Alan DeKok Cc: asrg@ietf.org, asrg-rmx@ntp.org Message-id: <3FD63A34.5040905@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: <200312092102.hB9L27L08496@newgiles.nitros9.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Subject: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - LMAP - Latest version of the LMAP 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: Tue, 09 Dec 2003 16:10:12 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT [Subject changed as per posting guidelines. Mod.] Alan DeKok wrote: > I've updated the LMAP discussion paper, and put the latest copy on > my web site at: > > http://www.striker.ottawa.on.ca/~aland/draft-irtf-asrg-lmap-discussion-00.txt > > In case we get SlashDoted, a copy is also available on the ASRG worksite at: http://asrg.kavi.com/apps/group_public/download.php/18/draft-irtf-asrg-lmap-discussion-00.txt Yakov ------- Yakov Shafranovich / asrg shaftek.org SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / research solidmatrix.com "But in this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes" (Benjamin Franklin) ------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 9 16:21:06 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA14343 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 15:35:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AToZa-0007aq-1G for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 15:35:12 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB9KZAsA029182 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 15:35:10 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AToZZ-0007aS-TH for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 15:35:09 -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 PAA14291 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 15:34:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AToZY-0007SG-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 15:35:08 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AToZY-0007SA-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 15:35:08 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AToZT-0007Vl-Rs; Tue, 09 Dec 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 1AToYs-0007UX-Nl for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 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 PAA14159 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 15:34:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AToYr-0007RF-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 15:34:25 -0500 Received: from ntbbs.winserver.com ([208.247.131.9] helo=winserver.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AToYq-0007Qy-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 15:34:24 -0500 Received: by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v5.7.450.9b10) for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 13:51:33 -0500 Received: from ([68.215.99.227]) EHLO=FAMILY by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v5.7.450.9b10) with SMTP id 3230359109; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 13:51:33 -0500 Message-ID: <00d901c3be85$6cf63b30$6401a8c0@FAMILY> From: "Hector Santos" To: "Yakov Shafranovich" Cc: References: <20031208183344.1857A16CD1@mail.nitros9.org> <3FD4E090.8000808@solidmatrix.com> <000701c3bdf9$d856cf20$6401a8c0@FAMILY> <3FD54812.1040503@solidmatrix.com> <003901c3be0f$c59a0c60$6401a8c0@FAMILY> <3FD55942.8020900@solidmatrix.com> Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - DNS + PKI - Yahoo's "Domain Keys" 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: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 13:51:14 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ----- Original Message ----- From: "Yakov Shafranovich" To: "Hector Santos" Cc: Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2003 12:10 AM Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - DNS + PKI - Yahoo's "Domain Keys" > Since this proposal signs messages themselves that are transfered within > the DATA command, this cannot be done before the DATA command. > Therefore, unlike LMAP proposals it cannot be used at the MAIL FROM point. Unless an ESMTP command is provided as part of the YDK specification for possible use by supportive systems. Would that work? -- Hector _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 9 16:38:30 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA18528 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 16:38:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATpYe-0002y4-I4 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 16:38:16 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB9LcG4i011396 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 16:38:16 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATpYe-0002xh-5O for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 16:38:16 -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 QAA18516 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 16:37:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATpYb-0001K9-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 16:38:13 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATpYb-0001K6-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 16:38:13 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATpYP-0002pq-RQ; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 16:38:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATpSY-0002XD-IC for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 16:31:58 -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 QAA18301 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 16:31:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATpSW-0001E4-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 16:31:56 -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 1ATpSW-0001Do-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 16:31:56 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-380-533.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.200.174]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HPN001YKD47A0@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 21:31:26 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - DNS + PKI - Yahoo's "Domain Keys" In-reply-to: <20031209201709.GC76454@Space.Net> To: Markus Stumpf Cc: asrg@ietf.org Message-id: <3FD63F28.4020608@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: <20031208183344.1857A16CD1@mail.nitros9.org> <3FD4E090.8000808@solidmatrix.com> <20031209193652.GA76454@Space.Net> <3FD626AC.9010002@solidmatrix.com> <20031209201709.GC76454@Space.Net> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2003 16:31:20 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Markus Stumpf wrote: > On Tue, Dec 09, 2003 at 02:46:52PM -0500, Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > >>Would there be a difference if the message is forwarded through a list, >>or is transfered via multiple MTAs? > > > No. Because MTAs add headers and zillions of maillinglists add nice > (commercial/informational) trailers or remove attachments. Same for > large companies that think adding pseudo legal disclaimers makes any > difference. > All these destroy the structure of the email. These are problems that > e.g. PGP signers noticed long ago. > The same solutions that are used in PGP and S/MIME would be applied here, at least the message body itself. Details are still fuzzy... > Now you can add headers to the sign. Which one would you add? > Date fields? How many mailservers have broken timezones. How many > mailservers are offline for 4 hours to 7 days? Add a special tag? > So what, I use this tag with my faked headers. > In the USEFOR WG in the IETF, the current draft (section 7.1) addresses a problem of signing headers in USENET control messages by including a special header with the digital signature, and signing only a select set of headers. I think that a similar approach would probably be used here, but I don't really know for sure. The USEFOR draft can be found at (see section 7.1): http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-usefor-article-12.txt But your underlying objection is correct - headers get changed and added all the time. The question would be whether that will significantly affect this scheme and how to deal with it. Signing a select group of headers AND requiring MTAs that send signed messages to have those headers present might be one way of it. > And the easiest solution: > > a) get a Yahoo! account > b) login and send a email to joe@example.com with the exact message > you want to spam with. > c) login as joe@example.com and save away the messages. > d) now you have a totally legal email signed by Yahoo! itself. > e) $ sendmail -ti [some 10000 addresses] < signed.mail > > Now what problem does signing solve? Ok, it solves the problem for a lot > of people, but it makes it *really* easy to "legally" spam with messages > signed by public mail service providers and these are really easy to get ;-)) > It is a valid objection - I believe in cryptology this would be called "a replay attack". One way of dealing with it is somehow authenticating the actual SMTP transaction, which brings us back to LMAP. I think that the document that Alan was working on, addressing different points of the email infrastructure, might be very useful here. Also, it might perhaps be useful to create some kind of taxonomy of what we need to authenticate and different ways of doing so. I think that based on all of the discussion here, it looks like all of the technical details have either not been fully thought through yet, and/or are not being publicly shared. So I guess we'll have to wait until they release the full technical specs for the proposal, hopefully addressing all of these issues. 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 Tue Dec 9 16:48:19 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA18810 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 16:48:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATpi9-0003Tb-U2 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 16:48:05 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB9Lm58J013357 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 16:48:05 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATpi9-0003TM-PT for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 16:48:05 -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 QAA18797 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 16:47:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATpi7-0001T0-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 16:48:03 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATpi7-0001Sx-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 16:48:03 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATpi5-0003R8-4C; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 16:48:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATphL-0003Q3-Rb for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 16:47:15 -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 QAA18778 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 16:46:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATphJ-0001ST-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 16:47:13 -0500 Received: from moebius2.space.net ([195.30.1.100]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATphI-0001SM-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 16:47:13 -0500 Received: (qmail 92984 invoked by uid 1013); 9 Dec 2003 21:47:11 -0000 From: Markus Stumpf To: Alan DeKok Cc: asrg@ietf.org, asrg-rmx@ntp.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Latest version of the LMAP discussion paper Message-ID: <20031209214711.GG76454@Space.Net> References: <200312092102.hB9L27L08496@newgiles.nitros9.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200312092102.hB9L27L08496@newgiles.nitros9.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Organization: SpaceNet AG, Muenchen, Germany X-PGP-Fingerprint: 66 F3 75 79 01 D0 B8 5F 1A C7 77 88 4A B6 70 DF Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 22:47:11 +0100 (Subject adjusted) On Tue, Dec 09, 2003 at 04:02:07PM -0500, Alan DeKok wrote: > Comments and suggestions are welcome. I have a little more time > than I had a month ago, so I'm better able to discuss the document. I am still not really happy with the forwarding issues, especially with *> 5.1.16 Factor 4.5 (16), Mailing Lists *> Most current mailing list software rewrites the MAIL FROM, to permit *> bounces to be sent back to the mailing list administrator. These *> lists will be unaffected by LMAP (other than the issues raised above). This is not true. A lot of MLMs adopt VERP style senders, i.e. they use newsletter-bounces-maex=example.org@lists.example.com This allows tracking of bounces across forwards: If in the above example maex@example.org -> maex@example.net -> joe@example.com and joe@example.com fails the bounce will go back to newsletter-bounces-maex=example.org@lists.example.com and the bounce handler can easily detect that the failing subscribed address is maex@example.org and remove that from the list. This will no longer be possible with LMAP and envelope sender rewriting. *> However, commercial and proprietary mail-forwarding *> systems alter the sender envelope, and these are by far the most *> popular pure mail-forwarding instances. What numbers can you base the "most popular" on? Also it is *very* problemativ to alter the sender to the address of the forwarder: a@example.com send message to b@example.com which forwards to c@example.org. Now the mailserver at example.org notices that c@example.org ist over mail quota. A bounce is sent back to the envelope sender. It is important that the bounce is a fresh mail with fresh headers. The original message may (or not) be attached to the bounce. With the current Mail structure the bounce will go back to a@example.com. End. With envelope sender rewriting the bounce will be sent to b@example.com, which will change the envelope sender to b@example.com and will forward the message to c@example.org which is over quota so the mailserver will generate a bounce to b@example.com which will change the ... I think you get the point. As the message is a fresh one no loop detection mechanisms will work: not hop counting, not Delivered-To: checking, not Received: lines matching. These kind of mailloops can only be broken by admins disabling the forward from b@example.com to c@example.org, as every new eMail arriving at b@example.com will trigger the problem immediately again until c@example.org is working again. I'm seeing this behaviour with MS Exchange forwarders *very* often with customers using our mailserver as a relay. This gives me the possibility to "save" the customer and break the loop. I've seen cases where such a loop made > 10 GB traffic within an hour. Forcing users to envelope rewriting will make this kind of errors occur a lot more often that now, to I think this has to be mentioned as it will have a large impact on Efficiency, Costs, Reliability. Also rewriting the sender will stop bounces from being returned to the real originator after they have been forwarded. \Maex -- SpaceNet AG | Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 | Fon: +49 (89) 32356-0 Research & Development | D-80807 Muenchen | Fax: +49 (89) 32356-299 "The security, stability and reliability of a computer system is reciprocally proportional to the amount of vacuity between the ears of the admin" _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 9 16:58:26 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA19209 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 16:58:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATprw-0003q7-GB for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 16:58:12 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB9LwCiG014753 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 16:58:12 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATprw-0003ps-Ap for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 16:58:12 -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 QAA19182 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 16:57:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATpru-0001h0-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 16:58:10 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATprt-0001gt-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 16:58:09 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATprk-0003kk-Jt; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 16:58:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATpqw-0003jr-VA for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 16:57:10 -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 QAA19109 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 16:56:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATpqu-0001fX-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 16:57:08 -0500 Received: from relay.purespeed.com ([63.210.22.4]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATpqu-0001fO-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 16:57:08 -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 B38AD1802D; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 16:36:54 -0500 (EST) From: "Eric Dean" To: "'Yakov Shafranovich'" , "'ASRG'" Subject: RE: [Asrg] 0. General - Review of the CRI subgroup Message-ID: <008401c3bea0$1ad5f460$6401a8c0@sohonotebook> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 In-Reply-To: <3FD4DE7C.1080000@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: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 17:02:14 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Where we left off was in the process of building an interworking between two or more interested parties. I have a general concern around the amount of chatter in this RTF vs actual work being performed. It's quite frustrating to produce a document for the benefit of the group to have it swept aside as yesterday's news. I would recommend that we focus on a particular area...maybe even one document and produce something of value rather than reporting the spam-evolution du jure. > -----Original Message----- > From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Yakov Shafranovich > Sent: Monday, December 08, 2003 3:27 PM > To: ASRG > Subject: [Asrg] 0. General - Review of the CRI subgroup > > > The CRI subgroup was created to work on the development of the CRI > proposal to allow C/R systems to communicate. The group > public homepage > is at: > http://asrg.kavi.com/apps/group_public/workgroup.php?wg_abbrev=cri The CRI proposal is located at: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-irtf-asrg-cri-00.txt We are currently reviewing this subgroup since it appears to lack enough interested participants. If you would like to participate in this subgroup, have comments on it, or any other questions, please let us know. If not enough interest is shown, we intend to shutdown this subgroup. Sincerely, Yakov Shafranovich Co-Chair, ASRG ------- 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 _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 9 17:26:21 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA20605 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 17:26:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATqIv-0005HW-TO for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 17:26:07 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB9MQ5rc020296 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 17:26:05 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATqIv-0005HH-Nd for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 17:26:05 -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 RAA20572 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 17:25:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATqIt-0002KS-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 17:26:03 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATqIs-0002KP-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 17:26:03 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATqIr-00059D-EN; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 17:26:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATqI6-00058L-Pf for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 17:25:14 -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 RAA20557 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 17:24:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATqI4-0002JS-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 17:25:12 -0500 Received: from imail.centuryc.net ([216.30.168.20]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATqI3-0002Iy-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 17:25:11 -0500 Received: from cybercominc.com [66.91.134.126] by imail.centuryc.net (SMTPD32-8.03) id AC1045170146; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 12:26:24 -1000 Received: from Internal (66.91.134.123) by cybercominc-zzt with SMTP; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 22:36:39 GMT X-Titankey-e_id: content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [Asrg] 0. General - Review of the CRI subgroup X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [Asrg] 0. General - Review of the CRI subgroup Thread-Index: AcO+n5E5bacm9DF3QYiQd/OzS2EWJgAAvMxA From: "Peter Kay" To: "Eric Dean" , "Yakov Shafranovich" , "ASRG" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 12:24:34 -1000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I did a quick check of the logs/archives in this subgroup and the last thing I did was to send out a message to the subgroup to pickup the discussion on using a consistent MAIL-FROM on challenge replies. http://asrg.kavi.com/apps/org/workgroup/cri/email/archives/msg00005.html And that was on 10/9. Yakov then sent a message to map out a plan and that was it. I agree w/ Eric in that we should reduce chatter and focus on a deliverable. I was hoping the subgroup would focus on just that. I generally ignore the general postings because of the chatter level and tend to look only for [cri] type of stuff. > -----Original Message----- > From: Eric Dean [mailto:eric@purespeed.com]=20 > Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2003 12:02 PM > To: 'Yakov Shafranovich'; 'ASRG' > Subject: RE: [Asrg] 0. General - Review of the CRI subgroup >=20 > Where we left off was in the process of building an=20 > interworking between two or more interested parties. >=20 > I have a general concern around the amount of chatter in this=20 > RTF vs actual work being performed. It's quite frustrating=20 > to produce a document for the benefit of the group to have it=20 > swept aside as yesterday's news. >=20 > I would recommend that we focus on a particular area...maybe=20 > even one document and produce something of value rather than=20 > reporting the spam-evolution du jure. >=20 > > -----Original Message----- > > From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org] On Behalf Of=20 > > Yakov Shafranovich > > Sent: Monday, December 08, 2003 3:27 PM > > To: ASRG > > Subject: [Asrg] 0. General - Review of the CRI subgroup > >=20 > >=20 > > The CRI subgroup was created to work on the development of the CRI=20 > > proposal to allow C/R systems to communicate. The group public=20 > > homepage is at: > >=20 > http://asrg.kavi.com/apps/group_public/workgroup.php?wg_abbrev=3Dcri >=20 > The CRI proposal is located at: >=20 > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-irtf-asrg-cri-00.txt >=20 > We are currently reviewing this subgroup since it appears to=20 > lack enough >=20 > interested participants. If you would like to participate in=20 > this subgroup, have comments on it, or any other questions,=20 > please let us know. If not enough interest is shown, we=20 > intend to shutdown this subgroup. >=20 > Sincerely, > Yakov Shafranovich > Co-Chair, ASRG > ------- > Yakov Shafranovich / asrg shaftek.org SolidMatrix=20 > Technologies, Inc. / research solidmatrix.com "Power=20 > tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" (Lord > Acton) > ------- >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg >=20 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 9 17:26:26 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA20624 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 17:26:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATqIw-0005Hm-6j for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 17:26:13 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB9MQ6r0020312 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 17:26:06 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATqIw-0005HX-2O for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 17:26:06 -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 RAA20575 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 17:25:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATqIt-0002KW-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 17:26:03 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATqIt-0002KT-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 17:26:03 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATqIs-0005A3-Lf; Tue, 09 Dec 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 1ATqIS-00058k-Tb for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 17:25:37 -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 RAA20564 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 17:25:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATqIQ-0002Jm-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 17:25:34 -0500 Received: from mercury.mv.net ([199.125.85.40]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATqIP-0002Jg-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 17:25:33 -0500 Received: (qmail 8100 invoked from network); 9 Dec 2003 17:25:27 -0500 Received: from iridium.mv.net (HELO mv.mv.com) (199.125.85.17) by mercury.mv.net with SMTP; 9 Dec 2003 17:25:26 -0500 X-Peer-Info: remote-ip 199.125.85.17 local-ip 199.125.85.40 local-name mercury.mv.net Received: (qmail 21236 invoked by uid 101); 9 Dec 2003 17:25:26 -0500 From: "Mark E. Mallett" To: Alan DeKok Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - LMAP - Latest version of the LMAP discussion paper Message-ID: <20031209222526.GD12584@iridium.mv.net> References: <200312092102.hB9L27L08496@newgiles.nitros9.org> <3FD63A34.5040905@solidmatrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3FD63A34.5040905@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: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 17:25:26 -0500 > >http://www.striker.ottawa.on.ca/~aland/draft-irtf-asrg-lmap-discussion-00.txt Minor wording issues, second to last paragraph in 1.1: Note that recipients should also publish that they use/enforce LMAP. Receiving mail transport agents using protocols with the ability to advertise capabilities should advertise a capability to the sender that informs the that the sender that the receiver will check the ^^^^^^^^^ I think "that informs the sender" or more simply "informing the sender" incoming IP address with LMAP. It is to the advantage of all parties for a sender that will not be able to pass LMAP authentication to be able to discover the fact as early as possible and abort the transmission. The last sentence is very hard to wrap my head around, perhaps partly because "pass" initially makes me think "transmit" and not "pass vs fail". Maybe rearranging would help: If LMAP authentication is required by the receiver, it is to the benefit of all parties if a non-conforming sender can discover that fact early on and abort the transmission. Sorry if that's too nit-picky, but I ran into a mental stop there. :-) mm _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 9 17:28:30 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA20784 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 17:28:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATqL3-0005YY-12 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 17:28:17 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB9MSHuf021352 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 17:28:17 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATqL2-0005YJ-SI for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 17:28:16 -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 RAA20766 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 17:27:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATqL0-0002OQ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 17:28:14 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATqL0-0002OD-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 17:28:14 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATqKn-0005Qt-Ke; Tue, 09 Dec 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 1ATqJD-0005PI-KI for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 17:26:23 -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 RAA20593 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 17:26:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATqJB-0002Kx-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 17:26:21 -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 1ATqJA-0002Jt-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 17:26:20 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-380-533.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.200.174]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HPN008LGFMX1C@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 22:25:49 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - DNS + PKI - Yahoo's "Domain Keys" In-reply-to: <20031209221554.GH76454@Space.Net> To: Markus Stumpf Cc: asrg@ietf.org Message-id: <3FD64BEA.6090406@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: <20031208183344.1857A16CD1@mail.nitros9.org> <3FD4E090.8000808@solidmatrix.com> <20031209193652.GA76454@Space.Net> <3FD626AC.9010002@solidmatrix.com> <20031209201709.GC76454@Space.Net> <3FD63F28.4020608@solidmatrix.com> <20031209221554.GH76454@Space.Net> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2003 17:25:46 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Markus Stumpf wrote: > > Maybe there is anybody on this list with posting priviledges to the NANOG > list and can ask for a contact to the Yahoo guys in the name of the ASRG? > I will try to get in touch with them. 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 Tue Dec 9 17:40:30 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA21198 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 17:40:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATqWe-0006IY-Nf for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 17:40:17 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB9MeGht024204 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 17:40:16 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATqWe-0006IJ-GV for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 17:40:16 -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 RAA21189 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 17:39:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATqWb-0002e1-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 17:40:14 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATqWb-0002dy-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 17:40:13 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATqWU-0006EN-QO; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 17:40:06 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATqVf-0006DO-QW for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 17:39:15 -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 RAA21168 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 17:38:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATqVd-0002dO-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 17:39:13 -0500 Received: from rwcrmhc12.comcast.net ([216.148.227.85]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATqVc-0002cR-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 17:39:12 -0500 Received: from fda.zemos.net ([68.38.12.170]) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc12) with ESMTP id <2003120922383701400btv76e>; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 22:38:37 +0000 Received: from zemos.net (phil [10.0.0.2]) by fda.zemos.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54D4F18685; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 17:37:53 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3FD64EF9.9060509@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: Hector Santos Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals: MTA MARK References: <20031209181028.D8D8216FAC@mail.nitros9.org> <00ed01c3be87$15f0c970$6401a8c0@FAMILY> In-Reply-To: <00ed01c3be87$15f0c970$6401a8c0@FAMILY> 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, 09 Dec 2003 17:38:49 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hector Santos wrote: > In short, is LMAP CAN-SPAM Ready? In short, LMAP has nothing to do with CAN-SPAM. CAN-SPAM has various requirements. LMAP would be a good thing regardless of any legislative approach, because it allows perfect enforcement of a domain's stated policy without legal support. Perhaps it could boost the efficacy of CAN-SPAM, but it doesn't address that in any way, nor should it. Philip Miller _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 9 17:40:41 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA21213 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 17:40:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATqWp-0006Mi-J3 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 17:40:28 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB9MeRqK024462 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 17:40:27 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATqWp-0006MT-Dg for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 17:40:27 -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 RAA21193 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 17:40:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATqWm-0002eB-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 17:40:24 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATqWm-0002e8-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 17:40:24 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATq9B-0004gb-1D; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 17:16:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATq98-0004gI-Ju for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 17:15:58 -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 RAA20104 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 17:15:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATq96-00028o-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 17:15:56 -0500 Received: from moebius2.space.net ([195.30.1.100]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATq95-00028k-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 17:15:55 -0500 Received: (qmail 94149 invoked by uid 1013); 9 Dec 2003 22:15:54 -0000 From: Markus Stumpf To: Yakov Shafranovich Cc: Markus Stumpf , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - DNS + PKI - Yahoo's "Domain Keys" Message-ID: <20031209221554.GH76454@Space.Net> References: <20031208183344.1857A16CD1@mail.nitros9.org> <3FD4E090.8000808@solidmatrix.com> <20031209193652.GA76454@Space.Net> <3FD626AC.9010002@solidmatrix.com> <20031209201709.GC76454@Space.Net> <3FD63F28.4020608@solidmatrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3FD63F28.4020608@solidmatrix.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Organization: SpaceNet AG, Muenchen, Germany X-PGP-Fingerprint: 66 F3 75 79 01 D0 B8 5F 1A C7 77 88 4A B6 70 DF Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 23:15:54 +0100 On Tue, Dec 09, 2003 at 04:31:20PM -0500, Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > In the USEFOR WG in the IETF, the current draft (section 7.1) addresses > a problem of signing headers in USENET control messages by including a > special header with the digital signature, and signing only a select set > of headers. I think that a similar approach would probably be used here, > but I don't really know for sure. The USEFOR draft can be found at (see > section 7.1): > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-usefor-article-12.txt I had a look at it. The only place where they use signing is for control messages. This is done as described in ftp://ftp.isc.org/pub/pgpcontrol/README.html and it is IMHO not suitable for eMails, at least if they're not end to end. > But your underlying objection is correct - headers get changed and added > all the time. The question would be whether that will significantly > affect this scheme and how to deal with it. Signing a select group of > headers AND requiring MTAs that send signed messages to have those > headers present might be one way of it. What I see as problem is: Imagine a header X-Signature: mail.example.com; sign=439KJHD9087KJKLHKJ7LKJJLK Now I can check back with mail.example.com and validate the sign. Fine. A spammer can now simply use that and it will be ok for everyone. Now I want more security. Thus I need some variable token. One possibility would be to use a date and give messages a lifetime. X-Signature: mail.example.com; date=20031209-23:06:17; sign=439KJHD9087KJKLHKJ7LKJJLK Now the signature would be calculated using "mail.example.com" and the varibale part "20031209-23:06:17". If it matches "439KJHD9087KJKLHKJ7LKJJLK" the message will be accepted. A spammer can now simply use that very line and it will be ok for everyone, at least until some expiration date. However that has to be at least some days to compensate for poorly configured hosts with wrong times or for message delays on relay SMTP servers or the like. For a spammer it is rather easy to get a valid line that is still valid for say 5 days: subscribe to any mailinglist and the records are delivered right to your mailbox. I do not believe that anything that depends on signing of headers only can solve this problem. But without it the approach is useless. And: it MUST contain the envelope sender address in the signature to prevent sender forging. There is no win to know that mail.example.com correctly signed the fact that the email with a sender address of does.not.exist.and.is.abused.for.spamming@yahoo.com was injected via mail.example.com. There has to be a relation between mail.example.com and does.not.exist.and.is.abused.for.spamming@yahoo.com that provides some kind of authorization for mail.example.com. > It is a valid objection - I believe in cryptology this would be called > "a replay attack". One way of dealing with it is somehow authenticating > the actual SMTP transaction, which brings us back to LMAP. Which is IMHO quite useless, as if the actual SMTP transaction is between the first hop and the receiver it is clear to whom I am talking (e.g. from DNS). If it is a multi-hop connection a replay attack is a piece of cake. Maybe there is anybody on this list with posting priviledges to the NANOG list and can ask for a contact to the Yahoo guys in the name of the ASRG? \Maex -- SpaceNet AG | Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 | Fon: +49 (89) 32356-0 Research & Development | D-80807 Muenchen | Fax: +49 (89) 32356-299 "The security, stability and reliability of a computer system is reciprocally proportional to the amount of vacuity between the ears of the admin" _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 9 18:36:43 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA24266 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 18:36:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATrP2-0007ut-U6 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 18:36:31 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB9NaS4Q030430 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 18:36:28 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATrP2-0007uj-Ko for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 18:36:28 -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 SAA24258 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 18:36:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATrOz-0003eT-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 18:36:25 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATrOz-0003eQ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 18:36:25 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATrOd-0007q5-6S; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 18:36:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATrNn-0007pB-4o for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 18:35:11 -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 SAA24186 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 18:34:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATrNk-0003d6-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 18:35:08 -0500 Received: from ntbbs.winserver.com ([208.247.131.9] helo=winserver.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATrNj-0003d2-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 18:35:07 -0500 Received: by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v5.7.450.9b10) for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 18:35:18 -0500 Received: from ([68.215.99.227]) EHLO=FAMILY by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v5.7.450.9b10) with SMTP id 3247382609; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 18:35:16 -0500 Message-ID: <01b601c3bead$10b4f460$6401a8c0@FAMILY> From: "Hector Santos" To: "Yakov Shafranovich" , "Markus Stumpf" Cc: References: <20031208183344.1857A16CD1@mail.nitros9.org> <3FD4E090.8000808@solidmatrix.com> <20031209193652.GA76454@Space.Net> <3FD626AC.9010002@solidmatrix.com> <20031209201709.GC76454@Space.Net> <3FD63F28.4020608@solidmatrix.com> Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - DNS + PKI - Yahoo's "Domain Keys" 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: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 18:35:00 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ----- Original Message ----- From: "Yakov Shafranovich" To: "Markus Stumpf" > > I think that based on all of the discussion here, it looks like all of > the technical details have either not been fully thought through yet, > and/or are not being publicly shared. So I guess we'll have to wait > until they release the full technical specs for the proposal, hopefully > addressing all of these issues. > Right, however.... The problem is if YAHOO is "truly" going to deploy on early 2004, that really doesn't give anyone any time and more importantly it indicates they (alliance?) have already "worked something out" and/or they are only truly interested in stamping their own mail generated and going out their farm and is telling the world, "hey, our mail headers will have private keys and whoever supports it will be able to authenticate our mail." However, what they are not saying is that HOW that is done and if this going to be deployed within 1-2 months, they MUST have some arrangement with AOL, Microsoft and Earthlink. Worst case paranoid scenario: In time, once the public hollering quiets down, the system is proven to work with the "Alliance." In the name of security, the specification is proprietary is only given to certified mail server developers under a NDA. Anyway, with all that aside. It seems to me that this Yahoo proposal is strictly designed around their DATA validation methodology which in my opinion, minimized its adoption or deployment effectiveness. (Which they don't care as long the 4 sisters are together on it). Technically, any private key concept must be applied with a 3+ tier system. While only 2 end points is all that is required at a minimum, the trust is magnified when one or more independent middle wares validates the key during the route of the message. This can be illustrated with a trust value table: Each mail system have different designs, but in general, they have these components: - MUA: Mail Creator - MUA: SMTP Sender - MTA: SMTP Receiver (can be multiple routes) - MTA: SMTP Router (final destination route) - MTA: Mail Gateway (final destination storage) - MUA: POP3 Client - MUA: Mail Reader It is conceivable at each of these components may be "involved" in the key validation, including the POP3 server. Why? If this system is deployed, application developers can offer new options to the user, i.e, Outlook mail pickup options: [X] Rejected all non-YDK validated mail [X] Accept YDK mail with trust value equal or greater than: 8 Give each component a sequential trust value, 1 through 7. Each component can add a missing key or validate an existing one. The trust of a transaction is the summation of the compliant components. At a minimum, the endpoints yield a trust value of 8 (1+7). At a maximum, with all components complying,the highest trust value is 28 (1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8) I don't wish to draw out the total scenarios and trust values, but I wish to point how I may use to determine where I would add a key to gain a high trust with minimum compliance. In this case, it would be the POP3 server, the final MUA plus one other component. In our design, since the gateway is central for all mail formats coming into the system, it may be the best spot for us. So: - MTA: Mail Gateway (final destination storage) - MUA: POP3 Client - MUA: Mail Reader with a trust of 18 (5+6+7). This tells me this is better than having - MUA: SMTP Sender - MUA: POP3 Client - MUA: Mail Reader with a trust of 15 (2+6+7). This works for us, because we mail also have: - MTA: Mail Gateway (final destination storage) - Web Mail Server - MUA: Mail Reader (Browser) or - MTA: Mail Gateway (final destination storage) - Telnet Mail Server - MUA: Mail Reader (Telnet client) or - MTA: Mail Gateway (final destination storage) - GUI Mail Server - MUA: Mail Reader (GUI client) etc, etc. In other words, for YDK, I see this: 1) It assumes mail is received (DATA state). 2) For some systems, it may be best to apply it only at the final destination component and this may not be a SMTP system but simply a RFC822 compliant system. 3) And that this may be best applied at the POP3 server (mail pickup) level because it offers end-users new options at the application level. I believe that any proposal that has its basis with mail content validity vs. mail sender validity, is not something SMTP should be involved with. (SMTP should strictly deal with the validation of the transport, like LMAP, SAP and others.) While SMTP can help the process (such asp non-RFC822 MUA systems), a proposal that will not have full deployment is simply beating a dead horse. With minimum deployment, this YDK proposal works best at the endpoints plus the pop3 server which seems to be exactly what YAHOO is doing with an early 2004 release. -- Hector _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 9 18:56:33 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA25029 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 18:56:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATriH-0000Sa-6U for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 18:56:21 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB9NuLVJ001762 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 18:56:21 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATriH-0000SL-0t for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 18:56:21 -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 SAA25024 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 18:55:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATri1-00042x-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 18:56:05 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATri1-00042t-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 18:56:05 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATrhw-0000K8-VN; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 18:56:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATrhi-0000Jg-Qo for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 18:55:46 -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 SAA25008 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 18:55:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATrhf-00042N-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 18:55:43 -0500 Received: from kanga.nu ([157.22.12.214]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATrhf-00042K-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 18:55:43 -0500 Received: from dhcp-66-212-193-197.myeastern.com ([66.212.193.197]:61983 helo=yabbie) by kanga.nu with asmtp (Exim 4.22 #1 (Debian)) id 1ATrhe-0008OQ-RS; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 15:55:42 -0800 Received: from yabbie ([127.0.0.1] helo=kanga.nu) by yabbie with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1ATrhd-00064J-00; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 18:55:41 -0500 To: "Eric Dean" cc: "'Yakov Shafranovich'" , "'ASRG'" Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - Review of the CRI subgroup In-Reply-To: Message from "Eric Dean" of "Tue, 09 Dec 2003 17:02:14 EST." <008401c3bea0$1ad5f460$6401a8c0@sohonotebook> References: <008401c3bea0$1ad5f460$6401a8c0@sohonotebook> X-face: ?^_yw@fA`CEX&}--=*&XqXbF-oePvxaT4(kyt\nwM9]{]N!>b^K}-Mb9 YH%saz^>nq5usBlD"s{(.h'_w|U^3ldUq7wVZz$`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: <23330.1071014141@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: Tue, 09 Dec 2003 18:55:41 -0500 On Tue, 9 Dec 2003 17:02:14 -0500 Eric Dean wrote: > Where we left off was in the process of building an interworking > between two or more interested parties. > I have a general concern around the amount of chatter in this RTF vs > actual work being performed. It's quite frustrating to produce a > document for the benefit of the group to have it swept aside as > yesterday's news. I have been absent from this list for some months. CRI appears to be based on/inspired by a consent token protocol I noodled in May of this year: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.asrg/3303 The current CRI protocol has moved away from binding tokens into email addresses and message IDs apparently on the grounds of mail header length limits. However cursory scanning of the archives didn't reveal identified cases where header length limits would be a problem, or a clear assertion of why a consent token might need to be long/complex enough to exceed RFC 2822 header lengths. Was there a substantial reason for moving to an abstract MIME type? More significantly to my mind CRI clouds the distinction between consent determination/maintenance and challenge/response (C/R is one method of obtaining consent, but by no means need be the only one). Was there a substantial reason for narrowing the problem specification explicitly to C/R from the more general question of consent definition and manipulation? I will have some free cycles in the new year. If there is interest I'm willing to move my prior noodles into draft form as well as to assist in producing a TMDA patch which implements the protocol as a sample/reference implementation (note that TMDA is a mail filter which may be used for C/R and which implements a C/R system as a default case). -- 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 Tue Dec 9 18:57:20 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA25061 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 18:57:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATriw-0000aw-Rx for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 18:57:08 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB9Nv21M002240 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 18:57:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATriw-0000Xw-Hg for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 18:57:02 -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 SAA25046 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 18:56:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATrit-00043f-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 18:56:59 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATris-00043c-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 18:56:58 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATriv-0000TM-1o; Tue, 09 Dec 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 1ATri0-0000KO-Hp for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 18:56:04 -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 SAA25021 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 18:55:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATrhx-00042o-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 18:56:01 -0500 Received: from ntbbs.winserver.com ([208.247.131.9] helo=winserver.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATrhw-00042k-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 18:56:00 -0500 Received: by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v5.7.450.9b10) for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 18:56:15 -0500 Received: from ([68.215.99.227]) EHLO=FAMILY by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v5.7.450.9b10) with SMTP id 3248640406; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 18:56:14 -0500 Message-ID: <01c201c3beaf$fe7aa2b0$6401a8c0@FAMILY> From: "Hector Santos" To: "Philip Miller" Cc: References: <20031209181028.D8D8216FAC@mail.nitros9.org> <00ed01c3be87$15f0c970$6401a8c0@FAMILY> <3FD64EF9.9060509@zemos.net> Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals: MTA MARK 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: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 18:55:57 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Ok, that's the theory. In practice, developers who will have the ultimate decision to implement or more suite of proposals, will also need to also consider the marketing pressure to support what will be the law. That will be a fact. If proposal Y covers CAN-SPAM, it will be used over Proposal X which does not. Of course, it should be obvious that a proposal that covers CAN-SPAM return address requirements will also include the proposal (or similar concepts) that only works at the lower level. The potential problem I see with any proposal that does not support CAN-SPAM requirements is that it opens the legal door for CAN-SPAM compliant spammers to legally sue those systems that are rejecting mail using non-CAN-SPAM methods. Again, I have not read the CAN-SPAM bill yet, but I believe I also read (here) that the bill stated mail systems must be IETF compliant. No? If so, that's good, because that means that LMAP is CAN-SPAM ready once the IETF adds LMAP as a STD specification, not RFC specification. Remember, CAN-SPAM is a double edge, it places controls and restrictions but it also gives spammers the legal authority to send spam and if a mail system is rejecting/filtering mail using non-CAN-SPAM methodologies, it can potentially opens Pandora's box. So in short, the answer is LMAP will be "CAN-SPAM Ready" once it is made a IETF standard. If it doesn't become a standard, developers, such as myself, will use need to consider something else that is . That's the bottom line. It does look like LMAP has the blessing of many here and will become a official IETF standard. So I don't see a problem. Thanks for your input Phillip. -- Hector ----- Original Message ----- From: "Philip Miller" To: "Hector Santos" Cc: Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2003 5:38 PM Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals: MTA MARK > Hector Santos wrote: > > In short, is LMAP CAN-SPAM Ready? > > In short, LMAP has nothing to do with CAN-SPAM. CAN-SPAM has various > requirements. LMAP would be a good thing regardless of any legislative > approach, because it allows perfect enforcement of a domain's stated policy > without legal support. Perhaps it could boost the efficacy of CAN-SPAM, but > it doesn't address that in any way, nor should it. > > Philip Miller > > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 9 19:13:21 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA25553 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 19:13:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATryW-0001JZ-B0 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 19:13:08 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBA0D8UD005047 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 19:13:08 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATryW-0001JK-5O for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 19:13:08 -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 TAA25544 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 19:12:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATryU-0004UL-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 19:13:06 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATryU-0004UI-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 19:13:06 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATryN-0001Eo-Iw; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 19:12:59 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATryD-0001ET-G8 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 19:12:49 -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 TAA25536 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 19:12:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATryB-0004Ts-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 19:12:47 -0500 Received: from moebius2.space.net ([195.30.1.100]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATryA-0004Tn-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 19:12:47 -0500 Received: (qmail 98895 invoked by uid 1013); 10 Dec 2003 00:12:46 -0000 From: Markus Stumpf To: Hector Santos Cc: Philip Miller , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals: MTA MARK Message-ID: <20031210001246.GB96487@Space.Net> References: <20031209181028.D8D8216FAC@mail.nitros9.org> <00ed01c3be87$15f0c970$6401a8c0@FAMILY> <3FD64EF9.9060509@zemos.net> <01c201c3beaf$fe7aa2b0$6401a8c0@FAMILY> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <01c201c3beaf$fe7aa2b0$6401a8c0@FAMILY> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Organization: SpaceNet AG, Muenchen, Germany X-PGP-Fingerprint: 66 F3 75 79 01 D0 B8 5F 1A C7 77 88 4A B6 70 DF Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 01:12:46 +0100 On Tue, Dec 09, 2003 at 06:55:57PM -0500, Hector Santos wrote: > Remember, CAN-SPAM is a double edge, it places controls and restrictions but > it also gives spammers the legal authority to send spam and if a mail system > is rejecting/filtering mail using non-CAN-SPAM methodologies, it can > potentially opens Pandora's box. Please remember that CAN-SPAM (as a law) is totally irrelevant to most of the world. \Maex -- SpaceNet AG | Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 | Fon: +49 (89) 32356-0 Research & Development | D-80807 Muenchen | Fax: +49 (89) 32356-299 "The security, stability and reliability of a computer system is reciprocally proportional to the amount of vacuity between the ears of the admin" _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 9 19:22:21 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA26056 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 19:22:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATs7D-0001aN-Qu for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 19:22:07 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBA0M7NO006094 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 19:22:07 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATs7D-0001aD-Li for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 19:22:07 -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 TAA26049 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 19:21:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATs7C-0004qy-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 19:22:06 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATs7B-0004qv-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 19:22:05 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATs77-0001Y1-CU; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 19:22:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATs6L-0001Wy-RY for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 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 TAA25986 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 19:20:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATs6K-0004of-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 19:21:12 -0500 Received: from moebius2.space.net ([195.30.1.100]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATs6J-0004oY-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 19:21:11 -0500 Received: (qmail 99353 invoked by uid 1013); 10 Dec 2003 00:21:11 -0000 From: Markus Stumpf To: Hector Santos Cc: Yakov Shafranovich , Markus Stumpf , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - DNS + PKI - Yahoo's "Domain Keys" Message-ID: <20031210002111.GC96487@Space.Net> References: <20031208183344.1857A16CD1@mail.nitros9.org> <3FD4E090.8000808@solidmatrix.com> <20031209193652.GA76454@Space.Net> <3FD626AC.9010002@solidmatrix.com> <20031209201709.GC76454@Space.Net> <3FD63F28.4020608@solidmatrix.com> <01b601c3bead$10b4f460$6401a8c0@FAMILY> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <01b601c3bead$10b4f460$6401a8c0@FAMILY> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Organization: SpaceNet AG, Muenchen, Germany X-PGP-Fingerprint: 66 F3 75 79 01 D0 B8 5F 1A C7 77 88 4A B6 70 DF Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 01:21:11 +0100 On Tue, Dec 09, 2003 at 06:35:00PM -0500, Hector Santos wrote: > Worst case paranoid scenario: In time, once the public hollering quiets > down, the system is proven to work with the "Alliance." In the name of > security, the specification is proprietary is only given to certified mail > server developers under a NDA. Perfect. I can't wait to add @aol.* @yahoo.* @msn.* @hotmail.* ... to the badmailfrompatterns of our mailservers and get rid of all that crap that either originates from them or fakes their domains. And I am sure a lot of others are, too. They're using a proprietary mail system that I can't send messages to, so why should I accept message I can't reply to? The implication is that AOL can spam yahoo and MSN and vice versa but no one else. This will bring AOL back to the early 90s (or was it later 80s) when they were a large Mailbox. After that they'll be one again, as will Yahoo and MSN. Where's your problem? \Maex -- SpaceNet AG | Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 | Fon: +49 (89) 32356-0 Research & Development | D-80807 Muenchen | Fax: +49 (89) 32356-299 "The security, stability and reliability of a computer system is reciprocally proportional to the amount of vacuity between the ears of the admin" _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 9 19:29:19 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA26344 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 19:29:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATsDw-0001xq-Tz for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 19:29:06 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBA0T4Nj007544 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 19:29:04 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATsDw-0001xb-Nk for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 19:29:04 -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 TAA26334 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 19:28:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATsDv-00052G-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 19:29:03 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATsDu-00052D-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 19:29:02 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATsDs-0001to-Nh; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 19:29:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATsDY-0001tb-QY for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 19:28:40 -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 TAA26331 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 19:28:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATsDX-00051h-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 19:28:39 -0500 Received: from sj-iport-5.cisco.com ([171.68.10.87]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATsDW-00051J-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 19:28:38 -0500 Received: from sj-core-4.cisco.com (171.68.223.138) by sj-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 10 Dec 2003 00:29:08 +0000 Received: from mbaugher-w2k07.cisco.com (sjc-vpn3-38.cisco.com [10.21.64.38]) by sj-core-4.cisco.com (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id hBA0S6iO027174; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 16:28:07 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <6.0.0.22.2.20031209161256.03afcbd0@mira-sjc5-6.cisco.com> X-Sender: mbaugher@mira-sjc5-6.cisco.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.0.22 To: Markus Stumpf From: Mark Baugher Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - DNS + PKI - Yahoo's "Domain Keys" Cc: asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <20031209221554.GH76454@Space.Net> References: <20031208183344.1857A16CD1@mail.nitros9.org> <3FD4E090.8000808@solidmatrix.com> <20031209193652.GA76454@Space.Net> <3FD626AC.9010002@solidmatrix.com> <20031209201709.GC76454@Space.Net> <3FD63F28.4020608@solidmatrix.com> <20031209221554.GH76454@Space.Net> 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, 09 Dec 2003 16:28:05 -0800 At 02:15 PM 12/9/2003, Markus Stumpf wrote: <...> I'm not making a case that signing is better or worse that LMAP, SPF, or similar approaches. I really don't know so there is no hidden polemic here. I just have some questions and comments. >What I see as problem is: > >Imagine a header > X-Signature: mail.example.com; sign=439KJHD9087KJKLHKJ7LKJJLK >Now I can check back with mail.example.com and validate the sign. Fine. >A spammer can now simply use that and it will be ok for everyone. A clarification... +---------------+ +---------------+ | UA.o -> MTA.o | -> MTA.i -> | MTA.r -> UA.r | +---------------+ +---------------+ Are you saying that MTA.o signed it and a spammer captured the message and resent it? Was it resent from MTA.o or from some other domain or does this not matter? If the spammer sends from MTA.o, then wouldn't we expect MTA.o to have a policy to not forward mail that it had previously signed? If it comes from some MTA.x then a legitimate MTA.x might reasonably have a policy of not forwarding mail signed by some MTA.o unless (1) it has some MTA.i relationship with MTA.o, which will rarely be the case, and (2) it was in fact received from MTA.o. If MTA.x is not legit, then won't MTA.r make a determination on the validity of the message based on the trust it places in the signature of MTA.x and not MTA.o? Mark >Now I want more security. Thus I need some variable token. One >possibility would be to use a date and give messages a lifetime. > X-Signature: mail.example.com; date=20031209-23:06:17; > sign=439KJHD9087KJKLHKJ7LKJJLK >Now the signature would be calculated using "mail.example.com" and the >varibale part "20031209-23:06:17". If it matches "439KJHD9087KJKLHKJ7LKJJLK" >the message will be accepted. A spammer can now simply use that very >line and it will be ok for everyone, at least until some expiration >date. However that has to be at least some days to compensate for >poorly configured hosts with wrong times or for message delays on relay >SMTP servers or the like. For a spammer it is rather easy to get a >valid line that is still valid for say 5 days: subscribe to any mailinglist >and the records are delivered right to your mailbox. > >I do not believe that anything that depends on signing of headers only can >solve this problem. But without it the approach is useless. >And: it MUST contain the envelope sender address in the signature to >prevent sender forging. >There is no win to know that > mail.example.com >correctly signed the fact that the email with a sender address of >does.not.exist.and.is.abused.for.spamming@yahoo.com was injected via >mail.example.com. There has to be a relation between mail.example.com >and does.not.exist.and.is.abused.for.spamming@yahoo.com that provides >some kind of authorization for mail.example.com. > > > It is a valid objection - I believe in cryptology this would be called > > "a replay attack". One way of dealing with it is somehow authenticating > > the actual SMTP transaction, which brings us back to LMAP. > >Which is IMHO quite useless, as if the actual SMTP transaction is >between the first hop and the receiver it is clear to whom I am talking >(e.g. from DNS). If it is a multi-hop connection a replay attack is a >piece of cake. > >Maybe there is anybody on this list with posting priviledges to the NANOG >list and can ask for a contact to the Yahoo guys in the name of the ASRG? > > \Maex > >-- >SpaceNet AG | Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 | Fon: +49 (89) 32356-0 >Research & Development | D-80807 Muenchen | Fax: +49 (89) 32356-299 >"The security, stability and reliability of a computer system is reciprocally > proportional to the amount of vacuity between the ears of the admin" > >_______________________________________________ >Asrg mailing list >Asrg@ietf.org >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 9 19:35:25 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA26562 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 19:35:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATsJl-0002C4-E5 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 19:35:05 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBA0Z57o008426 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 19:35:05 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATsJl-0002Bp-96 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 19:35:05 -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 TAA26555 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 19:34:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATsJj-0005BU-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 19:35:03 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATsJj-0005BR-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 19:35:03 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATsJh-00027m-U4; Tue, 09 Dec 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 1ATsJf-00027X-Hg for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 19:34:59 -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 TAA26552 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 19:34:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATsJd-0005BN-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 19:34:57 -0500 Received: from ntbbs.winserver.com ([208.247.131.9] helo=winserver.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATsJd-0005BJ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 19:34:57 -0500 Received: by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v5.7.450.9b10) for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 19:35:18 -0500 Received: from ([68.215.99.227]) EHLO=FAMILY by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v5.7.450.9b10) with SMTP id 3250982796; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 19:35:16 -0500 Message-ID: <023b01c3beb5$72c9c650$6401a8c0@FAMILY> From: "Hector Santos" To: "Markus Stumpf" Cc: "Philip Miller" , References: <20031209181028.D8D8216FAC@mail.nitros9.org> <00ed01c3be87$15f0c970$6401a8c0@FAMILY> <3FD64EF9.9060509@zemos.net> <01c201c3beaf$fe7aa2b0$6401a8c0@FAMILY> <20031210001246.GB96487@Space.Net> Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals: MTA MARK 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: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 19:35:00 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ----- Original Message ----- From: "Markus Stumpf" To: "Hector Santos" Cc: "Philip Miller" ; Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2003 7:12 PM Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals: MTA MARK > On Tue, Dec 09, 2003 at 06:55:57PM -0500, Hector Santos wrote: > > Remember, CAN-SPAM is a double edge, it places controls and restrictions but > > it also gives spammers the legal authority to send spam and if a mail system > > is rejecting/filtering mail using non-CAN-SPAM methodologies, it can > > potentially opens Pandora's box. > > Please remember that CAN-SPAM (as a law) is totally irrelevant to most of > the world. That goes without saying. But that does not mean foreign mail coming into the US can not be subject to legal restrictive access. It just means a foreign non-compliant sytem would not (or more difficult) to be subject to penalties or charged with a crime. By the same token, it may be that a foreign compliant system have less or no rights to sue anyone in the states for blocking mail using non-compliant methods. :-) -- Hector _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 9 20:21:27 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA27563 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 20:21:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATt2O-0003Up-Q5 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 20:21:12 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBA1LCr4013439 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 20:21:12 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATt2O-0003Ug-CZ for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 20:21:12 -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 UAA27552 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 20:20:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATt2M-0005vn-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 20:21:10 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATt2L-0005vk-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 20:21:09 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATt2D-0003SE-D5; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 20:21:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATt1w-0003Rm-7u for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 20:20:44 -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 UAA27549 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 20:20:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATt1u-0005vf-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 20:20:42 -0500 Received: from moebius2.space.net ([195.30.1.100]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATt1t-0005vc-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 20:20:41 -0500 Received: (qmail 1768 invoked by uid 1013); 10 Dec 2003 01:20:41 -0000 From: Markus Stumpf To: Mark Baugher Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - DNS + PKI - Yahoo's "Domain Keys" Message-ID: <20031210012041.GE96487@Space.Net> References: <20031208183344.1857A16CD1@mail.nitros9.org> <3FD4E090.8000808@solidmatrix.com> <20031209193652.GA76454@Space.Net> <3FD626AC.9010002@solidmatrix.com> <20031209201709.GC76454@Space.Net> <3FD63F28.4020608@solidmatrix.com> <20031209221554.GH76454@Space.Net> <6.0.0.22.2.20031209161256.03afcbd0@mira-sjc5-6.cisco.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <6.0.0.22.2.20031209161256.03afcbd0@mira-sjc5-6.cisco.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: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 02:20:41 +0100 On Tue, Dec 09, 2003 at 04:28:05PM -0800, Mark Baugher wrote: > A clarification... > > +---------------+ +---------------+ > | UA.o -> MTA.o | -> MTA.i -> | MTA.r -> UA.r | > +---------------+ +---------------+ > > Are you saying that MTA.o signed it and a spammer captured > the message and resent it? Was it resent from MTA.o or from > some other domain or does this not matter? You don't need to capture. The problem I addressed is "what to sign" to make it impossible to steal the signing and use it in another context. E.g. the message to the list I am replying to has headers: Received: from mbaugher-w2k07.cisco.com (sjc-vpn3-38.cisco.com [10.21.64.38]) by sj-core-4.cisco.com (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id hBA0S6iO027174; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 16:28:07 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <6.0.0.22.2.20031209161256.03afcbd0@mira-sjc5-6.cisco.com> Both header lines are (or should be and probably are) unique. So you now could use them, build a checksum, sign it with your private key and get something like 'JK807JK8JK90KLKL'. Now you add a Header like X-Signature: sj-core-4.cisco.com; sign='JK807JK8JK90KLKL' I can now (as the recipient) lookup your public key and validate, whether the above two lines match the signature in the X-Signature: line. So far so good. But now, what stops a spammer from copying the two lines and the X-Signature line and create a new email useing the stolen headers like: Received: from sj-core-4.cisco.com by mail.example.net with ESMTP id 1234567890; Wed, 10 Dec 02:02:32 +0100 (CEST) X-Signature: mail.example.com; sign='908865KJGLSD0987' Received: from mbaugher-w2k07.cisco.com (sjc-vpn3-38.cisco.com [10.21.64.38]) by sj-core-4.cisco.com (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id hBA0S6iO027174; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 16:28:07 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <6.0.0.22.2.20031209161256.03afcbd0@mira-sjc5-6.cisco.com> X-Signature: sj-core-4.cisco.com; sign='JK807JK8JK90KLKL' How would you know that the message NOT really originated (or was sent via) sj-core-4.cisco.com? As a lot of software modifies/replaces/deletes both the message headers and the message bodies you can't simply base your digest and signature on this information. > If the spammer sends from MTA.o, then wouldn't we expect MTA.o > to have a policy to not forward mail that it had previously > signed? No. Why? If I get an eMail from a friend with an address at a public mail service provider (aka freemail) and think it is funny, why should it not be possible to bounce the message on to another friend at the same freemail provider as the original sender? Or think of simple addresslists ... cat >> .forward (for jokes@example.net) joe@example.com jane@example.com jill@example.org Now bert@example.org sends mail to jokes@example.net and the mail will go back to the originating system to jill@example.org. > If it comes from some MTA.x then a legitimate MTA.x might > reasonably have a policy of not forwarding mail signed by > some MTA.o unless (1) it has some MTA.i relationship > with MTA.o, which will rarely be the case, and How can you detect relationships between MTA.x and MTA.i? What do you mean with relationships between MTA.x and MTA.i? > (2) it was in fact received from MTA.o. To determine this is the problem ;-) > If MTA.x is not legit, then won't MTA.r make a determination > on the validity of the message based on the trust it places > in the signature of MTA.x and not MTA.o? How do you determine that "MTA.x is not legit"? Is dsl081-084-010.lax1.dsl.speakeasy.net [64.81.84.10] legit if it can provide a certificate? What must be the object of the certificate (sorry I don't know the correct english word, what is it that is certified? Is it the name? is it the IP address?) If it tries to inject an email with an envelope sender joe@example.com and a recipient address in your domain and it has a legit certificate (whatever that means) how can you determine if the message really originated at MTA.o? Yahoo's answer would be "look at the signature", but we've seen above that it is hard to put a signature in a email and making it secure and not stealable. \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 Dec 10 00:57:30 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA03403 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 00:57:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATxLY-0002KB-Ak for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 00:57:17 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBA5vGcP008929 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 00:57:16 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATxLY-0002Jw-5D for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 00:57:16 -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 AAA03399 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 00:56:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATxLV-0003bO-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 00:57:13 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATxLV-0003bL-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 00:57:13 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATxLI-0002Hj-4p; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 00:57:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATxIc-0002FT-NQ for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 00:54:14 -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 AAA03358 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 00:53:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATxIZ-0003Xz-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 00:54:11 -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 1ATxIZ-0003XJ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 00:54:11 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-387-493.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.227.195]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HPO00DJR0AIAG@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 05:52:02 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - DNS + PKI - Yahoo's "Domain Keys" In-reply-to: <20031209221554.GH76454@Space.Net> To: Markus Stumpf Cc: asrg@ietf.org Message-id: <3FD6B47B.8000703@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: <20031208183344.1857A16CD1@mail.nitros9.org> <3FD4E090.8000808@solidmatrix.com> <20031209193652.GA76454@Space.Net> <3FD626AC.9010002@solidmatrix.com> <20031209201709.GC76454@Space.Net> <3FD63F28.4020608@solidmatrix.com> <20031209221554.GH76454@Space.Net> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 00:51:55 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Markus Stumpf wrote: > On Tue, Dec 09, 2003 at 04:31:20PM -0500, Yakov Shafranovich wrote: [..] >>But your underlying objection is correct - headers get changed and added >>all the time. The question would be whether that will significantly >>affect this scheme and how to deal with it. Signing a select group of >>headers AND requiring MTAs that send signed messages to have those >>headers present might be one way of it. > > > What I see as problem is: > > Imagine a header > X-Signature: mail.example.com; sign=439KJHD9087KJKLHKJ7LKJJLK > Now I can check back with mail.example.com and validate the sign. Fine. > A spammer can now simply use that and it will be ok for everyone. > Now I want more security. Thus I need some variable token. One > possibility would be to use a date and give messages a lifetime. > X-Signature: mail.example.com; date=20031209-23:06:17; sign=439KJHD9087KJKLHKJ7LKJJLK > Now the signature would be calculated using "mail.example.com" and the > varibale part "20031209-23:06:17". If it matches "439KJHD9087KJKLHKJ7LKJJLK" > the message will be accepted. A spammer can now simply use that very > line and it will be ok for everyone, at least until some expiration > date. However that has to be at least some days to compensate for > poorly configured hosts with wrong times or for message delays on relay > SMTP servers or the like. For a spammer it is rather easy to get a > valid line that is still valid for say 5 days: subscribe to any mailinglist > and the records are delivered right to your mailbox. > Lets say that a spammer does do a replay attack. Wouldn't signing the message (body and headers) force the spammers to be able to send identical spams if they want them to appear to come from that domain? Wouldn't that also mean that systems that rely on identical spam content such as DCC, would be able to catch the spams easier? What it seems to me now, is that this proposal is not meant to be by itself, it rather addresses only certain points and tricks that spammers use. But cutting away the ability to joe-job a site unless you want to send all of your messages as identical, would definatly help some what. 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 Wed Dec 10 02:08:54 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA13283 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 02:08:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATySP-0004uf-Q3 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 02:08:26 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBA78PTi018851 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 02:08:25 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATySM-0004tm-El for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 02:08:22 -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 CAA12719 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 02:08:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATySI-0004RO-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 02:08:18 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATySI-0004RL-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 02:08:18 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATyS2-0004li-Ao; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 02:08:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATyRD-0004Vi-Fs for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 02:07:11 -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 CAA11549 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 02:07:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATyR9-0004QB-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 02:07:07 -0500 Received: from wbar3.sjo1-4-11-008-053.sjo1.dsl-verizon.net ([4.11.8.53] helo=candle.brasslantern.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATyR8-0004Q8-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 02:07:07 -0500 Received: (from schaefer@localhost) by candle.brasslantern.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id hBA771t28692 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 23:07:01 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: candle.brasslantern.com: schaefer set sender to schaefer@closedmail.com using -f From: Bart Schaefer Message-Id: <1031210070701.ZM28691@candle.brasslantern.com> In-Reply-To: <01c201c3beaf$fe7aa2b0$6401a8c0@FAMILY> Comments: In reply to "Hector Santos" "Re: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals: MTA MARK" (Dec 9, 6:55pm) References: <20031209181028.D8D8216FAC@mail.nitros9.org> <00ed01c3be87$15f0c970$6401a8c0@FAMILY> <3FD64EF9.9060509@zemos.net> <01c201c3beaf$fe7aa2b0$6401a8c0@FAMILY> X-Mailer: Z-Mail (5.0.0 30July97) To: Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals: MTA MARK 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, 10 Dec 2003 07:07:01 +0000 I am not a lawyer, but as it happens, I _have_ read the CAN-SPAM bill. You can look at it here: http://www.spamlaws.com/federal/108s877.html On Dec 9, 6:55pm, Hector Santos wrote: } } If proposal Y covers CAN-SPAM, it will be used over Proposal X which } does not. It doesn't really make sense to discuss technical changes to MUAs or MTAs in the context of CAN-SPAM Act "return address requirements." The main thrust of the Act prohibits senders from using false or misleading header information. A secondary provision is that unsolicted commercial messages must have a working opt-out mechanism -- which includes "other Internet- based" mechanisms, as well as the return address. In other words, the Act does NOT require the return address to be valid as long as there's some other obvious way to ask the sender to stop. There's even an explicit provision saying that temporary failure of the reply mechanism is not considered a violation of the Act. And the requirements have absolutely no bearing on any message that does not fall within the Act's definition of "commercial." } The potential problem I see with any proposal that does not support } CAN-SPAM requirements is that it opens the legal door for CAN-SPAM } compliant spammers to legally sue those systems that are rejecting } mail using non-CAN-SPAM methods. Baseless FUD. Secion 8 of the Act: > * (c) NO EFFECT ON POLICIES OF PROVIDERS OF INTERNET ACCESS > SERVICE- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to have any > effect on the lawfulness or unlawfulness, under any other > provision of law, of the adoption, implementation, or > enforcement by a provider of Internet access service of a > policy of declining to transmit, route, relay, handle, or store > certain types of electronic mail messages. } Again, I have not read the CAN-SPAM bill yet, but I believe I also } read (here) that the bill stated mail systems must be IETF compliant. } No? No. Here's the actual language ("The Commission" is the FTC): > * The Commission shall transmit to the Senate Committee on > Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the House of > Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce-- [...] > * (2) 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. * That's the ONLY reference to the IETF in the Act. It places requirements on the FTC report, not on mail systems. } Remember, CAN-SPAM is a double edge, it places controls and } restrictions but it also gives spammers the legal authority to } send spam and if a mail system is rejecting/filtering mail using } non-CAN-SPAM methodologies, it can potentially opens Pandora's box. Again, I think you're speaking based on a misconception. CAN-SPAM may have several edges, but this is not one of them. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Dec 10 04:23:47 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA05190 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 04:23:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AU0Yw-0002jd-U3 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 04:23:19 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBA9NIrQ010507 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 04:23:18 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AU0Yw-0002jO-Hq for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 04:23:18 -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 EAA05165 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 04:23:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AU0Yt-0006Ad-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 04:23:15 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AU0Yt-0006AZ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 04:23:15 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AU0Yg-0002gw-5F; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 04:23:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AU0Xo-0002g7-Oe for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 04:22:08 -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 EAA05139 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 04:22:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AU0Xl-00069W-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 04:22:05 -0500 Received: from guttormur.frisk-software.com ([213.220.100.9]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AU0Xl-00069L-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 04:22:05 -0500 Received: by guttormur.frisk-software.com (Postfix, from userid 517) id E8DF63801E; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 09:21:30 +0000 (GMT) Received: from localhost.localdomain. (pc28.frisk-software.com [172.16.5.2]) by guttormur.frisk-software.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B288438014 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 09:21:30 +0000 (GMT) Received: by localhost.localdomain. (8.9.3/client-1.3) id JAA12653; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 09:21:31 GMT From: Fridrik Skulason To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals: MTA MARK Message-ID: <20031210092131.GO6117@f-prot.com> References: <20031209181028.D8D8216FAC@mail.nitros9.org> <00ed01c3be87$15f0c970$6401a8c0@FAMILY> <3FD64EF9.9060509@zemos.net> <01c201c3beaf$fe7aa2b0$6401a8c0@FAMILY> <20031210001246.GB96487@Space.Net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20031210001246.GB96487@Space.Net> 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: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 09:21:31 +0000 > Please remember that CAN-SPAM (as a law) is totally irrelevant to most of > the world. Unfortunately that's not quite the case. The law may make it more difficult for people outside the US to stop spammers operating from the US. There are also potential problems for non-US suppliers of anti-spam software and solutions, trying to sell their software in the US. -- 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 Wed Dec 10 04:59:41 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA05845 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 04:59:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AU17h-0003hq-Re for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 04:59:13 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBA9xD6l014245 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 04:59:13 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AU17g-0003hg-J6 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 04:59:12 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA05842 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 04:59:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AU17d-0006Xr-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 04:59:09 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AU17d-0006Xo-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 04:59:09 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AU17U-0003fU-RR; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 04:59:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AU17N-0003fF-4F for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 04:58:53 -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 EAA05836 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 04:58:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AU17J-0006Xl-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 04:58:49 -0500 Received: from guttormur.frisk-software.com ([213.220.100.9]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AU17J-0006Xh-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 04:58:49 -0500 Received: by guttormur.frisk-software.com (Postfix, from userid 517) id D73BA38040; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 09:58:20 +0000 (GMT) Received: from localhost.localdomain. (pc28.frisk-software.com [172.16.5.2]) by guttormur.frisk-software.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2C0E38029 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 09:58:20 +0000 (GMT) Received: by localhost.localdomain. (8.9.3/client-1.3) id JAA12718; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 09:58:22 GMT From: Fridrik Skulason To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - DNS + PKI - Yahoo's "Domain Keys" Message-ID: <20031210095821.GA12689@f-prot.com> References: <20031208183344.1857A16CD1@mail.nitros9.org> <3FD4E090.8000808@solidmatrix.com> <20031209193652.GA76454@Space.Net> <3FD626AC.9010002@solidmatrix.com> <20031209201709.GC76454@Space.Net> <3FD63F28.4020608@solidmatrix.com> <20031209221554.GH76454@Space.Net> <3FD6B47B.8000703@solidmatrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3FD6B47B.8000703@solidmatrix.com> 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: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 09:58:21 +0000 > What it seems to me now, is that this proposal is not meant to be by > itself, it rather addresses only certain points and tricks that spammers > use. But cutting away the ability to joe-job a site unless you want to > send all of your messages as identical, would definatly help some what. But it doesn't even do that - a "replay" does not have to involve just a single message, but rather a large number of similar messages. Consider this scenario: A spammer gets an account at yahoo.com and sends (to some throwaway.com address) a few thousand almost identical messages, each of which gets properly signed by Yahoo. Then throwaway.com starts spamming those messages, with Yahoo's signature, and the headers faked to make it look like the message comes from Yahoo ... sure, the IP number does not belong to Yahoo, but unless you have something like LMAP you are out of luck in that respect. Of course the spammer takes certain precautions, such as not sending the same variant of the message twice to the same domain - thus trying to reduce the chance of anyone noticing two *identical* messages. Or am I missing something? -- 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 Wed Dec 10 05:03:40 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA05945 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 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 1AU1BW-0003xV-ML for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 05:03:12 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBAA3Af0015211 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 05:03:10 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AU1BU-0003xG-Rq for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 05:03:08 -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 FAA05938 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 05:03:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AU1BR-0006cU-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 05:03:05 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AU1BR-0006cR-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 05:03:05 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AU1BN-0003rV-Gd; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 05:03:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AU1Al-0003qh-RO for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 05:02:23 -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 FAA05932 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 05:02:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AU1Ai-0006cC-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 05:02:20 -0500 Received: from argon.connectinternetsolutions.com ([193.110.243.33] helo=argon.connect.org.uk) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AU1Ai-0006c9-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 05:02:20 -0500 Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 1AU1Aj-0005gC-EV for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 10:02:21 +0000 To: "ASRG" From: "Jon Kyme" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.10.1] X-connectmail-Originating-IP: 172.25.243.3 Message-Id: Subject: [Asrg] 0. General - spammers owning php/apache Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 10:02:21 +0000 FYI and in case you haven't seen this yet: "detailing how spammers r00ted an Apache server, and used it to send" http://www.securityfocus.com/guest/24043 -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Dec 10 07:15:49 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA09163 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 07:15:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AU3FN-00088t-G6 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 07:15:19 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBACFHcQ031296 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 07:15:17 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AU3FN-00088h-9r for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 07:15:17 -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 HAA09136 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 07:15:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AU3FM-0000Tw-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 07:15:16 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AU3FM-0000Tt-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 07:15:16 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AU3F8-000866-Jm; Wed, 10 Dec 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 1AU3Ek-00084V-Ip for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 07:14:38 -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 HAA09119 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 07:14:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AU3Ek-0000TK-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 07:14:38 -0500 Received: from [194.197.204.198] (helo=netcityzen.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AU3Ej-0000TD-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 07:14:37 -0500 Received: (qmail 30948 invoked from network); 10 Dec 2003 12:14:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO JIM) (195.165.168.88) by www.netcityzen.com with SMTP; 10 Dec 2003 12:14:23 -0000 Message-ID: <008401c3bf17$298f8350$6400a8c0@INTRA.KOODIA.FI> From: "Tomi Panula-Ontto" To: "ASRG" References: <20031209181028.D8D8216FAC@mail.nitros9.org> Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals: MTA MARK 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, 10 Dec 2003 14:14:29 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Alan DeKok wrote: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alan DeKok" To: Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2003 8:10 PM Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals: MTA MARK > "Tomi Panula-Ontto" wrote: > > LMAP is based on two concepts: publication of policy by a domain, and > > application of that policy by a recipient MTA. > > Exactly. > > > I fear that LMAP doesn't address the problem. Why so? > > Who can prevent spammers from stealing credit cards and > > registering thousands of domains to use in their spamming > > business? > > Law enforcement. Theft of credit cards isn't an issue we can solve > in the network. Yes.. but spam generated from these domains is something we can solve. What I mean is: Domains are simple and easy to register. In simply few hours one is able to register a domain and setup it for spamming. Networks are different thing. It isn't that easy to register a C-block for your company and set it up. We need to secure the network [to protect ourselves and others], not just domains. > Right now, much of spammers behaviour is already illegal. LMAP > makes it more likely for them to engage in more illegal behaviour. > This makes them easier to catch, and gives law enforcement more > inducement to catch them. In the detailed story of compromised server [link posted by Jon Kyme], there are couple of countries ilvolved. At least Russia, Germany and Portugal are mentioned. (Here is the link http://www.securityfocus.com/guest/24043) Not knowing in which country the spammer actually operates, it'll be damn hard job for the law enforcement to catch up with these guys. And it usually requires that the company, whose computers are compromised, must make report of an offence. Usually [in my experience] companies don't want bad publicity. Their reputation is at stake. So, if companies don't want to make it official, how can the law enforcement ever catch up with them? > It also gives registrars more inducement to do sanity checking on > registration, if large percentages of registrations are found to be > fraudulent & criminal. Theft of credit cards is just an example. They can as well buy the domains legally. It really depends how much money they are making. Tomi _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Dec 10 07:52:36 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA10322 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 07:52:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AU3p1-00017c-Kn for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 07:52:07 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBACq7cL004306 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 07:52:07 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AU3p1-00017N-Cv for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 07:52:07 -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 HAA10313 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 07:52:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AU3p0-00016O-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 07:52:06 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AU3p0-00016L-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 07:52:06 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AU3ou-00015A-RR; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 07:52:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AU3oE-00014m-Uf for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 07:51:18 -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 HAA10290 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 07:51:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AU3oE-00015K-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 07:51:18 -0500 Received: from [194.197.204.198] (helo=netcityzen.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AU3oD-00015F-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 07:51:17 -0500 Received: (qmail 31562 invoked from network); 10 Dec 2003 12:51:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO JIM) (195.165.168.88) by www.netcityzen.com with SMTP; 10 Dec 2003 12:51:05 -0000 Message-ID: <009501c3bf1c$4a00c5e0$6400a8c0@INTRA.KOODIA.FI> From: "Tomi Panula-Ontto" To: References: <00e001c3b5ac$ab5f55a0$6400a8c0@INTRA.KOODIA.FI> <3FC78099.8080409@elvey.com> <004c01c3b650$60c77870$0323a8c0@Jimiboy> <3FC92518.2020604@elvey.com> <008e01c3b81b$53cbaa70$6400a8c0@INTRA.KOODIA.FI> <3FD2079B.80106@elvey.com> <009a01c3be43$5d74fc60$6400a8c0@INTRA.KOODIA.FI> <3FD62AA0.8000606@solidmatrix.com> Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals: MTA MARK 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, 10 Dec 2003 14:51:11 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Yakov Shafranovich wrote: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Yakov Shafranovich" To: "Tomi Panula-Ontto" Cc: Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2003 10:03 PM Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals: MTA MARK > Tomi Panula-Ontto wrote: > [..] > > I don't know how spammers operate, but they really seem quite > > professional at it, since whenever I have added a new RBL > > sources to my blacklisting MTA the amount of spam is reduced > > only for few days or perhaps weeks. Pretty soon, they are able > > to reroute whole damn thing and we are back on the same level > > we started from. > > > > And they are doing the very same thing in message headers, > > the message itself. They are trying to keep ahead of the spam > > prevention and they're really doing pretty good job there. > > They get their living out of it. > > > > Do you really think they would not do it for LMAP? Or any > > other means? Of course they will. As long as they can. > > If there are easy, and relatively cheap ways to circumvent > > a problem, then they'll do it. > > > > If spam can be looked at as a disease than RBLs are treating the > symptoms by listing IPs that are likely to abuse the network. LMAP, MTA > MARK and related proposals are more geared towards treating the causes > of the disease by addressing some of the architechtural issues on the > Internet that allow spam to proliferate. For example, spammers are free > to forge the MAIL FROM address with any domain in place. LMAP addresses > this forgery issue forcing spammers to use their own domains. MTA MARK > addresses the issue of hijacked computers being used for sending spam. True, but actually, MTAMark and ReverseMX don't address the issue of hijacked computers completely. It merely changes the situation so that the hijacked computer will not take direct connections to the receiving MTAs, but instead spammers must try a) to make the hijacked computers send messages via registered MTA for that network b) hijack the dns server (to register that hijacked computer) c) hijack the registered MTA d) any ideas? Anyway, it'll limit their possibilities and will target their efforts on compromising the MTAs, workstations and DNS servers. > All of these simply reduce the freedom that spammers currently have to > do their deeds. With that freedom reduced spammers will be left with > less methods to be used, all of which would allow greater traceability. > Combined with proper law enforcement, cooperating ISPs, and registrars, > this can help reduce the problem by tracing spam to the real world. One interesting point.. since spammers are knowledgeable and follow their time - they are propably reading this list, too. Either archived version or the subscribed one. I wonder if any of the subscribers or IP addresses in the list archive weblog can be tracked to spammers... I don't mean to offend anyone, I just wonder what kind of security additions they would suggest. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Dec 10 14:07:31 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA10301 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 14:07:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AU9fr-0008DG-Js for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 14:07:03 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBAJ73RF031547 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 14:07:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AU9fp-0008Bu-Dj for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 14:07:02 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA10029 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 14:06:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AU9fm-0005wk-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 14:06:59 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AU9fm-0005wb-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 14:06:58 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AU9es-0007zY-Qq; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 14:06:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AU9e2-0007rV-JC for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 14:05:10 -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 MAA09087 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 12:25:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AU85b-0002FR-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 12:25:31 -0500 Received: from guttormur.frisk-software.com ([213.220.100.9]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AU85a-0001r7-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 12:25:31 -0500 Received: by guttormur.frisk-software.com (Postfix, from userid 517) id 825443802C; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 17:25:00 +0000 (GMT) Received: from localhost.localdomain. (pc28.frisk-software.com [172.16.5.2]) by guttormur.frisk-software.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E3C538014 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 17:25:00 +0000 (GMT) Received: by localhost.localdomain. (8.9.3/client-1.3) id RAA12961; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 17:25:01 GMT From: Fridrik Skulason To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals: MTA MARK Message-ID: <20031210172500.GC12890@f-prot.com> References: <20031209181028.D8D8216FAC@mail.nitros9.org> <008401c3bf17$298f8350$6400a8c0@INTRA.KOODIA.FI> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <008401c3bf17$298f8350$6400a8c0@INTRA.KOODIA.FI> 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: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 17:25:00 +0000 _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Dec 10 14:14:33 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA10763 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 14:14:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AU9mg-000126-8c for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 14:14:06 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBAJE6Xl003964 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 14:14:06 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AU9mg-00011r-4J for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 14:14:06 -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 OAA10742 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 14:14:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AU9md-0006EU-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 14:14:03 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AU9md-0006ER-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 14:14:03 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AU9mb-0000vy-0y; Wed, 10 Dec 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 1AU9le-0000vJ-Pn for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 14:13:02 -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 OAA10731 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 14:12:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AU9lb-0006Cq-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 14:13:00 -0500 Received: from mail.crlf.net ([216.126.92.195]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AU9lb-0006CY-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 14:12:59 -0500 Received: by mail.crlf.net (Postfix, from userid 100) id E3AF01F001; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 14:16:34 -0500 (EST) From: David Maxwell To: Tomi Panula-Ontto Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals: MTA MARK Message-ID: <20031210191634.GJ29673@mail> References: <00e001c3b5ac$ab5f55a0$6400a8c0@INTRA.KOODIA.FI> <3FC78099.8080409@elvey.com> <004c01c3b650$60c77870$0323a8c0@Jimiboy> <3FC92518.2020604@elvey.com> <008e01c3b81b$53cbaa70$6400a8c0@INTRA.KOODIA.FI> <3FD2079B.80106@elvey.com> <009a01c3be43$5d74fc60$6400a8c0@INTRA.KOODIA.FI> <3FD62AA0.8000606@solidmatrix.com> <009501c3bf1c$4a00c5e0$6400a8c0@INTRA.KOODIA.FI> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <009501c3bf1c$4a00c5e0$6400a8c0@INTRA.KOODIA.FI> 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, 10 Dec 2003 14:16:34 -0500 On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 02:51:11PM +0200, Tomi Panula-Ontto wrote: > True, but actually, MTAMark and ReverseMX don't address the issue of > hijacked computers completely. It merely changes the situation so that > the hijacked computer will not take direct connections to the receiving > MTAs, > but instead spammers must try > a) to make the hijacked computers send messages via registered MTA for that > network > b) hijack the dns server (to register that hijacked computer) > c) hijack the registered MTA > d) any ideas? > > Anyway, it'll limit their possibilities and will target their efforts > on compromising the MTAs, workstations and DNS servers. The key is: MUA running machines are maintained by end-users. MTA/DNS running machines are maintained by network administrators. The MTA/DNS machines are likely to be orders of magnitude more safe from attacks, due to correct configuration, choice of OS, up to date patch sets... -- David Maxwell, david@vex.net|david@maxwell.net --> Net Musing #5: Redundancy in a network doesn't mean two of everything and half the staff to run it. - Tomas T. Peiser, CET _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Dec 10 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 OAA10902 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 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 1AU9qO-0001K0-3D for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 14:17:56 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBAJHuae005074 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 14:17:56 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AU9qN-0001JW-8Q for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 14:17:55 -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 OAA10863 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 14:17:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AU9qK-0006Kr-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 14:17:52 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AU9qK-0006Kl-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 14:17:52 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AU9pU-0001B9-2J; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 14:17:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AU9oc-0001AH-9k for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 14:16:06 -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 OAA10810 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 14:16:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AU9oZ-0006GV-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 14:16:03 -0500 Received: from mail.crlf.net ([216.126.92.195]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AU9oZ-0006GR-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 14:16:03 -0500 Received: by mail.crlf.net (Postfix, from userid 100) id 6CD741F001; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 14:19:43 -0500 (EST) From: David Maxwell To: asrg@ietf.org Message-ID: <20031210191943.GK29673@mail> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Subject: [Asrg] 6. Proposals: MTA MARK vs port 25 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: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 14:19:43 -0500 One question I have about MTAMark - how does its effect differ from the effect of blocking outbound port 25 (other than from authorized MTAs)? In one way, port blocking is better, since it requires no implementation on the recipient's side. However, MTAMark would give the recipient the responsibility for the consent decision. -- 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 Dec 10 14:18:25 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA10917 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 14:18:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AU9qN-0001Jl-9q for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 14:17:57 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBAJHtAJ005059 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 14:17:55 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AU9qN-0001JV-4a for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 14:17:55 -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 OAA10860 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 14:17:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AU9qK-0006Kp-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 14:17:52 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AU9qK-0006Kk-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 14:17:52 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AU9pU-0001BK-H4; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 14:17:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AU9oy-0001AX-FQ for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 14:16:28 -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 OAA10817 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 14:16:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AU9ov-0006H9-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 14:16:25 -0500 Received: from relay.purespeed.com ([63.210.22.4]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AU9ov-0006H6-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 14:16:25 -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 E197418037; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 13:56:29 -0500 (EST) From: "Eric Dean" To: "'J C Lawrence'" Cc: "'Yakov Shafranovich'" , "'ASRG'" Subject: RE: [Asrg] 0. General - Review of the CRI subgroup Message-ID: <010c01c3bf52$d5e00e00$6401a8c0@sohonotebook> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 In-Reply-To: <23330.1071014141@kanga.nu> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 14:21:39 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Yes, there is a general consensus that consent-based methods are prefered; however, CRI is low hanging fruit and can be used to validate some assumptions of consent-based. In short, CRI is a subset of consent-based...but a bit more widely deployed (though not much) If you are willing to hack code..so am I. > -----Original Message----- > From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of J C Lawrence > Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2003 6:56 PM > To: Eric Dean > Cc: 'Yakov Shafranovich'; 'ASRG' > Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - Review of the CRI subgroup > > > On Tue, 9 Dec 2003 17:02:14 -0500 > Eric Dean wrote: > > > Where we left off was in the process of building an interworking > > between two or more interested parties. > > > I have a general concern around the amount of chatter in > this RTF vs > > actual work being performed. It's quite frustrating to produce a > > document for the benefit of the group to have it swept aside as > > yesterday's news. > > I have been absent from this list for some months. CRI > appears to be based on/inspired by a consent token protocol I > noodled in May of this > year: > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.asrg/3303 The current CRI protocol has moved away from binding tokens into email addresses and message IDs apparently on the grounds of mail header length limits. However cursory scanning of the archives didn't reveal identified cases where header length limits would be a problem, or a clear assertion of why a consent token might need to be long/complex enough to exceed RFC 2822 header lengths. Was there a substantial reason for moving to an abstract MIME type? More significantly to my mind CRI clouds the distinction between consent determination/maintenance and challenge/response (C/R is one method of obtaining consent, but by no means need be the only one). Was there a substantial reason for narrowing the problem specification explicitly to C/R from the more general question of consent definition and manipulation? I will have some free cycles in the new year. If there is interest I'm willing to move my prior noodles into draft form as well as to assist in producing a TMDA patch which implements the protocol as a sample/reference implementation (note that TMDA is a mail filter which may be used for C/R and which implements a C/R system as a default case). -- 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 _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Dec 10 14:55:42 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA12341 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 14:55:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUAQT-00033i-AD for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 14:55:15 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBAJtDw4011752 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 14:55:13 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUAQT-00033T-41 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 14:55:13 -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 OAA12336 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 14:55:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUAQO-0007Le-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 14:55:08 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUAQO-0007Lb-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 14:55:08 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUAQI-00030x-Hm; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 14:55:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUAPt-00030Y-Et for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 14:54:37 -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 OAA12330 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 14:54:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUAPq-0007Ku-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 14:54:34 -0500 Received: from newgiles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ([205.150.200.131] helo=mail.nitros9.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUAPp-0007Kq-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 14:54:33 -0500 Received: from newgiles.nitros9.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.nitros9.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 942D916FCA for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 14:55:06 -0500 (EST) From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals: MTA MARK vs port 25 filtering? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 10 Dec 2003 14:19:43 EST." <20031210191943.GK29673@mail> Message-Id: <20031210195506.942D916FCA@mail.nitros9.org> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 14:55:06 -0500 David Maxwell wrote: > One question I have about MTAMark - how does its effect differ from the > effect of blocking outbound port 25 (other than from authorized MTAs)? Source filtering is more network friendly than recipient filtering. > In one way, port blocking is better, since it requires no implementation > on the recipient's side. However, MTAMark would give the recipient the > responsibility for the consent decision. The benefit of port blocking is that it makes a local network responsible for it's own behaviour. The problem is that there are currently few options deployed to work around port blocking. (SUBMIT? Who uses that?) The benefit of MTAMark is that it allows roaming users to continue to use 10-year old protocols and behaviours, so long as the recipient chooses to ignore MTAMark. This works if the recipient can authenticate the roaming user. The problem of MTAMark is that it pushes responsibility for the traffic onto the recipient. Broken senders can still flood the network with garbage, so long as the recipient is smart enough to throw it away. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Dec 10 15:09:38 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA13375 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 15:09:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUAdy-00047H-Mm for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 15:09:11 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBAK9Ama015817 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 15:09:10 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUAdy-000472-IU for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 15:09:10 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA13324 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 15:09:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUAdu-0000Nn-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 15:09:07 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUAdu-0000Nk-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 15:09:06 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUAdo-00044K-AO; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 15:09:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUAdk-00043n-SS for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 15:08:56 -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 PAA13270 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 15:08:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUAdf-0000MX-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 15:08:51 -0500 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=manatick) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUAbE-00006i-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 15:06:20 -0500 Received: from moebius2.space.net ([195.30.1.100]) by manatick with smtp (Exim 4.24) id 1AUAbF-00066l-6z for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 15:06:21 -0500 Received: (qmail 37745 invoked by uid 1013); 10 Dec 2003 20:05:18 -0000 From: Markus Stumpf To: David Maxwell Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals: MTA MARK vs port 25 filtering? Message-ID: <20031210200518.GA34693@Space.Net> References: <20031210191943.GK29673@mail> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20031210191943.GK29673@mail> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Organization: SpaceNet AG, Muenchen, Germany X-PGP-Fingerprint: 66 F3 75 79 01 D0 B8 5F 1A C7 77 88 4A B6 70 DF Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 21:05:18 +0100 On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 02:19:43PM -0500, David Maxwell wrote: > One question I have about MTAMark - how does its effect differ from the > effect of blocking outbound port 25 (other than from authorized MTAs)? Blocking ports can only be done in Routers or Firewalls. 1) Such rules, especially with a lot of exceptions are very expensive in terms of CPU cycles. So as e.g. an ISP you don't want to put a port 25 filter in your border routers and then maintain exception lists. Routers and Firewalls have to be really fast, you don't want to poke holes in easy and fast rules unless it is absolutely necessary. 2) Lists like that have to be maintained by rather highly skilled personnel. Customer-Interfaces to DNS management are widely deployed and can easily be adopted to give customers the ability to maintain their revDNS structure. For MTA MARK this can be as easy as giving the customer a list of IP-addresses with checkboxes "is an MTA yes/no". This is a big difference in skills as compared to adding rules to the firewall or router. 3) You need the hardware/software capable of doing the blocking, so this is also a cost factor. 4) If you are running a small business or a workstation the firewall might be useless, as an attacker that gains admin priviledges can also disable the firewall. Accessing the DNS configuration at your ISP will not be as easy. 5) With MTA MARK I as a receiver know what the intention of the maintainer of the IP space is. With a port 25 block not being there I don't know if it is on purpose or if it is a mistake. 6) If it can be solved with port 25 filtering this would be great. But the technique to do it is there for years. Why is spam still a problem? \Maex _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Dec 10 16:44:43 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA19982 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 16:44:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUC7z-0000Nr-JE for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 16:44:15 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBALiFeq001465 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 16:44:15 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUC7y-0000NY-Td for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 16:44:14 -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 QAA19963 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 16:44:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUC7w-0002lc-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 16:44:12 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUC7v-0002lZ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 16:44:11 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUC7l-0000Ku-PA; Wed, 10 Dec 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 1AUC73-0000KK-Q4 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 16:43:18 -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 QAA19922 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 16:43:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUC71-0002kn-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 16:43:15 -0500 Received: from newgiles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ([205.150.200.131] helo=mail.nitros9.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUC70-0002kj-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 16:43:14 -0500 Received: from newgiles.nitros9.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.nitros9.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A06816FCA for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 16:43:44 -0500 (EST) From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals: MTA MARK vs port 25 filtering? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 10 Dec 2003 21:05:18 +0100." <20031210200518.GA34693@Space.Net> Message-Id: <20031210214344.7A06816FCA@mail.nitros9.org> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 16:43:44 -0500 Markus Stumpf wrote: > 3) You need the hardware/software capable of doing the blocking, so this > is also a cost factor. Nonsense. Then the recipient has to do that blocking. Why offload costs from the sender to the recipient? I admit it's a great business model for ISP's: Send gigabytes of crap onto the backbone, because it's cheaper to let someone else deal with it, than to fix your own network. The problem is that spammers have exactly the same business model, and we already know it's unethical. > 5) With MTA MARK I as a receiver know what the intention of the > maintainer of the IP space is. With a port 25 block not being there I > don't know if it is on purpose or if it is a mistake. Publication of site policy is definitely a good thing. > 6) If it can be solved with port 25 filtering this would be great. But > the technique to do it is there for years. Why is spam still a problem? Because of the people who DON'T block port 25. Moving to MTAMark will have the same deployment issues. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Dec 10 17:35:42 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA22393 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 17:35:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUCvK-0002ur-Jm for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 17:35:15 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBAMZEMd011203 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 17:35:14 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUCvK-0002uc-ER for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 17:35:14 -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 RAA22378 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 17:35:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUCvH-0003mt-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 17:35:11 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUCvH-0003mq-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 17:35:11 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUCv8-0002qW-LI; Wed, 10 Dec 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 1AUCtd-0002pL-5r for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 17:33:29 -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 RAA22314 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 17:33:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUCta-0003lq-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 17:33:26 -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 1AUCtZ-0003lV-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 17:33:25 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-377-961.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.190.172]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HPP00HTXAMCXG@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 22:32:42 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals: MTA MARK In-reply-to: <20031210191634.GJ29673@mail> To: David Maxwell Cc: Tomi Panula-Ontto , asrg@ietf.org Message-id: <3FD79F05.7060908@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> <3FC78099.8080409@elvey.com> <004c01c3b650$60c77870$0323a8c0@Jimiboy> <3FC92518.2020604@elvey.com> <008e01c3b81b$53cbaa70$6400a8c0@INTRA.KOODIA.FI> <3FD2079B.80106@elvey.com> <009a01c3be43$5d74fc60$6400a8c0@INTRA.KOODIA.FI> <3FD62AA0.8000606@solidmatrix.com> <009501c3bf1c$4a00c5e0$6400a8c0@INTRA.KOODIA.FI> <20031210191634.GJ29673@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: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 17:32:37 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT David Maxwell wrote: > On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 02:51:11PM +0200, Tomi Panula-Ontto wrote: > >>True, but actually, MTAMark and ReverseMX don't address the issue of >>hijacked computers completely. It merely changes the situation so that >>the hijacked computer will not take direct connections to the receiving >>MTAs, >>but instead spammers must try >>a) to make the hijacked computers send messages via registered MTA for that >>network >>b) hijack the dns server (to register that hijacked computer) >>c) hijack the registered MTA >>d) any ideas? >> >>Anyway, it'll limit their possibilities and will target their efforts >>on compromising the MTAs, workstations and DNS servers. > > > The key is: > > MUA running machines are maintained by end-users. > MTA/DNS running machines are maintained by network administrators. > > The MTA/DNS machines are likely to be orders of magnitude more safe from > attacks, due to correct configuration, choice of OS, up to date patch > sets... > There are also things like rate limiting which can help with the ISP's MTA. As for DNS threats, if the DNS system begins to get attacked, this will provide an incentive towards securing it (via DNSSEC, or some other way). Threats to DNS is not really within our scope, and is being handled by one of the DNS WGs. But you are correct in stating that spammers will seek other means, and their unholy alliance with virus/worm writers, as well as hackers, will definatly increase in size. This is something that general network security folks have to worry about, and is out of the scope for this. Nevertheless, this issue should be mentioned in some document, so we are aware of it, but it is not a reason against implementing something. Yakov ------- Yakov Shafranovich / asrg shaftek.org SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / research solidmatrix.com "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" (Benjamin Franklin) ------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Dec 10 17:36:30 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA22425 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 17:36:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUCw7-00035V-HG for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 17:36:03 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBAMa3FA011870 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 17:36:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUCw6-00033m-Ry for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 17:36:02 -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 RAA22409 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 17:35:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUCw3-0003nR-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 17:35:59 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUCw3-0003nO-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 17:35:59 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUCw5-0002zM-E8; Wed, 10 Dec 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 1AUCvB-0002rE-2t for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 17:35:05 -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 RAA22374 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 17:35:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUCv7-0003mn-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 17:35:01 -0500 Received: from moebius2.space.net ([195.30.1.100]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUCv7-0003mk-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 17:35:01 -0500 Received: (qmail 45489 invoked by uid 1013); 10 Dec 2003 22:35:01 -0000 From: Markus Stumpf To: Alan DeKok Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals: MTA MARK vs port 25 filtering? Message-ID: <20031210223501.GB38275@Space.Net> References: <20031210200518.GA34693@Space.Net> <20031210214344.7A06816FCA@mail.nitros9.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20031210214344.7A06816FCA@mail.nitros9.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Organization: SpaceNet AG, Muenchen, Germany X-PGP-Fingerprint: 66 F3 75 79 01 D0 B8 5F 1A C7 77 88 4A B6 70 DF Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 23:35:01 +0100 On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 04:43:44PM -0500, Alan DeKok wrote: > Markus Stumpf wrote: > > 3) You need the hardware/software capable of doing the blocking, so this > > is also a cost factor. > > Nonsense. > > Then the recipient has to do that blocking. Why offload costs from > the sender to the recipient? Sorry, I wasn't clear. There are two possible and effective points where to filter, they don't need to be disjoint a) at the borders of the ISP b) at he gate to the customer The cost factor is high for endusers and small companies. With customers complaining about unacceptable costs for 20 USD DSL flatrates it may be hard to argue: you have to buy a firewall of vendor X and pay 3000 USD else you won't get access. > I admit it's a great business model for ISP's: Send gigabytes of > crap onto the backbone, because it's cheaper to let someone else deal > with it, than to fix your own network. I am working at an ISP. Our contracts with our customers say that we deliver Internet from our borders to the gate at the customer and vice versa. We cannot start blocking ports as we like. We can't even block spamming hosts on our customer mailstores - unless they serverly damage operating of that mailstores. > The problem is that spammers have exactly the same business model, > and we already know it's unethical. I can't see what is ethical with censorship. According to our contract they have free and uncensored access to the Internet. We have an AUP that forbids certain activities and we can terminate the contract immediately. One of those things is spamming and we did terminate contracts with spammers in the past and will do in the future. Things may be different if you sell DSL surf accounts. Then you could add paragraphs to your contract and tell your customers that you will not allow connections to port 25 in either direction. With the deployment of SRV records and with the possibility to run SMTP server on other ports than 25 wide spread of such policies will quickly make them useless. Then they will do SMTP over HTTP. > > 6) If it can be solved with port 25 filtering this would be great. But > > the technique to do it is there for years. Why is spam still a problem? > > Because of the people who DON'T block port 25. Moving to MTAMark > will have the same deployment issues. MTA MARK will make it possible to block a service originating from an IP address, regardless which port it is run on but will also make it possible for the local administrator to override that policy e.g. for roaming users with SMTP AUTH. \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 Dec 10 17:36:36 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA22440 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 17:36:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUCwE-00037a-Bs for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 17:36:10 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBAMaAkS011992 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 17:36:10 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUCwE-00037L-4Y for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 17:36:10 -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 RAA22413 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 17:36:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUCwB-0003qK-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 17:36:07 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUCwA-0003qH-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 17:36:06 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUCan-00026h-Bn; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 17:14:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUCaR-00026M-3L for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 17:13:39 -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 RAA21361 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 17:13:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUCaO-0003Pn-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 17:13:36 -0500 Received: from mail.crlf.net ([216.126.92.195]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUCaN-0003Pi-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 17:13:35 -0500 Received: by mail.crlf.net (Postfix, from userid 100) id 903B41F001; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 17:17:12 -0500 (EST) From: David Maxwell To: Markus Stumpf Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals: MTA MARK vs port 25 filtering? Message-ID: <20031210221712.GM29673@mail> References: <20031210191943.GK29673@mail> <20031210200518.GA34693@Space.Net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20031210200518.GA34693@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: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 17:17:12 -0500 On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 09:05:18PM +0100, Markus Stumpf wrote: > On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 02:19:43PM -0500, David Maxwell wrote: > > One question I have about MTAMark - how does its effect differ from the > > effect of blocking outbound port 25 (other than from authorized MTAs)? > > Blocking ports can only be done in Routers or Firewalls. > 1) Such rules, especially with a lot of exceptions are very expensive > in terms of CPU cycles. So as e.g. an ISP you don't want to put a port 25 deny * permit MTA1 permit MTA2 That isn't a very complicated ACL. I believe Cisco IOS will fastpath that in most cases (turning on some specific options will make it slow path, of course). > 2) Lists like that have to be maintained by rather highly skilled personnel. MTAs don't change very often. Adding MTA3 to the list above shouldn't be overly challenging (but I understand that you don't want a $5/h tech making that change). > 3) You need the hardware/software capable of doing the blocking, so this > is also a cost factor. Compared to the cost of people time to handle spam complaints, it's probably easy to justify. > 4) If you are running a small business or a workstation the firewall might > be useless, as an attacker that gains admin priviledges can also > disable the firewall. Accessing the DNS configuration at your ISP will > not be as easy. I was suggesting that the ISP be the org blocking 25. (I dislike network blocks in general, because they diminish the usefulness Internet, but spam does so even more.) Accessing the router at the ISP will not be as easy either. > 5) With MTA MARK I as a receiver know what the intention of the > maintainer of the IP space is. With a port 25 block not being there I > don't know if it is on purpose or if it is a mistake. Your comparison is not valid. You can't detect mistakes in the MTAMark database entries any more than you can detect errors in the ACL. > 6) If it can be solved with port 25 filtering this would be great. But > the technique to do it is there for years. Why is spam still a problem? I say that people have been unwilling to do it because they didn't perceive spam to be a serious problem. The recent escalation of spam traffic might cause them to consider it now. Of course, both problems suffer from the issue that they are on the sender side - most people are more concerned about the spam their network recieves than the spam their network sends, and they fail to perceive the relationship between the two. -- David Maxwell, david@vex.net|david@maxwell.net --> Mastery of UNIX, like mastery of language, offers real freedom. The price of freedom is always dear, but there's no substitute. Personally, I'd rather pay for my freedom than live in a bitmapped, pop-up-happy dungeon like NT. - Thomas Scoville _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Dec 10 17:41:33 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA22598 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 17:41:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUD11-0003gE-Fd for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 17:41:07 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBAMf7hL014140 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 17:41:07 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUD11-0003fz-8k for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 17:41:07 -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 RAA22589 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 17:41:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUD0y-0003vE-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 17:41:04 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUD0x-0003vB-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 17:41:03 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUD0v-0003YT-Ic; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 17:41:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUCyp-0003SP-TF for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 17:38:51 -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 RAA22521 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 17:38:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUCym-0003tY-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 17:38:48 -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 1AUCym-0003t7-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 17:38:48 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-377-961.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.190.172]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HPP00GPUAUEP8@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 22:37:31 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals: MTA MARK vs port 25 filtering? In-reply-to: <20031210214344.7A06816FCA@mail.nitros9.org> To: Alan DeKok Cc: asrg@ietf.org Message-id: <3FD7A027.7010103@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: <20031210214344.7A06816FCA@mail.nitros9.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 17:37:27 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Alan DeKok wrote: > Markus Stumpf wrote: > > >>6) If it can be solved with port 25 filtering this would be great. But >> the technique to do it is there for years. Why is spam still a problem? > > > Because of the people who DON'T block port 25. Moving to MTAMark > will have the same deployment issues. Adding another tool to our arsenal and letting both sides of the network able to respond to threats is a good thing. I see MTA Mark complementary to port 25 blocking - both tools are available and address the same issue, with one tool on the sender's side and one on the reciever. This way everybody has some tools to fight with. 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 Wed Dec 10 17:46:37 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA22689 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 17:46:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUD5u-0003ze-RL for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 17:46:10 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBAMkAB8015343 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 17:46:10 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUD5u-0003zO-JS for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 17:46:10 -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 RAA22677 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 17:46:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUD5r-0003xv-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 17:46:07 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUD5q-0003xq-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 17:46:06 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUD5l-0003uc-JB; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 17:46:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUD1d-0003iN-Ej for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 17:41:45 -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 RAA22618 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 17:41:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUD1a-0003vj-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 17:41:42 -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 1AUD1Z-0003vJ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 17:41:41 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-377-961.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.190.172]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HPP00GGDAWPP8@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 22:38:56 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals: MTA MARK vs port 25 filtering? In-reply-to: <20031210221712.GM29673@mail> To: David Maxwell Cc: Markus Stumpf , asrg@ietf.org Message-id: <3FD7A07A.2030909@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: <20031210191943.GK29673@mail> <20031210200518.GA34693@Space.Net> <20031210221712.GM29673@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: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 17:38:50 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT David Maxwell wrote: > On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 09:05:18PM +0100, Markus Stumpf wrote: >>On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 02:19:43PM -0500, David Maxwell wrote: >> [..] >>6) If it can be solved with port 25 filtering this would be great. But >> the technique to do it is there for years. Why is spam still a problem? > > > I say that people have been unwilling to do it because they didn't > perceive spam to be a serious problem. The recent escalation of spam > traffic might cause them to consider it now. > > Of course, both problems suffer from the issue that they are on the > sender side - most people are more concerned about the spam their > network recieves than the spam their network sends, and they fail to > perceive the relationship between the two. > Giving tools to both the sender and the receiver will help more than just one side having them. That's why it looks like to me that both strategies are helpful, and let both sides of the network do something about the abuse. Yakov ------- Yakov Shafranovich / asrg shaftek.org SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / research solidmatrix.com "Among all our enemies / The ones to be most feared are often the smallest" (Jean de la Fontaine) ------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Dec 10 17:46:38 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA22704 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 17:46:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUD5w-0003zv-8L for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 17:46:12 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBAMkCGb015361 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 17:46:12 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUD5u-0003zU-NC for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 17:46:12 -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 RAA22678 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 17:46:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUD5r-0003xx-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 17:46:07 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUD5q-0003xr-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 17:46:06 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUD5m-0003uw-HK; Wed, 10 Dec 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 1AUD4I-0003k2-E4 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 17:44:30 -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 RAA22640 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 17:44:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUD4F-0003we-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 17:44:27 -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 1AUD4E-0003wb-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 17:44:26 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-377-961.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.190.172]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HPP00HCQB3YXG@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 22:43:15 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - DNS + PKI - Yahoo's "Domain Keys" In-reply-to: <20031210095821.GA12689@f-prot.com> To: Fridrik Skulason Cc: asrg@ietf.org Message-id: <3FD7A17D.2060207@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: <20031208183344.1857A16CD1@mail.nitros9.org> <3FD4E090.8000808@solidmatrix.com> <20031209193652.GA76454@Space.Net> <3FD626AC.9010002@solidmatrix.com> <20031209201709.GC76454@Space.Net> <3FD63F28.4020608@solidmatrix.com> <20031209221554.GH76454@Space.Net> <3FD6B47B.8000703@solidmatrix.com> <20031210095821.GA12689@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: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 17:43:09 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Fridrik Skulason wrote: >>What it seems to me now, is that this proposal is not meant to be by >>itself, it rather addresses only certain points and tricks that spammers >>use. But cutting away the ability to joe-job a site unless you want to >>send all of your messages as identical, would definatly help some what. > > > But it doesn't even do that - a "replay" does not have to involve just > a single message, but rather a large number of similar messages. > > Consider this scenario: > > A spammer gets an account at yahoo.com and sends (to some throwaway.com > address) a few thousand almost identical messages, each of which gets > properly signed by Yahoo. > > Then throwaway.com starts spamming those messages, with Yahoo's > signature, and the headers faked to make it look like the message > comes from Yahoo ... sure, the IP number does not belong to Yahoo, > but unless you have something like LMAP you are out of luck in that > respect. > > Of course the spammer takes certain precautions, such as not sending > the same variant of the message twice to the same domain - thus > trying to reduce the chance of anyone noticing two *identical* > messages. > > Or am I missing something? > A distributed spam detection system such as DCC (http://www.rhyolite.com/anti-spam/dcc/) works across multiple domains. Therefore is the spammer sends an identical message to more than one domain, it can be detected. In any case we will have to wait until they release their full specifications. Yakov ------- Yakov Shafranovich / asrg shaftek.org SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / research solidmatrix.com "Some lies are easier to believe than the truth" (Dune) ------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Dec 10 17:50:35 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA22855 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 17:50:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUD9l-0004Q8-7V for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 17:50:09 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBAMo9AZ016986 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 17:50:09 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUD9l-0004Pt-2U for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 17:50:09 -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 RAA22831 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 17:50:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUD9h-00042k-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 17:50:05 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUD9h-00042d-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 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 1AUD9e-0004ID-F5; Wed, 10 Dec 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 1AUD8u-0004He-5C for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 17:49:16 -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 RAA22812 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 17:49:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUD8q-00042C-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 17:49:12 -0500 Received: from moebius2.space.net ([195.30.1.100]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUD8q-000429-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 17:49:12 -0500 Received: (qmail 46354 invoked by uid 1013); 10 Dec 2003 22:49:12 -0000 From: Markus Stumpf To: David Maxwell Cc: Markus Stumpf , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals: MTA MARK vs port 25 filtering? Message-ID: <20031210224912.GC38275@Space.Net> References: <20031210191943.GK29673@mail> <20031210200518.GA34693@Space.Net> <20031210221712.GM29673@mail> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20031210221712.GM29673@mail> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Organization: SpaceNet AG, Muenchen, Germany X-PGP-Fingerprint: 66 F3 75 79 01 D0 B8 5F 1A C7 77 88 4A B6 70 DF Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 23:49:12 +0100 On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 05:17:12PM -0500, David Maxwell wrote: > deny * > permit MTA1 > permit MTA2 > > That isn't a very complicated ACL. I believe Cisco IOS will fastpath > that in most cases (turning on some specific options will make it slow > path, of course). One of our blocks is a /16 polulated mainly with commercial customers. A lot of them is managing their own MTAs. I'd estimate about 600-700 (intended ;-) MTAs at least in that block. > MTAs don't change very often. Adding MTA3 to the list above shouldn't be > overly challenging (but I understand that you don't want a $5/h tech > making that change). With that number of MTAs you will have one or two every day. And you have to update all your border routers and it should happen promptly. > Compared to the cost of people time to handle spam complaints, it's > probably easy to justify. If I have to handle spam complaints for a customer because of a hacked machine I can make the customer pay for it. We have about 2-3 complaints a week, most of them about faked Received: lines about 1 or 2 per month are about a customer. Even charging them 150 USD per hour is much more cheaper for a single customer than the hassle of buying hardware, setting it up, having it maintained. You know, it's like with fare dodgers: they have to pay penalty if they get caught. But it only happens once in a while so it is cheaper not to buy a ticket. > I was suggesting that the ISP be the org blocking 25. (I dislike network > blocks in general, because they diminish the usefulness Internet, but > spam does so even more.) Accessing the router at the ISP will not be as > easy either. As I wrote to Alan already, we can't do that without changing each and every contract and I doubt much customers would sign the new one. > > 5) With MTA MARK I as a receiver know what the intention of the > > maintainer of the IP space is. With a port 25 block not being there I > > don't know if it is on purpose or if it is a mistake. > > Your comparison is not valid. You can't detect mistakes in the MTAMark > database entries any more than you can detect errors in the ACL. This sounds plausible ;-) But with MTA MARK the sender could express a policy that I could query. With an outgoing port 25 block in a firewall whose rules are not publically available he/I can't. \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 Dec 10 18:09:32 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA24381 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 18:09:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUDS6-0005MJ-83 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 18:09:06 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBAN968P020593 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 18:09:06 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUDS6-0005M4-4H for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 18:09:06 -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 SAA24290 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 18:09:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUDS2-0004Wb-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 18:09:02 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUDS2-0004WY-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 18:09:02 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUDS0-0005JU-Pb; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 18:09:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUDRh-0005JB-9a for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 18:08:41 -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 SAA24240 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 18:08:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUDRd-0004W2-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 18:08:37 -0500 Received: from mail.asarian-host.net ([194.109.160.70] helo=asarian-host.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUDRd-0004Vz-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 18:08:37 -0500 Comments: To protect the identity of the sender, certain header fields are either not shown, or masked. Anonymous email accounts can be requested by filling in the appropriate form at: https://asarian-host.net/cgi-bin/signup.cgi Received: (from root@localhost) by mail.asarian-host.net (8.12.10/8.12.10) id hBAN8bF7003827 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 00:08:37 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from admin@asarian-host.net) From: Mark Received-SPF: pass (asarian-host.net: SASL permitted sender) Message-Id: <200312102308.HBAN8AFP003817@asarian-host.net> X-Authenticated-Sender: admin@asarian-host.net Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals: MTA MARK X-Trace: lceZjY/5ev8Ck4bgTiVT7xIiPIviR2C4GCOAf+x+72vvPPkMe9LQh1S2YsqJtFsZ+C+LTyEk6giLGItfHfCh4g== X-Complaints-To: abuse@asarian-host.net X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers, otherwise we are unable to process your complaint Organization: Asarian-host To: References: <00e001c3b5ac$ab5f55a0$6400a8c0@INTRA.KOODIA.FI> <3FC78099.8080409@elvey.com> <004c01c3b650$60c77870$0323a8c0@Jimiboy> <3FC92518.2020604@elvey.com> <008e01c3b81b$53cbaa70$6400a8c0@INTRA.KOODIA.FI> <3FD2079B.80106@elvey.com> <009a01c3be43$5d74fc60$6400a8c0@INTRA.KOODIA.FI> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 X-Auth: Asarian-host PGP signature iQEVAwUAP9endTFqW1BleBN9AQFpHwf+INoik4WhIZ86kBupwIBWUQ5oRKCqG+Ea rr0THrRNSC8D1R/YhVQxysWnl08n/zvquXdpYoy1tyLS7wVCVXAZPBcxMbmkzaus +5cPX3jRyG+tJxjFVkUMBQG2YlK2JM67gokBq4wMz+BidDva04CCTvjf5eXGgct8 xmPVqDUEYezBoabVqyCvPRJ1ZMwnXMsvl5fYrGINoJs+Ne/KxCq6s5uQHwrhs3lD lODoPBcBHksmLDGOXStV79Gv3gSIXddQBAhGoouejHZpzxpdcqtsWhL09t8+zw8c hVJoBvQb0ktY4ZwR5njTkrany6Vp08EWOSUUshqea7zYKxRp+9ByMg== =A0t+ Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 23:08:37 GMT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tomi Panula-Ontto" To: Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2003 11:59 AM Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals: MTA MARK > IMHO, people using dynamic IPs should not be allowed to run > (trusted) smtp servers anyway. Why so? According to some recent > studies one third of the spam is generated in some compromised > home computers If that logic holds true, then there is exactly a twice more compelling reason to disallow static IP addresses from running trusted SMTP servers. :) - Mark _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Dec 10 18:17:29 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA25268 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 18:17:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUDZn-0005oQ-MG for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 18:17:03 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBANH38M022336 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 18:17:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUDZn-0005oB-IX for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 18:17:03 -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 SAA25240 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 18:16:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUDZk-0004gh-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 18:17:00 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUDZj-0004ge-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 18:16:59 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUDZl-0005lz-4D; Wed, 10 Dec 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 1AUDXj-0005ja-A8 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 18:14:55 -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 SAA25018 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 18:14:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUDXe-0004ec-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 18:14:50 -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 1AUDXe-0004dt-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 18:14:50 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-377-961.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.190.172]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HPP0049FCGIBS@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 23:12:23 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals: MTA MARK In-reply-to: <200312102308.HBAN8AFP003817@asarian-host.net> To: asrg@ietf.org Message-id: <3FD7A855.7090900@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> <3FC78099.8080409@elvey.com> <004c01c3b650$60c77870$0323a8c0@Jimiboy> <3FC92518.2020604@elvey.com> <008e01c3b81b$53cbaa70$6400a8c0@INTRA.KOODIA.FI> <3FD2079B.80106@elvey.com> <009a01c3be43$5d74fc60$6400a8c0@INTRA.KOODIA.FI> <200312102308.HBAN8AFP003817@asarian-host.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, 10 Dec 2003 18:12:21 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Mark wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Tomi Panula-Ontto" > To: > Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2003 11:59 AM > Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals: MTA MARK > > >>IMHO, people using dynamic IPs should not be allowed to run >>(trusted) smtp servers anyway. Why so? According to some recent >>studies one third of the spam is generated in some compromised >>home computers > > > If that logic holds true, then there is exactly a twice more compelling > reason to disallow static IP addresses from running trusted SMTP servers. :) > Humor aside, those studies may not be accurate. A while back a report from MessageLabs claimed that over 80% of all spam was sent from hijacked computers. When asked directly, MessageLabs admitted that they were counting open proxies as "hijacked computers". So anytime such study is made, you have to check the raw data. Also, I emailed Sophos who made the original study to obtain the raw data. Yakov ------- Yakov Shafranovich / asrg shaftek.org SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / research solidmatrix.com "Some lies are easier to believe than the truth" (Dune) ------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Dec 10 19:27:12 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA27469 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 19:27:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUEfF-00085a-4F for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 19:26:45 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBB0Qje0031088 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 19:26:45 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUEfE-00085L-TO for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 19:26:44 -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 TAA27419 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 19:26:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUEfC-0005rK-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 19:26:42 -0500 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=manatick) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUEfC-0005rB-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 19:26:42 -0500 Received: from [132.151.6.22] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by manatick with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1AUEc0-00041I-DG for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 19:23:26 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUEbc-0007vp-By; Wed, 10 Dec 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 1AUEb3-0007vB-LB for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 19:22:25 -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 TAA27168 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 19:22:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUEb1-0005k4-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 19:22:23 -0500 Received: from jeckyll.uw.no ([195.159.29.203] helo=mail.db.org) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUEb0-0005jk-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 19:22:22 -0500 Received: (qmail 16415 invoked from network); 11 Dec 2003 00:21:50 -0000 Received: from ti122110a080-4478.bb.online.no (bob@80.213.209.126) by mail.db.org with SMTP; 11 Dec 2003 00:21:50 -0000 Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals: MTA MARK From: "B. Johannessen" To: asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <3FD7A855.7090900@solidmatrix.com> References: <00e001c3b5ac$ab5f55a0$6400a8c0@INTRA.KOODIA.FI> <3FC78099.8080409@elvey.com> <004c01c3b650$60c77870$0323a8c0@Jimiboy> <3FC92518.2020604@elvey.com> <008e01c3b81b$53cbaa70$6400a8c0@INTRA.KOODIA.FI> <3FD2079B.80106@elvey.com> <009a01c3be43$5d74fc60$6400a8c0@INTRA.KOODIA.FI> <200312102308.HBAN8AFP003817@asarian-host.net> <3FD7A855.7090900@solidmatrix.com> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: http://db.org/ Message-Id: <1071102109.27449.86.camel@babe.h.db.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.5 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 00:21:50 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Wed, 2003-12-10 at 23:12, Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > Humor aside, those studies may not be accurate. A while back a report > from MessageLabs claimed that over 80% of all spam was sent from > hijacked computers. When asked directly, MessageLabs admitted that they > were counting open proxies as "hijacked computers". So anytime such > study is made, you have to check the raw data. For what it's worth, here are some information about the senders of spam that ended up in my traps Tuesday (midnight to midnight UTC): Spam seen: 246 Distinct IPs: 231 IPs in dul.dnsbl.sorbs.net: 121 IPs running unfiltered "Microsoft Windows msrpc": 111 IPs running unfiltered "Microsoft Windows UPnP": 86 This in itself proves nothing, but I don't think it would be unreasonable to assume that a significant portion of the 121 machines listed in dul.dnsbl.sorbs.net have been compromised. If numbers like these are of any interest, I'll post some more detailed numbers when I have more data, and some time to do a more in-depth analysis. Bob -- --=[ B. Johannessen | bob@db.org | http://db.org/ | +4797152009 ]=-- ----=[ uptime: 2 days, 5:55 | load: 0.10 | inbox: 4 messages ]=----- ------=[xmms: Police - Every Little Thing She Does Is Magic]=------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Dec 10 20:06:49 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA29431 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 20:06:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUFHY-0001K8-Jf for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 20:06:20 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBB16K3r005082 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 20:06:20 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUFHY-0001Jt-CD for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 20:06:20 -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 UAA29425 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 20:06:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUFHV-0006sm-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 20:06:17 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUFHV-0006sj-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 20:06:17 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUFHG-0001F9-7y; Wed, 10 Dec 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 1AUFH2-0001El-Lo for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 20:05:48 -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 UAA29415 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 20:05:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUFH0-0006pM-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 20:05:46 -0500 Received: from sj-iport-5.cisco.com ([171.68.10.87]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUFGz-0006oy-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 20:05:45 -0500 Received: from sj-core-4.cisco.com (171.68.223.138) by sj-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 11 Dec 2003 01:06:25 +0000 Received: from mbaugher-w2k07.cisco.com (sjc-vpn2-243.cisco.com [10.21.112.243]) by sj-core-4.cisco.com (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id hBB159iO028976; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 17:05:10 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <6.0.0.22.2.20031210154936.03d0cd18@mira-sjc5-6.cisco.com> X-Sender: mbaugher@mira-sjc5-6.cisco.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.0.22 To: Markus Stumpf From: Mark Baugher Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - DNS + PKI - Yahoo's "Domain Keys" Cc: asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <20031210012041.GE96487@Space.Net> References: <20031208183344.1857A16CD1@mail.nitros9.org> <3FD4E090.8000808@solidmatrix.com> <20031209193652.GA76454@Space.Net> <3FD626AC.9010002@solidmatrix.com> <20031209201709.GC76454@Space.Net> <3FD63F28.4020608@solidmatrix.com> <20031209221554.GH76454@Space.Net> <6.0.0.22.2.20031209161256.03afcbd0@mira-sjc5-6.cisco.com> <20031210012041.GE96487@Space.Net> 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, 10 Dec 2003 17:05:07 -0800 Markus, At 05:20 PM 12/9/2003, Markus Stumpf wrote: >On Tue, Dec 09, 2003 at 04:28:05PM -0800, Mark Baugher wrote: > > A clarification... > > > > +---------------+ +---------------+ > > | UA.o -> MTA.o | -> MTA.i -> | MTA.r -> UA.r | > > +---------------+ +---------------+ > > > > Are you saying that MTA.o signed it and a spammer captured > > the message and resent it? Was it resent from MTA.o or from > > some other domain or does this not matter? > >You don't need to capture. >The problem I addressed is "what to sign" to make it impossible to steal >the signing and use it in another context. >E.g. the message to the list I am replying to has headers: > >Received: from mbaugher-w2k07.cisco.com (sjc-vpn3-38.cisco.com [10.21.64.38]) > by sj-core-4.cisco.com (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id hBA0S6iO027174; > Tue, 9 Dec 2003 16:28:07 -0800 (PST) >Message-Id: <6.0.0.22.2.20031209161256.03afcbd0@mira-sjc5-6.cisco.com> > >Both header lines are (or should be and probably are) unique. So you now >could use them, build a checksum, sign it with your private key and get >something like 'JK807JK8JK90KLKL'. Now you add a Header like > X-Signature: sj-core-4.cisco.com; sign='JK807JK8JK90KLKL' >I can now (as the recipient) lookup your public key and validate, >whether the above two lines match the signature in the X-Signature: >line. So far so good. > >But now, what stops a spammer from copying the two lines and the >X-Signature line and create a new email useing the stolen headers >like: > >Received: from sj-core-4.cisco.com > by mail.example.net with ESMTP id 1234567890; > Wed, 10 Dec 02:02:32 +0100 (CEST) >X-Signature: mail.example.com; sign='908865KJGLSD0987' >Received: from mbaugher-w2k07.cisco.com (sjc-vpn3-38.cisco.com [10.21.64.38]) > by sj-core-4.cisco.com (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id hBA0S6iO027174; > Tue, 9 Dec 2003 16:28:07 -0800 (PST) >Message-Id: <6.0.0.22.2.20031209161256.03afcbd0@mira-sjc5-6.cisco.com> >X-Signature: sj-core-4.cisco.com; sign='JK807JK8JK90KLKL' > >How would you know that the message NOT really originated (or was sent >via) sj-core-4.cisco.com? It would not verify if the signature design was secure. That is, one should not sign a piece of the message that could be cut and pasted in this way. I have not seen anything about the signing proposal to suggest that they were doing this or even signing SMTP trace record. So yes, the problem you describe is a problem that's caused by a poor signature design. >As a lot of software modifies/replaces/deletes both the message headers >and the message bodies you can't simply base your digest and signature >on this information. What gets signed is an open question. This does not strike me as an insurmountable problem. > > If the spammer sends from MTA.o, then wouldn't we expect MTA.o > > to have a policy to not forward mail that it had previously > > signed? > >No. Why? >If I get an eMail from a friend with an address at a public mail service >provider (aka freemail) and think it is funny, why should it not be >possible to bounce the message on to another friend at the same freemail >provider as the original sender? Or think of simple addresslists ... > cat >> .forward (for jokes@example.net) > joe@example.com > jane@example.com > jill@example.org >Now bert@example.org sends mail to jokes@example.net and the mail will >go back to the originating system to jill@example.org. I think of each message sent as a separate mail transaction that will have a separate signature applied by the mail submission agent. > > If it comes from some MTA.x then a legitimate MTA.x might > > reasonably have a policy of not forwarding mail signed by > > some MTA.o unless (1) it has some MTA.i relationship > > with MTA.o, which will rarely be the case, and > >How can you detect relationships between MTA.x and MTA.i? You (i.e. MTA.r) do not need to detect this relationship. What I wrote above is "a legitimate MTA.x might reasonably have a policy of not forwarding mail from MTA.o unless 1) it has some MTA.i relationship with MTA.o, which will rarely be the case..." >What do you >mean with relationships between MTA.x and MTA.i? I did not write about a relationship between MTA.x and MTA.i. I'm apparently being unclear. Please forget about MTA.x and let me try this again. I assume that in the vast majority of cases there is no need for an MTA.i. I assume that the MTA.i is required where dialup is needed, in countries where online connectivity is intermittent, or between planets, etc. I am also assuming that when MTA.i provides such a service to an MTA.o, then THEY have a relationship. Please correct me if I'm wrong. > > (2) it was in fact received from MTA.o. > >To determine this is the problem ;-) If MTA.o and MTA.r both do signing and verification, then they have credentials (keys) to establish a TLS connection. > > If MTA.x is not legit, then won't MTA.r make a determination > > on the validity of the message based on the trust it places > > in the signature of MTA.x and not MTA.o? > >How do you determine that "MTA.x is not legit"? You (MTA.r) don't need to determine this. In my note I was breaking down the problem by cases, e.g. A or not A. >Is dsl081-084-010.lax1.dsl.speakeasy.net [64.81.84.10] legit if it >can provide a certificate? No. Anyone can get a certificate. But if it has a certificate that MTA.r has issued, signed, or otherwise authorized then I would expect that it would consider MTA.o to be "legitimate." There would need to be some ceremony or procedure in place in which people are involved - kind of like a key-signing party. What I don't like about the signing approach is that good security technology requires trained personnel and this can be expensive. What might make this cheaper is the fact that the result of a temporary security breach in antispam is not as serious as, say, accepting a bad route in BGP. >What must be the object of the certificate >(sorry I don't know the correct english word, what is it that is >certified? Is it the name? is it the IP address?) That's a good question. I'm an SPKI bigot and don't think we necessarily need a public key bound to a name. The public key itself can serve as the identifier. But Yakov said that the key attests to the fact that MTA.o is authorized to use an address. Some would probably see use of an X.509 cert that binds a public key to a domain name as being the way to go. >If it tries to inject >an email with an envelope sender joe@example.com and a recipient address >in your domain and it has a legit certificate (whatever that means) >how can you determine if the message really originated at MTA.o? LMAP :?) >Yahoo's answer would be "look at the signature", but we've seen above >that it is hard to put a signature in a email and making it secure >and not stealable. I think it can be done and you could reasonably ask me to prove it. That would lead to a long thread on MTA signing, which I don't think is germane to this list. Instead, it would be better to agree to disagree. cheers, Mark > \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 Dec 10 20:52:45 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA00461 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 20:52:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUG01-0002l9-3v for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 20:52:17 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBB1qHax010604 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 20:52:17 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUG00-0002kx-Cb for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 20:52:16 -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 UAA00456 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 20:52:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUFzx-0007ea-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 20:52:13 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUFzx-0007eX-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 20:52:13 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUFzk-0002h6-KE; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 20:52:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUFyx-0002gO-M0 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 20:51:11 -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 UAA00421 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 20:51:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUFyu-0007e1-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 20:51:08 -0500 Received: from mail.crlf.net ([216.126.92.195]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUFyu-0007dy-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 20:51:08 -0500 Received: by mail.crlf.net (Postfix, from userid 100) id 365001F001; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 20:54:49 -0500 (EST) From: David Maxwell To: Yakov Shafranovich Cc: Markus Stumpf , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals: MTA MARK vs port 25 filtering? Message-ID: <20031211015448.GN29673@mail> References: <20031210191943.GK29673@mail> <20031210200518.GA34693@Space.Net> <20031210221712.GM29673@mail> <3FD7A07A.2030909@solidmatrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3FD7A07A.2030909@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, 10 Dec 2003 20:54:48 -0500 On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 05:38:50PM -0500, Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > David Maxwell wrote: > >Of course, both problems suffer from the issue that they are on the > >sender side - most people are more concerned about the spam their > >network recieves than the spam their network sends, and they fail to > >perceive the relationship between the two. > > > > Giving tools to both the sender and the receiver will help more than > just one side having them. That's why it looks like to me that both > strategies are helpful, and let both sides of the network do something > about the abuse. One of the main reasons I asked the question was to draw the line between functions and implementations. In this case, we have a functional change to email infrastructure - from 'any to any' -> 'approved MTA to any'. There are at least two implementations of that functional change - MTAMark, and outbound port 25 blocking. These two implementations have a few differences in deployment, maintainence, and effect on network traffic. Simply put though, they solve the same problem, so they can be evaluated head-to-head when it comes time to making recommendations. -- 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 Wed Dec 10 21:51:37 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA01681 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 21:51:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUGv0-0004Ww-MW for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 21:51:10 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBB2pAYi017413 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 21:51:10 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUGv0-0004Wm-IV for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 21:51:10 -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 VAA01664 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 21:51:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUGux-0000eH-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 21:51:07 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUGuw-0000eE-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 21:51:06 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUGus-0004UD-0s; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 21:51:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUGs9-0004S2-MX for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 21:48:13 -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 VAA01613 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 21:48:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUGs6-0000Zr-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 21:48:10 -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 1AUGs5-0000ZC-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 21:48:09 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-377-961.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.190.172]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HPP007STMB9II@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 02:45:18 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals: MTA MARK vs port 25 filtering? In-reply-to: <20031211015448.GN29673@mail> To: David Maxwell Cc: Markus Stumpf , asrg@ietf.org Message-id: <3FD7DA34.6060108@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: <20031210191943.GK29673@mail> <20031210200518.GA34693@Space.Net> <20031210221712.GM29673@mail> <3FD7A07A.2030909@solidmatrix.com> <20031211015448.GN29673@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: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 21:45:08 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT David Maxwell wrote: > On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 05:38:50PM -0500, Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > >>David Maxwell wrote: >> >>>Of course, both problems suffer from the issue that they are on the >>>sender side - most people are more concerned about the spam their >>>network recieves than the spam their network sends, and they fail to >>>perceive the relationship between the two. >>> >> >>Giving tools to both the sender and the receiver will help more than >>just one side having them. That's why it looks like to me that both >>strategies are helpful, and let both sides of the network do something >>about the abuse. > > > One of the main reasons I asked the question was to draw the line > between functions and implementations. > > In this case, we have a functional change to email infrastructure - from > 'any to any' -> 'approved MTA to any'. > > There are at least two implementations of that functional change - > MTAMark, and outbound port 25 blocking. > > These two implementations have a few differences in deployment, > maintainence, and effect on network traffic. Simply put though, they > solve the same problem, so they can be evaluated head-to-head when it > comes time to making recommendations. > Then the next logical step would be writing up a comparison, perhaps expanding it to other protocols as well. Any volunteers? Yakov ------- Yakov Shafranovich / asrg shaftek.org SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / research solidmatrix.com "But in this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes" (Benjamin Franklin) ------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Dec 10 21:58:35 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA01904 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 21:58:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUH1k-0004t5-K3 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 21:58:09 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBB2w8oJ018781 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 21:58:08 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUH1k-0004sq-FH for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 21:58:08 -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 VAA01901 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 21:58:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUH1g-0000kW-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 21:58:04 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUH1g-0000kT-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 21:58:04 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUH1d-0004qe-IO; Wed, 10 Dec 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 1AUGxN-0004kZ-Nq for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 21:53:37 -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 VAA01758 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 21:53:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUGxK-0000gW-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 21:53:34 -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 1AUGxJ-0000gF-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 21:53:33 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-377-961.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.190.172]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HPP004PQMOBRS@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 02:53:05 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals: MTA MARK In-reply-to: <1071102109.27449.86.camel@babe.h.db.org> To: "B. Johannessen" Cc: Terry Sullivan , ASRG Message-id: <3FD7DC0C.8020803@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> <3FC78099.8080409@elvey.com> <004c01c3b650$60c77870$0323a8c0@Jimiboy> <3FC92518.2020604@elvey.com> <008e01c3b81b$53cbaa70$6400a8c0@INTRA.KOODIA.FI> <3FD2079B.80106@elvey.com> <009a01c3be43$5d74fc60$6400a8c0@INTRA.KOODIA.FI> <200312102308.HBAN8AFP003817@asarian-host.net> <3FD7A855.7090900@solidmatrix.com> <1071102109.27449.86.camel@babe.h.db.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 21:53:00 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT B. Johannessen wrote: > On Wed, 2003-12-10 at 23:12, Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > >>Humor aside, those studies may not be accurate. A while back a report >>from MessageLabs claimed that over 80% of all spam was sent from >>hijacked computers. When asked directly, MessageLabs admitted that they >>were counting open proxies as "hijacked computers". So anytime such >>study is made, you have to check the raw data. > > > For what it's worth, here are some information about the senders of > spam that ended up in my traps Tuesday (midnight to midnight UTC): > > Spam seen: 246 > Distinct IPs: 231 > IPs in dul.dnsbl.sorbs.net: 121 > IPs running unfiltered "Microsoft Windows msrpc": 111 > IPs running unfiltered "Microsoft Windows UPnP": 86 > > This in itself proves nothing, but I don't think it would be > unreasonable to assume that a significant portion of the 121 > machines listed in dul.dnsbl.sorbs.net have been compromised. > > If numbers like these are of any interest, I'll post some more > detailed numbers when I have more data, and some time to do a > more in-depth analysis. I think that the Analysis subgroup might be very happy to look at this stuff. I have CCed the coordinator of that subgroup on this message. 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 Thu Dec 11 02:41:55 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA21256 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 02:41:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AULRv-0007Qn-2i for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 02:41:27 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBB7fRxL028564 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 02:41:27 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AULRu-0007Qd-Mq for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 02:41:26 -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 CAA21214 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 02:41:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AULRq-00055x-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 02:41:22 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AULRq-00055u-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 02:41:22 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AULRV-0007MJ-AN; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 02:41:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AULQk-0007Jk-Pd for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 02:40:14 -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 CAA21177 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 02:40:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AULQg-00055C-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 02:40:10 -0500 Received: from argon.connectinternetsolutions.com ([193.110.243.33] helo=argon.connect.org.uk) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AULQf-000559-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 02:40:09 -0500 Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 1AULQh-0003BQ-JC for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 07:40:11 +0000 To: "ASRG" From: "Jon Kyme" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.10.1] X-connectmail-Originating-IP: 82.69.7.27 Message-Id: Subject: [Asrg] 0. General - interesting? Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 07:40:11 +0000 Spamming is (from today) illegal (kind of) in the UK. Hoorah! Anyway, that aside... There's a free webmail system that I'm familiar with - some of which domains are frequently forged in sender addresses on spam. Message below received via their feedback form. It *seems* to be an enquiry from a "legitimate mass-mailer" about spamming services. Or perhaps it's a joke. Spam services are not available - but if anyone does have "email advertising capabilities to US" perhaps they'd like to contact Janet and keep this group informed. The following feedback was submitted: Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 00:10:05 GMT Name: Janet Hirschoff E-mail: Janet@hispeedmedia.com Feedback: Comments Remote Address: 63.207.173.74 adsl-63-207-173-74.dsl.lsan03.pacbell.net Session Key: HTTP user agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; .NET CLR 1.0.3705; Alexa Toolbar) Comments: Hello, I received and email from this domain in my AOL account. I work for an online advertising angecy and would like to to learn more about your companys email advertising capabilities to US emails. Please contact me to discuss. Regards, Janet Hirschoff Director of Business Development Janet@hispeedmedia.com http://www.hispeedmedia.com P: 818-990-0991 x226 F: 818.990.5110 -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Dec 11 02:52:36 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA21575 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 02:52:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AULcG-0007ns-NM for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 02:52:09 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBB7q8la029991 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 02:52:08 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AULcF-0007ne-2P for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 02:52:07 -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 CAA21562 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 02:52:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AULcA-0005IL-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 02:52:02 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AULcA-0005II-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 02:52:02 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AULc8-0007lJ-VM; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 02:52:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AULbQ-0007k3-Nu for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 02:51:16 -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 CAA21534 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 02:51:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AULbM-0005H0-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 02:51:12 -0500 Received: from dogma.slashnull.org ([212.17.35.15]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AULbL-0005Gx-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 02:51:11 -0500 Received: from jmason.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dogma.slashnull.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBB7pGZ02171; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 07:51:16 GMT Received: by jmason.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id 0339717075; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 23:51:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from jmason.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by jmason.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00F5FF70D; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 23:51:10 -0800 (PST) To: "Jon Kyme" Cc: "ASRG" Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - interesting? In-Reply-To: From: jm@jmason.org (Justin Mason) X-Gpg-Key-Fingerprint: 0A48 2D8B 0B52 A87D 0E8A 6ADD 4137 1B50 6E58 EF0A X-Habeas-Swe-1: winter into spring X-Habeas-Swe-2: brightly anticipated X-Habeas-Swe-3: like Habeas SWE (tm) X-Habeas-Swe-4: Copyright 2002 Habeas (tm) X-Habeas-Swe-5: Sender Warranted Email (SWE) (tm). The sender of this X-Habeas-Swe-6: email in exchange for a license for this Habeas X-Habeas-Swe-7: warrant mark warrants that this is a Habeas Compliant X-Habeas-Swe-8: Message (HCM) and not spam. Please report use of this X-Habeas-Swe-9: mark in spam to . Message-Id: <20031211075110.0339717075@jmason.org> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 23:51:09 -0800 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Jon Kyme writes: >Spamming is (from today) illegal (kind of) in the UK. Hoorah! BTW, also illegal (kind of) in Ireland since a couple of weeks ago. Yay! - --j. >Anyway, that aside... >There's a free webmail system that I'm familiar with - some of which >domains are frequently forged in sender addresses on spam. >Message below received via their feedback form. It *seems* to be an enquiry >from a "legitimate mass-mailer" about spamming services. Or perhaps it's a >joke. Spam services are not available - but if anyone does have "email >advertising capabilities to US" perhaps they'd like to contact Janet and >keep this group informed. > > >The following feedback was submitted: > >Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 00:10:05 GMT >Name: Janet Hirschoff >E-mail: Janet@hispeedmedia.com >Feedback: Comments >Remote Address: 63.207.173.74 adsl-63-207-173-74.dsl.lsan03.pacbell.net >Session Key: >HTTP user agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; .NET >CLR 1.0.3705; Alexa Toolbar) > >Comments: >Hello, > >I received and email from this domain in my AOL account. I work for an >online advertising angecy and would like to to learn more about your >companys email advertising capabilities to US emails. Please contact me to >discuss. > > > >Regards, > >Janet Hirschoff >Director of Business Development >Janet@hispeedmedia.com >http://www.hispeedmedia.com >P: 818-990-0991 x226 >F: 818.990.5110 > > > > > > >-- > >_______________________________________________ >Asrg mailing list >Asrg@ietf.org >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh CVS iD8DBQE/2CHtQTcbUG5Y7woRApI4AKCuwMEIGnHlrYBjKkqgnrnN9GpJMgCgwM+F l37YDWtdUCTV6VG7Lxn2KZo= =rH1f -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Dec 11 04:23:41 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA23193 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 04:23:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUN2O-0003Bb-PR for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 04:23:13 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBB9NC1J012248 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 04:23:12 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUN2O-0003BT-Gg for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 04:23:12 -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 EAA23185 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 04:23:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUN2L-0006W9-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 04:23:09 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUN2K-0006W6-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 04:23:08 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUN2C-00039E-VW; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 04:23:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUN1l-00038m-VG for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 04:22:33 -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 EAA23159 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 04:22:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUN1i-0006VX-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 04:22:30 -0500 Received: from guttormur.frisk-software.com ([213.220.100.9]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUN1h-0006VA-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 04:22:29 -0500 Received: by guttormur.frisk-software.com (Postfix, from userid 517) id 27A7C38029; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 09:22:01 +0000 (GMT) Received: from localhost.localdomain. (pc28.frisk-software.com [172.16.5.2]) by guttormur.frisk-software.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A73A738017 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 09:22:00 +0000 (GMT) Received: by localhost.localdomain. (8.9.3/client-1.3) id JAA13247; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 09:22:01 GMT From: Fridrik Skulason To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals: MTA MARK Message-ID: <20031211092201.GE13147@f-prot.com> References: <00e001c3b5ac$ab5f55a0$6400a8c0@INTRA.KOODIA.FI> <3FC78099.8080409@elvey.com> <004c01c3b650$60c77870$0323a8c0@Jimiboy> <3FC92518.2020604@elvey.com> <008e01c3b81b$53cbaa70$6400a8c0@INTRA.KOODIA.FI> <3FD2079B.80106@elvey.com> <009a01c3be43$5d74fc60$6400a8c0@INTRA.KOODIA.FI> <3FD62AA0.8000606@solidmatrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3FD62AA0.8000606@solidmatrix.com> 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, 11 Dec 2003 09:22:01 +0000 I tried replying yesterday, but for some reason only a blank message showed up on the list. Unfortunately I did not keep a copy of my original message, so I have to try to recreate some of the points from memory. As I have mentioned before, my area of expertise is viruses and worms. For that reason any proposal which is likely to affect the spread of worms as well as spam is of high interest to me. I just read the draft-irtf-asrg-mtamark-00 document, and I have a few comment on the virus/worm side of things. The document uses the term "viri". Now, there is an interesting division of terminology in the anti-virus field. AV people use the plural "viruses", while the "k00l VXdudez" use "viri" or "virii" as a means of distinguishing them. The side effect is that anyone talking about "viri" or "virii" just does not get taken seriously by the anti-virus community. However, MTA MARK would not have any effects on viruses. It would only affect worms, more specifically a certain subset of worms. It would not affect network worms like CodeRed, so I suggest not using that as an example. It will only affect those worms which have their own SMTP code and use that to spread, instead of sending mail through the ISP of the end user. By far the best known worm of this time is W32/Sobig.F@mm. I suggest not mentioning viruses (or "viri" or whatever) in the document - only worms, as only they would be affected. Now, an observation: During the Sobig.F outbreak we collected data on which machines were responsible for sending out the viruses. It turned out that the vast majority of analysed samples were from privately owned PCs with an ASDL or broadband connection. This is what one would have expected anyhow - corporate machines are generally better protected and less likely to be compromised and machines with only a (slow) modem connection would send out fewer messages than the ones with a fast connection. The relevance to spam is that this is presumably the same group of machines as spammers using compromised machines would be interested in. I raised the point of comparing this to simple port 25 blocking, but someone else brought that up as well, so I have no further questions regarding that. However, MTA MARK got me thinking about one issue regarding LMAP (which, by the way seems to be mis-spelled as LAMP in one or two places in the LMAP document). If I understand LMAP correctly, you can get basically 3 possible answers: "This machine is authorized to send mail from my domain." "This machine is not authorized to send mail from my domain." "No LMAP data available." (somebody please correct me if I am wrong). Now, the MTA MARK proposal made me realize that the "not authorized" includes two separate scenarios, which might require different reactions: "This is one of my machines, but it is not authorized to send mail from my domain" - this result would typically indicate a compromised machine - either trying to send out worms or spam. "This is not one of my machines, and therefore it is not authorized to send mail from my domain" - this result would either indicate a forgery or perhaps a "roaming salesman" instance. What I don't quite see is how LMAP would distinguish between those two cases - or if it can indeed do so. Clarification, anyone? -- 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 Dec 11 05:27:36 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA24208 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 05:27:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUO2H-0005EP-OQ for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 05:27:10 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBBAR9sp020106 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 05:27:09 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUO2H-0005ED-Hx for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 05:27:09 -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 FAA24204 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 05:27:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUO2D-0007KP-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 05:27:05 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUO2D-0007KM-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 05:27:05 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUO29-0005By-3E; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 05:27:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUO1F-00059k-3v for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 05:26:05 -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 FAA24189 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 05:26:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUO1B-0007Iw-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 05:26:01 -0500 Received: from [194.197.204.198] (helo=netcityzen.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUO1A-0007It-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 05:26:00 -0500 Received: (qmail 9696 invoked from network); 11 Dec 2003 10:25:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO JIM) (195.165.168.88) by www.netcityzen.com with SMTP; 11 Dec 2003 10:25:54 -0000 Message-ID: <009001c3bfd1$2c53def0$6400a8c0@INTRA.KOODIA.FI> From: "Tomi Panula-Ontto" To: "Mark" , References: <00e001c3b5ac$ab5f55a0$6400a8c0@INTRA.KOODIA.FI> <3FC78099.8080409@elvey.com> <004c01c3b650$60c77870$0323a8c0@Jimiboy> <3FC92518.2020604@elvey.com> <008e01c3b81b$53cbaa70$6400a8c0@INTRA.KOODIA.FI> <3FD2079B.80106@elvey.com> <009a01c3be43$5d74fc60$6400a8c0@INTRA.KOODIA.FI> <200312102308.HBAN8AFP003817@asarian-host.net> Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals: MTA MARK MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 12:26:00 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mark wrote: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark" To: Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 1:08 AM Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals: MTA MARK > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Tomi Panula-Ontto" > To: > Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2003 11:59 AM > Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals: MTA MARK > > > IMHO, people using dynamic IPs should not be allowed to run > > (trusted) smtp servers anyway. Why so? According to some recent > > studies one third of the spam is generated in some compromised > > home computers > > If that logic holds true, then there is exactly a twice more compelling > reason to disallow static IP addresses from running trusted SMTP servers. :) True :-) On the other hand - if I terminated smtp connections from machines that are behind dynamic IPs, I would propably not lose any valuable email.. but if I terminated connections from static IPs, I would propably lose all of my important emails and get only spam. Tomi _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Dec 11 07:37:44 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA27723 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 07:37:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUQ4A-0001XY-Ge for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 07:37:15 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBBCbEae005908 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 07:37:14 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUQ4A-0001X7-2M for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 07:37:14 -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 HAA27695 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 07:37:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUQ49-00020h-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 07:37:13 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUQ49-00020e-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 07:37:13 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUQ3x-0001Pz-JG; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 07:37:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUQ3Y-0001PQ-Mq for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 07:36:36 -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 HAA27671 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 07:36:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUQ3V-0001zl-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 07:36:33 -0500 Received: from grou.ch ([193.201.200.130] helo=linuxufo.com ident=mail) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUQ3U-0001zc-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 07:36:32 -0500 Received: from sheriff by linuxufo.com with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1AUQ3L-0006tu-00 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 12:36:23 +0000 From: Peter Sergeant To: Asrg@ietf.org Message-ID: <20031211123623.GA26384@linuxufo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i X-Habeas-SWE-1: winter into spring X-Habeas-SWE-2: brightly anticipated X-Habeas-SWE-3: like Habeas SWE (tm) X-Habeas-SWE-4: Copyright 2002 Habeas (tm) X-Habeas-SWE-5: Sender Warranted Email (SWE) (tm). The sender of this X-Habeas-SWE-6: email in exchange for a license for this Habeas X-Habeas-SWE-7: warrant mark warrants that this is a Habeas Compliant X-Habeas-SWE-8: Message (HCM) and not spam. Please report use of this X-Habeas-SWE-9: mark in spam to . Subject: [Asrg] 0. General - What ASRG looks like Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 12:36:23 +0000 Being that I spend a lot of time trawling the ASRG archives, and am trying to find ways to make this easier, I thought some of you might be interested in knowing what ASRG threads look like, visualized: http://grou.ch/thread.png http://grou.ch/thread2.png The first one of those is a *large* image... The second is the same thread, but rotated, and with arc-sizes constrained. The originals are SVG, and the plan is to display these next to messages, with the current message highlighted - in short, an implementation of The blank element at the start is a faked message container - the archive I'm running this on didn't contain the parent message. +Pete -- Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. -- Samuel Johnson _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Dec 11 12:52:50 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA11865 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 12:52:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUUz9-0008Ht-7W for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 12:52:24 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBBHqNsY031851 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 12:52:23 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUUz9-0008He-3B for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 12:52:23 -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 MAA11840 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 12:52:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUUz7-0002E1-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 12:52:21 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUUz7-0002Dx-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 12:52:21 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUUym-0008Ec-UX; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 12:52:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUUxv-0008DU-69 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 12:51:07 -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 MAA11794 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 12:51:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUUxt-0002Bv-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 12:51:05 -0500 Received: from sccrmhc13.comcast.net ([204.127.202.64]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUUxt-0002BL-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 12:51:05 -0500 Received: from fda.zemos.net ([68.38.12.170]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc13) with ESMTP id <2003121117502901600cv7b1e>; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 17:50:29 +0000 Received: from zemos.net (phil [10.0.0.2]) by fda.zemos.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D609A18685; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 12:49:59 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3FD8AE75.6030906@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: Fridrik Skulason Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals: MTA MARK References: <00e001c3b5ac$ab5f55a0$6400a8c0@INTRA.KOODIA.FI> <3FC78099.8080409@elvey.com> <004c01c3b650$60c77870$0323a8c0@Jimiboy> <3FC92518.2020604@elvey.com> <008e01c3b81b$53cbaa70$6400a8c0@INTRA.KOODIA.FI> <3FD2079B.80106@elvey.com> <009a01c3be43$5d74fc60$6400a8c0@INTRA.KOODIA.FI> <3FD62AA0.8000606@solidmatrix.com> <20031211092201.GE13147@f-prot.com> In-Reply-To: <20031211092201.GE13147@f-prot.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 12:50:45 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Fridrik Skulason wrote: > [snipped discussion of worms] This is exactly why the group is reviewing it. Keep it up. > Now, an observation: > > During the Sobig.F outbreak we collected data on which machines were > responsible for sending out the viruses. It turned out that the vast > majority of analysed samples were from privately owned PCs with an > ASDL or broadband connection. This is what one would have expected > anyhow - corporate machines are generally better protected and less > likely to be compromised and machines with only a (slow) modem > connection would send out fewer messages than the ones with a fast > connection. > > The relevance to spam is that this is presumably the same group of > machines as spammers using compromised machines would be interested in. > > I raised the point of comparing this to simple port 25 blocking, but > someone else brought that up as well, so I have no further questions > regarding that. > > However, MTA MARK got me thinking about one issue regarding LMAP > (which, by the way seems to be mis-spelled as LAMP in one or two places > in the LMAP document). The misspellings occur in: 4.1.10 Requirement 2.10, Single Solution 4.1.11 Requirement 2.11, Technical Rather Than Legislative > If I understand LMAP correctly, you can get basically 3 possible > answers: > > "This machine is authorized to send mail from my domain." > "This machine is not authorized to send mail from my domain." > "No LMAP data available." Those are correct. > (somebody please correct me if I am wrong). Now, the MTA MARK proposal > made me realize that the "not authorized" includes two separate > scenarios, which might require different reactions: > > "This is one of my machines, but it is not authorized to send mail > from my domain" - this result would typically indicate a compromised > machine - either trying to send out worms or spam. > > "This is not one of my machines, and therefore it is not authorized > to send mail from my domain" - this result would either indicate > a forgery or perhaps a "roaming salesman" instance. > > What I don't quite see is how LMAP would distinguish between those two > cases - or if it can indeed do so. Clarification, anyone? There is no need or reason to distinguish, unless you want to talk about informing the sender that their machines are trying to send unauthorized mail. That's orthogonal to the protocol's narrowly defined goal of preventing domain forgery. If someone wants to report such abuse, they are quite able to look up the IP in {ARIN, RIPE, etc} and find the appropriate address to send that message to. Philip Miller _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Dec 11 18:54:11 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA03549 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 18:54:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUacq-0008VF-FE for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 18:53:46 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBBNri1T032679 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 18:53:44 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUacq-0008V0-A8 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 18:53:44 -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 SAA03538 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 18:53:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUacn-0005ox-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 18:53:41 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUacm-0005os-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 18:53:40 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUac9-0008QX-1f; Thu, 11 Dec 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 1AUab9-0008Ou-L1 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 18:51:59 -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 SAA03491 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 18:51:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUab6-0005ng-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 18:51:56 -0500 Received: from moebius2.space.net ([195.30.1.100]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUab6-0005nc-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 18:51:56 -0500 Received: (qmail 47204 invoked by uid 1013); 11 Dec 2003 23:51:55 -0000 From: Markus Stumpf To: Fridrik Skulason Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals: MTA MARK Message-ID: <20031211235155.GB43199@Space.Net> References: <00e001c3b5ac$ab5f55a0$6400a8c0@INTRA.KOODIA.FI> <3FC78099.8080409@elvey.com> <004c01c3b650$60c77870$0323a8c0@Jimiboy> <3FC92518.2020604@elvey.com> <008e01c3b81b$53cbaa70$6400a8c0@INTRA.KOODIA.FI> <3FD2079B.80106@elvey.com> <009a01c3be43$5d74fc60$6400a8c0@INTRA.KOODIA.FI> <3FD62AA0.8000606@solidmatrix.com> <20031211092201.GE13147@f-prot.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20031211092201.GE13147@f-prot.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: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 00:51:55 +0100 On Thu, Dec 11, 2003 at 09:22:01AM +0000, Fridrik Skulason wrote: > The document uses the term "viri". Now, there is an interesting > division of terminology in the anti-virus field. AV people use the > plural "viruses", while the "k00l VXdudez" use "viri" or "virii" > as a means of distinguishing them. The side effect is that anyone > talking about "viri" or "virii" just does not get taken seriously > by the anti-virus community. I don't know if I am a "k00l VXdudez", but I had 5 years of Latin in school and the correct plural of "virus" is "viri" (not "viruses" and in no way "virii" ;-). The plural form was very rarely used in written text, so some people say is doesn't have one in Latin, which is wrong. However, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, the correct plural in English language is "viruses". I'll change that. Please blame it to the fact that I am not a native English speaker ;-) > However, MTA MARK would not have any effects on viruses. It would > only affect worms, more specifically a certain subset of worms. It > would not affect network worms like CodeRed, so I suggest not using > that as an example. It will only affect those worms which have > their own SMTP code and use that to spread, instead of sending mail > through the ISP of the end user. This is not true. Even very "simple" viruses like VBS/Lovelet-AS spread via eMail by using the MAPI of the infected host. It did NOT have its own SMTP code. Some of the recent viruses do have their own SMTP module talking SMTP directly to remote hosts, some of them simply use e.g. the MAPI of the infected host. Whether the message that is sent via the MAPI uses smarthosts or gets delivered directly depends on the global configuration of the MAPI. The mention of CodeRed and Nimda is in a section that argues that one cannot trust on users to update their computers, even if the security holes are some month old and patches exist for quite some time, just like you can't count on them to configure their programs correctly as can be seen from the number of open proxy servers. > During the Sobig.F outbreak we collected data on which machines were > responsible for sending out the viruses. It turned out that the vast > majority of analysed samples were from privately owned PCs with an > ASDL or broadband connection. We don't have an AV software in that mailserver, but we reject executable attachments based on base64 signatures. The rejections of the last 7 days are at http://www.space.net/~maex/asrg-exec.txt First row is the number of rejections, second row is host:ip. With a probability of nearly one, all of the filtered messages have been viruses. Apart from the data you collected from the Sobig.F outbreak the spreading with the average background noise shows a little different data according to the above numbers. > This is what one would have expected > anyhow - corporate machines are generally better protected and less > likely to be compromised and machines with only a (slow) modem > connection would send out fewer messages than the ones with a fast > connection. > > The relevance to spam is that this is presumably the same group of > machines as spammers using compromised machines would be interested in. I don't think so. IMHO spammers don't care too much, speed is a nice to have addon but I don't think it makes a big difference for them if the compromised host takes 2 or 5 hours to blast out the spam. > "This is one of my machines, but it is not authorized to send mail > from my domain" - this result would typically indicate a compromised > machine - either trying to send out worms or spam. > > "This is not one of my machines, and therefore it is not authorized > to send mail from my domain" - this result would either indicate > a forgery or perhaps a "roaming salesman" instance. > > What I don't quite see is how LMAP would distinguish between those two > cases - or if it can indeed do so. Clarification, anyone? LMAP can't distinguish and it is IMHO irrelevant. The machine is not authorized to send emails with a sender address from domain example.com, regardless under whom's authority the machine is. \Maex -- SpaceNet AG | Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 | Fon: +49 (89) 32356-0 Research & Development | D-80807 Muenchen | Fax: +49 (89) 32356-299 "The security, stability and reliability of a computer system is reciprocally proportional to the amount of vacuity between the ears of the admin" _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Dec 11 20:47:39 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA06981 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 20:47:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUcOd-0005OP-12 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 20:47:11 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBC1lA79020723 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 20:47:10 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUcOc-0005OA-TW for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 20:47:10 -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 UAA06953 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 20:47:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUcOa-0000Dp-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 20:47:08 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUcOa-0000Dm-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 20:47:08 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUcOS-0005KT-Mf; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 20:47:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUcNn-0005J7-LQ for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 20:46:19 -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 UAA06909 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 20:46:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUcNl-0000BI-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 20:46:17 -0500 Received: from mail001.syd.optusnet.com.au ([211.29.132.142]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUcNk-0000AY-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 20:46:16 -0500 Received: from zen.fernhaven (c211-30-105-76.carlnfd1.nsw.optusnet.com.au [211.30.105.76]) by mail001.syd.optusnet.com.au (8.11.6p2/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBC1jdt03471 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 12:45:40 +1100 Received: from [172.16.0.129] (helo=fred.fernhaven) by zen.fernhaven with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1AUcN8-0000qx-00 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 12:45:38 +1100 From: Brett Watson To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: [ASRG] 0. General - Etymology trivia: "virus" User-Agent: KMail/1.5.3 Organization: PhD Student, Macquarie University MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200312121247.24894.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: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 12:47:24 +1100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 00:51:55 +0100, Markus Stumpf observed: > I don't know if I am a "k00l VXdudez", but I had 5 years of Latin in > school and the correct plural of "virus" is "viri" (not "viruses" and > in no way "virii" ;-). The plural form was very rarely used in written > text, so some people say is doesn't have one in Latin, which is wrong. Disclosure: I had only four years of high school Latin, and I was bad at it. Caveat lector. "Virus" is, in fact, derived from the Latin "virus", meaning "poison" (and some similar unpleasant substances). It appears to be in the same declension as "radius", where the nominative singular takes the "us" inflection, and the plural takes an "i" inflection. Thus, the Latin plural of "virus" would be "viri", just as "radius" becomes "radii" (the "i" being doubled there because it was also present in the singular). As to why we've abandoned the Latinate plural in English in favour of "viruses", I don't know. ("Radiuses" is also a common plural variant for "radius", I note.) Perhaps it could be blamed on the fact that we've adopted a fairly specific meaning for "virus" in English which is not the same as its Latin meaning, so the word has been co-opted rather than incorporated. The term "virus" was adopted in the first instance because researchers thought they had found a new form of fluid toxin, which later turned out to be a misconception. [http://library.thinkquest.org/23054/basics/page3.html (Warning: site appears to have annoying referer URL behaviour preventing direct linking, so additional navigation may be necessary.)] Language is weird. We now return you to your regular ASRG arguments. Regards, TFBW _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Dec 11 21:01:36 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA07418 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 21:01:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUcc7-0005vW-VK for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 21:01:08 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBC217U6022776 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 21:01:07 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUcc7-0005vH-An for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 21:01:07 -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 VAA07406 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 21:01:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUcc4-0000Xe-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 21:01:05 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUcc4-0000Xb-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 21:01:04 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUcc0-0005sg-R1; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 21:01:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUcbC-0005pE-T7 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 21:00:10 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA07371 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 21:00:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUcbA-0000WI-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 21:00:08 -0500 Received: from omrnat5.verisignmail.com ([216.168.230.164] helo=omr3.verisignmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUcb9-0000WF-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 21:00:07 -0500 Received: from ms4.verisignmail.com (IDENT:mirapoint@[216.168.230.177]) by omr3.verisignmail.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hBC1vV3S013770 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 20:57:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from CV606598A (banane.boylesoftware.com [209.11.77.94]) by ms4.verisignmail.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.2.2-GA) with SMTP id AWM79505; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 21:00:07 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: From: "Gilman Research Services" 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) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] 2 Questions: History of "Challenge-Response" SPAM filter and Info re. Julian Byrne Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 20:59:55 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello, I am a patent researcher conducting research into the history of "Challenge-Response" SPAM filters and would appreciate any assistance or guidance you can provide. I apologize if this is not exactly in keeping with the list's posting guidelines. 1) I believe I am up to date on the current status of "Challenge-Response" SPAM filters but seem to have hit a dead end re. the history of the strategy. Most references go back as far as 1996 and 1997 with newsgroup postings by Julian Byrne on the topic, i.e., "challenge-response antispam 'bot (CRABS) and others. Can anyone provide me with any additional references that pre-date 1997? 2) Secondly, does anyone have any additional information re. Julian Byrne? There appears to be no posting by the professor after 1998 and he is no longer at Monash University in AU. Again and information would be appreciated. Thank you in advance for your patience and time. Sincerely, Norm Gilman Gilman Research Services, LLC _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Dec 11 21:42:36 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA08604 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 21:42:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUdFo-0000bD-Q7 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 21:42:09 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBC2g8ms002297 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 21:42:08 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUdFo-0000ay-Fp for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 21:42:08 -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 VAA08591 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 21:42:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUdFl-0001DA-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 21:42:05 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUdFl-0001D7-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 21:42:05 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUdFh-0000YY-RP; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 21:42:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUdFQ-0000Y8-R5 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 21:41:44 -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 VAA08575 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 21:41:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUdFO-0001CT-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 21:41:42 -0500 Received: from mail.asarian-host.net ([194.109.160.70] helo=asarian-host.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUdFN-0001CQ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 21:41:41 -0500 Comments: To protect the identity of the sender, certain header fields are either not shown, or masked. Anonymous email accounts can be requested by filling in the appropriate form at: https://asarian-host.net/cgi-bin/signup.cgi Received: (from root@localhost) by mail.asarian-host.net (8.12.10/8.12.10) id hBC2fftu012357 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 03:41:41 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from admin@asarian-host.net) From: Mark Received-SPF: pass (asarian-host.net: SASL permitted sender) Message-Id: <200312120241.HBC2FEKD012345@asarian-host.net> X-Authenticated-Sender: admin@asarian-host.net Subject: Re: [ASRG] 0. General - Etymology trivia: "virus" X-Trace: o6mfjcIkLzs3HH40DMc7tcasq6kxCw88HWe2pt/6b6ttdu7KSpvgseSBHJzoBU+2mZ/ZtB7h1MNzkKrKXDEYZg== X-Complaints-To: abuse@asarian-host.net X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers, otherwise we are unable to process your complaint Organization: Asarian-host To: References: <200312121247.24894.famous-asrg@nutters.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 X-Auth: Asarian-host PGP signature iQEVAwUAP9kq5TFqW1BleBN9AQFidAf/TOlVVn3wkCrbJ0YbznYBT/dKdmMBSp3H lCj9u61PqKawEBf4U2rZ4wcF9L4mBjxu6V9biOoIKXXwNgdeJVV9TOGxvgpYlpiz gNMhztyTD9V87d5NC9PZdPV+SJt34y9AbJ6vPzhDZPoHigMQjJk/HcPGARwDAXKg Gx8Z1sLYBo067mZ6FYbZFmyCGbWe2uIpu0unY6s/kE7VMzFPgwDtwuY8m3BWsQM6 9UN6fyeKf+N05/O8HcNFsEaWK76jh4Xa/ldLcQGrG6L8GRXLPE7rdjEWainGIEud 45vuiqH+MFk6KQIRmxNohFofSD3PH+W2PJnfBmKWcxBnY6l2/MMRJQ== =x6+T Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 02:41:41 GMT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 00:51:55 +0100, Markus Stumpf observed: > I don't know if I am a "k00l VXdudez", but I had 5 years of Latin in > school and the correct plural of "virus" is "viri" (not "viruses" and > in no way "virii" ;-). The plural form was very rarely used in written > text, so some people say is doesn't have one in Latin, which is wrong. I remember it differently. :) The Latin "virus" is of a rare form (2nd declension neuter nouns in -us), and begot its "us" ending probably because, in its meaning of venom, it is cognate to the Greek "ios" = poison. Neuters of the 2nd declension have no plural. Which would make "viruses" the correct English plural. I am open to evidence to the contrary, of course. - Mark _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Dec 11 21:56:47 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA08921 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 21:56:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUdTW-0000yp-0l for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 21:56:20 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBC2uHV6003767 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 21:56:17 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUdTV-0000yg-PT for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 21:56:17 -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 VAA08916 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 21:56:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUdTS-0001Qk-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 21:56:14 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUdTS-0001Qh-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 21:56:14 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUdTG-0000ud-CV; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 21:56:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUdSV-0000uJ-DM for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 21:55:15 -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 VAA08895 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 21:55:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUdSS-0001Ps-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 21:55:12 -0500 Received: from mail.chariot.net.au ([203.87.95.38]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUdSR-0001PI-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 21:55:11 -0500 Received: from rebel (ppp-178.cust203-87-110.ghr.chariot.net.au [203.87.110.178]) by mail.chariot.net.au (Postfix) with SMTP id 9F39062444; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 13:24:34 +1030 (CST) From: "Chris" To: "Markus Stumpf" , "Fridrik Skulason" Cc: Subject: Re: [ASRG] 0. General - Etymology trivia: "virus" 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 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 In-Reply-To: <20031211235155.GB43199@Space.Net> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 13:28:23 +1030 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit an interesting note about the plural of virus Taken from... http://www.cs.helsinki.fi/linux/linux-kernel/2001-30/0607.html What I don't understand is why people use the form virii, with a double I! Just like the plural of abacus is abaci, the plural of cactus is cacti (check the dictionary if you don't believe me), shouldn't the plural of virus be viri, with one I at the end (of course, "viruses" is also currently accepted as a plural, and even preferred by some people). I think people get confused by the fact that the plural of radius is radii. That extra "I" comes from the i in radius - it shouldn't appear in the plural of "virus"! The plural of the different word "virius" should have been virii. =============================== I was always told virii was the plural and 'viruses' was vulgar well I'll use viri from now on Regards Chris > -----Original Message----- > From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of > Markus Stumpf > Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 10:22 AM > To: Fridrik Skulason > Cc: asrg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals: MTA MARK > > > On Thu, Dec 11, 2003 at 09:22:01AM +0000, Fridrik Skulason wrote: > > The document uses the term "viri". Now, there is an interesting > > division of terminology in the anti-virus field. AV people use the > > plural "viruses", while the "k00l VXdudez" use "viri" or "virii" > > as a means of distinguishing them. The side effect is that anyone > > talking about "viri" or "virii" just does not get taken seriously > > by the anti-virus community. > > I don't know if I am a "k00l VXdudez", but I had 5 years of Latin in > school and the correct plural of "virus" is "viri" (not "viruses" and > in no way "virii" ;-). The plural form was very rarely used in written > text, so some people say is doesn't have one in Latin, which is wrong. > > However, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, the correct plural > in English language is "viruses". I'll change that. Please blame it to > the fact that I am not a native English speaker ;-) > > > However, MTA MARK would not have any effects on viruses. It would > > only affect worms, more specifically a certain subset of worms. It > > would not affect network worms like CodeRed, so I suggest not using > > that as an example. It will only affect those worms which have > > their own SMTP code and use that to spread, instead of sending mail > > through the ISP of the end user. > > This is not true. > Even very "simple" viruses like VBS/Lovelet-AS spread via eMail by using > the MAPI of the infected host. It did NOT have its own SMTP code. Some > of the recent viruses do have their own SMTP module talking SMTP directly > to remote hosts, some of them simply use e.g. the MAPI of the infected > host. Whether the message that is sent via the MAPI uses smarthosts or > gets delivered directly depends on the global configuration of the MAPI. > > The mention of CodeRed and Nimda is in a section that argues > that one cannot trust on users to update their computers, even if the > security holes are some month old and patches exist for quite some time, > just like you can't count on them to configure their programs correctly > as can be seen from the number of open proxy servers. > > > During the Sobig.F outbreak we collected data on which machines were > > responsible for sending out the viruses. It turned out that the vast > > majority of analysed samples were from privately owned PCs with an > > ASDL or broadband connection. > > We don't have an AV software in that mailserver, but we reject > executable attachments based on base64 signatures. The rejections of > the last 7 days are at > http://www.space.net/~maex/asrg-exec.txt > First row is the number of rejections, second row is host:ip. With a > probability of nearly one, all of the filtered messages have been > viruses. Apart from the data you collected from the Sobig.F outbreak the > spreading with the average background noise shows a little different data > according to the above numbers. > > > This is what one would have expected > > anyhow - corporate machines are generally better protected and less > > likely to be compromised and machines with only a (slow) modem > > connection would send out fewer messages than the ones with a fast > > connection. > > > > The relevance to spam is that this is presumably the same group of > > machines as spammers using compromised machines would be interested in. > > I don't think so. IMHO spammers don't care too much, speed is a nice to > have addon but I don't think it makes a big difference for them if the > compromised host takes 2 or 5 hours to blast out the spam. > > > "This is one of my machines, but it is not authorized to send mail > > from my domain" - this result would typically indicate a compromised > > machine - either trying to send out worms or spam. > > > > "This is not one of my machines, and therefore it is not authorized > > to send mail from my domain" - this result would either indicate > > a forgery or perhaps a "roaming salesman" instance. > > > > What I don't quite see is how LMAP would distinguish between those two > > cases - or if it can indeed do so. Clarification, anyone? > > LMAP can't distinguish and it is IMHO irrelevant. The machine is not > authorized to send emails with a sender address from domain example.com, > regardless under whom's authority the machine is. > > \Maex > > -- > SpaceNet AG | Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 | Fon: +49 (89) 32356-0 > Research & Development | D-80807 Muenchen | Fax: +49 > (89) 32356-299 > "The security, stability and reliability of a computer system is > reciprocally > proportional to the amount of vacuity between the ears of the admin" > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Dec 11 22:04:34 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA09110 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 22:04:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUdb5-0001EE-03 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 22:04:07 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBC346FD004716 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 22:04:06 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUdb4-0001Dz-Qr for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 22:04:06 -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 WAA09085 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 22:04:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUdb1-0001ZV-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 22:04:03 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUdb1-0001ZS-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 22:04:03 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUdaz-00019G-9o; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 22:04:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUWwT-0005Wx-Is for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 14:57:45 -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 OAA17419 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 14:57:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUWwQ-00069z-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 14:57:42 -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 1AUWwQ-00067q-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 14:57:42 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-367-075.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.148.80]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HPQ004R8Y32TK@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 19:57:06 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich To: ASRG Message-id: <3FD8CC0B.8030501@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 - News Article - Man Arrested under the Virginia's Spam Law Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 14:56:59 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT From Reuters (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/nm/20031211/ts_nm/tech_spam_virginia_dc): "Virginia Authorities Arrest Man on Spam Charges DULLES, Va. (Reuters) - Virginia authorities said on Thursday they had arrested and charged a North Carolina man for sending "spam" e-mail, under a new state law that could bring penalties of up to five years in prison on each count. Virginia Attorney General Jerry Kilgore said Jeremy Jaynes had been arrested earlier Thursday in Raleigh, N.C., on four counts of using fraudulent means to transmit spam." ------- Yakov Shafranovich / asrg shaftek.org SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / research solidmatrix.com "Some lies are easier to believe than the truth" (Dune) ------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Dec 11 22:34:37 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA09800 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 22:34:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUe4A-0002Za-U7 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 22:34:10 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBC3YAPC009884 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 22:34:10 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUe4A-0002ZL-Px for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 22:34:10 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA09794 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 22:34:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUe47-00027t-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 22:34:07 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUe47-00027q-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 22:34:07 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUe41-0002X9-GK; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 22:34:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUdbL-0001Jc-Jt for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 22:04:23 -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 WAA09104 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 22:04:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUdbI-0001a3-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 22:04:20 -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 1AUdbI-0001Yh-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 22:04:20 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-390-845.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.240.206]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HPR00AKUHRA5A@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 03:02:05 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich In-reply-to: To: ngilman@gilmanresearch.com Cc: asrg@ietf.org Message-id: <3FD92FA6.7050707@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 Subject: [Asrg] 0. General - IPR - Patents on C/R Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 22:01:58 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT [Subject changed as per posting guidelines, was "Re: [Asrg] 2 Questions: History of "Challenge-Response" SPAM filter and Info re. Julian Byrne". Mod.]. See the following link: http://www.solidmatrix.com/research/asrg/asrg-ipr.html Gilman Research Services wrote: > Hello, > > I am a patent researcher conducting research into the history of > "Challenge-Response" SPAM filters and would appreciate any assistance or > guidance you can provide. I apologize if this is not exactly in keeping with > the list's posting guidelines. > > 1) I believe I am up to date on the current status of "Challenge-Response" > SPAM filters but seem to have hit a dead end re. the history of the > strategy. Most references go back as far as 1996 and 1997 with newsgroup > postings by Julian Byrne on the topic, i.e., "challenge-response antispam > 'bot (CRABS) and others. Can anyone provide me with any additional > references that pre-date 1997? > > 2) Secondly, does anyone have any additional information re. Julian Byrne? > There appears to be no posting by the professor after 1998 and he is no > longer at Monash University in AU. Again and information would be > appreciated. > > Thank you in advance for your patience and time. > > Sincerely, > > Norm Gilman > Gilman Research Services, LLC > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > ------- Yakov Shafranovich / asrg shaftek.org SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / research solidmatrix.com "Among all our enemies / The ones to be most feared are often the smallest" (Jean de la Fontaine) ------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Dec 11 22:55:38 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA10117 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 22:55:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUeOT-0003SW-IF for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 22:55:11 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBC3t9tO013290 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 22:55:09 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUeOT-0003SH-Dq for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 22:55:09 -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 WAA10110 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 22:55:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUeOP-0002NU-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 22:55:06 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUeOP-0002NR-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 22:55:05 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUeOM-0003LW-9s; Thu, 11 Dec 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 1AUeO4-0003Kp-R2 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 22:54:44 -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 WAA10078 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 22:54:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUeO1-0002Mw-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 22:54:41 -0500 Received: from ntbbs.winserver.com ([208.247.131.9] helo=winserver.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUeO0-0002Mt-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 22:54:40 -0500 Received: by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v5.7.450.9b10) for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 22:55:12 -0500 Received: from ([68.215.35.71]) EHLO=FAMILY by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v5.7.450.9b10) with SMTP id 3435777515; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 22:55:11 -0500 Message-ID: <006101c3c063$ad343140$6401a8c0@FAMILY> From: "Hector Santos" To: "Mark" , References: <200312121247.24894.famous-asrg@nutters.org> <200312120241.HBC2FEKD012345@asarian-host.net> Subject: Re: [ASRG] 0. General - Etymology trivia: "virus" 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: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 22:54:41 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I think it may be important to understand in which context it is presented. Coming from a Chemical Engineering background, I recall the usage of the word "viri" as the plural of a virus to the hard core anal retentive scientist in a presentation to other scientist. To the layman and the common usage, viruses is used, Similarly, in my mail business experience for the last ~20 years across many different environments, I was often challenged to use the word "fora" as the plural of "forums" in a technical context. But in the layman context, it is far more meaningful to have in your support conversations/documentation: "To create forums, go to ............." rather than say: "To create a fora, go to ............." Imagine if the IETF has on their web site: "The IETF offers the following standards fora:" The layman might see that to mean a singular public discussion area, when in fact it means "forums" Same ergonomic considerations are made today with virus and viruses vs. viri. I doubt Anti-Virus software vendors will have marketing material saying: "Our software is designed to protected you from viri." -- Hector ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark" To: Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 9:41 PM Subject: Re: [ASRG] 0. General - Etymology trivia: "virus" > On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 00:51:55 +0100, Markus Stumpf observed: > > > I don't know if I am a "k00l VXdudez", but I had 5 years of Latin in > > school and the correct plural of "virus" is "viri" (not "viruses" and > > in no way "virii" ;-). The plural form was very rarely used in written > > text, so some people say is doesn't have one in Latin, which is wrong. > > I remember it differently. :) > > The Latin "virus" is of a rare form (2nd declension neuter nouns in -us), > and begot its "us" ending probably because, in its meaning of venom, it is > cognate to the Greek "ios" = poison. Neuters of the 2nd declension have no > plural. Which would make "viruses" the correct English plural. > > I am open to evidence to the contrary, of course. > > - Mark > > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing 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 Dec 12 06:14:43 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA04259 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 06:14:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUlFQ-0005LE-L9 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 06:14:17 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBCBEGhr020528 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 06:14:16 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUlFO-0005L0-FJ for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 06:14:14 -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 GAA04243 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 06:14:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUlFK-00029J-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 06:14:10 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUlFK-00029G-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 06:14:10 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUlFA-0005IW-S4; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 06:14:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUlEr-0005ID-Lt for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 06:13:41 -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 GAA04231 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 06:13:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUlEn-00028t-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 06:13:37 -0500 Received: from guttormur.frisk-software.com ([213.220.100.9]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUlEn-00028m-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 06:13:37 -0500 Received: by guttormur.frisk-software.com (Postfix, from userid 517) id 8763C38036; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 11:13:07 +0000 (GMT) Received: from localhost.localdomain. (pc28.frisk-software.com [172.16.5.2]) by guttormur.frisk-software.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F1DB38007; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 11:13:07 +0000 (GMT) Received: by localhost.localdomain. (8.9.3/client-1.3) id LAA13908; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 11:13:07 GMT From: Fridrik Skulason To: Markus Stumpf Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals: MTA MARK - and a LMAP note Message-ID: <20031212111307.GG13251@f-prot.com> References: <00e001c3b5ac$ab5f55a0$6400a8c0@INTRA.KOODIA.FI> <3FC78099.8080409@elvey.com> <004c01c3b650$60c77870$0323a8c0@Jimiboy> <3FC92518.2020604@elvey.com> <008e01c3b81b$53cbaa70$6400a8c0@INTRA.KOODIA.FI> <3FD2079B.80106@elvey.com> <009a01c3be43$5d74fc60$6400a8c0@INTRA.KOODIA.FI> <3FD62AA0.8000606@solidmatrix.com> <20031211092201.GE13147@f-prot.com> <20031211235155.GB43199@Space.Net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20031211235155.GB43199@Space.Net> 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: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 11:13:07 +0000 On Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 12:51:55AM +0100, Markus Stumpf wrote: > > However, MTA MARK would not have any effects on viruses. It would > > only affect worms, more specifically a certain subset of worms. It > > would not affect network worms like CodeRed, so I suggest not using > > that as an example. It will only affect those worms which have > > their own SMTP code and use that to spread, instead of sending mail > > through the ISP of the end user. > > This is not true. Perhaps I need to clarify...see below: > Even very "simple" viruses like VBS/Lovelet-AS spread via eMail It is a worm. The definition of a "worm" is basically "self-replicating software that spreads over a network". There is some disagreement on the formal definition of "virus" - one group of AV people considers all intentionally self-replicating programs to be "viruses", and worms therefore just a specific subset of "viruses". Other researchers consider worms and viruses to be different, partially overlapping subsets within the category of self-replicationg programs - arguing that the definition of a virus relies on the infection process, while the definition of "worm" relies on the distribution process and those are somewhat independent. In any case, any self-replicating program that sends itself by mail (regardless of whether it uses its own SMTP engine or not is a worm. Some of those are also viruses - in other cases there is an ongoing debate on whether to consider them viruses or not. As the proposal would only affect worms, not viruses that are not worms as well, I am just suggesting that it would make more sense to talk just about worms to reduce the confusion. Some worms would simply not be affected by MTA MARK at all, namely those that send mail just as if a "real user" was actually sitting at the keyboard and pressing the keys. There is just no way for a a protocol of this kind to distinguish between a worm of this kind and a legitimate user sending mail. Worms of this category do not have their own SMTP code - which is really what I meant earlier - sorry if this was not clear enough. > The mention of CodeRed and Nimda is in a section that argues > that one cannot trust on users to update their computers, even if the > security holes are some month old and patches exist for quite some time, > just like you can't count on them to configure their programs correctly > as can be seen from the number of open proxy servers. All I was saying is that CodeRed is a bad example, as someone might incorrectly assume that MTA MARK would have been effective against it. > > "This is one of my machines, but it is not authorized to send mail > > from my domain" - this result would typically indicate a compromised > > machine - either trying to send out worms or spam. > > > > "This is not one of my machines, and therefore it is not authorized > > to send mail from my domain" - this result would either indicate > > a forgery or perhaps a "roaming salesman" instance. > > > > What I don't quite see is how LMAP would distinguish between those two > > cases - or if it can indeed do so. Clarification, anyone? > > LMAP can't distinguish and it is IMHO irrelevant. The machine is not > authorized to send emails with a sender address from domain example.com, > regardless under whom's authority the machine is. This is not relevant to MTA MARK, of course, but the issue is not irrelevant, as the appropriate reaction would be different. In the first case the the owners of the domain in question would hopefully want to track down the compromised machine and take care of the problem. In the second case, the owners of the domain would only be interested in tracking down the machine if they were planning to go after the person responsibel for well..."fraud". I just brought this up because it seemed useful if LMAP would be able to distinguish between those two cases. -- 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 Fri Dec 12 07:57:43 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA06510 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 07:57:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUmr3-0000V2-9l for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 07:57:14 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBCCvDwf001914 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 07:57:13 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUmr3-0000Un-4W for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 07:57:13 -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 HAA06499 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 07:57:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUmr2-0003ku-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 07:57:12 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUmr1-0003kr-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 07:57:11 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUmqp-0000ST-Qw; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 07:56:59 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUmqQ-0000SF-Lz for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 07:56:34 -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 HAA06484 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 07:56:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUmqP-0003kS-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 07:56:33 -0500 Received: from sccrmhc13.comcast.net ([204.127.202.64]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUmqP-0003jy-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 07:56:33 -0500 Received: from fda.zemos.net ([68.38.12.170]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc13) with ESMTP id <2003121212560201600cvpdje>; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 12:56:02 +0000 Received: from zemos.net (unknown [10.0.0.107]) by fda.zemos.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B62418685; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 07:55:40 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3FD9BB52.4080407@zemos.net> From: Philip Miller User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Fridrik Skulason Cc: Markus Stumpf , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals: MTA MARK - and a LMAP note References: <00e001c3b5ac$ab5f55a0$6400a8c0@INTRA.KOODIA.FI> <3FC78099.8080409@elvey.com> <004c01c3b650$60c77870$0323a8c0@Jimiboy> <3FC92518.2020604@elvey.com> <008e01c3b81b$53cbaa70$6400a8c0@INTRA.KOODIA.FI> <3FD2079B.80106@elvey.com> <009a01c3be43$5d74fc60$6400a8c0@INTRA.KOODIA.FI> <3FD62AA0.8000606@solidmatrix.com> <20031211092201.GE13147@f-prot.com> <20031211235155.GB43199@Space.Net> <20031212111307.GG13251@f-prot.com> In-Reply-To: <20031212111307.GG13251@f-prot.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.76.3.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime 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, 12 Dec 2003 07:57:54 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Fridrik Skulason wrote: > [snipped worm discussion] I have to cast my vote on the side of using 'worm' instead of virus. This is a community of professionals, who've volunteered to contribute their time and knowledge, and I think it's pretty clear Fridrik should know what he's talking about. >>The mention of CodeRed and Nimda is in a section that argues >>that one cannot trust on users to update their computers, even if the >>security holes are some month old and patches exist for quite some time, >>just like you can't count on them to configure their programs correctly >>as can be seen from the number of open proxy servers. > > All I was saying is that CodeRed is a bad example, as someone might > incorrectly assume that MTA MARK would have been effective against it. It's easy enough to just say "Users cannot be trusted to keep their machines secure and up to date." If there's anyone in the IETF commmunity who doesn't believe that, they probably haven't been exposed to users recently (within the past 9 or so years). >>> "This is one of my machines, but it is not authorized to send mail >>> from my domain" - this result would typically indicate a compromised >>> machine - either trying to send out worms or spam. >>> >>> "This is not one of my machines, and therefore it is not authorized >>> to send mail from my domain" - this result would either indicate >>> a forgery or perhaps a "roaming salesman" instance. >>> >>>What I don't quite see is how LMAP would distinguish between those two >>>cases - or if it can indeed do so. Clarification, anyone? >> >>LMAP can't distinguish and it is IMHO irrelevant. The machine is not >>authorized to send emails with a sender address from domain example.com, >>regardless under whom's authority the machine is. > > This is not relevant to MTA MARK, of course, but the issue is not > irrelevant, as the appropriate reaction would be different. In the > first case the the owners of the domain in question would hopefully > want to track down the compromised machine and take care of the > problem. > > In the second case, the owners of the domain would only be interested > in tracking down the machine if they were planning to go after the > person responsibel for well..."fraud". > > I just brought this up because it seemed useful if LMAP would be able to > distinguish between those two cases. The appropriate reaction on the part of the recipient MTA (remember, there is no human involvement in the mail transport system after origination) is to reject the message with a PERMFAIL code. If LMAP catches on, the incidence of attempted domain fraud will drop because it will be clearly seen as futile. There's no reason to bother the domain owner to let them know that someone's committing fraud, the domain owner implemented LMAP so they would never have to hear about it. Similarly, if you were receiving clearly unauthorized or abusive traffic from a specific address, regardless of SMTP or otherwise, you would report it to the owner of the address range, just as it sometimes happens now. The address owner could coincide with the owner of the claimed domain, but that doesn't matter. If Alan DeKok hasn't been following this, one of us may want to bring it to his attention. Considering that this point did spark some debate, verbiage might be necessary in the draft documenting this decision. Philip Miller _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Dec 12 10:58:50 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA13607 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 10:58:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUpgM-0008TJ-74 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 10:58:24 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBCFwMHR032557 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 10:58:22 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUpgM-0008T2-2d for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 10:58:22 -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 KAA13589 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 10:58:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUpgJ-0007fn-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 10:58:19 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUpgJ-0007fk-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 10:58:19 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUpg1-0008ND-7Y; Fri, 12 Dec 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 1AUpfo-0008Mk-Lo for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 10:57:49 -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 KAA13575 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 10:57:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUpfm-0007fM-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 10:57:46 -0500 Received: from newgiles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ([205.150.200.131] helo=mail.nitros9.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUpfl-0007eN-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 10:57:45 -0500 Received: from newgiles.nitros9.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.nitros9.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C842716CFA for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 10:58:21 -0500 (EST) From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals: MTA MARK vs port 25 filtering? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 10 Dec 2003 23:35:01 +0100." <20031210223501.GB38275@Space.Net> Message-Id: <20031212155821.C842716CFA@mail.nitros9.org> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 10:58:21 -0500 Markus Stumpf wrote: > There are two possible and effective points where to filter, they don't > need to be disjoint > a) at the borders of the ISP > b) at he gate to the customer > The cost factor is high for endusers and small companies. With customers > complaining about unacceptable costs for 20 USD DSL flatrates it may be > hard to argue: you have to buy a firewall of vendor X and pay 3000 USD > else you won't get access. Then the ISP can filter any traffic which attacks the network infrastructure. > I am working at an ISP. Our contracts with our customers say that we > deliver Internet from our borders to the gate at the customer and vice > versa. > We cannot start blocking ports as we like. We can't even block spamming > hosts on our customer mailstores - unless they serverly damage operating > of that mailstores. Then your AUP and/or contracts need to change. Your business model involves saving your customers money by allowing them to attack me. You then say there's nothing you can do about it, because the contract *you* wrote & signed with the customer, prevents you from holding them responsible for their behaviour. It's a cute trick, but it's evil. See the LMAP discussion paper. The failure to account for *my* costs means that your business model appears to be profitable, when it really isn't. > > The problem is that spammers have exactly the same business model, > > and we already know it's unethical. > > I can't see what is ethical with censorship. Did I SAY "censorship"? I don't see why you're creating a straw man. This is why I put the rant about "free speech" into the first draft of the LMAP discussion document. Your customers "free speech" is bullshit when you're forcing *me* to pay for it. If you hold your customers responsible for their behaviour, it's not censorship, and there is no impact on "free speech". Go back & read the rants about "free speech" in the document. They're very apropos. > According to our contract they have free and uncensored access to > the Internet. I understand how that's nice, in an ideal world. The problem is you're confusing "censorship" with "quality control". You're confusing "censorship" with "self-protection". Your freedom to swing your fist ends where my face begins. It's not a difficult concept. Preventing your customers from sending forged messages which attack the network infrastructure isn't censorship. e.g. Most customers could probably forge ICMP "destination unreachable" messages, for your routers, web servers, etc., and drop them off of the net. The only reason you don't filter them is because it's difficult to do so. If your customers *were* forging such messages about your hosts, you'd learn quickly to either filter them, or to drop them as customers. Complaints about "censorship" quickly become irrelevant when it's your ass on the line, and your pocket paying for their abusive behaviour. And what if your customers were forging messages about *me*? Would your contract prevent you from blocking that traffic, because you give "uncensored" access to the net? Why is your network so much more important than mine? Why shouldn't I claim the same thing about my idiot customers who are attacking you? Why can't we *both* cooperate, to be responsible netizens? I don't understand what the problem is. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Dec 12 11:35:37 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA15347 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 11:35:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUqFx-000265-Dt for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 11:35:09 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBCGZ9jM008055 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 11:35:09 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUqFx-00025q-81 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 11:35:09 -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 LAA15335 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 11:35:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUqFw-0000nD-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 11:35:08 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUqFv-0000nA-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 11:35:07 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUqFp-00021s-97; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 11:35:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUqFk-00021d-9S for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 11:34:56 -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 LAA15331 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 11:34:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUqFj-0000n5-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 11:34:55 -0500 Received: from omrnat4.verisignmail.com ([216.168.230.163] helo=omr2.verisignmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUqFi-0000n2-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 11:34:54 -0500 Received: from ms4.verisignmail.com (IDENT:mirapoint@[216.168.230.177]) by omr2.verisignmail.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hBCGVYXV028574 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 11:31:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from CV606598A (banane.boylesoftware.com [209.11.77.94]) by ms4.verisignmail.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.2.2-GA) with SMTP id AWN77553; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 11:34:52 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: From: "Gilman Research Services" To: Subject: RE: [Asrg] 2 Questions: History of "Challenge-Response" SPAM filter and Info re. Julian Byrne 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 V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 11:34:42 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello Richard, Thank you for forwarding the message on. I appreciate any additional information you come across. Thanks again, Norm Gilman Gilman Research Services, LLC 42 W. 24th Street New York, NY 10010 Office: 212-675-9655 Fax: 212-647-7175 Cell: 347-804-8790 ngilman@gilmanresearch.com -----Original Message----- From: Richard Welty [mailto:rwelty@averillpark.net] Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 9:36 PM To: ngilman@gilmanresearch.com Subject: Re: [Asrg] 2 Questions: History of "Challenge-Response" SPAM filter and Info re. Julian Byrne i have forwarded your note to a group of people who were there at the time and who will i am certain have a lot to tell you about things back then. challenge-response techniques were being developed extensively in the 1994-1996 time frame, and in some cases for other types of network abuse. for example, in late 1996/early 1997 the majordomo mailing list manager introduced "confirmation" of subscriptions, a variant on challenge-response, in order to bring an end to the practice of "list bombing". there is definitely prior art back into 1996 and possibily back into 1995 or even earlier; the folks to whom i forwarded your email have a good handle on all this history. 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 Dec 12 11:37:31 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA15423 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 11:37:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUqHn-0002Ik-57 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 11:37:03 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBCGb2Lj008831 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 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 1AUqHm-0002IM-Ky for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 11:37:02 -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 LAA15413 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 11:36:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUqHl-0000pv-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 11:37:01 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUqHl-0000ps-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 11:37:01 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUqHk-0002CB-I1; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 11:37:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUqHc-0002BQ-Bt for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 11:36:52 -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 LAA15398 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 11:36:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUqHb-0000p6-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 11:36:51 -0500 Received: from sj-iport-1-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.70] helo=sj-iport-1.cisco.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUqHa-0000oB-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 11:36:51 -0500 Received: from mira-sjc5-c.cisco.com (IDENT:mirapoint@mira-sjc5-c.cisco.com [171.71.163.17]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.9/8.12.6) with ESMTP id hBCGaIAt020935; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 08:36:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from FENTON-W2K1.cisco.com (stealth-10-32-245-99.cisco.com [10.32.245.99]) by mira-sjc5-c.cisco.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.3.6-GR) with SMTP id APB51390; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 08:36:17 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20031210165831.0240e818@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: fenton:mira-sjc5-1.cisco.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 To: Markus Stumpf , asrg@ietf.org From: Jim Fenton Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - DNS + PKI - Yahoo's "Domain Keys" In-Reply-To: <20031209201709.GC76454@Space.Net> References: <3FD626AC.9010002@solidmatrix.com> <20031208183344.1857A16CD1@mail.nitros9.org> <3FD4E090.8000808@solidmatrix.com> <20031209193652.GA76454@Space.Net> <3FD626AC.9010002@solidmatrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 08:36:15 -0800 At 09:17 PM 12/9/2003 +0100, Markus Stumpf wrote: >On Tue, Dec 09, 2003 at 02:46:52PM -0500, Yakov Shafranovich wrote: >> Would there be a difference if the message is forwarded through a list, >> or is transfered via multiple MTAs? > >No. Because MTAs add headers and zillions of maillinglists add nice >(commercial/informational) trailers or remove attachments. Same for >large companies that think adding pseudo legal disclaimers makes any >difference. >All these destroy the structure of the email. These are problems that >e.g. PGP signers noticed long ago. If the mailing list wants to modify the body of the message or a signed header, the mailing list software needs to check the signature of the message before forwarding it, and replace the signature with one valid for the mailing list itself, after adding whatever it wanted to add. The signature will need to be associated with the envelope-from address, rather than the from address. -Jim _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Dec 12 13:18:41 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA18762 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 13:18:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUrrj-0008AL-41 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 13:18:15 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBCIIFVI031383 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 13:18:15 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUrrj-0008A6-00 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 13:18:15 -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 NAA18758 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 13:18:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUrrh-0003KW-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 13:18:13 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUrrg-0003KT-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 13:18:12 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUrrV-00087l-5s; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 13:18:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUrqr-00087H-Qq for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 13:17:21 -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 NAA18740 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 13:17:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUrqp-0003Ia-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 13:17:19 -0500 Received: from ntbbs.winserver.com ([208.247.131.9] helo=winserver.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUrqp-0003IX-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 13:17:19 -0500 Received: by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v5.7.450.9b10) for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 13:17:44 -0500 Received: from ([68.215.35.71]) EHLO=FAMILY by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v5.7.450.9b10) with SMTP id 3487529656; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 13:17:43 -0500 Message-ID: <000f01c3c0dc$2ec9a190$6401a8c0@FAMILY> From: "Hector Santos" To: Cc: "Anti-Spam" References: Subject: Re: [Asrg] 2 Questions: History of "Challenge-Response" SPAM filter and Info re. Julian Byrne 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, 12 Dec 2003 13:17:18 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Gilman, It depends what you consider is the "history of the strategy." and you need to know a lot more about the history of 'mass telecomputing' - it did not begin with the internet. You need to know what keywords to search "Challenge/Response or CR" is not it. The strategy of a Callback Verifier (CBV) AKAT Challenge/Response system dates back to the dawn of BBS (Bulletin Board Systems) AKAT Internet Hosting Server , in particular when they evolved to have programmable languages AKAT Server-Side Scripting. Same strategy and concept. Now, mind you, the social engineering of the time centered around verified the caller or signup into a private BBS AKAT Intranet. And for the most part, new user signs up were giving a default "New User" Security Profile, and many CBV systems were designed to not only verify a telephone number AKAT IP Address (and possible his email address) but also automatically upgrade the user access to "Registered" status once the user has been validated. A simple search for "Verifier" on our exclusive customer-only http://www.winserver.com BBS/Support center in the File Area yields at least 60 3rd party CBV for our Wildcat! DOS version (no longer supported). Here is the first 10 or so. Area 6 - WC4 wcCODE Applications AUTOS401.ZIP AUTO-SECURE 4.01, On-line User Security Verifier for WC! 4.01 64,625 11/29/94 BDBCBV20.ZIP BDBCBV v2.0 another EXCELLENT CBV for Wildcat! v4 (WCX 4.xx) 26,211 4/14/96 BESTCALL.ZIP THE BEST CALLback Verifier 4.4 $20 (MB GUARANTEE!) 125 FEATURES! 208,742 11/13/96 BESTLOCK.ZIP The BEST Lock-Out "Twilight Zone..." By The Makers Of Bestcall! 43,505 9/20/95 BESTPAGE.ZIP The (Absolute) BEST Pager Module... From the makers of Bestcall! 41,601 4/11/95 BESTPEEK.ZIP The BEST Who's Online v2.2! By the Makers of Bestcall! 43,976 7/4/95 BESTWHO.ZIP The BESTwho Called Today .WCX program. From the makers of Bestcall! 48,065 4/4/95 BLUE410.ZIP BlueCode Call Back Verifier Written in WCX v4.10... 5,032 3/27/95 BSSLGMAN.ZIP LogonManager for Wildcat 4.12 made w/ wcCODE 4,584 4/30/96 BYTEBACK.ZIP Tired of Bogus Users? Try the ByteBack!! Callback Verification System 7,675 2/3/96 DCAT20.ZIP D'CatBack v2.0, Call-Back Verifier A wcCODE program for Wildcat! 4.x 30,441 6/26/95 FREECALL.ZIP freeCALL source code. A free callback verifier for Wildcat 4,376 11/29/94 ICECBV10.ZIP IceCbv v1.0 - IT WORKS! a WCCODE program written for Wildcat 4.11+ 8,814 7/20/95 Adding the keyword "email" to the search yields 3 for our Windows version (current version). Area 45 - WIN Server wcBasic TELEFI11.ZIP Telefier v1.1 compiled in wcCODE a Telnet verifier for wins 37,987 3/27/97 WSWV.ZIP WS-WebVerify v3.0, Released 12:50 PM 4/25/1999. 85,185 10/28/99 WSWV206.ZIP WS-WebVerify http Security Verifier. *-Upgraded Version-* v2.0.6 236,479 2/14/99 But I won't base it on such a simple search. Also, the dates are "Upload Dates." Not the original design dates. The Wildcat! DOS gain internet support via UUCP (late 80s/early 90s) before the internet was widely available. So I am sure there were CBV systems that focused on validating email addresses. I can also put you in contact with the author of WS-WEBVerifiy who is an beta tester, 3rd party developer and old customer of Wildcat dating back to the DOS days. I'm sure he can give you a good history and grasp on CBV concepts back then and how it evolved today. With that said, by no means, Wildcat! has a copyright on the CBV concept. There were plenty of other BBS/internet ready systems during the 90s as well. None really survive like us but, do a simple Google search for "CBV BBS EMAIL" and you will find quite a few still being used or 3rd party files archived. So the history of the strategy is well documented in the BBS annals including those evolved to be internet ready. The difference today, the focus is on SPAM. Original the focus was on validating the "Access", the ingredient that is missing with SMTP hence the problem. Nonetheless, the end result "strategy" is the same. I should also note we researched C/R back in a few years ago specifically for SMTP/EMAIL/WEB operations and it was immediately discarded as an unreliable and social engineering nuisance. However, we did switch to using the recommended permanent SMTP reject response to address spams per the RFC 2505. I believe one of the C/R patent claims is based on the idea. Word of advice to patenteneurs - Search the technology on BBS systems and don't assume that life began with the internet and the web, and even thought GOOGLE is a excellent research tool, you need to go find the BBSes which still have many of the archives remaining from the hey-pre-internet BBS days. PS: Petite left the Yanks! - OUCH! George must be pissed. --- Hector Santos, CTO WINSERVER "Wildcat! Interactive Net Server" support: http://www.winserver.com sales: http://www.santronics.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gilman Research Services" To: Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 8:59 PM Subject: [Asrg] 2 Questions: History of "Challenge-Response" SPAM filter and Info re. Julian Byrne > Hello, > > I am a patent researcher conducting research into the history of > "Challenge-Response" SPAM filters and would appreciate any assistance or > guidance you can provide. I apologize if this is not exactly in keeping with > the list's posting guidelines. > > 1) I believe I am up to date on the current status of "Challenge-Response" > SPAM filters but seem to have hit a dead end re. the history of the > strategy. Most references go back as far as 1996 and 1997 with newsgroup > postings by Julian Byrne on the topic, i.e., "challenge-response antispam > 'bot (CRABS) and others. Can anyone provide me with any additional > references that pre-date 1997? > > 2) Secondly, does anyone have any additional information re. Julian Byrne? > There appears to be no posting by the professor after 1998 and he is no > longer at Monash University in AU. Again and information would be > appreciated. > > Thank you in advance for your patience and time. > > Sincerely, > > Norm Gilman > Gilman Research Services, LLC > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing 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 Dec 12 16:44:50 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA28267 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 16:44:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUv5B-0001Tt-SU for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 16:44:23 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBCLiLCV005687 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 16:44:21 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUv5B-0001Te-5h for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 16:44:21 -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 QAA28227 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 16:44:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUv59-0001rB-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 16:44:19 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUv58-0001r2-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 16:44:18 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUv4s-0001RB-8j; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 16:44:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUv4M-0001Q8-67 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 16:43:30 -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 QAA28201 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 16:43:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUv4K-0001p7-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 16:43:28 -0500 Received: from moebius2.space.net ([195.30.1.100]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUv4J-0001p1-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 16:43:27 -0500 Received: (qmail 35142 invoked by uid 1013); 12 Dec 2003 21:43:27 -0000 From: Markus Stumpf To: Alan DeKok Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals: MTA MARK vs port 25 filtering? Message-ID: <20031212214327.GD20229@Space.Net> References: <20031210223501.GB38275@Space.Net> <20031212155821.C842716CFA@mail.nitros9.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20031212155821.C842716CFA@mail.nitros9.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Organization: SpaceNet AG, Muenchen, Germany X-PGP-Fingerprint: 66 F3 75 79 01 D0 B8 5F 1A C7 77 88 4A B6 70 DF Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 22:43:27 +0100 Hoi Alan, On Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 10:58:21AM -0500, Alan DeKok wrote: > > We cannot start blocking ports as we like. We can't even block spamming > > hosts on our customer mailstores - unless they serverly damage operating > > of that mailstores. > > Then your AUP and/or contracts need to change. No. It's just like if you are living in a country like the USA or Germany or a lot of other states you are free to go wherever you want. If you fail to adhere to the agreed upon social system you get busted. It's not that you are put in prison and if you can prove that you can behave in that room you're allowed to move in a house and after that you can also use the garden and if you dfo that fine you're allowed to talk to your neighbors. > Your business model involves saving your customers money by allowing > them to attack me. You then say there's nothing you can do about it, > because the contract *you* wrote & signed with the customer, prevents > you from holding them responsible for their behaviour. Where did I say that? I said we have contracts with our customers and I cannot go and start blocking port 25 on the border routers "just because". We can and we did pull the plug of abusive/spamming customers or 0wned hosts. The structure of the Internet is a peering model and it works because of that. If you don't like it you have to make contracts with everyone you want to talk to and without a contract none can talk to you. That's a different model, but it's not the Internet. > See the LMAP discussion paper. The failure to account for *my* > costs means that your business model appears to be profitable, when it > really isn't. Sorry, but this is a cruel world. I don't steal and I don't want to pay the extra money that the stores charge to compensate for stolen goods. So I think nobody should be allowed into a store where I but things unless he can prove that he will not steal. Nice try, but our world works on the presumption of innocence and I think it is good that way. > > > The problem is that spammers have exactly the same business model, > > > and we already know it's unethical. > > I can't see what is ethical with censorship. > Did I SAY "censorship"? I don't see why you're creating a straw > man. > > This is why I put the rant about "free speech" into the first draft > of the LMAP discussion document. Your customers "free speech" is > bullshit when you're forcing *me* to pay for it. No it is different. I am not saying that everyone should be allowed to say anything in any way he wants and surely not at 4 a.m. with a speaker van at 10000 watts. But with the presumption of innocence each one should be allowed to send a mail to another person on the internet without some authority blocking it by default "just because". English is not my mother language so maybe censorship in English is not the word for what I want to express. Sorry if this is the case. I don't know if "filter" would be a better word. > I understand how that's nice, in an ideal world. The problem is > you're confusing "censorship" with "quality control". You're > confusing "censorship" with "self-protection". Your freedom to swing > your fist ends where my face begins. It's not a difficult concept. There is no way for any mailserver administrator or ISP or router admin to decide whether a customers mail is "good" or "bad" unless he can read the email. Reading and controlling each and every email before letting it pass the border of your IT infrastructure is impossible for anyone/ any business with more than 100 emails a day and 5 people. Even more if you have to take care about data protection. So it is useless to block port 25 for everyone "just because". We have an AUP that forbids to send "bad" mails (whatever that means, in our case it's including UCE and spam) and we can take actions if a customer fails to adhere. But unless he fails, he has free and unfiltered access to the Internet and IMHO this is a good thing. > Preventing your customers from sending forged messages which attack > the network infrastructure isn't censorship. e.g. Most customers > could probably forge ICMP "destination unreachable" messages, for your > routers, web servers, etc., and drop them off of the net. No, they can't. Our routers do know which side the addresses may come from. > And what if your customers were forging messages about *me*? Would > your contract prevent you from blocking that traffic, because you give > "uncensored" access to the net? No. As I said, we can/do/did disconnect customers if they are abusive. But as each ISP sells connectivity they get connectivity, unfiltered - unless they are abusive. > I don't understand what the problem is. Nor do I ;-) \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 Dec 12 17:05:38 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA29102 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 17:05:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUvPK-0002ae-JA for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 17:05:11 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBCM5ADH009953 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 17:05:10 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUvPK-0002aS-BU for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 17:05:10 -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 RAA29095 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 17:05:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUvPI-0002SB-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 17:05:08 -0500 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=manatick) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUvPH-0002S8-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 17:05:07 -0500 Received: from [132.151.6.22] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by manatick with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1AUvPH-0001Me-LH for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 17:05:08 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUvPD-0002Wb-MX; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 17:05:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUvOj-0002Vf-M1 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 17:04:33 -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 RAA29087 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 17:04:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUvOh-0002RJ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 17:04:31 -0500 Received: from cs24361-152.austin.rr.com ([24.243.61.152] helo=localhost) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUvOg-0002Qo-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 17:04:31 -0500 Received: (qmail 3596 invoked from network); 12 Dec 2003 22:07:40 -0000 Received: from localhost (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 12 Dec 2003 22:07:40 -0000 Subject: RE: [Asrg] 2 Questions: History of "Challenge-Response" SPAM filter and Info re. Julian Byrne From: rm To: ngilman@gilmanresearch.com Cc: asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1071266859.3155.16.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.2 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: 12 Dec 2003 16:07:40 -0600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Fri, 2003-12-12 at 10:34, Gilman Research Services wrote: > challenge-response techniques were being developed extensively > in the 1994-1996 time frame, and in some cases for other types > of network abuse. for example, in late 1996/early 1997 the majordomo > mailing list manager introduced "confirmation" of subscriptions, a > variant on challenge-response, in order to bring an end to the > practice of "list bombing". > > there is definitely prior art back into 1996 and possibily back into > 1995 or even earlier; the folks to whom i forwarded your email > have a good handle on all this history. We'd done a patent search regarding an email invention we developed a couple of years ago. The earliest "challenge response" patent that we turned up was US 6,199,102B1 by Christopher Alan Cobb, filed August 26, 1997. If you'd like any other particulars, I'd be happy to address them "off list" if you like. good luck regis, -- rm _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Dec 12 17:07:41 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA29222 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 17:07:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUvRK-0002sE-EK for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 17:07:14 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBCM7EwK011040 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 17:07:14 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUvRJ-0002rz-FX for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 17:07:13 -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 RAA29192 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 17:07:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUvRH-0002Ue-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 17:07:11 -0500 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=manatick) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUvRG-0002Ua-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 17:07:11 -0500 Received: from [132.151.6.22] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by manatick with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1AUvRE-0001QK-Al for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 17:07:09 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUvR8-0002n0-Dv; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 17:07:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUvQu-0002kn-Ki for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 17:06:48 -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 RAA29181 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 17:06:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUvQs-0002UE-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 17:06:46 -0500 Received: from newgiles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ([205.150.200.131] helo=mail.nitros9.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUvQr-0002UB-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 17:06:45 -0500 Received: from newgiles.nitros9.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.nitros9.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9B7F16CFA for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 17:07:19 -0500 (EST) From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals: MTA MARK vs port 25 filtering? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 12 Dec 2003 22:43:27 +0100." <20031212214327.GD20229@Space.Net> Message-Id: <20031212220719.E9B7F16CFA@mail.nitros9.org> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 17:07:19 -0500 Markus Stumpf wrote: > But with the presumption of innocence each one should be allowed to send > a mail to another person on the internet without some authority blocking > it by default "just because". My whole point is that you may have *reasons* for blocking port 25: The user didn't accept responsibility for traffic being sent to that port, coming from his network. Similarly, you probably block BGP connections from people you don't have peering agreements with. I don't see how blocking any other protocol is different. > Reading and controlling each and every email before letting > it pass the border of your IT infrastructure is impossible for anyone/ > any business with more than 100 emails a day and 5 people. Even more if > you have to take care about data protection. Again, I have NEVER said that doing this would be a good idea. I don't see why you're bringing it up. It simply isn't relevant. > We have an AUP that forbids to send "bad" mails (whatever that means, in > our case it's including UCE and spam) and we can take actions if a customer > fails to adhere. But unless he fails, he has free and unfiltered access to > the Internet and IMHO this is a good thing. The point I was trying to make is simple: I don't understand why you're treating SMTP different on one hand (you have an AUP), but then claiming you're not treating it differently on the other (you claim to give free and un-filtered access to the net.) You've already decided that you have NOT given your customers absolutely free and totally unfiltered access to the net, so stop trying to pretend otherwise. You're already filtering network traffic you find abusive, or which attacks your local infrastructure. It makes sense to me, then, if we both agree to each filter network traffic which abuses the other person. It just saves time, money, and work for everyone. > > e.g. Most customers > > could probably forge ICMP "destination unreachable" messages, for your > > routers, web servers, etc., and drop them off of the net. > > No, they can't. > Our routers do know which side the addresses may come from. So you're doing even more filtering than you said originally. Why not extend that filtering to network abuse *other* than forged packets? My point is that "free and unfiltered access to the net" does not exist for the vast majority of people. ISP's are already limiting the things they let customers do. Things like MTAMark or port 25 filtering, are less than optimal, but they won't result in the destruction of the Internet, or even the "end to end" principle. SMTP has never been "end to end". RFC 2487, Section 7, Security Considerations, says: ... It should be noted that SMTP is not an end-to-end mechanism ... See? You can filter port 25 without the Internet exploding. The RFC's say so. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Dec 12 17:16:34 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA29518 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 17:16:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUvZv-0003UI-LU for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 17:16:07 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBCMG7o9013400 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 17:16:07 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUvZv-0003U3-Go for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 17:16:07 -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 RAA29477 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 17:16:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUvZt-0002hP-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 17:16:05 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUvZs-0002hM-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 17:16:04 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUvZp-0003Q3-UA; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 17:16:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUvZo-0003PX-8h for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 17:16:00 -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 RAA29474 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 17:15:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUvZm-0002h5-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 17:15:58 -0500 Received: from newgiles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ([205.150.200.131] helo=newgiles.nitros9.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUvZk-0002h1-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 17:15:57 -0500 Received: (from aland@localhost) by newgiles.nitros9.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id hBCMGZA18548; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 17:16:35 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200312122216.hBCMGZA18548@newgiles.nitros9.org> From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: [Asrg] 4a. Taxonomy. Censorship vs. 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: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 17:16:35 -0500 (EST) For those who are don't read long messages, I'd like to summarize my thoughts in a short message. Censorship =~ rejection of traffic based on content filtering =~ rejection of traffic based on invalid control messages Unlike Telecom, IP sends control traffic "in-band". This means that when that control traffic is filtered, people get confused, and call it "censorship". It's not censorship to put a notch filter at 2600Hz on payphones. It's not censorship to block traffic from 127/8 on the backbone. Both filters block invalid control signals from propagating throughout the network. Most users have no business sending such signals. Put another way, control signals are only permitted through prior business arrangements, which are negotiated outside of the network. People who don't have those business arrangements are called "customers", not "peers". They have no business (literally) sending control signals. Such false signals are called "attacks", or "abuse of the network". Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Dec 12 22:41:59 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA11499 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 22:41:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AV0ep-0008Ma-Kt for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 22:41:32 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBD3fV8J032140 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 22:41:31 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AV0ep-0008MI-24 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 22:41:31 -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 WAA11492 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 22:41:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AV0el-0001o9-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 22:41:27 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AV0el-0001o5-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 22:41:27 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AV0eM-0008JP-T5; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 22:41:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AV0dh-0008IE-Oi for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 22:40:24 -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 WAA11465 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 22:40:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AV0de-0001nR-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 22:40:18 -0500 Received: from mail.crlf.net ([216.126.92.195]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AV0dd-0001nL-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 22:40:17 -0500 Received: by mail.crlf.net (Postfix, from userid 100) id BD1BD1F001; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 22:43:55 -0500 (EST) From: David Maxwell To: Markus Stumpf Cc: Alan DeKok , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals: MTA MARK vs port 25 filtering? Message-ID: <20031213034355.GU29673@mail> References: <20031210223501.GB38275@Space.Net> <20031212155821.C842716CFA@mail.nitros9.org> <20031212214327.GD20229@Space.Net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20031212214327.GD20229@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, 12 Dec 2003 22:43:55 -0500 On Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 10:43:27PM +0100, Markus Stumpf wrote: > Hoi Alan, > > On Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 10:58:21AM -0500, Alan DeKok wrote: > > > We cannot start blocking ports as we like. We can't even block spamming > > > hosts on our customer mailstores - unless they serverly damage operating > > > of that mailstores. > > > > Then your AUP and/or contracts need to change. > > No. It's just like if you are living in a country like the USA or > Germany or a lot of other states you are free to go wherever you want. > If you fail to adhere to the agreed upon social system you get busted. One simple question... If it was generally agreed that port 25 filtering would significantly reduce spam, then wouldn't it make sense for people to agree to have that filtering applied to their network, in order to cooperate for the greater good? On the flip side, with regard to anyone who didn't want their network filtered... "what are they afraid of"? You clearly don't need to filter port 25 from the entire customer network - just from everything but their MTA. If any customer refuses, please publish their netmask, so we can block traffic from such irresponsible netizens... -- David Maxwell, david@vex.net|david@maxwell.net --> Any sufficiently advanced Common Sense will seem like magic... - me _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Dec 12 23:29:53 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA12229 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 23:29:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AV1PB-0001xY-G8 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 23:29:26 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBD4TPqh007531 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 23:29:25 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AV1PA-0001xO-JX for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 23:29:24 -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 XAA12226 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 23:29:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AV1P8-0002bE-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 23:29:22 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AV1P7-0002bB-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 23:29:21 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AV1Oo-0001tH-ED; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 23:29:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AV1O8-0001sx-1Q for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 23:28:20 -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 XAA12206 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 23:28:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AV1O5-0002aH-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 23:28:17 -0500 Received: from smtpzilla1.xs4all.nl ([194.109.127.137]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AV1O5-0002aE-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 23:28:17 -0500 Received: from asarianhost (mail.asarian-host.net [194.109.160.70]) by smtpzilla1.xs4all.nl (8.12.9/8.12.9) with SMTP id hBD4SGr6081050 for ; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 05:28:17 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <062501c3c131$87641fb0$034fa8c0@asarianhost> From: "Mark" To: References: <20031210223501.GB38275@Space.Net> <20031212155821.C842716CFA@mail.nitros9.org> <20031212214327.GD20229@Space.Net> <20031213034355.GU29673@mail> Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals: MTA MARK vs port 25 filtering? 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, 13 Dec 2003 05:28:07 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Maxwell" To: "Markus Stumpf" Cc: "Alan DeKok" ; Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2003 4:42 AM Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals: MTA MARK vs port 25 filtering? > On the flip side, with regard to anyone who didn't want their > network filtered... "what are they afraid of"? As one running my server on a small business type DSL connection, allow me to show you the other side of the medal. I do not trust my ISP, or any ISP for that matter, to handle my SMTP traffic. And why? Because having to share an SMTP server with hundreds of other customers, means I am completely at the mercy of my ISP, and have to rely on them being responsible. And you know what? They never are. Is the ISP SMTP server blacklisted somewhere? They do not care; or do not understand; or do not care enough to understand. To them, I am just one of a few thousand clients -- see if they care. Oh yes, I was with one of those, before. You call them, fill in their silly forms at their equally silly web sites. But, bottom-line, you either never hear back from them, or they totally brush you off. I, on the other hand, consider myself a trusted person. :) Though I service no more than a few hundred users, I run a tight ship, and no spam, or virus, ever leaves my system. At least not without the client losing his account. I am not blacklisted anywhere, and probably never will be. So, I ask my ISP, and any ISP here for that matter, are you willing, and prepared to put that willingness into contract, that you will guarantee that your SMTP server will not be blacklisted? Of course, they are quick to respond that they cannot guarantee any such thing, as blacklisting elsewhere is not their decision. True, naturally; but, in practice it just means an ISP uses that excuse to remain lazy and irresponsible. What they want, really, is your monthly fee. Anything else just makes you an annoying, pesky customer. Besides, as a client, you never get to talk to the admin of your ISP. Who again so aptly mentioned 'flappers' here? You get to a helpdesk flapper, who understands nothing, and is basically just trained to ask people to plug in their cables properly, That's about all he can do for you; and all which is mostly required. Basically, these odd proposals to block port 25, for home users, is tantamount to saying only ISP's can run servers. Because that, in effect, is what it boils down to. So then, what happened to the core function of an ISP? To provide access to the Internet? I pay good money each month to have that access, which includes my own mail server. In return, my ISP can disallow access should abuse occur. But I can live with that, as I know I will not abuse my connection. I wish I could say the same about my ISP. - Mark _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Dec 13 03:37:52 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA28983 for ; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 03:37:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AV5H6-0003Z5-N6 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 03:37:21 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBD8bJ4f013674 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 03:37:19 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AV5H3-0003YL-3I for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 03:37:17 -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 DAA28971 for ; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 03:37:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AV5H0-0006ML-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 03:37:14 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AV5H0-0006MI-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 03:37:14 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AV5Gp-0003Um-4i; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 03:37:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AV5Gd-0003UC-7J for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 03:36:51 -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 DAA28965 for ; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 03:36:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AV5Ga-0006M9-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 03:36:48 -0500 Received: from [194.197.204.198] (helo=netcityzen.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AV5Ga-0006M6-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 03:36:48 -0500 Received: (qmail 31805 invoked from network); 13 Dec 2003 08:36:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO Jimiboy) (212.213.48.177) by www.netcityzen.com with SMTP; 13 Dec 2003 08:36:36 -0000 Message-ID: <005901c3c154$3f06f4e0$0323a8c0@Jimiboy> From: "Tomi Panula-Ontto" To: References: <20031210223501.GB38275@Space.Net> <20031212155821.C842716CFA@mail.nitros9.org> <20031212214327.GD20229@Space.Net> Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals: MTA MARK vs port 25 filtering? 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, 13 Dec 2003 10:36:46 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ----- Original Message ----- From: "Markus Stumpf" To: "Alan DeKok" Cc: Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 11:43 PM Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals: MTA MARK vs port 25 filtering? > Hoi Alan, [cut] > On Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 10:58:21AM -0500, Alan DeKok wrote: > There is no way for any mailserver administrator or ISP or router admin > to decide whether a customers mail is "good" or "bad" unless he can read > the email. Reading and controlling each and every email before letting > it pass the border of your IT infrastructure is impossible for anyone/ > any business with more than 100 emails a day and 5 people. Even more if > you have to take care about data protection. > So it is useless to block port 25 for everyone "just because". > We have an AUP that forbids to send "bad" mails (whatever that means, in > our case it's including UCE and spam) and we can take actions if a customer > fails to adhere. But unless he fails, he has free and unfiltered access to > the Internet and IMHO this is a good thing. This is exactly why MTAMark or ReverseMX should be in use. Customers can take unrestricted connections to anywhere. It's just that they have to use MTA of the ISP for sending smtp messages or ask the ISP to register customers own MTA to the reverse dns. It's up to the receiving MTA to utilize that information. Besides, blocking some defined port propably works as long as SRV record is not widely utilized. (http://www.menandmice.com/online_docs_and_faq/glossary/glossarytoc.htm?srv. record.htm) Tomi _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Dec 13 07:12:47 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA02630 for ; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 07:12:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AV8d7-0002a7-Bf for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 07:12:17 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBDCCHO2009917 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 07:12:17 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AV8d6-0002Zs-UX for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 07:12:16 -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 HAA02618 for ; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 07:12:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AV8d6-0001Dl-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 07:12:16 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AV8d6-0001Di-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 07:12:16 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AV8cr-0002XY-2m; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 07:12:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AV8ca-0002XL-F5 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 07:11:44 -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 HAA02614 for ; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 07:11:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AV8cW-0001DU-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 07:11:40 -0500 Received: from argon.connectinternetsolutions.com ([193.110.243.33] helo=argon.connect.org.uk) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AV8cV-0001DR-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 07:11:39 -0500 Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 1AV8cW-0004jX-Is for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 12:11:40 +0000 In-Reply-To: <200312122216.hBCMGZA18548@newgiles.nitros9.org> Subject: Re: [Asrg] 4a. Taxonomy. Censorship vs. filtering To: "ASRG" From: "Jon Kyme" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.10.1] 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, 13 Dec 2003 12:11:40 +0000 > For those who are don't read long messages, I'd like to summarize my > thoughts in a short message. > > > Censorship =~ rejection of traffic based on content > > filtering =~ rejection of traffic based on invalid control messages > > Unlike Telecom, IP sends control traffic "in-band". This means that > when that control traffic is filtered, people get confused, and call > it "censorship". > Can someone remind me why "censorship" must be a Bad Thing. As long as it's explicit and appropriately authorised, I don't see any sensible objection. Of course the word "censorship" carries a lot of emotional weight for some people - I'm not sure it can be defined in narrowly technicals terms as above - even approximately - It's a social thang. -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Dec 13 10:18:44 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA06503 for ; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 10:18:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVBX7-0007rG-AO for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 10:18:17 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBDFIH7p030200 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 10:18:17 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVBX7-0007r1-5N for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 10:18:17 -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 KAA06496 for ; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 10:18:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVBX5-0003yX-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 10:18:15 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVBX4-0003yU-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 10:18:14 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVBWr-0007oT-BN; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 10:18:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVBWO-0007oC-C1 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 10:17:32 -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 KAA06446 for ; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 10:17:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVBWM-0003xF-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 10:17:30 -0500 Received: from [209.216.76.58] (helo=mail.figuerres.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVBWL-0003wd-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 10:17:29 -0500 Received: from viper1 [65.34.96.63] by mail.figuerres.com with ESMTP (SMTPD32-8.02) id AD3E2D9C006C; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 10:16:14 -0500 Reply-To: From: "Denny Figuerres" To: "'ASRG'" Subject: RE: [Asrg] 4a. Taxonomy. Censorship vs. filtering MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Thread-Index: AcPBcmfl/7dnGHXtS5myCq8Rluz+WQAFGN2w Message-Id: <200312131016477.SM04408@viper1> X-IMAIL-SPAM-VALHELO: (765198444) X-IMAIL-SPAM-VALFROM: (765198444) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 13 Dec 2003 10:16:18 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > -----Original Message----- > From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Jon Kyme > Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2003 7:12 AM > To: ASRG > Subject: Re: [Asrg] 4a. Taxonomy. Censorship vs. filtering > > > For those who are don't read long messages, I'd like to > summarize my > > thoughts in a short message. > > > > > > Censorship =~ rejection of traffic based on content > > > > filtering =~ rejection of traffic based on invalid > control messages > > > > Unlike Telecom, IP sends control traffic "in-band". This > means that > > when that control traffic is filtered, people get confused, > and call > > it "censorship". > > > > Can someone remind me why "censorship" must be a Bad Thing. > As long as it's explicit and appropriately authorised, I > don't see any sensible objection. > > Of course the word "censorship" carries a lot of emotional > weight for some people - I'm not sure it can be defined in > narrowly technicals terms as above - even approximately - > It's a social thang. > > Well I think there are several reasons why Alan's comments are "right". First thing is: Filtering the content of a message is *subjective* not *objective* like the issues with "This is art!" and "No it's porn!" too much ambiguity and room for "wiggle". This relates to what has been said about classifying "SPAM" Vs. "HAM" some folks want to get what you might call "SPAM". Next thing is an offshoot of the first: I can write a program to reject a connection based on IP or based on some other set criteria and it can be verified to work 100% of the time. (well 99.9999% or whatever in the "real world") But as far as I know of no one can write a program that will be 100% correct in processing random text, we do not yet have a system that can write, read or "Understand" human communications (where's Hal 9000 when you need him?) And there are the legal issues: If you permit some content to be "Published" and not other like or simmilar content then you are engaging in the role Of "Editor / Publisher" ISP's found that this can get them into legal hassles .... USNET News / NNTP servers ISP's found that to stay clear of some problems they had to take a "Use at your risk, we do not edit / monitor the content here" policy. If you can be shown to Edit and control the publishing of content then you can be sued for what content you chose to publish and for what content you chose not to publish. Freedom of the press and all that.... Censorship =~ rejection of traffic based on content Is a mine field that can and will get you hurt. NOTE: if you censor *your* inbox that's filtering, the issue is when some third party does it "on your behalf" filtering =~ rejection of traffic based on invalid control messages Safe and legal.... Can be strutured as an "Objective" system. Does that make this more clear? Alan: are we close here? I hope we are on the same line of reason on this.... > > > > > > -- > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing 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 Dec 13 12:03:01 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA08083 for ; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 12:03:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVDA0-0002hz-Tz for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 12:02:33 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBDH2WSp010405 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 12:02:32 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVDA0-0002hk-JJ for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 12:02:32 -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 MAA08067 for ; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 12:02:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVD9z-00058T-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 12:02:31 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVD9z-00058Q-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 12:02:31 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVD9V-0002YS-Pu; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 12:02:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVD92-0002SS-16 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 12:01:34 -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 MAA08045 for ; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 12:01:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVD90-00056Z-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 12:01:30 -0500 Received: from newgiles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ([205.150.200.131] helo=mail.nitros9.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVD8z-00056M-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 12:01:29 -0500 Received: from newgiles.nitros9.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.nitros9.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D60CA16CFA for ; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 12:01:49 -0500 (EST) From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 4a. Taxonomy. Censorship vs. filtering In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 13 Dec 2003 12:11:40 GMT." Message-Id: <20031213170149.D60CA16CFA@mail.nitros9.org> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2003 12:01:49 -0500 "Jon Kyme" wrote: > Can someone remind me why "censorship" must be a Bad Thing. As long as it's > explicit and appropriately authorised, I don't see any sensible objection. Which leads back to consent. Consensual censorship systems are reasonable. The problem is that most censorship systems are non-consensual, and people confuse the issues of consent and censorship. Corporations censor their incoming and outgoing mail, for reasons of legality, privacy, security, and trade secrets. This isn't viewed as bad. But ISP's censoring network traffic is seen as inappropriate, because of the idea that Internet access is "free and unfettered". The problem I have is that that idea was never a reality, and many people can't move beyond the idea, to acknowledge that it's only an idea, and that reality is different. > Of course the word "censorship" carries a lot of emotional weight for some > people - I'm not sure it can be defined in narrowly technicals terms as > above - even approximately - It's a social thang. Any party other than the data originator or recipient which blocks traffic based on *data* content is censoring the traffic. The backbone routers don't censor traffic, but they may choose to block attacks on themselves. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Dec 13 12:09:35 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA08228 for ; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 12:09:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVDGM-0003Ef-W7 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 12:09:06 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBDH96ht012431 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 12:09:06 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVDGL-0003E5-F9 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 12:09:05 -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 MAA08223 for ; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 12:09:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVDGK-0005FH-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 12:09:04 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVDGJ-0005FE-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 12:09:03 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVDGH-0003AZ-RK; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 12:09:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVDFZ-0003AJ-Cu for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 12:08:17 -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 MAA08218 for ; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 12:08:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVDFY-0005Ey-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 12:08:16 -0500 Received: from newgiles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ([205.150.200.131] helo=mail.nitros9.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVDFX-0005Eu-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 12:08:15 -0500 Received: from newgiles.nitros9.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.nitros9.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6D5416CFA for ; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 12:08:50 -0500 (EST) From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 4a. Taxonomy. Censorship vs. filtering In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 13 Dec 2003 10:16:18 EST." <200312131016477.SM04408@viper1> Message-Id: <20031213170850.A6D5416CFA@mail.nitros9.org> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2003 12:08:50 -0500 denny@figuerres.com wrote: > If you can be shown to Edit and control the publishing of content then you > can be sued for what content you chose to publish and for what content you > chose not to publish. Exactly. This is why I've pushed for our corporate IT people to block distribution of usenet porn groups into the company for the *correct* reason: It uses too much bandwidth. Other newsgroups distributing executables are blocked for the same reason. If we had blocked it because it was "porn", then we could be held responsible for censoring it, and a huge legal quagmire opens up. > Alan: are we close here? I hope we are on the same line of reason on > this.... Pretty much. I think I'll add these definitions to the LMAP discussion paper, in place of the rant about "free speech". The issues have to be addressed, but it's better to address them in a positive manner than in a negative one. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Dec 13 12:12:39 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA08314 for ; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 12:12:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVDJH-0003Tg-Q1 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 12:12:11 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBDHC7Fm013344 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 12:12:07 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVDJG-0003Pn-Ae for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 12:12:06 -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 MAA08310 for ; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 12:12:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVDJF-0005I7-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 12:12:05 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVDJE-0005I4-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 12:12:04 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVDJB-0003Lx-8f; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 12:12:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVDIM-0003LY-4t for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 12:11:10 -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 MAA08269 for ; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 12:11:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVDIK-0005GS-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 12:11:08 -0500 Received: from argon.connectinternetsolutions.com ([193.110.243.33] helo=argon.connect.org.uk) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVDIK-0005GP-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 12:11:08 -0500 Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 1AVDIJ-0003pg-Vu for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 17:11:07 +0000 In-Reply-To: <200312131016477.SM04408@viper1> Subject: Re: RE: [Asrg] 4a. Taxonomy. Censorship vs. filtering To: "ASRG" From: "Jon Kyme" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.10.1] 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, 13 Dec 2003 17:11:07 +0000 > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org] On > > Behalf Of Jon Kyme > > Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2003 7:12 AM > > To: ASRG > > Subject: Re: [Asrg] 4a. Taxonomy. Censorship vs. filtering > > > > > For those who are don't read long messages, I'd like to > > summarize my > > > thoughts in a short message. > > > > > > > > > Censorship =~ rejection of traffic based on content > > > > > > filtering =~ rejection of traffic based on invalid > > control messages > > > > > > Unlike Telecom, IP sends control traffic "in-band". This > > means that > > > when that control traffic is filtered, people get confused, > > and call > > > it "censorship". > > > > > > > Can someone remind me why "censorship" must be a Bad Thing. > > As long as it's explicit and appropriately authorised, I > > don't see any sensible objection. > > Well I think there are several reasons why Alan's comments are "right". > > First thing is: > Filtering the content of a message is *subjective* not *objective* like > the > issues with > "This is art!" and "No it's porn!" too much ambiguity and room for > "wiggle". > This relates to what has been said about classifying "SPAM" Vs. "HAM" > some > folks want to get what you might call "SPAM". > > Next thing is an offshoot of the first: > I can write a program to reject a connection based on IP or based on some > other set criteria and it can be verified to work 100% of the time. (well > 99.9999% or whatever in the "real world") > But as far as I know of no one can write a program that will be 100% > correct > in processing random text, we do not yet have a system that can write, > read > or "Understand" human communications > (where's Hal 9000 when you need him?) > > And there are the legal issues: > If you permit some content to be "Published" and not other like or > simmilar > content then you are engaging in the role > Of "Editor / Publisher" ISP's found that this can get them into legal > hassles .... USNET News / NNTP servers > ISP's found that to stay clear of some problems they had to take a "Use > at > your risk, we do not edit / monitor the content here" policy. > > If you can be shown to Edit and control the publishing of content then > you > can be sued for what content you chose to publish and for what content > you > chose not to publish. > Freedom of the press and all that.... > > > Censorship =~ rejection of traffic based on content > Is a mine field that can and will get you hurt. > NOTE: if you censor *your* inbox that's filtering, the issue is when some > third party does it "on your behalf" > But if "they" are doing it on my behalf and according to my expressed wishes, I don't have a problem. That's what I mean - it's a social rather than a technical distinction. Also, it's clear that an objective measure can be *evaluated* in a subjective context. Consider "filtering" based on source IP. "Publishing" is a bit of a red herring here. IANAL but I can't see how enforcing an agreed policy for communications to a named recipient can have anything to do with "publishing". > filtering =~ rejection of traffic based on invalid control messages > Safe and legal.... Can be strutured as an "Objective" system. > > Does that make this more clear? > No. It's not the sort of thing that's easy to make clear. It's one of those "human communications" things you mentioned. I think that we're in danger of making ourselves look very foolish by trying to define something like censorship. Define "filter" by all means. And remember, that of all the possible communication aimed at you, this group is chartered for the purpose of researching how you might select just that communication that you consent to. Equally, organisations must have the right to apply organisational policy to the communications of their members. -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Dec 13 12:22:40 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA08448 for ; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 12:22:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVDT3-0003gX-7U for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 12:22:13 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBDHMDTn014159 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 12:22:13 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVDT2-0003gI-T3 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 12:22:12 -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 MAA08436 for ; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 12:22:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVDT1-0005Ms-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 12:22:11 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVDT1-0005Mp-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 12:22:11 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVDSr-0003dY-6R; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 12:22:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVDS7-0003bv-Hb for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 12:21:15 -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 MAA08426 for ; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 12:21:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVDS6-0005MJ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 12:21:14 -0500 Received: from newgiles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ([205.150.200.131] helo=mail.nitros9.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVDS5-0005MG-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 12:21:13 -0500 Received: from newgiles.nitros9.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.nitros9.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6DBB16CFA for ; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 12:21:52 -0500 (EST) From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals: MTA MARK vs port 25 filtering? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 13 Dec 2003 05:28:07 +0100." <062501c3c131$87641fb0$034fa8c0@asarianhost> Message-Id: <20031213172152.D6DBB16CFA@mail.nitros9.org> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2003 12:21:52 -0500 "Mark" wrote: > Basically, these odd proposals to block port 25, for home users, is > tantamount to saying only ISP's can run servers. I disagree. No one has ever talked about blocking port 25 for *all* users. Port 25 blocking is only for users who have not agreed to be held responsible for the messages they send. And if your ISP still blocks outbound 25, then there's a business incentive for someone to start up authenticated, responsible, and stable relays. > So then, what happened to the core function of an ISP? To provide > access to the Internet? I pay good money each month to have that > access, which includes my own mail server. How does anyone else know? I've been harping on this topic for a long time, and it keeps getting ignored. > In return, my ISP can disallow access should abuse occur. But I can > live with that, as I know I will not abuse my connection. I wish I > could say the same about my ISP. How do *I* tell your "responsible" MTA from an "owned" machine sending spam? I understand your side of the problem: you want to send mail. Please *think*, and try to understand my side of the problem: Without some additional information, you look *exactly* like a spammer to me. What information are you willing to provide to a recipient, to demonstrate that you are responsible? What information will make the recipient believe you are responsible? I don't understand this fervent opposition to change, and to any attempt to hold people responsible. If the first axiom of ASRG is that we're not going to change anything, and we're going to provide free, unfettered, bare-ass-open access to the net; then we've just decided to NOT address the spam problem. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Dec 13 15:35:50 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA13284 for ; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 15:35:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVGTx-0000or-L4 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 15:35:21 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBDKZLxn003145 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 15:35:21 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVGTx-0000oe-HM for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 15:35:21 -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 PAA13273 for ; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 15:35:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVGTw-00006k-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 15:35:20 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVGTv-00006h-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 15:35:19 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVGTe-0000mD-L1; Sat, 13 Dec 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 1AVGTU-0000lb-N8 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 15:34:52 -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 PAA13228 for ; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 15:34:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVGTT-00006O-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 15:34:51 -0500 Received: from [209.216.76.58] (helo=mail.figuerres.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVGTS-000067-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 15:34:50 -0500 Received: from viper1 [65.34.96.63] by mail.figuerres.com with ESMTP (SMTPD32-8.02) id A78B2EDE006C; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 15:33:15 -0500 Reply-To: From: "Denny Figuerres" To: "'ASRG'" Subject: RE: RE: [Asrg] 4a. Taxonomy. Censorship vs. filtering MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Thread-Index: AcPBnD0P6yihopWYT8CxVTgYTdKjBwAGlGUQ Message-Id: <20031213153328.SM04408@viper1> X-IMAIL-SPAM-VALHELO: (786301036) X-IMAIL-SPAM-VALFROM: (786301036) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 13 Dec 2003 15:33:37 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > -----Original Message----- > From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Jon Kyme > Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2003 12:11 PM > To: ASRG > Subject: Re: RE: [Asrg] 4a. Taxonomy. Censorship vs. filtering > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of > > > Jon Kyme > > > Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2003 7:12 AM > > > To: ASRG > > > Subject: Re: [Asrg] 4a. Taxonomy. Censorship vs. filtering > > > > > > > For those who are don't read long messages, I'd like to > > > summarize my > > > > thoughts in a short message. > > > > > > > > > > > > Censorship =~ rejection of traffic based on content > > > > > > > > filtering =~ rejection of traffic based on invalid > > > control messages > > > > > > > > Unlike Telecom, IP sends control traffic "in-band". This > > > means that > > > > when that control traffic is filtered, people get confused, > > > and call > > > > it "censorship". > > > > > > > > > > Can someone remind me why "censorship" must be a Bad Thing. > > > As long as it's explicit and appropriately authorised, I > don't see > > > any sensible objection. > > > > Well I think there are several reasons why Alan's comments > are "right". > > > > First thing is: > > Filtering the content of a message is *subjective* not *objective* > > like the issues with "This is art!" and "No it's porn!" too much > > ambiguity and room for "wiggle". > > This relates to what has been said about classifying "SPAM" > Vs. "HAM" > > some > > folks want to get what you might call "SPAM". > > > > Next thing is an offshoot of the first: > > I can write a program to reject a connection based on IP or > based on > > some other set criteria and it can be verified to work 100% of the > > time. (well 99.9999% or whatever in the "real world") But > as far as I > > know of no one can write a program that will be 100% correct in > > processing random text, we do not yet have a system that can write, > > read or "Understand" human communications (where's Hal 9000 > when you > > need him?) > > > > And there are the legal issues: > > If you permit some content to be "Published" and not other like or > > simmilar content then you are engaging in the role Of "Editor / > > Publisher" ISP's found that this can get them into legal > hassles .... > > USNET News / NNTP servers ISP's found that to stay clear of some > > problems they had to take a "Use at your risk, we do not edit / > > monitor the content here" policy. > > > > If you can be shown to Edit and control the publishing of > content then > > you can be sued for what content you chose to publish and for what > > content you chose not to publish. > > Freedom of the press and all that.... > > > > > > Censorship =~ rejection of traffic based on content Is a > mine field > > that can and will get you hurt. > > NOTE: if you censor *your* inbox that's filtering, the > issue is when > > some third party does it "on your behalf" > > > > But if "they" are doing it on my behalf and according to my > expressed wishes, I don't have a problem. That's what I mean > - it's a social rather than a technical distinction. Also, > it's clear that an objective measure can be *evaluated* in a > subjective context. Consider "filtering" based on source IP. > "Publishing" is a bit of a red herring here. IANAL but I > can't see how enforcing an agreed policy for communications > to a named recipient can have anything to do with "publishing". > Sorry My Bad ! "They" and Consent and censorship: Just imagine this: Spam.com is sending to isp.com's users such as smith@isp.com Smith and others *DO WANT* spam blocked. Isp.com is doing what the users have asked for. Spam.com sues isp.com for "censorship and the right to free speech" Now I think we would all tend to see this as a nasty way for spamers to harras the isp. But in the legal system if the legal staff working for spam.com build the right case and take it to court they will get a court order for isp.com To stop censoring while the court studys the issues. And spam.com starts filing motions and drags it on for as long as they can.... And you get spam you do not want .... It's evil, it's nasty, but it can be done..... The spamer just has to get creative, like using the can spam bill as a crutch: I will let the users at isp.com "opt out" but first they need to get my messaage and visit my "Opt out" web site, I am not doing anything wrong here. In fact isp.com is at fault as they are circumventing the means for the optout system to work. So if isp.com is suffering form to much email it is their fault... And if spam.com gets just one person at isp.com to ask for the spam.... The case just gets uglyer.... See what I mean now?? > > > > filtering =~ rejection of traffic based on invalid control > messages > > Safe and legal.... Can be strutured as an "Objective" system. > > > > Does that make this more clear? > > > > No. It's not the sort of thing that's easy to make clear. > It's one of those "human communications" things you mentioned. > I think that we're in danger of making ourselves look very > foolish by trying to define something like censorship. Define > "filter" by all means. > And remember, that of all the possible communication aimed at > you, this group is chartered for the purpose of researching > how you might select just that communication that you consent > to. Equally, organisations must have the right to apply > organisational policy to the communications of their members. > > > > > > > > -- > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing 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 Dec 13 19:20:52 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA18107 for ; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 19:20:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVJzi-0007Cx-L4 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 19:20:25 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBE0KMoG027703 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 19:20:22 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVJzi-0007Ck-6Y for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 19:20:22 -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 TAA18102 for ; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 19:20:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVJzg-0002m1-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 19:20:20 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVJzf-0002ly-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 19:20:19 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVJzQ-00078m-BO; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 19:20:04 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVJvT-00075J-RZ for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 19:16:08 -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 TAA18048 for ; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 19:15:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVJvP-0002jD-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 19:15:55 -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 1AVJvP-0002iY-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 19:15:55 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-362-325.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.129.213]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HPU005E7ZDK9G@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 00:15:25 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals: MTA MARK vs port 25 filtering? In-reply-to: <20031213172152.D6DBB16CFA@mail.nitros9.org> To: Alan DeKok Cc: asrg@ietf.org Message-id: <3FDBAB99.1010306@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: <20031213172152.D6DBB16CFA@mail.nitros9.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, 13 Dec 2003 19:15:21 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Alan DeKok wrote: > I don't understand this fervent opposition to change, and to any > attempt to hold people responsible. If the first axiom of ASRG is > that we're not going to change anything, and we're going to provide > free, unfettered, bare-ass-open access to the net; then we've just > decided to NOT address the spam problem. > People are always resistant to change but the ASRG will recommend changes, it is eneviatable. Unfortunatly, the Internet is no longer the nice free playground for researchers that it used to be. HOWEVER, what we are seeking to do is to make the least possible changes at the most maximum benefit. Therefore, we are seeking where the Internet can be changed or adjusted in order to obtain maximum benefit. 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 Dec 13 19:28:32 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA18273 for ; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 19:28:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVK7A-0007Q5-EM for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 19:28:04 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBE0S4OL028515 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 19:28:04 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVK7A-0007Pl-9L for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 19:28:04 -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 TAA18262 for ; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 19:28:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVK78-0002ra-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 19:28:02 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVK78-0002rX-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 19:28:02 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVK77-0007M2-DW; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 19:28:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVK3C-0007JE-VG for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 19:23:58 -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 TAA18176 for ; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 19:23:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVK3B-0002pa-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 19:23:57 -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 1AVK3B-0002pQ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 19:23:57 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-362-325.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.129.213]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HPU00H9ZZO230@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 00:21:42 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich To: ASRG Message-id: <3FDBAD14.4020309@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 - Administrative - For Hector Santos Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 13 Dec 2003 19:21:40 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Your system has begun to bounce email from both my personal and corporate addresses. I am sending this email to the list as a measure of last resort. Yakov -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Mail delivery failed: returning message to sender Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2003 19:08:18 -0500 From: Mail Delivery System This message was created automatically by mail delivery software (Exim). A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) failed: winserver.support@winserver.com SMTP error from remote mailer after end of data: host mail.winserver.com [208.247.131.9]: 554 Message Not Accepted by filter. ------- Yakov Shafranovich / asrg shaftek.org SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / research solidmatrix.com "I want to know G-d's thoughts... the rest are details" (Albert Einstein) ------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Dec 13 20:23:42 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA18863 for ; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 20:23:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVKyX-0000TP-5d for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 20:23:13 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBE1NDY2001813 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 20:23:13 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVKyX-0000TA-0s for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 20:23:13 -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 UAA18860 for ; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 20:23:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVKyU-0003ND-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 20:23:11 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVKyU-0003NA-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 20:23:10 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVKyK-0000Qr-Va; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 20:23:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVKxb-0000OZ-8t for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 20:22:15 -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 UAA18851 for ; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 20:22:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVKxZ-0003LV-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 20:22:13 -0500 Received: from xuxa.iecc.com ([208.31.42.42]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVKxY-0003LS-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 20:22:12 -0500 Received: (qmail 27487 invoked by uid 100); 14 Dec 2003 01:22:12 -0000 Message-ID: <20031214012212.27486.qmail@xuxa.iecc.com> From: asrg@johnlevine.com (John R. Levine) To: asrg@ietf.org Newsgroups: iecc.lists.asrg In-Reply-To: <20031213153328.SM04408@viper1> Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA Subject: [Asrg] Re: 4a. Taxonomy. Censorship vs. filtering and playing lawyer Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 14 Dec 2003 01:22:12 -0000 >Spam.com sues isp.com for "censorship and the right to free speech" In the United States, at least, isp.com cites 47 USC 230 and a variety of precedents that confirm that the First Amendment applies to the government and not to private parties, gets the case dismissed with predjudice, and is awarded court costs because the case was without merit. I realize that laws are different in other countries, but in the US the law gives provides broad immunity from liability due to good faith efforts to filter offensive material. The law was originally written with web porn filters in mind, but it's broadly written and applies to spam filtering as well. Section 8(c) of the new CAN SPAM act which will be signed into law any day now confirms that ISPs may have "a policy of declining to transmit, route, relay, handle, or store certain types of electronic mail messages." Being sued for good faith spam filtering simply isn't an issue here. Since this is not a legal discussion and as far as I know none of the participants (including me) are lawyers or otherwise qualified to opine on the law, I'd appreciate it if people would refrain from discussing legal topics except insofar as they bear directly on some activity of ASRG, identify the country whose laws apply, and cite a law or precedent other than "well, it might happen" for authority. 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 Sat Dec 13 20:25:37 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA18906 for ; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 20:25:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVL0N-0000hf-SV for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 20:25:08 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBE1P7Bj002697 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 20:25:07 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVL0N-0000hQ-MD for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 20:25:07 -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 UAA18902 for ; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 20:25:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVL0I-0003Ny-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 20:25:02 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVL0H-0003Nt-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 20:25:01 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVL0H-0000Ze-5J; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 20:25:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVKzt-0000Z7-1W for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 20:24:37 -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 UAA18885 for ; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 20:24:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVKzq-0003Nb-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 20:24:34 -0500 Received: from smtpzilla3.xs4all.nl ([194.109.127.139]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVKzq-0003NY-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 20:24:34 -0500 Received: from asarianhost (mail.asarian-host.net [194.109.160.70]) by smtpzilla3.xs4all.nl (8.12.9/8.12.9) with SMTP id hBE1OWGs030525 for ; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 02:24:33 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <002d01c3c1e1$074460f0$034fa8c0@asarianhost> From: "Mark" To: References: <20031213172152.D6DBB16CFA@mail.nitros9.org> Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals: MTA MARK vs port 25 filtering? 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, 14 Dec 2003 02:24:17 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alan DeKok" To: Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2003 6:22 PM Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals: MTA MARK vs port 25 filtering? > > Basically, these odd proposals to block port 25, for home users, is > > tantamount to saying only ISP's can run servers. > > I disagree. No one has ever talked about blocking port 25 for *all* > users. Port 25 blocking is only for users who have not agreed to be > held responsible for the messages they send. I am not among them. :) I have said before, and will state again, that I have no problem with an ISP providing Internet access provisionally, under condition that they can block access to certain ports on abuse. No problem with that, at all. Only when they side-step the presumption on innocence. > > So then, what happened to the core function of an ISP? To provide > > access to the Internet? I pay good money each month to have that > > access, which includes my own mail server. > > How does anyone else know? I've been harping on this topic for a > long time, and it keeps getting ignored. I do not understand this question. How do you know I paid to have my own mail server? As opposed to being "owned", you mean? > > In return, my ISP can disallow access should abuse occur. But I can > > live with that, as I know I will not abuse my connection. I wish I > > could say the same about my ISP. > > How do *I* tell your "responsible" MTA from an "owned" machine > sending spam? For the most obvious reason I can think of: you have never received a spam from me, nor would you ever. :) > I understand your side of the problem: you want to send > mail. Please *think*, and try to understand my side of the problem: > Without some additional information, you look *exactly* like a spammer > to me. I guess there's the rub: the presumption of guilt. While true that I have given you no proof that my relay is trustworthy, I have done nothing to the contrary, either. > What information are you willing to provide to a recipient, to > demonstrate that you are responsible? What information will make the > recipient believe you are responsible? The same information you will give, I reckon. If we're going to a system with Certificate Authoraties, ala yayoo, then I will get such a Certificate. Should we use SPF, I will implement that too (in fact, already have). Though I administer not thousands of people for my domain, but only a few hundred, the principle remains the same: I eagerly cooperate with any proposal I can implement that the "community" has decided is needed to establish trust. I spend an inordinate amount a day warding off spam, adapting Milters, updates RBL list. etc. I am as opposed to spam as you are. Except that I stop the buck at being branded the 'enemy' one fine day, just because I do not have an ISP style connection to the Internet. > I don't understand this fervent opposition to change, I am not opposed to change at all; it is just this particular form of change, cutting off private port 25 acces from anyone who is not an ISP, that I frown upon. In fact, my being on this list, and many like in nature, is proof that I am rather interested in change, and eager to hear what people have to say about ways to combat spam. > If the first axiom of ASRG is > that we're not going to change anything, and we're going to provide > free, unfettered, bare-ass-open access to the net; then we've just > decided to NOT address the spam problem. Free access does not equal access without limtations. I am all for the fair limitation that access is unfettered, until abuse occurs. But before that time, I like my ISP to treat me as if I were innocent, until proven guilty. - Mark _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Dec 13 22:56:10 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA20896 for ; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 22:56:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVNM6-0004GS-OT for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 22:55:43 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBE3tgHl016388 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 22:55:42 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVNM6-0004GF-If for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 22:55:42 -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 WAA20888 for ; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 22:55:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVNM3-0004tN-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 22:55:39 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVNM2-0004tJ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 22:55:38 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVNLS-0004DR-Qb; Sat, 13 Dec 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 1AVNKU-0004BA-V1 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 22:54:03 -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 WAA20871 for ; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 22:53:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVNKR-0004sW-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 22:53:59 -0500 Received: from newgiles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ([205.150.200.131] helo=mail.nitros9.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVNKQ-0004sT-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 22:53:59 -0500 Received: from newgiles.nitros9.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.nitros9.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20742170B7 for ; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 22:54:36 -0500 (EST) From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals: MTA MARK vs port 25 filtering? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 14 Dec 2003 02:24:17 +0100." <002d01c3c1e1$074460f0$034fa8c0@asarianhost> Message-Id: <20031214035436.20742170B7@mail.nitros9.org> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2003 22:54:36 -0500 "Mark" wrote: > > How do *I* tell your "responsible" MTA from an "owned" machine > > sending spam? > > For the most obvious reason I can think of: you have never received a spam > from me, nor would you ever. :) That's grossly inadequate. It means that I've got to process a lot of mail from you on "spec", before I can gather enough data to decide for myself that you're not a spammer. I would prefer to have your intentions, and your responsibility trail, be made public. > > Without some additional information, you look *exactly* like a spammer > > to me. > > I guess there's the rub: the presumption of guilt. While true that I have > given you no proof that my relay is trustworthy, I have done nothing to the > contrary, either. I think you're missing my point. I'm not presuming that you're a spammer. I'm presuming that I know *nothing* about you, just like I know nothing about spammers. Your statements on a public list that I should trust you are irrelevant. I'm interested in how I can make my MTA decide how to trust the next naive and well-intentioned user. If you publicly state your accountability, and spammers don't, then I *do* know something about you, and I can better decide how to deal with messages from you. If both you and spammers become accountable, then I still win, because I now can be *sure* that I'm discarding the spam, and not your messages. > I am as opposed to spam as you are. Except that I stop the buck at > being branded the 'enemy' one fine day, just because I do not have > an ISP style connection to the Internet. The "enemy" is the unknown. The lack of information. The lack of accountability. Spammers are simply the symptom that the system is broken. They didn't break it, the system designers did. Using that definition, people who want to remain unknown and unaccountable appear to be the enemy. e.g. We have to recognize that if we want to stop spammers from forging, we must stop our forging of messages. > I am not opposed to change at all; it is just this particular form of > change, cutting off private port 25 acces from anyone who is not an ISP, > that I frown upon. I think you are clearly missing much of what I write. I have never proposed blocking port 25 for everyone but ISP's. It's irresponsible and rude of you to imply that I have. The statement I *have* made and that you have apparently missed, is that people who do not accept responsibility for their use of the network should probably have their network privelidges restricted, and port 25 blocking is one option. > Free access does not equal access without limtations. I am all for the fair > limitation that access is unfettered, until abuse occurs. But before that > time, I like my ISP to treat me as if I were innocent, until proven guilty. It's a nice idea. It has nothing to do with reality. It's not about "innocence" or "guilt". I've never used those words, because they're irrelevant to the discussion at hand. They confuse the issue, get people excited about nonsense, and take attention away from the issue at hand. My position, is simple. People should be responsible for their use of the network, and they should be held accountable for their use of the network. "Innocence" and "guilt" simply don't apply. If someone is unwilling to accept responsibility for their network, then I don't see why anyone would willingly give them net access. Are they then presumed "guilty" before doing anything? Nonsense. When you rent a car, or a house, you accept responsibility for your actions. Having net access should be no different. There's no censorship involved, or presumption of guilt when the rental agency refuses to give you a car, because you failed to sign the contract. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Dec 13 23:48:39 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA21948 for ; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 23:48:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVOAt-00069B-65 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 23:48:11 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBE4mBwL023623 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 23:48:11 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVOAs-00068w-Qd for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 23:48:10 -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 XAA21941 for ; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 23:48:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVOAq-0005bX-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 23:48:08 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVOAq-0005bU-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 23:48:08 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVOAj-000652-US; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 23:48:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVOAJ-00064k-NN for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 23:47:35 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA21931 for ; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 23:47:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVOAH-0005b2-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 23:47:33 -0500 Received: from mail019.syd.optusnet.com.au ([211.29.132.73]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVOAG-0005aW-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 23:47:33 -0500 Received: from zen.fernhaven (c211-30-105-76.carlnfd1.nsw.optusnet.com.au [211.30.105.76]) by mail019.syd.optusnet.com.au (8.11.6p2/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBE4kus19420 for ; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 15:46:56 +1100 Received: from [172.16.0.129] (helo=fred.fernhaven) by zen.fernhaven with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1AVO9e-0005V4-00 for ; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 15:46:54 +1100 From: Brett Watson Organization: PhD Student, Macquarie University To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals: MTA MARK vs port 25 filtering? 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: <200312141548.47371.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: Sun, 14 Dec 2003 15:48:47 +1100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit A touchy issue, this. Should we consider it Best Current Practice to filter outgoing port 25 on "residential" (or similarly classified) access points? Should we consider it BCP to filter outgoing port 25 on pretty much all access points unless other arrangements are explicitly made? Our contributor named "Mark" has been harping on the "presumption of innocence" principle, but it's precisely the viability of that principle that's in question here. There is a certain quantity of spam which exists by abusing the "presumption of innocence", so called. It's a badly emotionally-laden term, since to advocate the converse is to advocate "presumption of guilt", and you may as well advocate the strangulation of small furry animals and children while you're about it. Rather than "presumption of guilt", we should have "explicitly negotiated access". We could recommend that port 25 be available (in some cases) only when explicitly arranged, not on the basis of prior "guilt" or "innocence", but purely to make accountability explicit. Personally, I reject outright the idea that filtering access points on port 25 has a troublesome impact on mail connectivity for the do-it-yourself crowd, myself included. If you don't trust your ISP to get it right with regards to their mail server, it is now ridiculously cheap to get your own virtual server hosted somewhere and continue to do it yourself without your mail server hanging off your ISP's access point. Such virtual hosts require expertise to configure, but have unfettered access. In my view, people who are still harping on this point need to readjust to the new environment -- keep up with the times. I have seen virtual servers available for US$15 per month, which is a fraction of what I pay for my broadband access (in Australia). On the other hand, malware ("viruses", "worms", "trojans", etc.) which abuses the openness of port 25 is rife. This is an attack vector that bears serious consideration. Similarly, "presumption of innocence" falls down for any dynamically allocated IP address, since there is no permanent identity associated with the IP. If we work on the "presumption of innocence" principle here, then the abusers get free reign for a short while, then tarnish the reputation of all users equally. It simply doesn't work. One possible suggestion for a BCP is to filter outgoing port 25 for all dynamically allocated IPs. Taking the converse view, one could question the effectiveness of port 25 filtering as a whole, relative to its intrusive nature. There is no escaping the fact that port blocking is intrusive, and it causes problems of its own. Does it provide a net improvement, or does it merely change the balance of problems? Intrusive filtering is NOT the only option. We also have the option to place information about the IP out of band, as per one of the various DNS options. This does not change the argument about "presumption of innocence" versus "explicitly negotiated access" -- it only changes the mechanism by which filtering is taking place, and the party that elects to do the filtering. Where information about the trustworthiness of an IP is placed in the DNS, the mail recipient becomes the one to make decisions: a non-intrusive form of filtering which can, even so, produce similar results. With careful semantics, we may even be able to produce a DNS-based solution which allows do-it-yourselfers to continue to operate their own mail servers, with limited scope for nuisance to others. An ISP could use in-addr.arpa PTR records to indicate "residential" or "dynamic" status for IP addresses (with the connotation that they are not well placed to prevent mail abuse from those sources). A person operating their own domain could override this rating by explicitly marking their own mail domain as operating from a given IP through their own domain records. A recipient can then decide whether to trust that sender's domain or not, based on his own assessment of risk. So, having rambled about it for a bit, I conclude that port filtering is a tool worth considering in certain cases, and I dismiss the "presumption of innocence" argument as being both emotionally overcharged and no longer viable. Even so, it seems to me that the non-intrusive DNS-based options can more closely achieve the goal of recipient-oriented decisionmaking, and are less likely to cause unintended problems with connectivity generally. Let the recipients make up their own minds about whether they trust a sender or not: just give them information on which to base their decision. Regards, TFBW _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Dec 14 01:34:51 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA23649 for ; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 01:34:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVPpe-0000V7-QO for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 01:34:23 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBE6YMBR001919 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 01:34:22 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVPpc-0000Us-PB for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 01:34:20 -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 BAA23646 for ; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 01:34:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVPpZ-0006h1-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 01:34:17 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVPpZ-0006gy-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 01:34:17 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVPpJ-0000SO-CI; Sun, 14 Dec 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 1AVPou-0000SB-8O for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 01:33:36 -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 BAA23637 for ; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 01:33:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVPor-0006gN-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 01:33:33 -0500 Received: from sccrmhc12.comcast.net ([204.127.202.56]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVPoq-0006gJ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 01:33:32 -0500 Received: from fda.zemos.net ([68.38.12.170]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc12) with ESMTP id <2003121406330301200s7q34e>; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 06:33:03 +0000 Received: from zemos.net (phil [10.0.0.2]) by fda.zemos.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33A2018685; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 01:32:55 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3FDC0434.6060002@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: Brett Watson Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals: MTA MARK vs port 25 filtering? References: <200312141548.47371.famous-asrg@nutters.org> In-Reply-To: <200312141548.47371.famous-asrg@nutters.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, 14 Dec 2003 01:33:24 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Brett Watson wrote: > A touchy issue, this. Should we consider it Best Current Practice to filter > outgoing port 25 on "residential" (or similarly classified) access points? > Should we consider it BCP to filter outgoing port 25 on pretty much all > access points unless other arrangements are explicitly made? It is indeed a touchy issue. Since there's no consensus in the group, we should refrain from making recommendations until enough of us agree on something solid with a clear rationale. > Our contributor named "Mark" has been harping on the "presumption of > innocence" principle, but it's precisely the viability of that principle > that's in question here. There is a certain quantity of spam which exists by > abusing the "presumption of innocence", so called. It's a badly > emotionally-laden term, since to advocate the converse is to advocate > "presumption of guilt", and you may as well advocate the strangulation of > small furry animals and children while you're about it. Rather than > "presumption of guilt", we should have "explicitly negotiated access". We > could recommend that port 25 be available (in some cases) only when > explicitly arranged, not on the basis of prior "guilt" or "innocence", but > purely to make accountability explicit. "Explicitly negotiated access" sounds really nice in theory, but it doesn't work for anyone who is limited to using a mass-market ISP. Comcast, my provider, has no interest in talking to customers, they have an interest in getting as much money out of us as possible. This "explicitly negotiated access" would mean they tack on some absurd monthly fee for 'administrative costs'. > Personally, I reject outright the idea that filtering access points on port 25 > has a troublesome impact on mail connectivity for the do-it-yourself crowd, > myself included. If you don't trust your ISP to get it right with regards to > their mail server, it is now ridiculously cheap to get your own virtual > server hosted somewhere and continue to do it yourself without your mail > server hanging off your ISP's access point. Such virtual hosts require > expertise to configure, but have unfettered access. In my view, people who > are still harping on this point need to readjust to the new environment -- > keep up with the times. I have seen virtual servers available for US$15 per > month, which is a fraction of what I pay for my broadband access (in > Australia). I don't trust my ISP to get it right with regard to their mail server. They have some large number of MTAs which make outbound connections, and 1 or 2 of them are blacklisted. Because of stupid policies enforced by other providers (AOL), I already cannot connect out directly, so I am forced to forward my mail through smtp.comcast.net. This means I have a choice between not reaching certain ASRG members whose servers use RBL or not reaching friends and family on AOL. I'm not going to reconfigure a mailserver used by multiple people every time I want to send a message to AOL or ASRG. About virtual hosts: I am a student. I am a minor. I do not have ready access to a credit card to pay for such service. Whatever I can't get for free online, I can't get at a "ridiculously cheap" cost. I happen to have broadband access, and I run a server of my own, for utility and education. If I were forcibly prevented from using it, I would not be happy, and I'm sure many others are in a situation similar to this. > On the other hand, malware ("viruses", "worms", "trojans", etc.) which abuses > the openness of port 25 is rife. This is an attack vector that bears serious > consideration. Similarly, "presumption of innocence" falls down for any > dynamically allocated IP address, since there is no permanent identity > associated with the IP. If we work on the "presumption of innocence" > principle here, then the abusers get free reign for a short while, then > tarnish the reputation of all users equally. It simply doesn't work. One > possible suggestion for a BCP is to filter outgoing port 25 for all > dynamically allocated IPs. The problem here is that there's no incentive for ISPs to cooperate. They will piss of those of us who care, and the people who are unable to spread digital contagion because of a block won't notice, except that they may have to pay more for ISPs to manage their new burden. My point is, you're being equally idealistic in assuming that consumer, residential ISPs will actually serve their customers. > Taking the converse view, one could question the effectiveness of port 25 > filtering as a whole, relative to its intrusive nature. There is no escaping > the fact that port blocking is intrusive, and it causes problems of its own. > Does it provide a net improvement, or does it merely change the balance of > problems? > > Intrusive filtering is NOT the only option. We also have the option to place > information about the IP out of band, as per one of the various DNS options. > This does not change the argument about "presumption of innocence" versus > "explicitly negotiated access" -- it only changes the mechanism by which > filtering is taking place, and the party that elects to do the filtering. > Where information about the trustworthiness of an IP is placed in the DNS, > the mail recipient becomes the one to make decisions: a non-intrusive form of > filtering which can, even so, produce similar results. > > With careful semantics, we may even be able to produce a DNS-based solution > which allows do-it-yourselfers to continue to operate their own mail servers, > with limited scope for nuisance to others. An ISP could use in-addr.arpa PTR > records to indicate "residential" or "dynamic" status for IP addresses (with > the connotation that they are not well placed to prevent mail abuse from > those sources). A person operating their own domain could override this > rating by explicitly marking their own mail domain as operating from a given > IP through their own domain records. A recipient can then decide whether to > trust that sender's domain or not, based on his own assessment of risk. > > So, having rambled about it for a bit, I conclude that port filtering is a > tool worth considering in certain cases, and I dismiss the "presumption of > innocence" argument as being both emotionally overcharged and no longer > viable. Even so, it seems to me that the non-intrusive DNS-based options can > more closely achieve the goal of recipient-oriented decisionmaking, and are > less likely to cause unintended problems with connectivity generally. Let the > recipients make up their own minds about whether they trust a sender or not: > just give them information on which to base their decision. OK, I agree with this conclusion. I don't think there's anyone in this group who'd argue with the last sentence of that. Unfortunately, we, as a group, seem to be getting hung up on certain issues which are preventing us from moving forward on various proposals that need to maintain their momentum. The LMAP discussion document needs cohesive review and editing, preferably before we publish as and Internet Draft. IDs are nice for some things, but it's easier if we make all of the changes we feel necessary before first official publication. I haven't looked the closely at MTA Mark, but I think these two proposals are complementary, and should be revised to reflect that. I'm not sure if it does, but MTA Mark should probably not recommend outright rejection of messages in the face of information stating that a given IP should not be sending mail. I've said my peace, Philip Miller _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Dec 14 08:28:48 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA12947 for ; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 08:28:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVWIF-0007Na-6v for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 08:28:19 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBEDSInh028360 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 08:28:18 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVWID-0007NL-N8 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 08:28:17 -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 IAA12936 for ; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 08:28:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVWIC-0004rH-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 08:28:16 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVWIC-0004rE-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 08:28:16 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVWHy-0007L8-3Q; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 08:28:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVWH1-0007Kf-0k for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 08:27:03 -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 IAA12925 for ; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 08:27:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVWGz-0004qV-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 08:27:01 -0500 Received: from mail1.nber.org ([207.113.108.7]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVWGz-0004qS-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 08:27:01 -0500 Received: from mail1 (root@localhost) by mail1.nber.org (8.12.8/8.12.8) with SMTP id hBEDR0xl021472 for ; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 08:27:00 -0500 Received: from nber5.nber.org (nber5.nber.org [207.113.108.99]) by mail1.nber.org (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hBEDQx6l021451; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 08:26:59 -0500 From: Daniel Feenberg To: Philip Miller cc: Brett Watson , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals: MTA MARK vs port 25 filtering? In-Reply-To: <3FDC0434.6060002@zemos.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2003 08:20:04 -0500 (EST) On Sun, 14 Dec 2003, Philip Miller wrote: > > I don't trust my ISP to get it right with regard to their mail server. They > have some large number of MTAs which make outbound connections, and 1 or 2 > of them are blacklisted. Because of stupid policies enforced by other > providers (AOL), I already cannot connect out directly, so I am forced to > forward my mail through smtp.comcast.net. This means I have a choice between > not reaching certain ASRG members whose servers use RBL or not reaching > friends and family on AOL. I'm not going to reconfigure a mailserver used by > multiple people every time I want to send a message to AOL or ASRG. > About virtual hosts: I am a student. I am a minor. I do not have ready > access to a credit card to pay for such service. Whatever I can't get for > free online, I can't get at a "ridiculously cheap" cost. I happen to have > broadband access, and I run a server of my own, for utility and education. > If I were forcibly prevented from using it, I would not be happy, and I'm > sure many others are in a situation similar to this. > It is important that "consent" include "consent of the sending AS" expressed somehow. It could be lifting a block on port 25, or some mechanism enforced only at the receipient end. But anything suggesting that the origin AS should not have to provide consent for sending to port 25 is to create a right to spam which will be exceedingly difficult to counter. The current situation is that very few ISP even bother to block owned machines. Surely that can't be BCP. BCP must be to forward port 25 packets only for customers who have asked for such service. This is necessary to protect address blocks (other customers) from loss of service. Should Comcast enforce a block on port 25, and charge unreasonably for unblocking it, then users of Comcast should explore using other MTAs. I notice that smtp.com is already in the business of providing smtp relays, and should a large operator like Comcast create a larger need, there would no doubt be other players. As a practical matter, indivduals using sendmail can use the mailertable feature to direct messages directly to the remote MTA, but fall back to a specified relay MTA should their access to the remote MTA be blocked (for example, by receivers that reject mail apparent dial-up lines). Daniel Feenberg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Dec 14 11:04:39 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA17113 for ; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 11:04:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVYj6-0003Ph-6p for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 11:04:13 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBEG4CS7013122 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 11:04:12 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVYj6-0003PZ-0B for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 11:04:12 -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 LAA17110 for ; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 11:04:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVYj3-0006t9-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 11:04:09 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVYj3-0006t6-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 11:04:09 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVYiv-0003NM-I6; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 11:04:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVYi1-0003Mx-RU for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 11:03:05 -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 LAA17104 for ; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 11:03:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVYhz-0006sn-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 11:03:03 -0500 Received: from rwcrmhc13.comcast.net ([204.127.198.39]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVYhy-0006se-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 11:03:02 -0500 Received: from fda.zemos.net ([68.38.12.170]) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc13) with ESMTP id <2003121416023201500mom9ge>; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 16:02:32 +0000 Received: from zemos.net (phil [10.0.0.2]) by fda.zemos.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CE1718685; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 11:02:27 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3FDC89AD.2040009@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: Daniel Feenberg Cc: Brett Watson , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals: MTA MARK vs port 25 filtering? References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2003 11:02:53 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Daniel Feenberg wrote: > On Sun, 14 Dec 2003, Philip Miller wrote: >>I don't trust my ISP to get it right with regard to their mail server. They >>have some large number of MTAs which make outbound connections, and 1 or 2 >>of them are blacklisted. Because of stupid policies enforced by other >>providers (AOL), I already cannot connect out directly, so I am forced to >>forward my mail through smtp.comcast.net. This means I have a choice between >>not reaching certain ASRG members whose servers use RBL or not reaching >>friends and family on AOL. I'm not going to reconfigure a mailserver used by >>multiple people every time I want to send a message to AOL or ASRG. >>About virtual hosts: I am a student. I am a minor. I do not have ready >>access to a credit card to pay for such service. Whatever I can't get for >>free online, I can't get at a "ridiculously cheap" cost. I happen to have >>broadband access, and I run a server of my own, for utility and education. >>If I were forcibly prevented from using it, I would not be happy, and I'm >>sure many others are in a situation similar to this. > > It is important that "consent" include "consent of the sending AS" > expressed somehow. It could be lifting a block on port 25, or some > mechanism enforced only at the receipient end. But anything suggesting > that the origin AS should not have to provide consent for sending to port > 25 is to create a right to spam which will be exceedingly difficult to > counter. > > The current situation is that very few ISP even bother to block owned > machines. Surely that can't be BCP. BCP must be to forward port 25 packets > only for customers who have asked for such service. This is necessary to > protect address blocks (other customers) from loss of service. BCP would be carefully monitoring their network, and blocking any customers whose traffic signatures indicate that they've been '0wned' or infected. Failing that, it would be perfectly fine for them to block all potentially harmful traffic and allow it out upon customer request and possible acceptance of accountability. However, they will do neither, because to do so would not be compatible with their business model. It costs them money to do anything more than block SMTP out universally or mark it all in DUL/MTA-Mark/whatever, and they don't want to spend that money. Most consumer ISPs are the same way, and some of us don't have an alternative. > Should Comcast enforce a block on port 25, and charge unreasonably for > unblocking it, then users of Comcast should explore using other MTAs. I > notice that smtp.com is already in the business of providing smtp relays, > and should a large operator like Comcast create a larger need, there would > no doubt be other players. How would an smtp.com relay help me if port 25 were blocked? My MUA wouldn't be able to connect to it either, unless they use SUBMIT, which is still exceedingly rare. > As a practical matter, indivduals using sendmail can use the mailertable > feature to direct messages directly to the remote MTA, but fall back to > a specified relay MTA should their access to the remote MTA be blocked > (for example, by receivers that reject mail apparent dial-up lines). This is not unique to sendmail. As I said earlier, I run postfix, and all of my outgoing mail is relayed through smtp.comcast.net. However, If we were to push LMAP, I certainly would NOT want to authorize smtp.comcast.net to send for zemos.net, because that would allow any comcast customer to send as zemos.net, a very undesireable idea. These proposals go hand in hand, but there are some kinks to work out. Philip Miller _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Dec 14 11:12:32 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA17261 for ; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 11:12:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVYqh-0003wk-8s for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 11:12:04 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBEGC3e2015164 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 11:12:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVYqg-0003v7-LC for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 11:12:02 -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 LAA17258 for ; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 11:12:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVYqf-0006zj-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 11:12:02 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVYqf-0006zg-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 11:12:01 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVYqf-0003sY-Eg; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 11:12:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVYqY-0003sF-5T for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 11:11:54 -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 LAA17252 for ; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 11:11:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVYqV-0006zW-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 11:11:51 -0500 Received: from [66.118.142.180] (helo=shift.ctrl-alt-del.ca) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVYqV-0006zT-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 11:11:51 -0500 Received: from vampire (MTL-HSE-ppp168700.qc.sympatico.ca [65.94.97.244]) by shift.ctrl-alt-del.ca (Postfix) with SMTP id 89EBF5640A8; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 11:11:50 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <001701c3c25c$cbb6a3f0$6402a8c0@vampire> From: "Marc A. Pelletier" To: "Brett Watson" Cc: References: <200312141548.47371.famous-asrg@nutters.org> Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals: MTA MARK vs port 25 filtering? 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, 14 Dec 2003 11:10:30 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Brett Watson sayeth: > A touchy issue, this. Should we consider it Best Current Practice to filter > outgoing port 25 on "residential" (or similarly classified) access points? > Should we consider it BCP to filter outgoing port 25 on pretty much all > access points unless other arrangements are explicitly made? > [Long and reasonable argument for blocking port 25] "Yes", but "no". :-) For a strictly technical reason, mind you. If port 25 becomes predominantly filtered, email is slimply going to shift ports. We will see an increase of proxies over port 80 (most likely), and the corresponding abuse. For that matter, I've figured out a trivial way of circumventing any such measure to deliver spam; though I am loathe to discuss it here given that I am fairly certain our adversaries read this list religiously. I am convinced any solution against spam lie in separating the good email from the bad, not in trying to prevent garbage from being inserted in the system in the first place (though you obviously want to choke it as soon as possible to reduce cost). Perhaps a better direction to look in is not to prevent port 25 access without prior arrangement but to prevent mass mailings without such arrangements (however we choose to define this). Throttling and refusing to send email to more than a few destinations come to mind, asking legitimate mailing lists to authenticate with a willing mail relay is not unreasonable and doesn't prevent the general end to end philosophy. I wouldn't mind if the ISP where my colo box lives refused to let me send more than n mail per hour, say, unless I had a specific arrangement otherwise. I don't think it's realistic to try to prevent one-to-one spam, but one-to-many mailings are easier to detect, and easier to control. -- Marc _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Dec 14 11:18:32 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA17364 for ; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 11:18:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVYwW-00049e-GV for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 11:18:05 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBEGI4sj015964 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 11:18:04 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVYwW-00049P-AG for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 11:18:04 -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 LAA17349 for ; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 11:18:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVYwV-000727-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 11:18:03 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVYwV-000723-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 11:18:03 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVYwS-00045Q-H1; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 11:18:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVYw1-00044x-KB for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 11:17:33 -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 LAA17334 for ; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 11:17:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVYvt-000715-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 11:17:25 -0500 Received: from mail1.nber.org ([207.113.108.7]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVYvU-00070x-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 11:17:00 -0500 Received: from mail1 (root@localhost) by mail1.nber.org (8.12.8/8.12.8) with SMTP id hBEGGYn3012684 for ; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 11:16:34 -0500 Received: from nber5.nber.org (nber5.nber.org [207.113.108.99]) by mail1.nber.org (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hBEGGV6l012663; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 11:16:32 -0500 From: Daniel Feenberg To: Philip Miller cc: Brett Watson , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals: MTA MARK vs port 25 filtering? In-Reply-To: <3FDC89AD.2040009@zemos.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2003 11:09:37 -0500 (EST) On Sun, 14 Dec 2003, Philip Miller wrote: > > How would an smtp.com relay help me if port 25 were blocked? My MUA wouldn't > be able to connect to it either, unless they use SUBMIT, which is still > exceedingly rare. > They accept mail via a different port. It isn't that clever, anyone could have thought of it.They have other means of not becoming an open relay. I don't mean to bring them up as the solution to Miller's problem, just to point out that should his problem become widespread, solutions will become widely available, and problably in multiple forms. MSA submit is another, should MUAs become willing to give it first class support. But it isn't the only possibility. Daniel Feenberg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Dec 14 11:21:31 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA17431 for ; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 11:21:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVYzP-0004JP-Tq for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 11:21:03 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBEGL3gf016514 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 14 Dec 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 1AVYzP-0004IH-JM for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 11:21:03 -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 LAA17421 for ; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 11:21:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVYzO-00074N-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 11:21:02 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVYzO-00074K-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 11:21:02 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVYzN-0004Fv-6m; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 11:21:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVYyP-0004E9-8K for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 11:20:01 -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 LAA17392 for ; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 11:19:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVYyO-00073I-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 11:20:00 -0500 Received: from mail1.nber.org ([207.113.108.7]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVYyN-00073F-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 11:19:59 -0500 Received: from mail1 (root@localhost) by mail1.nber.org (8.12.8/8.12.8) with SMTP id hBEGJxCF013448 for ; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 11:19:59 -0500 Received: from nber5.nber.org (nber5.nber.org [207.113.108.99]) by mail1.nber.org (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hBEGJw6l013427; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 11:19:58 -0500 From: Daniel Feenberg To: "Marc A. Pelletier" cc: Brett Watson , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals: MTA MARK vs port 25 filtering? In-Reply-To: <001701c3c25c$cbb6a3f0$6402a8c0@vampire> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2003 11:13:03 -0500 (EST) On Sun, 14 Dec 2003, Marc A. Pelletier wrote: > Brett Watson sayeth: > > For a strictly technical reason, mind you. If port 25 becomes predominantly > filtered, email is slimply going to shift ports. We will see an increase of > proxies over port 80 (most likely), and the corresponding abuse. > This I don't understand. I don't run an MTA at port 80, so I don't receive any spam via that port. Nor does anyone else I know, nor can I conceive of any reason I might start doing so. Perhaps you are confused by lax terminology. When anti-spammers speak of filtering port 25, they mean packets destined to port 25 on the remote system. That is the only port that accepts mail from strangers on most systems. Daniel Feenberg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Dec 14 12:50:39 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA19283 for ; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 12:50:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVaNg-0006qx-3g for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 12:50:12 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBEHoC3A026337 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 12:50:12 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVaNf-0006qi-VC for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 12:50:12 -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 MAA19272 for ; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 12:50:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVaNe-0000Lu-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 12:50:10 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVaNd-0000Lr-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 12:50:09 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVaNX-0006oS-JS; Sun, 14 Dec 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 1AVaMp-0006nG-3z for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 12:49:21 -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 MAA19245 for ; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 12:49:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVaMn-0000LW-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 12:49:17 -0500 Received: from rwcrmhc13.comcast.net ([204.127.198.39]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVaMn-0000Ka-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 12:49:17 -0500 Received: from fda.zemos.net ([68.38.12.170]) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc13) with ESMTP id <2003121417484601500k43o5e>; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 17:48:46 +0000 Received: from zemos.net (phil [10.0.0.2]) by fda.zemos.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0ADAF18685; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 12:48:41 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3FDCA293.9040904@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: Alan DeKok Cc: ASRG Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] 6. Proposals: LMAP - Forwarding Comment and Recommended Changes Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2003 12:49:07 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit As noted in the current discussion draft, LMAP will affect forwarding: > 3.4 Message relaying and forwarding are affected by LMAP > > Mail forwarders have traditionally left the sender envelope untouched. > "Forwarding" is used in the sense of *ix user .forward and /etc/aliases > files. > > Let us examine a situation where an LMAP conformant domain A sends a > message to address B which forwards the message to LMAP conformant > recipient C using the original sender address from A. If the B->C > forward had been set up without the consent of the recipient C, A's LMAP > records would be checked by C's LMAP client, and the message would be > correctly rejected. > > If the recipient C did desire the B->C forwarding, three workarounds are > possible. > > 1) B's MTA could rewrite the sender address to pass C's LMAP criteria > without involving the user B. > > 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" > > 3) the recipient C could provide a whitelist to C's MTA indicating that > forwarded messages are expected to arrive for C from B. > > LMAP conformant SMTP forwarders should implement a sender rewriting > scheme or its equivalent. Forwarders may work around this issue by > simply modifying .forward files to pipe messages to a local mailer. > > [snip] > > 5.1.16 Factor 4.5 (16), Mailing Lists > > [snip mailing list suff because it comes to the right conclusion that > mailing lists should alter the sender envelope] > > The one practice which will be most affected by LMAP is the use of > ".forward" files. Widespread use of LMAP may make the use of .forward > files problematic. > > We recognize that every MTA using .forward files on *ix hosts or similar > configurations do not alter the sender envelope when forwarding mail. > However, commercial and proprietary mail-forwarding systems alter the > sender envelope, and these are by far the most popular pure > mail-forwarding instances. > > There is no fix for .forward usage aside from altering the sender > envelope and designating the forwarding host via LMAP. First of all, there are two separate but not disjoint cases of forwarding that could occur in a messages transmission path: 1. A Message Originator relays its mail through a third party host 2. A Message Recipient has mail delivered to a designated host, which then passes it along. The second case is easy to solve. Rewriting the message envelope in this case is undesireable, because it would mean that if delivery failed, a notification could not be returned to the sender. However, rewriting isn't necessary in this case, because the recipient knows who's relaying their mail and can make provisions to accept all mail from the designated recipient. LMAP is useful here, because it lets the recipient designate the relay to trust by fully-qualified host name rather than IP address and be sure that it's the host in question. The first case is much trickier. It means that a third party to a commmunication must be trusted. For example, all of my outgoing mail, with the zemos.net domain, is relayed through smtp.comcast.net because of broken mail policies at other domains (read: AOL). This 'smart host' is effectively an open relay for all Comcast customers. If I don't add it to LMAP, messages relayed through it would rightfully be rejected by the recipient MTA, because they don't originate from an LMAP designated MTA. However, if I do add it, any Comcast customer would be able to forge the zemos.net domain without trouble. My recommendation for how this case should be handled is as follows. This scenario should be added in some form to LMAP: 1. lmap-mta is authorized to send mail for sender.com 2. lmap-mta is connected to the internet via a random ISP, isp.com 3. lmap-mta is forced to relay mail through smtp.isp.com (outside policy, port 25 block, MTA-Mark) 4. smtp.isp.com is authorized to send mail for isp.com 5. lmap-mta connects to smtp.isp.com and transmits a message with a MAIL FROM in sender.com. 6. smtp.isp.com verifies that lmap-mta is LMAP-authorized by sender.com 7. smtp.isp.com accepts the message 8. smtp.isp.com rewrites the sender envelope to encode the original return-path in an address at isp.com 9. smtp.isp.com connects to mx.recipient.com and transmits the message 10. mx.recipient.com verifies that smtp.isp.com is LMAP-authorized by isp.com 11. mx.recipient.com accepts the message, but is later forced to generate a bounce notice about it. 12. mx.recipient.com sends the bounce message to the isp.com return-path 13. isp.com's MX sees the specially-encoded return-path and passes the notification to the original return path. 14. The message originator @sender.com receives the bounce message. The missing link in this scenario is the standardized encoding for the return-path within a return-path. If this idea is already in use by some commercial servers, I'd love to hear about it. If not, we need to come up with some appropriate design (some variation on VERP might work) and suggest it in the LMAP draft. There's no need to REQUIRE the use of a specific format, because it only needs to be uniform within each ISP or relay, not Internet-wide. This makes LMAP a reasonable alternative to Yahoo's Domain Keys proposal. It requires only information that would be in the DNS as result of LMAP conformance. It does not require additional cryptographic information or processing. It does not require domain owners to put semantically wrong trust statements in the DNS to satisfy third-parties' policies. Philip Miller _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 15 00:20:03 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA10515 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 00:20:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVl8q-0000fo-12 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 00:19:36 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBF5JZa4002582 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 00:19:35 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVl8p-0000fZ-RY for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 00:19:35 -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 AAA10488 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 00:19:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVl8n-0003VQ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 00:19:33 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVl8n-0003VM-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 00:19:33 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVl8G-0000dB-Js; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 00:19:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVl81-0000cw-Ca for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 00:18:45 -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 AAA10480 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 00:18:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVl7y-0003VD-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 00:18:43 -0500 Received: from kanga.nu ([157.22.12.214]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVl7y-0003VA-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 00:18:42 -0500 Received: from dhcp-66-212-193-197.myeastern.com ([66.212.193.197]:60156 helo=yabbie) by kanga.nu with asmtp (Exim 4.22 #1 (Debian)) id 1AVl7y-0003qt-Kl; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 21:18:42 -0800 Received: from yabbie ([127.0.0.1] helo=kanga.nu) by yabbie with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1AVl7x-0005mT-00; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 00:18:41 -0500 To: "Eric Dean" cc: "'Yakov Shafranovich'" , "'ASRG'" Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - Review of the CRI subgroup In-Reply-To: Message from "Eric Dean" of "Wed, 10 Dec 2003 14:21:39 EST." <010c01c3bf52$d5e00e00$6401a8c0@sohonotebook> References: <010c01c3bf52$d5e00e00$6401a8c0@sohonotebook> X-face: ?^_yw@fA`CEX&}--=*&XqXbF-oePvxaT4(kyt\nwM9]{]N!>b^K}-Mb9 YH%saz^>nq5usBlD"s{(.h'_w|U^3ldUq7wVZz$`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: <22224.1071465521@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: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 00:18:41 -0500 On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 14:21:39 -0500 Eric Dean wrote: Sorry for the delay. End of year fanaticism is taking its toll. > Yes, there is a general consensus that consent-based methods are > prefered; however, CRI is low hanging fruit and can be used to > validate some assumptions of consent-based. In short, CRI is a subset > of consent-based...but a bit more widely deployed (though not much) I see where you're heading and but partially agree. Yes, CRI is low hanging fruit and has a fair bit of public and developer attention currently, however while a consent token protocol can use a CRI system and does require similar acked communication exchanges to email-based CRI, that really seems to be about the limit of the overlap. Consent protocols don't require CRI, don't need to bear much similarity at all to CRI, and don't particularly solve similar problems at the human level (CRI is supplicant based, consent is based on granted audience). In an abstract sense I look at consent maintenance as a specialised form of the problem of automatically maintaining current and correct email addresses for correspondents as they move, change ISPs and jobs, etc. The core for me is the machine assistance to the maintenance of a human relationship. How that relationship happened is rather beside the point as long as the state machine has the proper transforms. > If you are willing to hack code..so am I. Excellent! -- 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 Mon Dec 15 06:13:40 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA03338 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 06:13:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVqf2-0006i7-2O for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 06:13:13 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBFBDCEj025791 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 06:13:12 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVqf1-0006hu-Q7 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 06:13:11 -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 GAA03321 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 06:13:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVqey-00023V-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 06:13:08 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVqex-00023S-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 06:13:07 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVqer-0006fc-Cr; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 06:13:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVqdt-0006ej-2Y for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 06:12:04 -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 GAA03285 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 06:11:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVqdp-00022F-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 06:11:57 -0500 Received: from argon.connectinternetsolutions.com ([193.110.243.33] helo=argon.connect.org.uk) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVqdo-00022C-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 06:11:56 -0500 Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 1AVqdq-0001u0-0j; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 11:11:58 +0000 Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals: LMAP - Forwarding Comment and Recommended Changes To: "Philip Miller" From: "Jon Kyme" Cc: "ASRG" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.10.1] 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, 15 Dec 2003 11:11:58 +0000 > First of all, there are two separate but not disjoint cases of forwarding > that could occur in a messages transmission path: > 1. A Message Originator relays its mail through a third party host >2. A Message Recipient has mail delivered to a designated host, which > then passes it along. [snip] > The first case is much trickier. It means that a third party to a > commmunication must be trusted. For example, all of my outgoing mail, > with > the zemos.net domain, is relayed through smtp.comcast.net because of > broken > mail policies at other domains (read: AOL). This 'smart host' is > effectively > an open relay for all Comcast customers. If I don't add it to LMAP, > messages > relayed through it would rightfully be rejected by the recipient MTA, > because they don't originate from an LMAP designated MTA. However, if I > do > add it, any Comcast customer would be able to forge the zemos.net domain > without trouble. > I take it that the policy that you're referring to as broken is the policy of not taking mail from dial-up IPs ? > My recommendation for how this case should be handled is as follows. This > scenario should be added in some form to LMAP: > 1. lmap-mta is authorized to send mail for sender.com > 2. lmap-mta is connected to the internet via a random ISP, isp.com > 3. lmap-mta is forced to relay mail through smtp.isp.com (outside policy, > port 25 block, MTA-Mark) > 4. smtp.isp.com is authorized to send mail for isp.com > 5. lmap-mta connects to smtp.isp.com and transmits a message with a MAIL > FROM in sender.com. > 6. smtp.isp.com verifies that lmap-mta is LMAP-authorized by sender.com > 7. smtp.isp.com accepts the message > 8. smtp.isp.com rewrites the sender envelope to encode the original > return-path in an address at isp.com > 9. smtp.isp.com connects to mx.recipient.com and transmits the message > 10. mx.recipient.com verifies that smtp.isp.com is LMAP-authorized by > isp.com > 11. mx.recipient.com accepts the message, but is later forced to generate > a > bounce notice about it. > 12. mx.recipient.com sends the bounce message to the isp.com return-path > 13. isp.com's MX sees the specially-encoded return-path and passes the > notification to the original return path. > 14. The message originator @sender.com receives the bounce message. > > The missing link in this scenario is the standardized encoding for the > return-path within a return-path. If this idea is already in use by some > commercial servers, I'd love to hear about it. If not, we need to come up > with some appropriate design (some variation on VERP might work) and > suggest > it in the LMAP draft. There's no need to REQUIRE the use of a specific > format, because it only needs to be uniform within each ISP or relay, not > Internet-wide. > This makes LMAP a reasonable alternative to Yahoo's Domain Keys proposal. I think you're right, to make this kind of relaying work nicely, something along these lines would need to be provided. It makes the return-path the same as the outward path. That symmetry is probably a Good Thing and might be usefully provided for your second case (and others) also, i.e. all intermediate MTA should perhaps have the ability to rewrite the envelope from and decode for bounces. Would it be useful to consider rfc3461 ENVID in this context? I don't know how wide support for this is (is there any?). -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 15 08:44:41 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA08004 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 08:44:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVt1A-0003ne-SD for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 08:44:12 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBFDiCE9014600 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 08:44:12 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVt1A-0003nP-K8 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 08:44:12 -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 IAA07987 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 08:44:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVt19-0004fw-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 08:44:11 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVt18-0004ft-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 08:44:10 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVt0y-0003l2-Vw; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 08:44:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVt06-0003kV-2J for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 08:43:06 -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 IAA07975 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 08:43:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVt04-0004fg-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 08:43:04 -0500 Received: from sccrmhc13.comcast.net ([204.127.202.64]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVt04-0004f5-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 08:43:04 -0500 Received: from fda.zemos.net ([68.38.12.170]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc13) with ESMTP id <2003121513423401600rli25e>; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 13:42:34 +0000 Received: from zemos.net (phil [10.0.0.2]) by fda.zemos.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FAC718685; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 08:42:35 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3FDDBA62.5040102@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: Jon Kyme Cc: ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals: LMAP - Forwarding Comment and Recommended Changes References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 08:42:58 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jon Kyme wrote: >>First of all, there are two separate but not disjoint cases of forwarding >>that could occur in a messages transmission path: >>1. A Message Originator relays its mail through a third party host >>2. A Message Recipient has mail delivered to a designated host, which >>then passes it along. > > [snip] > >> The first case is much trickier. It means that a third party to a >> commmunication must be trusted. For example, all of my outgoing mail, >> with the zemos.net domain, is relayed through smtp.comcast.net because >> of broken mail policies at other domains (read: AOL). This 'smart host' >> is effectively an open relay for all Comcast customers. If I don't add >> it to LMAP, messages relayed through it would rightfully be rejected by >> the recipient MTA, because they don't originate from an LMAP designated >> MTA. However, if I do add it, any Comcast customer would be able to >> forge the zemos.net domain without trouble. > > I take it that the policy that you're referring to as broken is the policy > of not taking mail from dial-up IPs ? Basically, yes. There's a page located at that details their anti-spam policies. For all I know, my server my run afoul of more than one. >>My recommendation for how this case should be handled is as follows. This >>scenario should be added in some form to LMAP: >>1. lmap-mta is authorized to send mail for sender.com >>2. lmap-mta is connected to the internet via a random ISP, isp.com >>3. lmap-mta is forced to relay mail through smtp.isp.com (outside policy, >>port 25 block, MTA-Mark) >>4. smtp.isp.com is authorized to send mail for isp.com >>5. lmap-mta connects to smtp.isp.com and transmits a message with a MAIL >>FROM in sender.com. >>6. smtp.isp.com verifies that lmap-mta is LMAP-authorized by sender.com >>7. smtp.isp.com accepts the message >>8. smtp.isp.com rewrites the sender envelope to encode the original >>return-path in an address at isp.com >>9. smtp.isp.com connects to mx.recipient.com and transmits the message >>10. mx.recipient.com verifies that smtp.isp.com is LMAP-authorized by >>isp.com >>11. mx.recipient.com accepts the message, but is later forced to generate >>a >>bounce notice about it. >>12. mx.recipient.com sends the bounce message to the isp.com return-path >>13. isp.com's MX sees the specially-encoded return-path and passes the >>notification to the original return path. >>14. The message originator @sender.com receives the bounce message. >> >> The missing link in this scenario is the standardized encoding for the >> return-path within a return-path. If this idea is already in use by >> some commercial servers, I'd love to hear about it. If not, we need to >> come up with some appropriate design (some variation on VERP might >> work) and suggest it in the LMAP draft. There's no need to REQUIRE the >> use of a specific format, because it only needs to be uniform within >> each ISP or relay, not Internet-wide. This makes LMAP a reasonable >> alternative to Yahoo's Domain Keys proposal. > > I think you're right, to make this kind of relaying work nicely, something > along these lines would need to be provided. It makes the return-path the > same as the outward path. That symmetry is probably a Good Thing and might > be usefully provided for your second case (and others) also, > i.e. all intermediate MTA should perhaps have the ability to rewrite the > envelope from and decode for bounces. > > Would it be useful to consider rfc3461 ENVID in this context? > I don't know how wide support for this is (is there any?). I'm not too familiar with this. I'll read it later today. Philip Miller _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 15 11:27:55 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA15675 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 11:27:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVvZ8-0002F3-I2 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 11:27:27 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBFGRQgh008611 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 11:27:26 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVvZ8-0002Eo-DL for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 11:27:26 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA15653 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 11:27:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVvZ7-0000Di-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 11:27:25 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVvZ7-0000Df-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 11:27:25 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVvYk-0002Be-Fd; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 11:27:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVvYF-0002Ao-0D for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 11:26:31 -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 LAA15600 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 11:26:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVvYE-0000CF-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 11:26:30 -0500 Received: from mail1.nber.org ([207.113.108.7]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVvYD-0000C9-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 11:26:29 -0500 Received: from mail1 (root@localhost) by mail1.nber.org (8.12.8/8.12.8) with SMTP id hBFGQRls005449 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 11:26:27 -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 hBFGQQ6l005428; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 11:26:26 -0500 From: Daniel Feenberg To: Philip Miller cc: Jon Kyme , ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals: LMAP - Forwarding Comment and Recommended Changes In-Reply-To: <3FDDBA62.5040102@zemos.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 11:26:27 -0500 (EST) On Mon, 15 Dec 2003, Philip Miller wrote: > Jon Kyme wrote: > > envelope from and decode for bounces. > > > > Would it be useful to consider rfc3461 ENVID in this context? > > I don't know how wide support for this is (is there any?). > > I'm not too familiar with this. I'll read it later today. > With respect to the question: Is there any support for ENVID? Looking on google, it seems that many MTAs support it. I found positive references to support for ENVID by: Sendmail (8.8+) Courrier PMDF zmailer MH qmail This last is significant, since qmail's VERP is a substitute for ENVID proposed when DJB considered support for ENVID insufficiently widespread. I found references to security holes in the ENVID support by: MS Exchange Lotus Domino so they must support it, too. I did find a newsgroup posting from someone saying that POSTFIX did not support ENVID - the only MTA I found such information about. Sendmail supports ENVID from the sendmail command line with the "-V" option. I haven't tested any of these, but note that ENVID is documented in rfc1891, so it is not a new feature. The update in 3461 only fixes the character set and size. Daniel Feenberg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 15 11:47:39 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA16259 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 11:47:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVvsA-0003Hi-QA for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 11:47:11 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBFGl6E9012620 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 11:47:06 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVvsA-0003HT-BP for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 11:47:06 -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 LAA16231 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 11:47:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVvs9-0000UR-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 11:47:05 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVvs8-0000UO-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 11:47:04 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVvs4-0003DZ-OI; Mon, 15 Dec 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 1AVvrT-0003CW-5m for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 11:46:23 -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 LAA16192 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 11:46:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVvrS-0000Tj-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 11:46:22 -0500 Received: from newgiles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ([205.150.200.131] helo=mail.nitros9.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVvrR-0000Tb-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 11:46:21 -0500 Received: from newgiles.nitros9.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.nitros9.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86D9D170A8 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 11:46:56 -0500 (EST) From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals: MTA MARK vs port 25 filtering? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 14 Dec 2003 01:33:24 EST." <3FDC0434.6060002@zemos.net> Message-Id: <20031215164656.86D9D170A8@mail.nitros9.org> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 11:46:56 -0500 Philip Miller wrote: > The LMAP discussion document needs cohesive review and editing, preferably > before we publish as and Internet Draft. IDs are nice for some things, but > it's easier if we make all of the changes we feel necessary before first > official publication. Patches? I've got a number of messages saved in a folder, and am planning to update the document again before the end of the year. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 15 11:55:38 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA16499 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 11:55:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVvzy-0003Zn-DR for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 11:55:10 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBFGtAOc013741 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 11:55:10 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVvzy-0003ZY-1W for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 11:55:10 -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 LAA16492 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 11:55:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVvzw-0000f7-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 11:55:09 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVvzw-0000f4-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 11:55:08 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVvzr-0003XJ-Je; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 11:55:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVvyu-0003W8-D4 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 11:54:04 -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 LAA16485 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 11:54:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVvyt-0000eg-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 11:54:03 -0500 Received: from argon.connectinternetsolutions.com ([193.110.243.33] helo=argon.connect.org.uk) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVvys-0000ed-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 11:54:02 -0500 Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 1AVvyr-00050I-D6; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 16:54:01 +0000 In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals: LMAP - Forwarding Comment and Recommended Changes To: feenberg@nber.org From: "Jon Kyme" Cc: "ASRG" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.10.1] 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, 15 Dec 2003 16:54:01 +0000 Daniel Feenberg: > > so they must support it, too. I did find a newsgroup posting from someone > saying that POSTFIX did not support ENVID - the only MTA I found such > information about. > I think I'm right to say that exim doesn't do DSN at all. I'm sure that some kind of verp might be required as a fallback, but it occurred to me that this is the kind of thing that ENVID would be well suited for... perhaps. -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 15 17:58:46 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA04087 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 17:58:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AW1fO-0003Ut-Ow for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 17:58:19 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBFMwIoZ013439 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 17:58:18 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AW1fO-0003Ug-LD for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 17:58:18 -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 RAA04071 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 17:58:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AW1fM-0004Zs-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 17:58:16 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AW1fL-0004Zk-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 17:58:15 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AW1fK-0004Zg-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 17:58:14 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AW1f7-0003SH-7K; Mon, 15 Dec 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 1AW1eJ-0003QD-9p for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 17:57:11 -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 RAA04042 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 17:57:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AW1eG-0004Z0-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 17:57:08 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AW1eF-0004Yt-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 17:57:08 -0500 Received: from sccrmhc11.comcast.net ([204.127.202.55]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AW1eF-0004YQ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 17:57:07 -0500 Received: from fda.zemos.net ([68.38.12.170]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc11) with ESMTP id <2003121522563801100ikv3ce>; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 22:56:38 +0000 Received: from zemos.net (phil [10.0.0.2]) by fda.zemos.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5995718685; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 17:56:44 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3FDE3C40.1080406@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: Alan DeKok Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals: MTA MARK vs port 25 filtering? References: <20031215164656.86D9D170A8@mail.nitros9.org> In-Reply-To: <20031215164656.86D9D170A8@mail.nitros9.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: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 17:57:04 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Alan DeKok wrote: > Philip Miller wrote: >>The LMAP discussion document needs cohesive review and editing, preferably >>before we publish as and Internet Draft. IDs are nice for some things, but >>it's easier if we make all of the changes we feel necessary before first >>official publication. > > Patches? > > I've got a number of messages saved in a folder, and am planning to > update the document again before the end of the year. Well, here's one more. I'm not sure what to do about the organization, and I don't know how or where we would address the relevance of SMTP AUTH. About the organization: I don't think we should have 2 complete sections dedicated to addressing, point by point, the specific requirements dreamt up by this group. They should certainly all be addressed within the body of this document, or in the protocol description. Basically, I think the best way to address the myriad concerns is to integrate them in the rationales for normative sections. I don't think we should end up with 2 separate documents when we're done, one describing the protocol(s) and one defending it. This is not the norm from what I've seen in the RFCs, assuming we intend to eventually publish this as an RFC. If there is a precedent, point me to it and I'll stand corrected, but most things seem to be completely integrated. About Section 2.1.2 "Why prevent domain forgery, instead of end-user forgery?": End-user authentication definitely has some bearing on the workings of LMAP. If some major mail-originating domain implemented LMAP, but made no provision to prevent transmission of spam or forged messages through the authorized servers, what good has it done? Worst case, you could have LMAP-listed open relays. We should definitely at least recommend the use of SMTP AUTH within domains in tandem with LMAP. -- Philip Miller _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 15 20:24:47 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA10259 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 20:24:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AW3wd-0007ui-VH for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 20:24:18 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBG1OFSs030415 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 20:24:15 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AW3wd-0007uU-OT for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 20:24:15 -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 UAA10238 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 20:24:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AW3wb-0001ZE-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 20:24:13 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AW3wa-0001Z1-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 20:24:13 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AW3wZ-0001Yw-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 20:24:11 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AW3wP-0007pt-PD; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 20:24:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AW3v4-0007op-S7 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 20:22:39 -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 UAA10153 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 20:22:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AW3v2-0001Ub-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 20:22:36 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AW3v1-0001UU-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 20:22:36 -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 1AW3v1-0001TJ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 20:22:35 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-393-520.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.251.54]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HPY002T8RSPZW@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 01:22:06 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - Review of the CRI subgroup In-reply-to: <22224.1071465521@kanga.nu> To: J C Lawrence Cc: Eric Dean , "'ASRG'" Message-id: <3FDE5E3D.7070604@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: <010c01c3bf52$d5e00e00$6401a8c0@sohonotebook> <22224.1071465521@kanga.nu> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 20:22:05 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT J C Lawrence wrote: > On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 14:21:39 -0500 > Eric Dean wrote: > >>If you are willing to hack code..so am I. > > > Excellent! So perhaps the people that are interested in CRI can come up a set of concrete goals for the CRI subgroup? Yakov P.S. It has been expressed by several parties that C/R concept itself might be easier to deal with if it is done out of band - i.e. via an ESMTP extension or something similar, as opposed to inside email itself. ------- 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 Mon Dec 15 21:13:03 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA10261 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 20:24:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AW3we-0007uz-3h for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 20:24:19 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBG1OGCv030431 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 20:24:16 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AW3wd-0007ub-UE for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 20:24:15 -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 UAA10241 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 20:24:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AW3wb-0001ZH-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 20:24:13 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AW3wa-0001Z4-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 20:24:13 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AW3wZ-0001Yx-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 20:24:11 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AW3wP-0007pl-AL; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 20:24:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AW3de-0007De-FI for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 20:04:46 -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 UAA09585 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 20:04:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AW3dc-0000nW-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 20:04:36 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AW3dY-0000mu-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 20:04:36 -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 1AW3dY-0000l7-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 20:04:32 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-393-520.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.251.54]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HPY00BXFQY9AT@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 01:04:03 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals: MTA MARK vs port 25 filtering? In-reply-to: <3FDE3C40.1080406@zemos.net> To: Philip Miller Cc: Alan DeKok , asrg@ietf.org Message-id: <3FDE59F6.2020704@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: <20031215164656.86D9D170A8@mail.nitros9.org> <3FDE3C40.1080406@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, 15 Dec 2003 20:03:50 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Philip Miller wrote: > Alan DeKok wrote: > >> Philip Miller wrote: >> >>> The LMAP discussion document needs cohesive review and editing, >>> preferably before we publish as and Internet Draft. IDs are nice for >>> some things, but it's easier if we make all of the changes we feel >>> necessary before first official publication. >> >> >> Patches? >> >> I've got a number of messages saved in a folder, and am planning to >> update the document again before the end of the year. > > > Well, here's one more. I'm not sure what to do about the organization, > and I don't know how or where we would address the relevance of SMTP AUTH. > > About the organization: > I don't think we should have 2 complete sections dedicated to > addressing, point by point, the specific requirements dreamt up by this > group. They should certainly all be addressed within the body of this > document, or in the protocol description. Basically, I think the best > way to address the myriad concerns is to integrate them in the > rationales for normative sections. I don't think we should end up with 2 > separate documents when we're done, one describing the protocol(s) and > one defending it. This is not the norm from what I've seen in the RFCs, > assuming we intend to eventually publish this as an RFC. If there is a > precedent, point me to it and I'll stand corrected, but most things seem > to be completely integrated. > As a research group we are expected to concentrate on discussing the proposal itself, and leave the implementation to the IETF. Also, responding to requirements point by point has been an approach taken by some of the other RGs and WGs. Yakov ------- Yakov Shafranovich / asrg shaftek.org SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / research solidmatrix.com "All that is gold does not glitter" (LOTR) ------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 15 21:59:50 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA13523 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 21:59:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AW5Qf-00034P-0h for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 21:59:22 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBG2xKJ2011794 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 21:59:20 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AW5Qe-000349-53 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 21:59:20 -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 VAA13520 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 21:59:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AW5Qb-00055i-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 21:59:17 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AW5Qa-00055b-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 21:59:16 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AW5Qa-00055Y-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 21:59:16 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AW5QM-00030L-3c; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 21:59:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AW5Q7-000305-Lx for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 21:58:47 -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 VAA13497 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 21:58:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AW5Q4-000555-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 21:58:44 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AW5Q3-00054y-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 21:58:44 -0500 Received: from ntbbs.winserver.com ([208.247.131.9] helo=winserver.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AW5Q3-00054v-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 21:58:43 -0500 Received: by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v5.7.450.9b10) for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 21:59:17 -0500 Received: from ([68.215.35.71]) EHLO=FAMILY by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v5.7.450.9b10) with SMTP id 3778022531; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 21:59:16 -0500 Message-ID: <001d01c3c380$9a51ace0$6401a8c0@FAMILY> From: "Hector Santos" To: References: <20031215164656.86D9D170A8@mail.nitros9.org> <3FDE3C40.1080406@zemos.net> Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals: MTA MARK vs port 25 filtering? 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: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 21:59:19 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit My only input with this would be to be aware that ESMTP AUTH is typically also used to open routing access in addressing the dynamic IP roaming user. It also enforces a non-null address, and in our case, optionally enforces or restricts the return path domain provided. In other words, ESMTP AUTH trumps all. LMAP or no LMAP, it opens routing to users. Note, there are 3 basic ways email (smtp/pop3) server vendors open access to relaying/routing: 1) The traditional IP relay tables 2) ESMTP AUTH 3) POP3 BEFORE SMTP The latter often used by ISP to reduce the user support issues created by the first two. The first doesn't help the roaming user problem and the second require ESMTP ready end-user software and additional ISP setup instructions for the user. However, POP3 BEFORE SMTP is based on the premise that most end-user mail software POP3 into a system before SENDING any mail. For example, you will see this option in Outlook as (*) Pick up mail first before sending mail or something like that as alternative option to ( ) Server requires login to send mail. -- Hector ----- Original Message ----- From: "Philip Miller" To: "Alan DeKok" Cc: Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 5:57 PM Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals: MTA MARK vs port 25 filtering? > Alan DeKok wrote: > About Section 2.1.2 "Why prevent domain forgery, instead of end-user > forgery?": > End-user authentication definitely has some bearing on the workings of > LMAP. If some major mail-originating domain implemented LMAP, but made > no provision to prevent transmission of spam or forged messages through the > authorized servers, what good has it done? Worst case, you could have > LMAP-listed open relays. > We should definitely at least recommend the use of SMTP AUTH within domains > in tandem with LMAP. > > -- > Philip Miller > > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing 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 Dec 15 22:21:40 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA14184 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 22:21:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AW5lp-0003oE-1b for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 22:21:13 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBG3LCOX014636 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 22:21:12 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AW5lo-0003nz-Q9 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 22:21:12 -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 WAA14165 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 22:21:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AW5ll-0005ls-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 22:21:09 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AW5lk-0005lk-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 22:21:09 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AW5lk-0005lh-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 22:21:08 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AW5le-0003jq-V7; Mon, 15 Dec 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 1AW5kf-0003iF-Se for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 22:20:01 -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 WAA14141 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 22:19:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AW5kc-0005iz-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 22:19:58 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AW5ka-0005il-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 22:19:58 -0500 Received: from sccrmhc13.comcast.net ([204.127.202.64]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AW5ka-0005hi-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 22:19:56 -0500 Received: from fda.zemos.net ([68.38.12.170]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc13) with ESMTP id <2003121603192101600rlkate>; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 03:19:21 +0000 Received: from zemos.net (phil [10.0.0.2]) by fda.zemos.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D73418685; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 22:19:22 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3FDE79D0.7000708@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: Hector Santos Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals: MTA MARK vs port 25 filtering? References: <20031215164656.86D9D170A8@mail.nitros9.org> <3FDE3C40.1080406@zemos.net> <001d01c3c380$9a51ace0$6401a8c0@FAMILY> In-Reply-To: <001d01c3c380$9a51ace0$6401a8c0@FAMILY> 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, 15 Dec 2003 22:19:44 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hector Santos wrote: > My only input with this would be to be aware that ESMTP AUTH is typically > also used to open routing access in addressing the dynamic IP roaming user. > It also enforces a non-null address, and in our case, optionally enforces or > restricts the return path domain provided. > > In other words, ESMTP AUTH trumps all. LMAP or no LMAP, it opens routing > to users. Yes, except that AUTH does nothing on the public internet if spammers can originate messages from someone without authenticating as that someone. These are complementary. LMAP makes it so that mail from a given address can only come from a limited set of servers, and AUTH lets those servers ensure that the address on mail they're transmitting is not forged. AUTH is only useful within an organization, not across the public internet. You can't expect to connect to one of AOL's MX servers, AUTH as somebody (how would you if you're not an AOL subscriber?), and have that server accept your mail. Note that a roaming user connecting to the home server is 'within an organization'. > Note, there are 3 basic ways email (smtp/pop3) server vendors open access to > relaying/routing: > > 1) The traditional IP relay tables > 2) ESMTP AUTH > 3) POP3 BEFORE SMTP > > The latter often used by ISP to reduce the user support issues created by > the first two. The first doesn't help the roaming user problem and the > second require ESMTP ready end-user software and additional ISP setup > instructions for the user. Every major MUA has supported AUTH for a long time, AFAIK. Outlook, Outlook Express, Netscape (in all variants since at least 4), Eudora, etc. The real cost is user implementation. It imposes a massive support cost on any organization that does not control the machines used to send mail, such as most commercial ISPs. Note, however, that this does not affect AOL, because users must login before they can originate email. They have a semantically more sensible equivalent to POP-before-SMTP. > However, POP3 BEFORE SMTP is based on the premise that most end-user mail > software POP3 into a system before SENDING any mail. For example, you will > see this option in Outlook as > > (*) Pick up mail first before sending mail > > or something like that as alternative option to ( ) Server requires login to > send mail. POP-before-SMTP was an ugly hack to make up for shortcomings in existing software. Unfortunately, it stuck. It's clearly obsoleted by SMTP AUTH, but there's no compelling reason for users to switch, and thus ISPs have to deal with the inertia of their users. I think we're going to have to live with it for a long time. However, that does not change the fact that LMAP and user authentication target 2 complentary but separate problems: domain forgery, which prevents holding anyone accountable, and user forgery, which is a nuisance best dealt with by the organization that hosts the user's address, since they are uniquely able to authenticate the user. Philip Miller _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 15 23:09:48 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA15260 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 23:09:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AW6WO-0005IW-EF for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 23:09:22 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBG49KVu020363 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 23:09:20 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AW6WO-0005IM-1o for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 23:09:20 -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 XAA15242 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 23:09:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AW6WK-0006s9-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 23:09:16 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AW6WJ-0006s1-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 23:09:16 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AW6WJ-0006ry-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 23:09:15 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AW6W6-0005Fy-Iy; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 23:09:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AW6VW-0005Cv-Ib for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 23:08:26 -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 XAA15223 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 23:08:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AW6VS-0006pI-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 23:08:22 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AW6VR-0006pB-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 23:08:22 -0500 Received: from ntbbs.winserver.com ([208.247.131.9] helo=winserver.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AW6VR-0006p8-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 23:08:21 -0500 Received: by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v5.7.450.9b10) for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 23:08:42 -0500 Received: from ([68.215.35.71]) EHLO=FAMILY by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v5.7.450.9b10) with SMTP id 3782187843; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 23:08:41 -0500 Message-ID: <003501c3c38a$4d450d20$6401a8c0@FAMILY> From: "Hector Santos" To: References: <20031215164656.86D9D170A8@mail.nitros9.org> <3FDE3C40.1080406@zemos.net> <001d01c3c380$9a51ace0$6401a8c0@FAMILY> <3FDE79D0.7000708@zemos.net> Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals: MTA MARK vs port 25 filtering? 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: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 23:08:44 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ----- Original Message ----- From: "Philip Miller" To: "Hector Santos" Cc: Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 10:19 PM Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals: MTA MARK vs port 25 filtering? > POP-before-SMTP was an ugly hack to make up for shortcomings in existing > software. Unfortunately, it stuck. It's clearly obsoleted by SMTP AUTH, but > there's no compelling reason for users to switch, and thus ISPs have to deal > with the inertia of their users. I think we're going to have to live with it > for a long time. I was resistance to the idea myself until ISPs indicated their side of the story. Easy end-user signs up with little or no instructions. They were right. Once we added it, it is now rare for us to be telling our customers they need to setup their mail client for SMTP authentication. Look at how the software is written for the end user. The only easy setup is for POP3 login. SMTP authentication requires extra steps and instructions. It is not obvious. > However, that does not change the fact that LMAP and user authentication > target 2 complentary but separate problems: domain forgery, which prevents > holding anyone accountable, and user forgery, which is a nuisance best dealt > with by the organization that hosts the user's address, since they are > uniquely able to authenticate the user. I agree. My point is only that most systems with ESMTP AUTH use it to trump most (if not all) other restrictions, which is mainly routing. So as long as you can login, it doesn't matter what machine you connect from or what address you use for the return path. In our case, however, we have restrictions for the return path in AUTH mode. The question is how will LMAP address systems like AOL who are now automatically blocking dynamic IP machines at the connection level. Does LMAP address IP ranges? Are we ready to say that dynamic IP senders are no longer allowed? The way I see it from an implementation standpoint, LMAP can only be used for a "accept" logic. It can't be used to reject for lack of a LMAP based information. LMAP AUTH 0 0 Low trust 1 0 X trust 0 1 Y trust 1 1 Z trust Z is great, Y is still better than X. With just X, we are still scratching our heads which is the point you are making I believe. What I am saying, you don't need X if you have Y and I sincerely doubt systems are going to remove this logic to programmatically require X before you can have Y. As long as you have Y (AUTH), you are in. In short, Trust Z >= Trust Y. With no X, Z=Y. -- Hector _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 16 13:06:37 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA25926 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 13:06:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWJaE-0005rK-Ia for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 13:06:11 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBGI6Asq022518 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 13:06:10 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWJaE-0005r7-Em for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 13:06:10 -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 NAA25899 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 13:06:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWJaC-0004Zi-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 13:06:08 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AWJaB-0004Za-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 13:06:08 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWJaB-0004ZX-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 13:06:07 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWJZ8-0005jx-To; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 13:05:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWJZ3-0005jO-Ue for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 13:04:58 -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 NAA25823 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 13:04:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWJZ2-0004Vz-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 13:04:56 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AWJZ0-0004Vs-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 13:04:55 -0500 Received: from pigeon.verisign.com ([65.205.251.71]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWJZ0-0004Vo-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 13:04:54 -0500 Received: from MOU1WNEXC03.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (mailer3.verisign.com [65.205.251.55]) by pigeon.verisign.com (8.12.10/) with ESMTP id hBGI4VuE020734; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 10:04:41 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc03.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 06:32:52 -0800 Message-ID: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E011132AC@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: ngilman@gilmanresearch.com Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] 0. General - IPR - Patents on C/R 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, 16 Dec 2003 06:32:50 -0800 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 The C/R mechanism was used for sender authetication in the MIT AI Lab COMLINK system used to host Vice President Al Gore's Open Meeting in 1994. The mechanism was designed and implemented much earlier though - 1993. The same mechanism was used by Nathaniel Borenstein as a mail filter in 1994 and as a payments mechanism (Green Commerce/First Virtual). The application to spam is obvious and utterly anti-social. Best thing that can happen here is for the patent to kill this obnoxious and clueless mechanism. Phill > -----Original Message----- > From: Yakov Shafranovich [mailto:research@solidmatrix.com] > Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 10:02 PM > To: ngilman@gilmanresearch.com > Cc: asrg@ietf.org > Subject: [Asrg] 0. General - IPR - Patents on C/R > > > [Subject changed as per posting guidelines, was "Re: [Asrg] 2 > Questions: > History of "Challenge-Response" SPAM filter and Info re. > Julian Byrne". > Mod.]. > > See the following link: > > http://www.solidmatrix.com/research/asrg/asrg-ipr.html > > Gilman Research Services wrote: > > Hello, > > > > I am a patent researcher conducting research into the history of > > "Challenge-Response" SPAM filters and would appreciate any > assistance or > > guidance you can provide. I apologize if this is not > exactly in keeping with > > the list's posting guidelines. > > > > 1) I believe I am up to date on the current status of > "Challenge-Response" > > SPAM filters but seem to have hit a dead end re. the history of the > > strategy. Most references go back as far as 1996 and 1997 > with newsgroup > > postings by Julian Byrne on the topic, i.e., > "challenge-response antispam > > 'bot (CRABS) and others. Can anyone provide me with any additional > > references that pre-date 1997? > > > > 2) Secondly, does anyone have any additional information > re. Julian Byrne? > > There appears to be no posting by the professor after 1998 > and he is no > > longer at Monash University in AU. Again and information would be > > appreciated. > > > > Thank you in advance for your patience and time. > > > > Sincerely, > > > > Norm Gilman > > Gilman Research Services, LLC > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Asrg mailing list > > Asrg@ietf.org > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > > > > ------- > Yakov Shafranovich / asrg shaftek.org > SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / research solidmatrix.com > "Among all our enemies / The ones to be most feared are often the > smallest" (Jean de la Fontaine) > ------- > > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing 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 Dec 16 13:41:45 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA27184 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 13:41:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWK8C-0007kk-6l for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 13:41:17 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBGIfGro029796 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 13:41:16 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWK8C-0007kV-2y for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 13:41:16 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA27152 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 13:41:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWK89-0005dV-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 13:41:14 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AWK89-0005dO-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 13:41:13 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWK88-0005dK-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 13:41:12 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWK7y-0007iE-CK; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 13:41:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWK7b-0007ha-TG for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 13:40:44 -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 NAA27134 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 13:40:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWK7Z-0005c8-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 13:40:37 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AWK7Y-0005c1-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 13:40:37 -0500 Received: from newgiles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ([205.150.200.131] helo=mail.nitros9.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWK7Y-0005bf-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 13:40:36 -0500 Received: from newgiles.nitros9.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.nitros9.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EBB016E0B for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 13:41:14 -0500 (EST) From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals: MTA MARK vs port 25 filtering? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 15 Dec 2003 17:57:04 EST." <3FDE3C40.1080406@zemos.net> Message-Id: <20031216184114.2EBB016E0B@mail.nitros9.org> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 13:41:14 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Philip Miller wrote: > Well, here's one more. I'm not sure what to do about the organization, and I > don't know how or where we would address the relevance of SMTP AUTH. I don't think SMTP AUTH is relevant. It's intended to be user authentication, not MTA authentication. We could extend SMTP AUTH to do MTA authentication, but it would then end up looking like LMAP. > I don't think we should have 2 complete sections dedicated to > addressing, point by point, the specific requirements dreamt up by this > group. They're not. They addressing two documents. When/if the documents get merged, the sections in the LMAP discussion paper can get merged. > End-user authentication definitely has some bearing on the workings of > LMAP. If some major mail-originating domain implemented LMAP, but made > no provision to prevent transmission of spam or forged messages through the > authorized servers, what good has it done? Worst case, you could have > LMAP-listed open relays. Nothing can ever prevent the abuse of valid user accounts, or of invalid MTA configurations. > We should definitely at least recommend the use of SMTP AUTH within domains > in tandem with LMAP. That's my opinion, too. I don't understand why it's considered reasonable to have every MTA on the planet authenticate everyone else's users. Systems which have such requirements in their design are fundamentally flawed. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 16 13:45:36 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA27364 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 13:45:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWKBw-00081Q-PU for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 13:45:08 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBGIj8pa030836 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 13:45:08 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWKBw-00081H-Fd for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 13:45:08 -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 NAA27355 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 13:45:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWKBu-0005oD-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 13:45:06 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AWKBt-0005o6-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 13:45:05 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWKBt-0005o3-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 13:45:05 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWKBr-0007to-0Y; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 13:45:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWKBf-0007st-Mx for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 13:44:51 -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 NAA27347 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 13:44:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWKBd-0005nN-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 13:44:49 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AWKBc-0005nE-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 13:44:49 -0500 Received: from newgiles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ([205.150.200.131] helo=mail.nitros9.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWKBb-0005n8-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 13:44:48 -0500 Received: from newgiles.nitros9.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.nitros9.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC62916E0B for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 13:45:32 -0500 (EST) From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals: MTA MARK vs port 25 filtering? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 15 Dec 2003 23:08:44 EST." <003501c3c38a$4d450d20$6401a8c0@FAMILY> Message-Id: <20031216184532.DC62916E0B@mail.nitros9.org> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 13:45:32 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 "Hector Santos" wrote: > Does LMAP address IP ranges? Yes. See the various drafts for different syntactic ways of implementing this. > Are we ready to say that dynamic IP senders are no longer allowed? That's up to the domain they claim to be associated with. The recipient MTA doesn't know, or care, that the user has a dynamic IP. > The way I see it from an implementation standpoint, LMAP can only be used > for a "accept" logic. It can't be used to reject for lack of a LMAP based > information. That's pretty much what the document says. > LMAP AUTH > 0 0 Low trust > 1 0 X trust > 0 1 Y trust > 1 1 Z trust > > Z is great, Y is still better than X. With just X, we are still > scratching our heads which is the point you are making I believe. What I > am saying, you don't need X if you have Y I don't see why. SMTP AUTH is a user to sending MTA authentication protocol. LMAP is an domain to MTA authorization protocol. I don't see why using one would negate the need for the other. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 16 14:04:37 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA27823 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 14:04:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWKUL-0008Tc-Cn for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 14:04:09 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBGJ49XG032584 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 14:04:09 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWKUL-0008TT-08 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 14:04:09 -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 OAA27816 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 14:04:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWKUI-0006Ky-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 14:04:06 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AWKUH-0006Km-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 14:04:06 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWKUH-0006Kj-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 14:04:05 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWKUD-0008R9-JY; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 14:04:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWKTG-0008QQ-HR for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 14:03:02 -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 OAA27802 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 14:02:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWKTE-0006Jw-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 14:03:00 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AWKTD-0006Jp-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 14:02:59 -0500 Received: from ntbbs.winserver.com ([208.247.131.9] helo=winserver.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWKTD-0006Jm-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 14:02:59 -0500 Received: by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v5.7.450.9b10) for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 14:03:22 -0500 Received: from ([68.215.35.71]) EHLO=FAMILY by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v5.7.450.9b10) with SMTP id 3835867031; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 14:03:21 -0500 Message-ID: <006e01c3c407$4b87ec00$6401a8c0@FAMILY> From: "Hector Santos" To: References: <20031216184532.DC62916E0B@mail.nitros9.org> Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals: MTA MARK vs port 25 filtering? 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: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 14:03:28 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Alan, Thanks Alan, I'll trying to keep up. Maybe you can help summarize it here: Who has LMAP deployed currently to evaluate its effectiveness? What is the recommended refusal methods for a LMAP rejection? Does LMAP offer a fallback? Does LMAP rejection pre-empt an ESMTP AUTH? Does LMAP even allow for ESMTP AUTH to be reached? You have to just put yourself in the position of the engineer that will be programming this and passing it on to customers. Right now ESMTP AUTH trumps all restrictions or issues that deal with SPAM or dynamic IP or whatever. Where and how LMAP would fit in with everything else is what I am trying to see. Unless I am seeing it wrong, I agree with Phillip, the domain check itself is insufficient. -- Hector ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alan DeKok" To: Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 1:45 PM Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals: MTA MARK vs port 25 filtering? > "Hector Santos" wrote: > > Does LMAP address IP ranges? > > Yes. See the various drafts for different syntactic ways of > implementing this. > > > Are we ready to say that dynamic IP senders are no longer allowed? > > That's up to the domain they claim to be associated with. The > recipient MTA doesn't know, or care, that the user has a dynamic IP. > > > The way I see it from an implementation standpoint, LMAP can only be used > > for a "accept" logic. It can't be used to reject for lack of a LMAP based > > information. > > That's pretty much what the document says. > > > LMAP AUTH > > 0 0 Low trust > > 1 0 X trust > > 0 1 Y trust > > 1 1 Z trust > > > > Z is great, Y is still better than X. With just X, we are still > > scratching our heads which is the point you are making I believe. What I > > am saying, you don't need X if you have Y > > I don't see why. > > SMTP AUTH is a user to sending MTA authentication protocol. LMAP is > an domain to MTA authorization protocol. I don't see why using one > would negate the need for the other. > > 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 Dec 16 14:21:38 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA28261 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 14:21:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWKkp-0000lF-9B for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 14:21:11 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBGJLBgn002919 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 14:21:11 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWKkp-0000l0-3r for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 14:21:11 -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 OAA28245 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 14:21:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWKkm-0006ps-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 14:21:08 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AWKkl-0006pl-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 14:21:08 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWKkl-0006ph-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 14:21:07 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWKkg-0000iV-Kb; Tue, 16 Dec 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 1AWKkG-0000iE-Ay for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 14:20:36 -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 OAA28241 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 14:20:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWKkD-0006pB-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 14:20:33 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AWKkD-0006p3-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 14:20:33 -0500 Received: from newgiles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ([205.150.200.131] helo=newgiles.nitros9.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWKkC-0006oz-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 14:20:32 -0500 Received: (from aland@localhost) by newgiles.nitros9.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id hBGJLIb02260; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 14:21:18 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200312161921.hBGJLIb02260@newgiles.nitros9.org> From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: [Asrg] [1] Why SPAM is worse in SMTP than in other protocols Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 14:21:18 -0500 (EST) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 I've written a *very* rough first draft of a document. It's available at: http://www.striker.ottawa.on.ca/~aland/smtp-sucks/problems.txt If there's interest in contributing to the document, I'll set up a mailing list, and we can continue from there. Even as rough as it is, I feel very positive about it. It gives a number of *concrete* reasons as to why spam is worse in SMTP than in any other protocol. It allows us to classify the anti-spam measures, and see which part of spam they fight. It also allows us to demonstrate the flaws in anti-spam measures. e.g. "Pull" addresses one feature of SMTP which enables spam, but in isolation, doesn't address others. Therefore, pull alone is insufficient to stop spam. The largest problem I can see with any attempt to "patch" SMTP to fix it's design flaws is the continued existence of older servers. Many older servers which won't implement any new anti-spam "fix" will be sending spam, and many others won't be sending spam. It will be very difficult to tell the difference between the two, which severely limits the effectiveness of any anti-spam system. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 16 14:23:31 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA28377 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 14:23:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWKmd-0000z5-MF for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 14:23:03 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBGJN3Et003777 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 14:23:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWKmd-0000yq-Hi for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 14:23:03 -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 OAA28318 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 14:23:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWKmb-0006w5-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 14:23:01 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AWKma-0006vx-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 14:23:00 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWKmZ-0006vu-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 14:22:59 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWKmb-0000su-3t; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 14:23:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWKmE-0000sZ-Ql for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 14:22:38 -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 OAA28304 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 14:22:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWKmC-0006uw-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 14:22:36 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AWKmB-0006uo-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 14:22:35 -0500 Received: from sj-iport-5.cisco.com ([171.68.10.87]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWKmB-0006su-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 14:22:35 -0500 Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com (64.102.124.13) by sj-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 16 Dec 2003 19:22:10 +0000 Received: from mbaugher-w2k07.cisco.com (dhcp-mrstn-161-44-36-119.cisco.com [161.44.36.119]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.9/8.12.6) with ESMTP id hBGJM2DN020876; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 14:22:02 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <6.0.0.22.2.20031216112025.03c1a058@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: MTA MARK vs port 25 filtering? Cc: asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <20031216184114.2EBB016E0B@mail.nitros9.org> References: <20031216184114.2EBB016E0B@mail.nitros9.org> 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, 16 Dec 2003 11:21:59 -0800 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 At 10:41 AM 12/16/2003, Alan DeKok wrote: >Philip Miller wrote: > > Well, here's one more. I'm not sure what to do about the organization, > and I > > don't know how or where we would address the relevance of SMTP AUTH. > > I don't think SMTP AUTH is relevant. It's intended to be user >authentication, not MTA authentication. > > We could extend SMTP AUTH to do MTA authentication, but it would >then end up looking like LMAP. I believe SMTP TLS is intended for MTA authentication. Mark > > I don't think we should have 2 complete sections dedicated to > > addressing, point by point, the specific requirements dreamt up by this > > group. > > They're not. They addressing two documents. When/if the documents >get merged, the sections in the LMAP discussion paper can get merged. > > > End-user authentication definitely has some bearing on the workings of > > LMAP. If some major mail-originating domain implemented LMAP, but made > > no provision to prevent transmission of spam or forged messages through > the > > authorized servers, what good has it done? Worst case, you could have > > LMAP-listed open relays. > > Nothing can ever prevent the abuse of valid user accounts, or of >invalid MTA configurations. > > > We should definitely at least recommend the use of SMTP AUTH within > domains > > in tandem with LMAP. > > That's my opinion, too. > > I don't understand why it's considered reasonable to have every MTA >on the planet authenticate everyone else's users. Systems which have >such requirements in their design are fundamentally flawed. > > 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 Dec 16 15:01:45 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA29646 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 15:01:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWLNb-0002EY-Tw for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 15:01:18 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBGK1FIc008585 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 15:01:15 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWLNb-0002EO-Qf for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 15:01:15 -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 PAA29633 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 15:01:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWLNY-0000NF-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 15:01:13 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AWLNX-0000My-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 15:01:12 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWLNX-0000Mu-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 15:01:11 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWLNN-0002A4-Mg; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 15:01:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWLNK-00029R-0d for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 15:00:58 -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 PAA29597 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 15:00:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWLNH-0000Ln-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 15:00:55 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AWLNG-0000Lf-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 15:00:54 -0500 Received: from newgiles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ([205.150.200.131] helo=mail.nitros9.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWLNB-0000LX-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 15:00:53 -0500 Received: from newgiles.nitros9.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.nitros9.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9774D16FD8 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 15:01:32 -0500 (EST) From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals: MTA MARK vs port 25 filtering? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 16 Dec 2003 11:21:59 PST." <6.0.0.22.2.20031216112025.03c1a058@mira-sjc5-6.cisco.com> Message-Id: <20031216200132.9774D16FD8@mail.nitros9.org> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 15:01:32 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Mark Baugher wrote: > > We could extend SMTP AUTH to do MTA authentication, but it would > >then end up looking like LMAP. > > I believe SMTP TLS is intended for MTA authentication. Yes, it also solves the security/privacy issue. But it's authentication + security, not just authentication. And I don't think many MTA's allow STARTTLS with cipher "none". Section 5.1 of RFC 2487 says: --- The decision of whether or not to believe the authenticity of the other party in a TLS negotiation is a local matter. However, some general rules for the decisions are: - A SMTP client would probably only want to authenticate an SMTP server whose server certificate has a domain name that is the domain name that the client thought it was connecting to. - A publicly-referenced SMTP server would probably want to accept any certificate from an SMTP client, and would possibly want to put distinguishing information about the certificate in the Received header of messages that were relayed or submitted from the client. --- The second option becomes more useful if the senders certificate is in DNS somewhere, or is signed with a well-known public key, also visible in DNS. Section 7 "Security Considerations" is also useful: --- It should be noted that SMTP is not an end-to-end mechanism. Thus, if an SMTP client/server pair decide to add TLS privacy, they are not securing the transport from the originating mail user agent to the recipient. Further, because delivery of a single piece of mail may go between more than two SMTP servers, adding TLS privacy to one pair of servers does not mean that the entire SMTP chain has been made private. Further, just because an SMTP server can authenticate an SMTP client, it does not mean that the mail from the SMTP client was authenticated by the SMTP client when the client received it. --- Other methods can potentially extend the authentication of the message beyond the per-hop limit of STARTTLS. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 16 15:14:49 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA01316 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 15:14:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWLaG-0003FR-IX for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 15:14:20 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBGKEK5V012479 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 15:14:20 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWLaG-0003FC-AD for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 15:14:20 -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 PAA01191 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 15:14:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWLaE-0000rw-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 15:14:19 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AWLaD-0000ri-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 15:14:18 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWLaD-0000rd-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 15:14:17 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWLZw-00037Q-Qs; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 15:14:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWLZe-00036n-5Z for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 15:13:42 -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 PAA01112 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 15:13:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWLZc-0000qL-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 15:13:41 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AWLZc-0000qE-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 15:13:40 -0500 Received: from newgiles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ([205.150.200.131] helo=mail.nitros9.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWLZX-0000qB-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 15:13:40 -0500 Received: from newgiles.nitros9.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.nitros9.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E60E816FD8 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 15:14:20 -0500 (EST) From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals: MTA MARK vs port 25 filtering? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 16 Dec 2003 14:03:28 EST." <006e01c3c407$4b87ec00$6401a8c0@FAMILY> Message-Id: <20031216201420.E60E816FD8@mail.nitros9.org> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 15:14:20 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 "Hector Santos" wrote: > Who has LMAP deployed currently to evaluate its effectiveness? Read the related drafts. Many have been implemented. > What is the recommended refusal methods for a LMAP rejection? I'm not sure what you mean by that. > Does LMAP offer a fallback? To what? Read the discussion paper, and the various protocol drafts, they discuss this topic. > Does LMAP rejection pre-empt an ESMTP AUTH? > > Does LMAP even allow for ESMTP AUTH to be reached? Read the discussion paper and the drafts. They make it clear that those questions are orthogonal to LMAP, and are thus local site configuration issues. i.e. They're irrelevant to LMAP. > You have to just put yourself in the position of the engineer that will be > programming this and passing it on to customers. Right now ESMTP AUTH > trumps all restrictions or issues that deal with SPAM or dynamic IP or > whatever. Where and how LMAP would fit in with everything else is what I > am trying to see. Read the documents. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 16 15:58:37 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA03789 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 15:58:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWMGf-0004o4-56 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 15:58:09 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBGKw9U6018470 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 15:58:09 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWMGf-0004np-0i for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 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 PAA03772 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 15:58:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWMGd-0002IG-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 15:58:07 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AWMGc-0002I9-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 15:58:07 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWMGc-0002I6-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 15:58:06 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWMGX-0004lX-2t; Tue, 16 Dec 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 1AWMEY-0004j2-7w for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 15:55:58 -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 PAA03674 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 15:55:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWMEW-0002Eh-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 15:55:56 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AWMEV-0002Ea-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 15:55:56 -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 1AWMEV-0002Dr-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 15:55:55 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-390-570.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.239.188]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HQ0009NLA48A6@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 20:55:25 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals: MTA MARK vs port 25 filtering? In-reply-to: <20031216200132.9774D16FD8@mail.nitros9.org> To: Alan DeKok Cc: asrg@ietf.org Message-id: <3FDF713D.5050000@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: <20031216200132.9774D16FD8@mail.nitros9.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 15:55:25 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Alan DeKok wrote: > Mark Baugher wrote: > >>> We could extend SMTP AUTH to do MTA authentication, but it would >>>then end up looking like LMAP. >> >>I believe SMTP TLS is intended for MTA authentication. > > > Yes, it also solves the security/privacy issue. But it's > authentication + security, not just authentication. And I don't think > many MTA's allow STARTTLS with cipher "none". > [..] > Other methods can potentially extend the authentication of the > message beyond the per-hop limit of STARTTLS. With LMAP, authentication is done to the originating domain, as opposed to per-hop basis. However, it seems to me that in cases where someone outsources their email delivery, there will be significant administrative issues since the owner of the domain will have to list all possible outbound servers of the outsourcer in LMAP records. And anytime this information changes, the DNS records need to be updated. Yakov ------- Yakov Shafranovich / asrg shaftek.org SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / research solidmatrix.com "Be liberal in what you accept, and conservative in what you send" (Jon Postel) ------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 16 16:01:33 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA04050 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 16:01:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWMJV-00051n-Mo for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 16:01:05 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBGL15tu019321 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 16:01:05 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWMJV-00050I-Gt for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 16:01:05 -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 QAA03954 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 16:01:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWMJT-0002O6-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 16:01:04 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AWMJS-0002Ny-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 16:01:03 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWMJS-0002Nv-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 16:01:02 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWMJS-0004xN-Q3; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 16:01:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWMHb-0004uN-JF for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 15:59:07 -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 PAA03867 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 15:59:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWMHa-0002LK-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 15:59:06 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AWMHZ-0002LD-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 15:59:05 -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 1AWMHY-0002JJ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 15:59:05 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-390-570.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.239.188]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HQ000C71A6SOG@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 20:56:59 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich In-reply-to: <200312161921.hBGJLIb02260@newgiles.nitros9.org> To: asrg@ietf.org Message-id: <3FDF7197.4030301@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: <200312161921.hBGJLIb02260@newgiles.nitros9.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Subject: [Asrg] 1. Inventory of Problems - SMTP Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 15:56:55 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT [Subject changed to be more readable, was "Re: [Asrg] [1] Why SPAM is worse in SMTP than in other protocols". Mod.] Alan DeKok wrote: > I've written a *very* rough first draft of a document. It's > available at: > > http://www.striker.ottawa.on.ca/~aland/smtp-sucks/problems.txt > > If there's interest in contributing to the document, I'll set up a > mailing list, and we can continue from there. > > Even as rough as it is, I feel very positive about it. It gives a > number of *concrete* reasons as to why spam is worse in SMTP than in > any other protocol. It allows us to classify the anti-spam measures, > and see which part of spam they fight. > > It also allows us to demonstrate the flaws in anti-spam measures. > e.g. "Pull" addresses one feature of SMTP which enables spam, but in > isolation, doesn't address others. Therefore, pull alone is > insufficient to stop spam. > > > The largest problem I can see with any attempt to "patch" SMTP to > fix it's design flaws is the continued existence of older servers. > Many older servers which won't implement any new anti-spam "fix" will > be sending spam, and many others won't be sending spam. It will be > very difficult to tell the difference between the two, which > severely limits the effectiveness of any anti-spam system. > > Alan DeKok. ------- Yakov Shafranovich / asrg shaftek.org SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / research solidmatrix.com "I want to know G-d's thoughts... the rest are details" (Albert Einstein) ------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 16 16:58:41 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA09982 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 16:58:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWNCo-00086u-3X for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 16:58:14 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBGLwEur031172 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 16:58:14 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWNCn-00086h-To for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 16:58:13 -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 QAA09957 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 16:58:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWNCl-0006qb-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 16:58:11 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AWNCk-0006qU-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 16:58:11 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWNCk-0006qR-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 16:58:10 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWNCb-00082h-Dz; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 16:58:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWNBe-00081r-0I for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 16:57:04 -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 QAA09910 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 16:56:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWNBb-0006o3-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 16:57:00 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AWNBa-0006nw-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 16:56:59 -0500 Received: from newgiles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ([205.150.200.131] helo=mail.nitros9.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWNBa-0006nt-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 16:56:58 -0500 Received: from newgiles.nitros9.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.nitros9.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 334C516E0B for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 16:57:39 -0500 (EST) From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals: MTA MARK vs port 25 filtering? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 16 Dec 2003 15:55:25 EST." <3FDF713D.5050000@solidmatrix.com> Message-Id: <20031216215739.334C516E0B@mail.nitros9.org> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 16:57:39 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 > With LMAP, authentication is done to the originating domain, as opposed > to per-hop basis. That's the phrasing I was looking for. Thanks. It's been a long day. > However, it seems to me that in cases where someone outsources their > email delivery, there will be significant administrative issues since > the owner of the domain will have to list all possible outbound servers > of the outsourcer in LMAP records. And anytime this information changes, > the DNS records need to be updated. One word: delegation. If *all* of their mail is outsourced, then the LMAP records can be delegated to the domain which performs the delivery. If some of the mail is outsourced, then this will be discovered because the outsourced machine will probably do: EHLO outsource-machine.example.com MAIL FROM: anonymous@example.net The LMAP system can check: 1) reverse-ip._lmap_.example.net 2) reverse-ip.example.com._lmap_.example.net The first question asks: "is this IP authorized to send messages as example.net?" If the answer is no, the second question is asked, which is: "Is this IP, which claims to be within example.com, allowed to send messages as example.net?" example.net can then do something like: example.com._lmap_.example.net IN PTR _lmap_.example.com That should be easy to do, and should simplify a lot of the delegation issues. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 16 17:28:07 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA11223 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 17:28:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWNfG-00015v-6U for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 17:27:40 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBGMRcxW004199 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 17:27:38 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWNfF-00015c-Ut for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 17:27:38 -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 RAA11111 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 17:27:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWNfD-00004r-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 17:27:35 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AWNfC-00004g-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 17:27:35 -0500 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=manatick) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWNVH-0007Uj-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 17:17:19 -0500 Received: from optimus22.ietf.org ([132.151.6.22] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by manatick with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1AWNGf-0008LT-4I for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 17:02:15 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWNGU-0008TP-Cl; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 17:02:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWNGD-0008SU-0k for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 17:01:45 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA10381 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 17:01:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWNGA-0007AA-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 17:01:43 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AWNG9-00079z-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 17:01:42 -0500 Received: from joy.songbird.com ([208.184.79.7]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWNG8-000773-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 17:01:40 -0500 Received: from bbprime (jay.songbird.com [208.184.79.253]) by joy.songbird.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBGM88318552; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 14:08:08 -0800 From: Dave Crocker Reply-To: Dave Crocker Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <606804805.20031216140057@brandenburg.com> To: "Alan DeKok" CC: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] [1] Why SPAM is worse in SMTP than in other protocols In-Reply-To: <200312161921.hBGJLIb02260@newgiles.nitros9.org> References: <200312161921.hBGJLIb02260@newgiles.nitros9.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 14:00:57 -0800 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.8 required=5.0 tests=PRIORITY_NO_NAME autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Alan, AD> Even as rough as it is, I feel very positive about it. It gives a AD> number of *concrete* reasons as to why spam is worse in SMTP than in AD> any other protocol. It allows us to classify the anti-spam measures, An exercise like the one you are doing can be very useful. Let me strongly encourage you to re-cast the bulk of your document into non-technical issues, first. That is, discuss messaging and a human process, without concern for whether it is paper mail, email, or whatever. As you offer criticisms of the human communication modes available for Internet mail, compare whether they differ from the modes available for other messaging. When you suggest superior modes of operation, discuss them in terms of the human communication first, and the technical aspects second. After we have some consensus about these issues, in terms of human communication, it will then be reasonable to see what changes are needed to the technology. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking Sunnyvale, CA USA _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 16 17:51:38 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA12033 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 17:51:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWO23-0002J9-AZ for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 17:51:11 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBGMpB4r008865 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 17:51:11 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWO23-0002Iu-5b for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 17:51:11 -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 RAA12030 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 17:51:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWO20-00013E-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 17:51:08 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AWO1z-000137-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 17:51:08 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWO1z-000134-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 17:51:07 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWO1t-0002Gc-Uu; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 17:51:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWO1g-0002Fr-QF for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 17:50:48 -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 RAA12006 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 17:50:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWO1e-00012B-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 17:50:46 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AWO1d-000123-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 17:50:45 -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 1AWO1d-00011P-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 17:50:45 -0500 Received: from zardoc.esmtp.org ([127.0.0.1]) by zardoc.esmtp.org (sendmail 9.0.0.PreAlpha10) with ESMTP id S000000003FDB5A1C01; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 14:50:59 -0800 Received: (from ca@localhost) by zardoc.esmtp.org (8.12.10.Beta4/8.12.10.Beta0/Submit) id hBGMoxDa023289 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 14:50:59 -0800 (PST) From: Claus Assmann To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals: MTA MARK vs port 25 filtering? Message-ID: <20031216225058.GA1319@zardoc.esmtp.org> Mail-Followup-To: asrg@ietf.org References: <3FDE3C40.1080406@zemos.net> <20031216184114.2EBB016E0B@mail.nitros9.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20031216184114.2EBB016E0B@mail.nitros9.org> 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: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 14:50:58 -0800 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 On Tue, Dec 16, 2003, Alan DeKok wrote: > I don't think SMTP AUTH is relevant. It's intended to be user > authentication, not MTA authentication. What in the RFC prevents it from being used for MTA authentication? > We could extend SMTP AUTH to do MTA authentication, but it would What should an extension look like? > then end up looking like LMAP. Please be more specific. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 16 18:01:42 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA12340 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:01:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWOBm-0002fN-MG for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:01:16 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBGN1EVr010243 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:01:14 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWOBm-0002f8-HO for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:01:14 -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 SAA12329 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:01:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWOBj-0001G0-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:01:11 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AWOBi-0001Fs-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:01:11 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWOBi-0001Fp-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:01:10 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWOBa-0002ch-J4; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:01:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWOBT-0002bd-Of for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:00:58 -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 SAA12305 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:00:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWOBR-0001Fl-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:00:53 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AWOBQ-0001Fc-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:00:52 -0500 Received: from moebius2.space.net ([195.30.1.100]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWOBP-0001FO-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:00:51 -0500 Received: (qmail 73727 invoked by uid 1013); 16 Dec 2003 23:00:48 -0000 From: Markus Stumpf To: Daniel Feenberg Cc: "Marc A. Pelletier" , Brett Watson , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals: MTA MARK vs port 25 filtering? Message-ID: <20031216230048.GH51606@Space.Net> References: <001701c3c25c$cbb6a3f0$6402a8c0@vampire> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Organization: SpaceNet AG, Muenchen, Germany X-PGP-Fingerprint: 66 F3 75 79 01 D0 B8 5F 1A C7 77 88 4A B6 70 DF Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 00:00:48 +0100 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 On Sun, Dec 14, 2003 at 11:13:03AM -0500, Daniel Feenberg wrote: > Perhaps you are confused by lax terminology. When anti-spammers speak of > filtering port 25, they mean packets destined to port 25 on the remote > system. That is the only port that accepts mail from strangers on most > systems. If you start to block port 25 outgoing people will start to make wide use of SRV records, because a lot of receiving MTAs will /want/ to talk to users behind port 25 blocked networks. With SRV records you don't need well-known ports any longer, but you specify the port your SMTP speaking MTA is listening on in the SRV record itself. Port 25 blocking rendered useless. \Maex -- SpaceNet AG | Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 | Fon: +49 (89) 32356-0 Research & Development | D-80807 Muenchen | Fax: +49 (89) 32356-299 "The security, stability and reliability of a computer system is reciprocally proportional to the amount of vacuity between the ears of the admin" _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 16 18:28:43 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA14383 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:28:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWObw-0003p2-LG for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:28:17 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBGNSGPI014688 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:28:16 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWObw-0003op-HK for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:28:16 -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 SAA14362 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:28:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWObt-00026M-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:28:13 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AWObs-00026C-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:28:13 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWObs-000269-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:28:12 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWObh-0003lr-9E; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:28:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWOb1-0003kE-Hm for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:27:22 -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 SAA14261 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:27:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWOau-00020z-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:27:12 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AWOar-00020e-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:27:11 -0500 Received: from moebius2.space.net ([195.30.1.100]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWOaq-00020H-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:27:08 -0500 Received: (qmail 74873 invoked by uid 1013); 16 Dec 2003 23:27:06 -0000 From: Markus Stumpf To: Alan DeKok Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals: MTA MARK vs port 25 filtering? Message-ID: <20031216232706.GI51606@Space.Net> References: <20031212214327.GD20229@Space.Net> <20031212220719.E9B7F16CFA@mail.nitros9.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20031212220719.E9B7F16CFA@mail.nitros9.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Organization: SpaceNet AG, Muenchen, Germany X-PGP-Fingerprint: 66 F3 75 79 01 D0 B8 5F 1A C7 77 88 4A B6 70 DF Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 00:27:06 +0100 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 On Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 05:07:19PM -0500, Alan DeKok wrote: > Markus Stumpf wrote: > > But with the presumption of innocence each one should be allowed to send > > a mail to another person on the internet without some authority blocking > > it by default "just because". > > My whole point is that you may have *reasons* for blocking port 25: > The user didn't accept responsibility for traffic being sent to that > port, coming from his network. Our customers are responsible for the traffic they generate. Who says they aren't? And customers that abuse our AUP or have 0wned hosts not only get port 25 blocked but they get pulled the plug. > Similarly, you probably block BGP connections from people you don't > have peering agreements with. I don't see how blocking any other > protocol is different. Where's the problem? /You/ (and that's the analogy here) are free to block all connections to /your/ SMTP port and only allow a whitelist through. Are you running a webserver? Should we also block all outgoing connections on port 80, because some customers could access your server just for fun and retrieve some documents without reading them just to generate traffic that you have to pay for. Btw. Referers are used for spamming already. As nearly all webserver operators are horny for access statistics and from where their site is linked from spammers retrieve homepages and send faked referers to make the operator visit this page and be loaded by spam and ads. Oh, and ping packets, we have to block ping packets. > > Reading and controlling each and every email before letting > > it pass the border of your IT infrastructure is impossible for anyone/ > > any business with more than 100 emails a day and 5 people. Even more if > > you have to take care about data protection. > > Again, I have NEVER said that doing this would be a good idea. I > don't see why you're bringing it up. It simply isn't relevant. Sure you said: *> I understand how that's nice, in an ideal world. The problem is *> you're confusing "censorship" with "quality control". You're *> confusing "censorship" with "self-protection". Your freedom to swing *> your fist ends where my face begins. It's not a difficult concept. How would you accomplish "quality CONTROL"? And if I swing my fists and you move your face forward, is that my fault? > > We have an AUP that forbids to send "bad" mails (whatever that means, in > > our case it's including UCE and spam) and we can take actions if a customer > > fails to adhere. But unless he fails, he has free and unfiltered access to > > the Internet and IMHO this is a good thing. > > The point I was trying to make is simple: I don't understand why > you're treating SMTP different on one hand (you have an AUP), but then > claiming you're not treating it differently on the other (you claim to > give free and un-filtered access to the net.) I don't get your point. Is a free country "unfree" because they have laws? Our AUP covers als hacking and other abusive behaviour. So we're not treating SMTP different, but we're making differences in behaviour. > You've already decided that you have NOT given your customers > absolutely free and totally unfiltered access to the net, so stop > trying to pretend otherwise. You're already filtering network traffic > you find abusive, or which attacks your local infrastructure. No we don't as long as it doesn't happen. As long as a customer is not abusive he is free to do whatever he likes. And just as I don't knock down everyone I meet because he could potentially try to rob a bank we don't block customers unless they behave abusive. > It makes sense to me, then, if we both agree to each filter network > traffic which abuses the other person. It just saves time, money, and > work for everyone. If we get a complaint we analyze it, and if there is evident of abuse we do not filter the customer, we pull the plug and terminate the contract. > > No, they can't. > > Our routers do know which side the addresses may come from. > > So you're doing even more filtering than you said originally. Why > not extend that filtering to network abuse *other* than forged > packets? No, that's abusive packets /not/ originating at our customers, if they are from the outside. If they are from the inside they are abusive per definition and the inspection can be done automatically. We will be notified and machine will be null routed. I cannot automatically test all emails of all customers whether they are abusive or not. > My point is that "free and unfiltered access to the net" does not > exist for the vast majority of people. And this is an argument for what? Even "access to the Internet" does not exist for the vast majority of people. > ISP's are already limiting the things they let customers do. These ISPs will die. > Things like MTAMark or port 25 > filtering, are less than optimal, but they won't result in the > destruction of the Internet, or even the "end to end" principle. Just a reminder: my co-worker and I are the authors of MTA MARK. > SMTP has never been "end to end". I have always seconded that and had flame wars with people saying otherwise. > RFC 2487, Section 7, Security Considerations, says: > ... > It should be noted that SMTP is not an end-to-end mechanism > ... > See? You can filter port 25 without the Internet exploding. The > RFC's say so. If you quote a RFC you shouldn't mis-quote it. This is unfair to the authors and distorting. The section clearly makes a differentiation because there is MUA <-> MTA <-- smtp --> MTA <-> MUA and not MUA <-- smtp --> MUA and that's why according to that RFC SMTP is not an end-to-end mechanism. The RFC does not say anything about companies, users or hosts as end-to-end partners. Is only says that it is not a MUA <> MUA protocol. And SMTP is without any doubt an end-to-end mechanism for most SMTP servers and without any doubt a large number of companies and organizations that are customers of ISPs, run their own SMTP speaking MTA in an end-to-end way. And that is what you want to abolish. \Maex -- SpaceNet AG | Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 | Fon: +49 (89) 32356-0 Research & Development | D-80807 Muenchen | Fax: +49 (89) 32356-299 "The security, stability and reliability of a computer system is reciprocally proportional to the amount of vacuity between the ears of the admin" _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 16 18:41:47 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA14964 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:41:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWOoW-000501-RP for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:41:22 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBGNfGnM019211 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:41:16 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWOoW-0004zm-N4 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:41:16 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA14936 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:41:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWOoT-0002Zn-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:41:13 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AWOoS-0002ZZ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:41:13 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWOoR-0002ZW-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:41:11 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWOoI-0004xV-OM; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:41:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWOnY-0004qN-Va for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:40:17 -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 SAA14881 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:40:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWOnV-0002YM-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:40:14 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AWOnV-0002YF-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:40:13 -0500 Received: from moebius2.space.net ([195.30.1.100]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWOnU-0002YB-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:40:12 -0500 Received: (qmail 75387 invoked by uid 1013); 16 Dec 2003 23:40:12 -0000 From: Markus Stumpf To: David Maxwell Cc: Markus Stumpf , Alan DeKok , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals: MTA MARK vs port 25 filtering? Message-ID: <20031216234012.GJ51606@Space.Net> References: <20031210223501.GB38275@Space.Net> <20031212155821.C842716CFA@mail.nitros9.org> <20031212214327.GD20229@Space.Net> <20031213034355.GU29673@mail> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20031213034355.GU29673@mail> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Organization: SpaceNet AG, Muenchen, Germany X-PGP-Fingerprint: 66 F3 75 79 01 D0 B8 5F 1A C7 77 88 4A B6 70 DF Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 00:40:12 +0100 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 On Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 10:43:55PM -0500, David Maxwell wrote: > If it was generally agreed that port 25 filtering would significantly > reduce spam, then wouldn't it make sense for people to agree to have > that filtering applied to their network, in order to cooperate for the > greater good? Is is not generally agreed upon. With the possibility of SRV records my prediction is that you won't recognize any measureable difference, but during the time it takes for ISPs around the Internet to shut port 25 down, cause they have to talk to their customers to not block their "legal" MTAs (and I would sue my ISP to ashed if they'd do it without informing me) there would be a migration to SRV records to circumvent the blockage. > On the flip side, with regard to anyone who didn't want their network > filtered... "what are they afraid of"? From next week on each and every motion of you will be tracked by tracking the signals of you handy, so that one can make a profile. Of course this will only be done if you are suspected to have robbed a bank. If you don't rob banks, ""what are you afraid of"? > You clearly don't need to filter port 25 from the entire customer > network - just from everything but their MTA. If any customer refuses, > please publish their netmask, so we can block traffic from such > irresponsible netizens... You have to manage huge lists of expections to port 25 filters. We're not talking about 10 but 10000 customers. A lot of the are companies with their own MTAs. Believe me you don't want to manage that lists in your border routers. \Maex -- SpaceNet AG | Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 | Fon: +49 (89) 32356-0 Research & Development | D-80807 Muenchen | Fax: +49 (89) 32356-299 "The security, stability and reliability of a computer system is reciprocally proportional to the amount of vacuity between the ears of the admin" _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 16 18:52:32 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA15205 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:52:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWOz0-0005Mi-IV for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:52:06 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBGNq6Ze020618 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:52:06 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWOz0-0005MT-EN for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:52:06 -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 SAA15180 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:52:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWOyx-0002mp-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:52:03 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AWOyw-0002mi-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:52:03 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWOyw-0002mf-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:52:02 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWOyv-0005KB-Bl; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:52:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWOxz-0005Jd-EY for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:51:03 -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 SAA15167 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:50:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWOxw-0002mC-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:51:00 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AWOxv-0002m5-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:51:00 -0500 Received: from moebius2.space.net ([195.30.1.100]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWOxv-0002m2-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:50:59 -0500 Received: (qmail 76316 invoked by uid 1013); 16 Dec 2003 23:50:59 -0000 From: Markus Stumpf To: Alan DeKok Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals: MTA MARK vs port 25 filtering? Message-ID: <20031216235059.GK51606@Space.Net> References: <062501c3c131$87641fb0$034fa8c0@asarianhost> <20031213172152.D6DBB16CFA@mail.nitros9.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20031213172152.D6DBB16CFA@mail.nitros9.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Organization: SpaceNet AG, Muenchen, Germany X-PGP-Fingerprint: 66 F3 75 79 01 D0 B8 5F 1A C7 77 88 4A B6 70 DF Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 00:50:59 +0100 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 On Sat, Dec 13, 2003 at 12:21:52PM -0500, Alan DeKok wrote: > How do *I* tell your "responsible" MTA from an "owned" machine > sending spam? I understand your side of the problem: you want to send > mail. Please *think*, and try to understand my side of the problem: > Without some additional information, you look *exactly* like a spammer > to me. If you get a telephone call, how do you tell a serious call from - a call of an pervert telling you nasty things and masturbating? - a call of a insurance broker trying to sell you a policy? without some additional information the serious caller looks *exactly* like a pervert. > I don't understand this fervent opposition to change, and to any > attempt to hold people responsible. What exactly is your definition of "to hold people responsible" To repeat it: our customers - have to pay for Internet access - are subject to our AUP - get their connection terminated on abusive behaviour - get their contract terminated (unless their machine has been abused) - have to pay for the abuse handling Isn't that "to hold people responsible"? If you want more responsibility go ahead and sue them for stealth of ressources. The problem with that is that most judges are too braindead to accept that fact and argue that viruses or hackers can't be avoided. It happens all day to everyone so not updating or securing your server isn't even negligent. \Maex -- SpaceNet AG | Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 | Fon: +49 (89) 32356-0 Research & Development | D-80807 Muenchen | Fax: +49 (89) 32356-299 "The security, stability and reliability of a computer system is reciprocally proportional to the amount of vacuity between the ears of the admin" _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 16 19:04:38 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA15636 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 19:04:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWPAj-0006Dh-1h for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 19:04:13 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBH04Duh023903 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 19:04:13 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWPAi-0006DS-U8 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 19:04:12 -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 TAA15626 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 19:04:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWPAf-0003AB-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 19:04:09 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AWPAe-0003A3-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 19:04:09 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWPAe-0003A0-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 19:04:08 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWPAX-0006B7-5f; Tue, 16 Dec 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 1AWP9i-0006Al-9O for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 19:03:10 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA15622 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 19:03:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWP9f-00039O-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 19:03:07 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AWP9e-00039H-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 19:03:06 -0500 Received: from moebius2.space.net ([195.30.1.100]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWP9d-00039C-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 19:03:05 -0500 Received: (qmail 76777 invoked by uid 1013); 17 Dec 2003 00:02:56 -0000 From: Markus Stumpf To: Brett Watson Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals: MTA MARK vs port 25 filtering? Message-ID: <20031217000256.GL51606@Space.Net> References: <200312141548.47371.famous-asrg@nutters.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200312141548.47371.famous-asrg@nutters.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Organization: SpaceNet AG, Muenchen, Germany X-PGP-Fingerprint: 66 F3 75 79 01 D0 B8 5F 1A C7 77 88 4A B6 70 DF Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 01:02:56 +0100 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 On Sun, Dec 14, 2003 at 03:48:47PM +1100, Brett Watson wrote: > Our contributor named "Mark" has been harping on the "presumption of > innocence" principle, but it's precisely the viability of that principle > that's in question here. There is a certain quantity of spam which exists by > abusing the "presumption of innocence", so called. It's a badly > emotionally-laden term, since to advocate the converse is to advocate > "presumption of guilt", and you may as well advocate the strangulation of > small furry animals and children while you're about it. Rather than > "presumption of guilt", we should have "explicitly negotiated access". We > could recommend that port 25 be available (in some cases) only when > explicitly arranged, not on the basis of prior "guilt" or "innocence", but > purely to make accountability explicit. Folx, I don't get it ;-) If you are running a mailserver (MTA) you are free to block every host that you wish. Our mailserver (not for our customers) will not talk to about 150 millions of IP addresses on the Internet. This list grows with a rate of about 250000 a day. This is my decision as the receiver and every receiver is currently free to make that decision. So, why do you want to have any transport agents (aka ISPs) install filters and remove your ability to make that decision on your own? If it's blocked by the transport agency you have no way to reverse that, no matter how your decision might be. If the port is blocked you get no information on why it is blocked. So the theoretical sender is still unknown to you. Maybe the ISP is having an issue of some sort and is now blocking the sender with an attempt to put pressure on him. Port 25 is interrupting services and not speading policy or sender information. \Maex -- SpaceNet AG | Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 | Fon: +49 (89) 32356-0 Research & Development | D-80807 Muenchen | Fax: +49 (89) 32356-299 "The security, stability and reliability of a computer system is reciprocally proportional to the amount of vacuity between the ears of the admin" _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 16 19:29:36 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA16165 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 19:29:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWPYq-000720-5P for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 19:29:08 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBH0T8nO027025 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 19:29:08 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWPYq-00071o-0y for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 19:29:08 -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 TAA16150 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 19:29:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWPYo-0003oH-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 19:29:06 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AWPYm-0003o1-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 19:29:06 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWPYm-0003nx-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 19:29:04 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWPYj-0006x6-4n; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 19:29:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWPYH-0006vu-Sp for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 19:28:33 -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 TAA16135 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 19:28:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWPYB-0003mL-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 19:28:27 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AWPXl-0003ly-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 19:28:01 -0500 Received: from moebius2.space.net ([195.30.1.100]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWPXk-0003lT-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 19:28:01 -0500 Received: (qmail 77828 invoked by uid 1013); 17 Dec 2003 00:27:50 -0000 From: Markus Stumpf To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 1. Inventory of Problems - SMTP Message-ID: <20031217002750.GM51606@Space.Net> References: <200312161921.hBGJLIb02260@newgiles.nitros9.org> <3FDF7197.4030301@solidmatrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3FDF7197.4030301@solidmatrix.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Organization: SpaceNet AG, Muenchen, Germany X-PGP-Fingerprint: 66 F3 75 79 01 D0 B8 5F 1A C7 77 88 4A B6 70 DF Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 01:27:50 +0100 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 > Alan DeKok wrote: > > http://www.striker.ottawa.on.ca/~aland/smtp-sucks/problems.txt I had only a short glance, but *> 5. Don't allow multiple RCPT TO's for unknown senders. *> The problem is that you can't selectively NACK later RCTP TO's. The *> sending MTA then decides that the entire message was NACK'd, and *> discards (or retries) it. If the MTA is behaving that way it is seriously broken. The behaviour as you describe only happens if you NACK the "DATA" command after the CRLF.CRLF (RFC 2821 4.2.5 Reply Codes After DATA and the Subsequent .) Our mailserver doesn't allow more than 5 RCPT TO per session. The others are answered with a temp failure (4xx code). This works without any problems for years. Btw. I have posted some stats (backed by someone from an university, sorry forgot about the name) and it showed that more than 95% of all spam is NOT multi-RCPT. However I can't find it in the archives nor in my mailbox at the moment :(( \Maex -- SpaceNet AG | Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 | Fon: +49 (89) 32356-0 Research & Development | D-80807 Muenchen | Fax: +49 (89) 32356-299 "The security, stability and reliability of a computer system is reciprocally proportional to the amount of vacuity between the ears of the admin" _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 16 19:29:37 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA16180 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 19:29:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWPYq-00072P-La for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 19:29:10 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBH0T8wR027047 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 19:29:08 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWPYq-00072A-HI for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 19:29:08 -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 TAA16154 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 19:29:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWPYo-0003oK-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 19:29:06 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AWPYm-0003o5-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 19:29:06 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWPYm-0003ny-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 19:29:04 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWPYj-0006xH-LX; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 19:29:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWPWt-0006v7-Kv for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 19:27:07 -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 TAA16094 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 19:27:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWPWm-0003kP-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 19:27:01 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AWPWM-0003k2-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 19:26:35 -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 1AWPWM-0003j9-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 19:26:34 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-372-695.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.170.46]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HQ0004C4JUG8U@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 00:25:40 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals: MTA MARK vs port 25 filtering? In-reply-to: <20031217000256.GL51606@Space.Net> To: Markus Stumpf Cc: Brett Watson , asrg@ietf.org Message-id: <3FDFA273.1080703@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: <200312141548.47371.famous-asrg@nutters.org> <20031217000256.GL51606@Space.Net> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 19:25:23 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Markus Stumpf wrote: > On Sun, Dec 14, 2003 at 03:48:47PM +1100, Brett Watson wrote: > >>Our contributor named "Mark" has been harping on the "presumption of >>innocence" principle, but it's precisely the viability of that principle >>that's in question here. There is a certain quantity of spam which exists by >>abusing the "presumption of innocence", so called. It's a badly >>emotionally-laden term, since to advocate the converse is to advocate >>"presumption of guilt", and you may as well advocate the strangulation of >>small furry animals and children while you're about it. Rather than >>"presumption of guilt", we should have "explicitly negotiated access". We >>could recommend that port 25 be available (in some cases) only when >>explicitly arranged, not on the basis of prior "guilt" or "innocence", but >>purely to make accountability explicit. > > > Folx, I don't get it ;-) > > If you are running a mailserver (MTA) you are free to block every host > that you wish. Our mailserver (not for our customers) will not talk to > about 150 millions of IP addresses on the Internet. This list grows with > a rate of about 250000 a day. This is my decision as the receiver and > every receiver is currently free to make that decision. > > So, why do you want to have any transport agents (aka ISPs) install > filters and remove your ability to make that decision on your own? > If it's blocked by the transport agency you have no way to reverse that, > no matter how your decision might be. > > If the port is blocked you get no information on why it is blocked. So > the theoretical sender is still unknown to you. Maybe the ISP is having > an issue of some sort and is now blocking the sender with an attempt to > put pressure on him. > Port 25 is interrupting services and not speading policy or sender > information. > It seems to me that there are both sides have presented multiple arguments, and no agreement is in sight. There are two questions being asked in this and related threads: 1. Is MTA MARK a useful enough proposal to be pursued further IN COMBINATION with other anti-spam tools and techniques (including port filtering)? 2. Is port filtering, on port 25 especially, should be something that is going to be recommended by the ASRG? Based on the discussions back and forth, it seems to me that the answer to the first question is 'YES', and the second question 'NO'. MTA MARK provides enough useful benefits for the ones that can use it, in order to continue researching it. Port blocking on the other hand seems controversial enough, that it should be something best left to each ISP to decide. Instead we should recommend that ISPs have a strict AUP and actually enforce it. Yakov ------- Yakov Shafranovich / asrg shaftek.org SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / research solidmatrix.com "Be liberal in what you accept, and conservative in what you send" (Jon Postel) ------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 16 19:51:41 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA17015 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 19:51:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWPuC-00081P-4A for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 19:51:12 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBH0pCoL030834 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 19:51:12 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWPuB-00081F-VG for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 19:51:12 -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 TAA16960 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 19:51:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWPuA-0004Nz-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 19:51:10 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AWPu9-0004Nr-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 19:51:09 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWPu9-0004No-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 19:51:09 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWPu2-0007y9-Io; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 19:51:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWPs8-0007sr-Fx for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 19:49:04 -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 TAA16821 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 19:49:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWPs6-0004JH-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 19:49:02 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AWPs4-0004J0-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 19:49:02 -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 1AWPs4-0004I2-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 19:49:00 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-372-695.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.170.46]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HQ0007I1KWP4O@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 00:48:31 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] [1] Why SPAM is worse in SMTP than in other protocols In-reply-to: <606804805.20031216140057@brandenburg.com> To: Dave Crocker Cc: Alan DeKok , asrg@ietf.org Message-id: <3FDFA7DC.8050004@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: <200312161921.hBGJLIb02260@newgiles.nitros9.org> <606804805.20031216140057@brandenburg.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, 16 Dec 2003 19:48:28 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Dave Crocker wrote: > Alan, > > AD> Even as rough as it is, I feel very positive about it. It gives a > AD> number of *concrete* reasons as to why spam is worse in SMTP than in > AD> any other protocol. It allows us to classify the anti-spam measures, > > > An exercise like the one you are doing can be very useful. > > Let me strongly encourage you to re-cast the bulk of your document > into non-technical issues, first. That is, discuss messaging and a > human process, without concern for whether it is paper mail, email, or > whatever. As you offer criticisms of the human communication modes > available for Internet mail, compare whether they differ from the > modes available for other messaging. > Would it be something along the lines of the following?: --------------- In human communications we have a sender, a receiver, the message and a messaging system. The sender creates the message, hands it off to the messaging system, and the system delivers it to the receiver. If the delivery is unsuccessful, depending on the system used, the sender is notified of the failure. Different messaging systems can also deliver the message to multiple receivers, and combine messages from multiple senders into one message before being delivered to receivers. Examples of messaging systems include: direct speech (face to face), telephone, fax, television, radio, email, instant messaging, postal mail, telegraph, etc. All of these have potential for abuse which varies from system to system. --------------- > When you suggest superior modes of operation, discuss them in terms of > the human communication first, and the technical aspects second. > > After we have some consensus about these issues, in terms of human > communication, it will then be reasonable to see what changes are > needed to the technology. > The underlying problem is a human one and we need to understand it before changing the technology. The reasons why spam is being sent, and is profitable, are human reasons which need to be addressed. 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 Tue Dec 16 20:21:45 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA18475 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 20:21:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWQNI-0000Zv-L0 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 20:21:17 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBH1LGj4002217 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 20:21:16 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWQNI-0000Zg-GV for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 20:21:16 -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 UAA18465 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 20:21:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWQNG-0005Rh-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 20:21:14 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AWQNF-0005RS-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 20:21:14 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWQNF-0005RP-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 20:21:13 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWQN3-0000Wn-Bv; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 20:21:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWQN1-0000WX-7a for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 20:20:59 -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 UAA18455 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 20:20:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWQMz-0005Qx-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 20:20:57 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AWQMy-0005Qq-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 20:20:56 -0500 Received: from sccrmhc12.comcast.net ([204.127.202.56]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWQMx-0005Q8-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 20:20:56 -0500 Received: from fda.zemos.net ([68.38.12.170]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc12) with ESMTP id <2003121701202501200038r0e>; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 01:20:25 +0000 Received: from zemos.net (phil [10.0.0.2]) by fda.zemos.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A5BD18685; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 20:20:40 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3FDFAF76.6010606@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: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: 6. Proposals - C/R and CRI (was: Re: [Asrg] 6. General - IPR - Patents on C/R) References: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E011132AC@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> In-Reply-To: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E011132AC@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: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 20:20:54 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit [changed subject to reflect where this is going] Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > [snip history] > > The application to spam is obvious and utterly anti-social. Best thing that > can happen here is for the patent to kill this obnoxious and clueless > mechanism. The problem with general C/R is that it's trying to achieve two separate purposes. It's doing return-path verification, and it's doing sentient-sender verification. Return-path verification is not inherently anti-social, so long as it doesn't necessarily bother the original sender (pick your own definition of 'bother'). Sentient-sender verification is quite reasonably considered inherently anti-social by some. Return-path verification definitely has some value, but we need to work out a standardized way of doing it. We would never accept that a TCP connection is valid after receiving only the SYN packet, so why should we accept it for email? Proposals like CRI could be used to provide end-to-end return-path verification by automatically ACKing the challenge, assuming that it only asks 'did you send something?', not 'did you, as a sentient being, send something?'. I'm not going to comment on the technical merits of sentient-sender verification because it is inherently a social problem that we're not tasked to deal with. Philip Miller _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 16 20:24:36 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA18583 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 20:24:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWQPz-0000kd-VW for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 20:24:08 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBH1O3db002881 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 20:24:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWQPz-0000kO-RH for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 20:24:03 -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 UAA18529 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 20:24:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWQPx-0005Vt-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 20:24:01 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AWQPw-0005Vm-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 20:24:01 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWQPw-0005Vj-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 20:24:00 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWQPx-0000i6-2u; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 20:24:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWQPs-0000hs-9H for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 20:23:56 -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 UAA18523 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 20:23:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWQPq-0005VR-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 20:23:54 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AWQPo-0005VK-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 20:23:53 -0500 Received: from rwcrmhc12.comcast.net ([216.148.227.85]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWQPo-0005UP-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 20:23:52 -0500 Received: from fda.zemos.net ([68.38.12.170]) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc12) with ESMTP id <20031217012321014000opv5e>; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 01:23:21 +0000 Received: from zemos.net (phil [10.0.0.2]) by fda.zemos.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABB3E18685; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 20:23:36 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3FDFB026.6090408@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: Hector Santos Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals: MTA MARK vs port 25 filtering? References: <20031215164656.86D9D170A8@mail.nitros9.org> <3FDE3C40.1080406@zemos.net> <001d01c3c380$9a51ace0$6401a8c0@FAMILY> <3FDE79D0.7000708@zemos.net> <003501c3c38a$4d450d20$6401a8c0@FAMILY> In-Reply-To: <003501c3c38a$4d450d20$6401a8c0@FAMILY> 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, 16 Dec 2003 20:23:50 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hector Santos wrote: > Philip Miller wrote: > >> POP-before-SMTP was an ugly hack to make up for shortcomings in >> existing software. Unfortunately, it stuck. It's clearly obsoleted by >> SMTP AUTH, but there's no compelling reason for users to switch, and >> thus ISPs have to deal with the inertia of their users. I think we're >> going to have to live with it for a long time. > > I was resistance to the idea myself until ISPs indicated their side of the > story. Easy end-user signs up with little or no instructions. They were > right. Once we added it, it is now rare for us to be telling our customers > they need to setup their mail client for SMTP authentication. Look at how > the software is written for the end user. The only easy setup is for POP3 > login. SMTP authentication requires extra steps and instructions. It is > not obvious. This is a problem of the initial design of SMTP. Initially, SMTP didn't require authentication, so no one designed it in as an integral part of client software. POP clearly required authentication, so it was built in, and clients were forced to include it. The intelligent thing for a mail client to do is automatically attempt to AUTH (if it's offered, obviously) and then fall back on POP-before-SMTP. This is reasonable behavior for the average case of a user who sends and receives mail through the same ISP account. Users who have a more complicated configuration would be perfectly able to change this, as it should be no more than a checkbox. This is probably something we should take account of in a BCP for mail client authors. >> However, that does not change the fact that LMAP and user >> authentication target 2 complentary but separate problems: domain >> forgery, which prevents holding anyone accountable, and user forgery, >> which is a nuisance best dealt with by the organization that hosts the >> user's address, since they are uniquely able to authenticate the user. > > I agree. My point is only that most systems with ESMTP AUTH use it to trump > most (if not all) other restrictions, which is mainly routing. So as long > as you can login, it doesn't matter what machine you connect from or what > address you use for the return path. In our case, however, we have > restrictions for the return path in AUTH mode. OK, I misunderstood you the first time. That's exactly how I have my MTA set up. > The question is how will LMAP address systems like AOL who are now > automatically blocking dynamic IP machines at the connection level. Either their policies will change to accept mail presenting valid LMAP credentials despite their 'undesireable' IP address, or they won't. AOL has been off in its own world for a long time, and we're not going to change that. We should make LMAP as attractive as possible by playing up the newly-available accountability, maybe pushing for legislation holding LMAP-authorized MTA administrators responsible for the actions of those servers. > Does LMAP address IP ranges? No. It addresses whether a given IP can send mail as a given domain, and nothing else. If you meant "can a range of IP addresses be listed for a domain?", I'm not sure, one of us would have to check the current SPF draft. > Are we ready to say that dynamic IP senders are no longer allowed? Most of us would say no. AOL management says yes. We've seen that this was not the decision of their system administrators. Brad Knowles, who was in charge of their Internet mail gateway system for years, fought this policy and failed. > The way I see it from an implementation standpoint, LMAP can only be used > for a "accept" logic. It can't be used to reject for lack of a LMAP based > information. Eventually, the intent is that it would. Mail from a domain that doesn't publish LMAP information could be treated as mail from an open relay. There's no accountability at all beyond having the IP address the connection was made from, which is exactly as much information as we have about open-relayed mail now. > LMAP AUTH > 0 0 Low trust > 1 0 X trust > 0 1 Y trust > 1 1 Z trust > > Z is great, Y is still better than X. With just X, we are still > scratching our heads which is the point you are making I believe. What I > am saying, you don't need X if you have Y and I sincerely doubt systems are > going to remove this logic to programmatically require X before you can have > Y. As long as you have Y (AUTH), you are in. In short, Trust Z >= > Trust Y. With no X, Z=Y. OK, you point is clearer now. However LMAP is implemented in recipient MTAs, authors would have to be sure not to preclude AUTHing. Philip Miller _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 16 20:39:38 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA19165 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 20:39:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWQec-0001R4-MS for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 20:39:10 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBH1dAmb005512 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 20:39:10 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWQec-0001Qp-Fn for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 20:39:10 -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 UAA19145 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 20:39:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWQea-0005wU-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 20:39:08 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AWQeZ-0005wN-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 20:39:07 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWQeZ-0005wK-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 20:39:07 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWQeS-0001OR-E9; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 20:39:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWQZq-00011v-Ms for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 20:34:14 -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 UAA18996 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 20:34:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWQZo-0005px-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 20:34:12 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AWQZk-0005pL-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 20:34:11 -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 1AWQZj-0005nJ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 20:34:07 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-372-695.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.170.46]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HQ000HS8MZTJX@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 01:33:38 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich In-reply-to: <3FDFAF76.6010606@zemos.net> To: Philip Miller Cc: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" , asrg@ietf.org Message-id: <3FDFB26C.9020908@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: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E011132AC@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <3FDFAF76.6010606@zemos.net> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Subject: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals - C/R and CRI Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 20:33:32 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Philip Miller wrote: > [changed subject to reflect where this is going] > > Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > >> [snip history] >> >> The application to spam is obvious and utterly anti-social. Best thing >> that >> can happen here is for the patent to kill this obnoxious and clueless >> mechanism. > > > The problem with general C/R is that it's trying to achieve two separate > purposes. It's doing return-path verification, and it's doing > sentient-sender verification. Return-path verification is not inherently > anti-social, so long as it doesn't necessarily bother the original > sender (pick your own definition of 'bother'). Sentient-sender > verification is quite reasonably considered inherently anti-social by some. > > Return-path verification definitely has some value, but we need to work > out a standardized way of doing it. We would never accept that a TCP > connection is valid after receiving only the SYN packet, so why should > we accept it for email? > Proposals like CRI could be used to provide end-to-end return-path > verification by automatically ACKing the challenge, assuming that it > only asks 'did you send something?', not 'did you, as a sentient being, > send something?'. > > I'm not going to comment on the technical merits of sentient-sender > verification because it is inherently a social problem that we're not > tasked to deal with. > There is also concern with C/R about doing it inband such as via email headers in CRI. Something out of band, such as a CRI ESMTP extension, would be much more useful and less intrusive to users. Of course dictionary attacks become easier with that unless some kind of a token is send with the message initially. 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 Tue Dec 16 21:02:50 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA19839 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 21:02:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWR15-0001ys-0V for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 21:02:23 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBH22ME4007610 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 21:02:22 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWR14-0001yf-Rs for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 21:02:22 -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 VAA19820 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 21:02:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWR12-0006U0-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 21:02:20 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AWR11-0006Tt-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 21:02:20 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWR11-0006Tq-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 21:02:19 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWR0k-0001wD-Cu; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 21:02:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWQed-0001R7-W9 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 20:39:12 -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 UAA19149 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 20:39:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWQeb-0005wg-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 20:39:09 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AWQea-0005wZ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 20:39:09 -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 1AWQea-0005w6-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 20:39:08 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-372-695.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.170.46]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HQ0005NTN6H55@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 01:37:35 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich To: ASRG Message-id: <3FDFB35C.6050409@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 - SpamAssasin deployed on IETF servers Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 20:37:32 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT As of Monday, 12/15, IETF has deployed SpamAssasin on all IETF mail and mailing lists. At this time only headers are being added, and no filtering is done (yet). The original announcement is here: http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf-announce/Current/msg27683.html NOTE: Since the ASRG is exempt from all anti-spam controls at the IETF, this list will also be excluded from this policy eventually, so do not rely on the headers being there tomorrow. This is mainly to let you know in case you see them. Yakov ------- Yakov Shafranovich / asrg shaftek.org SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / research solidmatrix.com "Among all our enemies / The ones to be most feared are often the smallest" (Jean de la Fontaine) ------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 16 21:27:46 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA20592 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 21:27:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWRP8-0002nH-Vc for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 21:27:19 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBH2REjR010733 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 21:27:14 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWRP8-0002n2-Pw for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 21:27:14 -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 VAA20564 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 21:27:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWRP6-0007CH-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 21:27:12 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AWRP5-0007CA-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 21:27:11 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWRP5-0007C6-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 21:27:11 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWROv-0002ka-Ql; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 21:27:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWROd-0002k7-CN for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 21:26:43 -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 VAA20549 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 21:26:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWROa-0007BF-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 21:26:40 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AWROZ-0007B8-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 21:26:40 -0500 Received: from sccrmhc12.comcast.net ([204.127.202.56]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWROZ-0007AJ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 21:26:39 -0500 Received: from [192.168.123.5] (h005018086b3b.ne.client2.attbi.com[24.61.45.246]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc12) with SMTP id <2003121702252701200r4om1e>; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 02:25:27 +0000 Message-Id: <4699402F-3038-11D8-B154-00039380F1B6@pobox.com> X-Habeas-Swe-6: email in exchange for a license for this Habeas X-Habeas-Swe-3: like Habeas SWE (tm) Subject: Re: [Asrg] [1] Why SPAM is worse in SMTP than in other protocols X-Habeas-Swe-8: Message (HCM) and not spam. Please report use of this From: mathew X-Habeas-Swe-5: Sender Warranted Email (SWE) (tm). The sender of this X-Habeas-Swe-2: brightly anticipated In-Reply-To: <200312161921.hBGJLIb02260@newgiles.nitros9.org> References: <200312161921.hBGJLIb02260@newgiles.nitros9.org> To: asrg@ietf.org X-Habeas-Swe-7: warrant mark warrants that this is a Habeas Compliant Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v606) X-Habeas-Swe-4: Copyright 2002 Habeas (tm) Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=sha1; boundary=Apple-Mail-13-978929997; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature" X-Habeas-Swe-1: winter into spring X-Habeas-Swe-9: mark in spam to . X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.606) Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 21:25:26 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 --Apple-Mail-13-978929997 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Dec 16, 2003, at 14:21, Alan DeKok wrote: > Even as rough as it is, I feel very positive about it. It gives a > number of *concrete* reasons as to why spam is worse in SMTP than in > any other protocol. It allows us to classify the anti-spam measures, > and see which part of spam they fight. Here's another one: SMTP requires resources which cost money, yet an unlimited number of unauthenticated users are allowed to consume those resources as much as they like, at no financial cost to them. That's a big human problem. I can't think of any system with that problem that has worked in the real world. mathew --Apple-Mail-13-978929997 Content-Type: application/pkcs7-signature; name=smime.p7s Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=smime.p7s Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAqCAMIACAQExCzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAMIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAQAAoIIGEDCCAskw ggIyoAMCAQICAwtCvTANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQQFADBiMQswCQYDVQQGEwJaQTElMCMGA1UEChMcVGhh d3RlIENvbnN1bHRpbmcgKFB0eSkgTHRkLjEsMCoGA1UEAxMjVGhhd3RlIFBlcnNvbmFsIEZyZWVt YWlsIElzc3VpbmcgQ0EwHhcNMDMxMjAzMTUwOTU3WhcNMDQxMjAyMTUwOTU3WjBAMR8wHQYDVQQD ExZUaGF3dGUgRnJlZW1haWwgTWVtYmVyMR0wGwYJKoZIhvcNAQkBFg5tZXRhQHBvYm94LmNvbTCC ASIwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEBBQADggEPADCCAQoCggEBANA40G+RMi0LMG++Lz6J4LpIaXkydRxJoLjz 9EPfZGLn6dPBumvzLVWDaQrOshYuyViOW+oPk62xz6HBnarbOX3VoiFVyGCjqkZz+TToHDDlya/z D8l/WF92nvsEPFPKE6Fw/Lg13/g9zzBlxrjwW98bL6dI1tKvdokMH91++35sC0Yu5oZjuBF4ydUA 1n7pX2KgEDhRRP5b/RhQPrdpbZhO5fwzthiD0VlCG9zkloNJ8GOFxMFd2lpVpV1ISySCHYwEtA1n zxR7Kq4oRaMvAodHj8NHRPDjE+vyALzi0mCZ+JlQAyKr+Li5YvKZNRobyYBQGLLOyt31ZAj9vfSS g2cCAwEAAaMrMCkwGQYDVR0RBBIwEIEObWV0YUBwb2JveC5jb20wDAYDVR0TAQH/BAIwADANBgkq hkiG9w0BAQQFAAOBgQCVJDuVViVm9t4++qdMFmiF4yfAowCy3/bauIAcxAJXvd21LnorWF+49YJk jBZO74MDPrsYb5M9ybKMy04vxNuXXHM9TVLUWJjz5PUCcaNIj9DqGIW9eAPWj/Pvn6j5qSP8OcoK mwwrKcurmSi+sJqajLjET0wzsuvgRFNE4pkOyDCCAz8wggKooAMCAQICAQ0wDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEF BQAwgdExCzAJBgNVBAYTAlpBMRUwEwYDVQQIEwxXZXN0ZXJuIENhcGUxEjAQBgNVBAcTCUNhcGUg VG93bjEaMBgGA1UEChMRVGhhd3RlIENvbnN1bHRpbmcxKDAmBgNVBAsTH0NlcnRpZmljYXRpb24g U2VydmljZXMgRGl2aXNpb24xJDAiBgNVBAMTG1RoYXd0ZSBQZXJzb25hbCBGcmVlbWFpbCBDQTEr MCkGCSqGSIb3DQEJARYccGVyc29uYWwtZnJlZW1haWxAdGhhd3RlLmNvbTAeFw0wMzA3MTcwMDAw MDBaFw0xMzA3MTYyMzU5NTlaMGIxCzAJBgNVBAYTAlpBMSUwIwYDVQQKExxUaGF3dGUgQ29uc3Vs dGluZyAoUHR5KSBMdGQuMSwwKgYDVQQDEyNUaGF3dGUgUGVyc29uYWwgRnJlZW1haWwgSXNzdWlu ZyBDQTCBnzANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOBjQAwgYkCgYEAxKY8VXNV+065yplaHmjAdQRwnd/p/6Me 7L3N9VvyGna9fww6YfK/Uc4B1OVQCjDXAmNaLIkVcI7dyfArhVqqP3FWy688Cwfn8R+RNiQqE88r 1fOCdz0Dviv+uxg+B79AgAJk16emu59l0cUqVIUPSAR/p7bRPGEEQB5kGXJgt/sCAwEAAaOBlDCB kTASBgNVHRMBAf8ECDAGAQH/AgEAMEMGA1UdHwQ8MDowOKA2oDSGMmh0dHA6Ly9jcmwudGhhd3Rl LmNvbS9UaGF3dGVQZXJzb25hbEZyZWVtYWlsQ0EuY3JsMAsGA1UdDwQEAwIBBjApBgNVHREEIjAg pB4wHDEaMBgGA1UEAxMRUHJpdmF0ZUxhYmVsMi0xMzgwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQADgYEASIzRUIPq Cy7MDaNmrGcPf6+svsIXoUOWlJ1/TCG4+DYfqi2fNi/A9BxQIJNwPP2t4WFiw9k6GX6EsZkbAMUa C4J0niVQlGLH2ydxVyWN3amcOY6MIE9lX5Xa9/eH1sYITq726jTlEBpbNU1341YheILcIRk13iSx 0x1G/11fZU8xggLnMIIC4wIBATBpMGIxCzAJBgNVBAYTAlpBMSUwIwYDVQQKExxUaGF3dGUgQ29u c3VsdGluZyAoUHR5KSBMdGQuMSwwKgYDVQQDEyNUaGF3dGUgUGVyc29uYWwgRnJlZW1haWwgSXNz dWluZyBDQQIDC0K9MAkGBSsOAwIaBQCgggFTMBgGCSqGSIb3DQEJAzELBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHAYJ KoZIhvcNAQkFMQ8XDTAzMTIxNzAyMjUyN1owIwYJKoZIhvcNAQkEMRYEFL10dkF2lKPyXWaLCejP y0LocptfMHgGCSsGAQQBgjcQBDFrMGkwYjELMAkGA1UEBhMCWkExJTAjBgNVBAoTHFRoYXd0ZSBD b25zdWx0aW5nIChQdHkpIEx0ZC4xLDAqBgNVBAMTI1RoYXd0ZSBQZXJzb25hbCBGcmVlbWFpbCBJ c3N1aW5nIENBAgMLQr0wegYLKoZIhvcNAQkQAgsxa6BpMGIxCzAJBgNVBAYTAlpBMSUwIwYDVQQK ExxUaGF3dGUgQ29uc3VsdGluZyAoUHR5KSBMdGQuMSwwKgYDVQQDEyNUaGF3dGUgUGVyc29uYWwg RnJlZW1haWwgSXNzdWluZyBDQQIDC0K9MA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUABIIBAAatGrXehj+txE8xxTRf GYoytvaScMEjZmvAEGkohaRDBiLLp/EbXxGc4nx+B/Y7FCVckWk6HuzQFNh9rwiRBz8TouwfbW1x DXf270KWzehxVmlx1YKP1hT3a3DSpdldqrqKaxugUO7K7KvFe8zSPpH7Np7yktghpt2gxZgxrn8L wp8fmLxEwx3mVzaa+R86/1TVvoG/KkNTafcBXPU55eNUvsQEjHgw2vCXbG01cRaqJCHNKyYtU4PE roQcURkww9P3yhhnAO3wADZVYPlgzDHnx5B+DmTZ3h6JEoPJXisHonMOM8wug9hun8BwsXPID+fu j9H0v5n/qKlwthkZDh4AAAAAAAA= --Apple-Mail-13-978929997-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 16 21:39:42 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA21176 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 21:39:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWRal-0003Vc-Kg for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 21:39:15 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBH2dFmI013484 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 21:39:15 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWRal-0003VP-ES for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 21:39:15 -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 VAA21095 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 21:39:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWRad-0007av-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 21:39:07 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AWRac-0007aj-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 21:39:07 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWRac-0007ag-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 21:39:06 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWRaX-0003PC-70; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 21:39:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWRZq-0003OK-Dn for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 21:38:20 -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 VAA21022 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 21:38:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWRZn-0007XV-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 21:38:15 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AWRZl-0007XG-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 21:38:15 -0500 Received: from kanga.nu ([157.22.12.214]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWRZl-0007X9-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 21:38:13 -0500 Received: from dhcp-66-212-193-197.myeastern.com ([66.212.193.197]:61496 helo=yabbie) by kanga.nu with asmtp (Exim 4.22 #1 (Debian)) id 1AWRZh-0002xN-Lx; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:38:09 -0800 Received: from yabbie ([127.0.0.1] helo=kanga.nu) by yabbie with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1AWRZg-0002rV-00; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 21:38:08 -0500 To: mathew cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] [1] Why SPAM is worse in SMTP than in other protocols In-Reply-To: Message from mathew of "Tue, 16 Dec 2003 21:25:26 EST." <4699402F-3038-11D8-B154-00039380F1B6@pobox.com> References: <200312161921.hBGJLIb02260@newgiles.nitros9.org> <4699402F-3038-11D8-B154-00039380F1B6@pobox.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: <11004.1071628688@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: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 21:38:08 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 21:25:26 -0500 mathew wrote: > SMTP requires resources which cost money, yet an unlimited number of > unauthenticated users are allowed to consume those resources as much > as they like, at no financial cost to them. > That's a big human problem. I can't think of any system with that > problem that has worked in the real world. Just to catechise it, this is normally known as a Tragedy of the Commons. -- 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 Tue Dec 16 21:40:38 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA21198 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 21:40:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWRbd-0003cV-I8 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 21:40:11 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBH2e9A8013909 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 21:40:09 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWRbd-0003cG-4d for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 21:40:09 -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 VAA21195 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 21:40:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWRba-0007dU-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 21:40:06 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AWRbZ-0007dN-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 21:40:05 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWRbZ-0007dK-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 21:40:05 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWRba-0003Zv-Kl; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 21:40:06 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWRb5-0003W8-Vh for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 21:39:35 -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 VAA21171 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 21:39:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWRb3-0007cq-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 21:39:33 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AWRb2-0007cj-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 21:39:32 -0500 Received: from sccrmhc12.comcast.net ([204.127.202.56]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWRb2-0007aU-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 21:39:32 -0500 Received: from [192.168.123.5] (h005018086b3b.ne.client2.attbi.com[24.61.45.246]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc12) with SMTP id <2003121702390201200r6b3qe>; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 02:39:02 +0000 Message-Id: <2C0854AC-303A-11D8-B154-00039380F1B6@pobox.com> X-Habeas-Swe-6: email in exchange for a license for this Habeas X-Habeas-Swe-3: like Habeas SWE (tm) Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Legal - Subject labelling (?) X-Habeas-Swe-8: Message (HCM) and not spam. Please report use of this From: mathew X-Habeas-Swe-5: Sender Warranted Email (SWE) (tm). The sender of this X-Habeas-Swe-2: brightly anticipated In-Reply-To: References: To: asrg@ietf.org X-Habeas-Swe-7: warrant mark warrants that this is a Habeas Compliant Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v606) X-Habeas-Swe-4: Copyright 2002 Habeas (tm) Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=sha1; boundary=Apple-Mail-14-979744420; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature" X-Habeas-Swe-1: winter into spring X-Habeas-Swe-9: mark in spam to . X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.606) Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 21:39:01 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 --Apple-Mail-14-979744420 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Nov 26, 2003, at 9:15, Jon Kyme wrote: > 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. Sorry I'm really late on this... but I've always thought that the whole "ADV" in the subject line thing was a really bad idea. It invites sloppy implementation, leading to all kinds of legitimate subject lines suddenly and mysteriously getting bounced. e.g. "[sec-adv] Security advisory"(*), "Interactive fiction sources ColossalCave.adv", ... I think any kind of "ADV" flag belongs in a header defined for the purpose, so it won't collide with existing use of the subject line no matter how inevitably poorly client developers implement filtering. If the law allows that the flag be in a new header, I'd favor running with that approach. mathew [ (*) real tag used by a real mailing list ] --Apple-Mail-14-979744420 Content-Type: application/pkcs7-signature; name=smime.p7s Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=smime.p7s Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAqCAMIACAQExCzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAMIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAQAAoIIGEDCCAskw ggIyoAMCAQICAwtCvTANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQQFADBiMQswCQYDVQQGEwJaQTElMCMGA1UEChMcVGhh d3RlIENvbnN1bHRpbmcgKFB0eSkgTHRkLjEsMCoGA1UEAxMjVGhhd3RlIFBlcnNvbmFsIEZyZWVt YWlsIElzc3VpbmcgQ0EwHhcNMDMxMjAzMTUwOTU3WhcNMDQxMjAyMTUwOTU3WjBAMR8wHQYDVQQD ExZUaGF3dGUgRnJlZW1haWwgTWVtYmVyMR0wGwYJKoZIhvcNAQkBFg5tZXRhQHBvYm94LmNvbTCC ASIwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEBBQADggEPADCCAQoCggEBANA40G+RMi0LMG++Lz6J4LpIaXkydRxJoLjz 9EPfZGLn6dPBumvzLVWDaQrOshYuyViOW+oPk62xz6HBnarbOX3VoiFVyGCjqkZz+TToHDDlya/z D8l/WF92nvsEPFPKE6Fw/Lg13/g9zzBlxrjwW98bL6dI1tKvdokMH91++35sC0Yu5oZjuBF4ydUA 1n7pX2KgEDhRRP5b/RhQPrdpbZhO5fwzthiD0VlCG9zkloNJ8GOFxMFd2lpVpV1ISySCHYwEtA1n zxR7Kq4oRaMvAodHj8NHRPDjE+vyALzi0mCZ+JlQAyKr+Li5YvKZNRobyYBQGLLOyt31ZAj9vfSS g2cCAwEAAaMrMCkwGQYDVR0RBBIwEIEObWV0YUBwb2JveC5jb20wDAYDVR0TAQH/BAIwADANBgkq hkiG9w0BAQQFAAOBgQCVJDuVViVm9t4++qdMFmiF4yfAowCy3/bauIAcxAJXvd21LnorWF+49YJk jBZO74MDPrsYb5M9ybKMy04vxNuXXHM9TVLUWJjz5PUCcaNIj9DqGIW9eAPWj/Pvn6j5qSP8OcoK mwwrKcurmSi+sJqajLjET0wzsuvgRFNE4pkOyDCCAz8wggKooAMCAQICAQ0wDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEF BQAwgdExCzAJBgNVBAYTAlpBMRUwEwYDVQQIEwxXZXN0ZXJuIENhcGUxEjAQBgNVBAcTCUNhcGUg VG93bjEaMBgGA1UEChMRVGhhd3RlIENvbnN1bHRpbmcxKDAmBgNVBAsTH0NlcnRpZmljYXRpb24g U2VydmljZXMgRGl2aXNpb24xJDAiBgNVBAMTG1RoYXd0ZSBQZXJzb25hbCBGcmVlbWFpbCBDQTEr MCkGCSqGSIb3DQEJARYccGVyc29uYWwtZnJlZW1haWxAdGhhd3RlLmNvbTAeFw0wMzA3MTcwMDAw MDBaFw0xMzA3MTYyMzU5NTlaMGIxCzAJBgNVBAYTAlpBMSUwIwYDVQQKExxUaGF3dGUgQ29uc3Vs dGluZyAoUHR5KSBMdGQuMSwwKgYDVQQDEyNUaGF3dGUgUGVyc29uYWwgRnJlZW1haWwgSXNzdWlu ZyBDQTCBnzANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOBjQAwgYkCgYEAxKY8VXNV+065yplaHmjAdQRwnd/p/6Me 7L3N9VvyGna9fww6YfK/Uc4B1OVQCjDXAmNaLIkVcI7dyfArhVqqP3FWy688Cwfn8R+RNiQqE88r 1fOCdz0Dviv+uxg+B79AgAJk16emu59l0cUqVIUPSAR/p7bRPGEEQB5kGXJgt/sCAwEAAaOBlDCB kTASBgNVHRMBAf8ECDAGAQH/AgEAMEMGA1UdHwQ8MDowOKA2oDSGMmh0dHA6Ly9jcmwudGhhd3Rl LmNvbS9UaGF3dGVQZXJzb25hbEZyZWVtYWlsQ0EuY3JsMAsGA1UdDwQEAwIBBjApBgNVHREEIjAg pB4wHDEaMBgGA1UEAxMRUHJpdmF0ZUxhYmVsMi0xMzgwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQADgYEASIzRUIPq Cy7MDaNmrGcPf6+svsIXoUOWlJ1/TCG4+DYfqi2fNi/A9BxQIJNwPP2t4WFiw9k6GX6EsZkbAMUa C4J0niVQlGLH2ydxVyWN3amcOY6MIE9lX5Xa9/eH1sYITq726jTlEBpbNU1341YheILcIRk13iSx 0x1G/11fZU8xggLnMIIC4wIBATBpMGIxCzAJBgNVBAYTAlpBMSUwIwYDVQQKExxUaGF3dGUgQ29u c3VsdGluZyAoUHR5KSBMdGQuMSwwKgYDVQQDEyNUaGF3dGUgUGVyc29uYWwgRnJlZW1haWwgSXNz dWluZyBDQQIDC0K9MAkGBSsOAwIaBQCgggFTMBgGCSqGSIb3DQEJAzELBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHAYJ KoZIhvcNAQkFMQ8XDTAzMTIxNzAyMzkwMVowIwYJKoZIhvcNAQkEMRYEFLR7LHv5P4XOpB9eO9Yt 9GCxboRFMHgGCSsGAQQBgjcQBDFrMGkwYjELMAkGA1UEBhMCWkExJTAjBgNVBAoTHFRoYXd0ZSBD b25zdWx0aW5nIChQdHkpIEx0ZC4xLDAqBgNVBAMTI1RoYXd0ZSBQZXJzb25hbCBGcmVlbWFpbCBJ c3N1aW5nIENBAgMLQr0wegYLKoZIhvcNAQkQAgsxa6BpMGIxCzAJBgNVBAYTAlpBMSUwIwYDVQQK ExxUaGF3dGUgQ29uc3VsdGluZyAoUHR5KSBMdGQuMSwwKgYDVQQDEyNUaGF3dGUgUGVyc29uYWwg RnJlZW1haWwgSXNzdWluZyBDQQIDC0K9MA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUABIIBAJ4hViPKclS6TBiK6zxu yr2i7gpy6xDlvEVUhWCsSQpjyqeeUnsW/eHMJbVDsVPR1+8/SNyEKQdtGLIfyvGb5/DpD+px0hhu BlhpBYqxHwrVeWmSasKvFeDGTgsfwIPjLloXKb/N7Ky4DAnOe8kZKOYdUP2WBlpzujxPsABN+5T4 5ymOp5Q+DVRrDCL1t5HeMgNwX+3xKSGTNxa227mVRNotWGL+sfruUwBeeyofPreUcwIo1OSNrw0o q4woYTCscfLRz/2UHD3dPtFlaoJYKoKP8EgsIw60HL7K7Wg2tLNXgFQzWpvD7P/b4A55CLpUiv3l H8kQCMwFMdqBX6OdOlsAAAAAAAA= --Apple-Mail-14-979744420-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Dec 17 04:28:47 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA00624 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 04:28:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWXyd-0002e6-7C for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 04:28:19 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBH9SJBm010169 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 04:28:19 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWXyc-0002dw-Ai for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 04:28:18 -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 EAA00612 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 04:28:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWXyZ-0004Pj-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 04:28:15 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AWXyY-0004Pc-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 04:28:15 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWXyY-0004PZ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 04:28:14 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWXyL-0002bK-EW; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 04:28:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWXxs-0002aj-Mm for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 04:27:32 -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 EAA00598 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 04:27:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWXxi-0004Oi-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 04:27:22 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AWXxJ-0004Ob-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 04:26:57 -0500 Received: from argon.connectinternetsolutions.com ([193.110.243.33] helo=argon.connect.org.uk) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWXxI-0004O7-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 04:26:56 -0500 Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 1AWXwu-0004rq-JE; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 09:26:32 +0000 In-Reply-To: <20031217002750.GM51606@Space.Net> Subject: Re: [Asrg] 1. Inventory of Problems - SMTP To: "Markus Stumpf" From: "Jon Kyme" Cc: "ASRG" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.10.1] 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, 17 Dec 2003 09:26:32 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 > >*> 5. Don't allow multiple RCPT TO's for unknown senders. >*> The problem is that you can't selectively NACK later RCTP TO's. The >*> sending MTA then decides that the entire message was NACK'd, and >*> discards (or retries) it. > >If the MTA is behaving that way it is seriously broken. The behaviour >as you describe only happens if you NACK the "DATA" command after the >CRLF.CRLF (RFC 2821 4.2.5 Reply Codes After DATA and the Subsequent >.) > RFC821 was broken on this point I think? A 552 is suggested for too many recipients, but this would imply a permanent failure for the message? I guess that this might account for some interoperability issues :-) >Our mailserver doesn't allow more than 5 RCPT TO per session. The others >are answered with a temp failure (4xx code). This works without any >problems for years. > Of course, but this policy violates RFCs - what happened to the 100 RCPT requirement? I'd be happy to see this kind of behavior written up in some way - revising rfc2821. There's a whole lot of things that work better if this requirement can be ignored. -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Dec 17 04:47:45 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA01068 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 04:47:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWYGz-0003WZ-Mz for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 04:47:17 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBH9lHWZ013451 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 04:47:17 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWYGx-0003Us-Hy for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 04:47:15 -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 EAA01059 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 04:47:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWYGu-0004sW-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 04:47:12 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AWYGt-0004sP-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 04:47:12 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWYGt-0004sM-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 04:47:11 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWYGk-0003Se-SI; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 04:47:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWYGg-0003SS-Hb for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 04:46:58 -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 EAA01056 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 04:46:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWYGd-0004sI-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 04:46:55 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AWYGc-0004sB-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 04:46:54 -0500 Received: from argon.connectinternetsolutions.com ([193.110.243.33] helo=argon.connect.org.uk) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWYGc-0004s8-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 04:46:54 -0500 Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 1AWYGd-0000VR-8O for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 09:46:55 +0000 In-Reply-To: <2C0854AC-303A-11D8-B154-00039380F1B6@pobox.com> Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Legal - Subject labelling (?) To: "ASRG" From: "Jon Kyme" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.10.1] 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, 17 Dec 2003 09:46:55 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 > > 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. > > > Sorry I'm really late on this... but I've always thought that the whole > "ADV" in the subject line thing was a really bad idea. It invites > sloppy implementation, leading to all kinds of legitimate subject lines > suddenly and mysteriously getting bounced. e.g. "[sec-adv] Security > advisory"(*), "Interactive fiction sources ColossalCave.adv", ... > > I think any kind of "ADV" flag belongs in a header defined for the > purpose, so it won't collide with existing use of the subject line no > matter how inevitably poorly client developers implement filtering. If > the law allows that the flag be in a new header, I'd favor running with > that approach. > Gosh, you must have been thinking about this really long and hard :-) The problem is that some *legislators* are moving towards requiring that Email marketing messages be clearly labelled as such. "Clearly" is either going to require a rewrite of all MUAs so that our new header is displayed by default, or it's going to be a requirement that the label is in one of the currently commonly displayed headers. *Subject* is an obvious place for such a label since this field is already widely used to give a brief summary of the content of the message. Given that subject labelling may be a (for some) a *legal* requirement. It might not be a bad idea to standardise a mechanism for doing it, EVEN THOUGH we don't like it. So as to reduce the risks of "sloppy implementation" and accidental collisions that you correctly identify. On a related point: I'm in favour of safety standards for bungee-jump operators, since even tho' I intend never to be a customer, I may walk under one. -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Dec 17 11:24:43 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA18097 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 11:24:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWeT5-00019G-BB for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 11:24:15 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBHGOBtf004410 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 11:24:11 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWeT5-000193-1j for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 11:24:11 -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 LAA18004 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 11:24:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWeT4-00055W-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 11:24:10 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AWeT3-00055O-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 11:24:09 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWeT3-00055L-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 11:24:09 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWeS0-0000us-14; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 11:23:04 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWeRL-0000oN-Bs for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 11:22:27 -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 LAA17869 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 11:22:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWeRK-0004xX-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 11:22:22 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AWeRJ-0004xQ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 11:22:22 -0500 Received: from joy.songbird.com ([208.184.79.7]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWeRJ-0004wA-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 11:22:21 -0500 Received: from bbprime (jay.songbird.com [208.184.79.253]) by joy.songbird.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBHGSk314944; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 08:28:47 -0800 From: Dave Crocker Reply-To: Dave Crocker Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <14213088.20031217082132@brandenburg.com> To: Yakov Shafranovich CC: Alan DeKok , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] [1] Why SPAM is worse in SMTP than in other protocols In-Reply-To: <3FDFA7DC.8050004@solidmatrix.com> References: <200312161921.hBGJLIb02260@newgiles.nitros9.org> <606804805.20031216140057@brandenburg.com> <3FDFA7DC.8050004@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: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 08:21:32 -0800 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.8 required=5.0 tests=PRIORITY_NO_NAME autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Yakov, >> Let me strongly encourage you to re-cast the bulk of your document >> into non-technical issues, first. YS> Would it be something along the lines of the following?: That's a good start, for setting up the important statements. The next set of statements should talk about how all this is used by people. For example, when are senders required to formally sign their messages? What kind of signature? (For example, there is a big difference between having it notarized, versus not.) d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking Sunnyvale, CA USA _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Dec 17 12:30:40 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA21628 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 12:30:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWfUy-0005Yi-F7 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 12:30:13 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBHHUCJI021362 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 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 1AWfUy-0005YT-AS for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 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 MAA21611 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 12:30:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWfUw-0007le-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 12:30:10 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AWfUv-0007lX-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 12:30:10 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWfUv-0007lU-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 12:30:09 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWfUp-0005Vo-3R; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 12:30:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWfUZ-0005Ul-Td for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 12:29:47 -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 MAA21566 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 12:29:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWfUY-0007iD-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 12:29:46 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AWfUV-0007hi-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 12:29:45 -0500 Received: from moebius2.space.net ([195.30.1.100]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWfUV-0007hQ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 12:29:43 -0500 Received: (qmail 68051 invoked by uid 1013); 17 Dec 2003 17:29:40 -0000 From: Markus Stumpf To: Jon Kyme Cc: Markus Stumpf , ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] 1. Inventory of Problems - SMTP Message-ID: <20031217172940.GF77840@Space.Net> References: <20031217002750.GM51606@Space.Net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Organization: SpaceNet AG, Muenchen, Germany X-PGP-Fingerprint: 66 F3 75 79 01 D0 B8 5F 1A C7 77 88 4A B6 70 DF Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 18:29:40 +0100 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 09:26:32AM +0000, Jon Kyme wrote: > Of course, but this policy violates RFCs - what happened to the 100 RCPT > requirement? I'd be happy to see this kind of behavior written up in some > way - revising rfc2821. There's a whole lot of things that work better if > this requirement can be ignored. Depends on how you see it. According to RFC 2821 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 7.7 Scope of Operation of SMTP Servers It is a well-established principle that an SMTP server may refuse to accept mail for any operational or technical reason that makes sense to the site providing the server. However, cooperation among sites and installations makes the Internet possible. If sites take excessive advantage of the right to reject traffic, the ubiquity of email availability (one of the strengths of the Internet) will be threatened; considerable care should be taken and balance maintained if a site decides to be selective about the traffic it will accept and process. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ We have operational and technical reasons to act as we do and to override the 100 RCPT limit imposed by the RFC. From our observations the only impact on the Internet mail system is that bulk senders need more circles to get their messages through so we think we have taken considerable care and still maintained the balance. From yesterdays logfile on a machine without the limits (only connections from external hosts): count no of rcptto per connection 1 58 1 32 1 28 1 27 2 26 1 25 1 24 2 23 35 20 12 19 10 18 5 17 20 16 35 15 26 14 17 13 34 12 44 11 208 10 155 9 186 8 199 7 333 6 460 5 673 4 1369 3 5241 2 134885 1 This means e.g. that we had 5241 connections sending 2 rcptto during one connection and we had 1369 connections sending 3 rcptto during one connection. We had 143957 connections in total. 93% of all connections sent only one RCPT TO Allowing up to 5 RCPT TO per connection makes up for 99.076% of all connections. The host with 58 rcptto in one connection was definitely legal email. It looks like MX sorting and maybe a SMTP MTA on a dialup line, as there were about 20 different envelope senders (small company sending email to field staff; we're running the Mailboxes for some of their field staff). However the next hosts in the "hit list": 32 unknown:216.244.148.251 dictionary spam 28 unknown:218.28.13.138 dictionary spam 27 unknown:211.224.65.91 dictionary spam 26 cmb8-162.dial-up.arnes.si:194.249.38.162 dictionary spam 26 216.93.176.221:216.93.176.221 dictionary spam 25 67-23-157-81.chvlva.adelphia.net:67.23.157.81 dictionary spam 24 unknown:212.6.96.162 dictionary spam 23 unknown:203.82.168.133 dictionary spam 23 unknown:81.195.151.34 dictionary spam \Maex -- SpaceNet AG | Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 | Fon: +49 (89) 32356-0 Research & Development | D-80807 Muenchen | Fax: +49 (89) 32356-299 "The security, stability and reliability of a computer system is reciprocally proportional to the amount of vacuity between the ears of the admin" _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Dec 17 12:37:38 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA21982 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 12:37:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWfbe-0006DN-B9 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 12:37:11 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBHHb65O023880 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 12:37:06 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWfbd-0006D3-NM for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 12:37:05 -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 MAA21967 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 12:37:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWfbc-0000FF-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 12:37:04 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AWfbb-0000F8-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 12:37:03 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWfbb-0000F5-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 12:37:03 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWfbZ-00069v-IN; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 12:37:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWfb7-00068Y-LR for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 12:36:34 -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 MAA21961 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 12:36:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWfb6-0000Ek-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 12:36:32 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AWfb0-0000Ed-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 12:36:26 -0500 Received: from mercury.mv.net ([199.125.85.40]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWfaz-0000EA-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 12:36:26 -0500 Received: (qmail 7267 invoked from network); 17 Dec 2003 12:36:12 -0500 Received: from iridium.mv.net (HELO mv.mv.com) (199.125.85.17) by mercury.mv.net with SMTP; 17 Dec 2003 12:36:12 -0500 X-Peer-Info: remote-ip 199.125.85.17 local-ip 199.125.85.40 local-name mercury.mv.net Received: (qmail 20280 invoked by uid 101); 17 Dec 2003 12:36:11 -0500 From: "Mark E. Mallett" To: Philip Miller Cc: Alan DeKok , ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals: LMAP - Forwarding Comment and Recommended Changes Message-ID: <20031217173611.GJ6614@iridium.mv.net> References: <3FDCA293.9040904@zemos.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3FDCA293.9040904@zemos.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: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 12:36:11 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 > > First of all, there are two separate but not disjoint cases of forwarding > that could occur in a messages transmission path: > 1. A Message Originator relays its mail through a third party host > 2. A Message Recipient has mail delivered to a designated host, which then > passes it along. > > The second case is easy to solve. Rewriting the message envelope in this > case is undesireable, because it would mean that if delivery failed, a > notification could not be returned to the sender. However, rewriting isn't > necessary in this case, because the recipient knows who's relaying their > mail and can make provisions to accept all mail from the designated > recipient. Assuming that the recipient has that level of control. I suspect that's a minority situation. > My recommendation for how this case should be handled is as follows. This > scenario should be added in some form to LMAP: > 1. lmap-mta is authorized to send mail for sender.com > 2. lmap-mta is connected to the internet via a random ISP, isp.com > 3. lmap-mta is forced to relay mail through smtp.isp.com (outside policy, > port 25 block, MTA-Mark) [etc, no need to repeat it all I think] > > The missing link in this scenario is the standardized encoding for the > return-path within a return-path. Others have mentioned ENVID. I suppose that's promising, but one would have to consider the potential for abuse there. Is it possible to forge the return-path-within-return-path (envid or otherwise)? With ENVID, the server owning the ID has to either keep some history, or has to use an algorithm whereby envids can be verified. The first seems to require more implementation/deployment impact than we're allowed to consider; the second would seem to provide an abuse path. OTOH I may simply be confused. mm _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Dec 17 12:44:51 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA22634 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 12:44:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWfih-00079X-Gh for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 12:44:23 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBHHiNVe027489 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 12:44:23 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWfih-00079I-D9 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 12:44:23 -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 MAA22523 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 12:44:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWfif-0000jK-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 12:44:21 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AWfiQ-0000gm-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 12:44:20 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWfiP-0000gi-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 12:44:05 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWfiL-000726-8K; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 12:44:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWfhq-00070z-Gk for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 12:43:30 -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 MAA22384 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 12:43:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWfho-0000Zv-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 12:43:28 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AWfhh-0000ZW-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 12:43:23 -0500 Received: from newgiles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ([205.150.200.131] helo=mail.nitros9.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWfhh-0000Xn-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 12:43:21 -0500 Received: from newgiles.nitros9.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.nitros9.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1994B16CCA for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 12:43:58 -0500 (EST) From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals: MTA MARK vs port 25 filtering? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 17 Dec 2003 00:27:06 +0100." <20031216232706.GI51606@Space.Net> Message-Id: <20031217174358.1994B16CCA@mail.nitros9.org> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 12:43:58 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 I think this will be my last message in this thread, because it's clear that we're still talking at cross purposes. Markus Stumpf wrote: > Our customers are responsible for the traffic they generate. Who says > they aren't? You do. Without the existence of MTAMark or LMAP, there is no way for a recipient of traffic from your network to determine that both you and your users are accepting responsibility. To repeat what I've said multiple times already: To the recipient, your users are indistinguishable from spammers, unless they accept responsibility for their actions in ways that spammers do not. e.g. MTAmark, or LMAP. In other words, if a machine on your network is "owned", and sending spam, I would prefer your intentions to be published BEFORE the fact, rather than after. Otherwise, I will waste my resources dealing with the spam attack from your network. I will waste my time tracking down contact information from you, and then waiting for a possible response. I may even end up blocking legitimate email from you, because it's too hard for me to tell the difference between that legitimate email, and the messages from an "owned" machine. If you published MTAMark or LMAP information *before* the attack occured, then I could *automate* my blocking of the spam attack, and *automate* my notification to your contact address. You get the notifications more quickly, and I spend a lot less time dealing with the problem. It's that easy. Everyone wins. Blocking outbound port 25 from your network for non-MTA's is even better (from my perspective), because then I don't have to do *anything* to deal with the attack. You take care of it yourself, without any involvement from me. > And customers that abuse our AUP or have 0wned hosts not only get > port 25 blocked but they get pulled the plug. To repeat again and again: How do I know? Making those statements in a mailing list is useless. You need to make them in a way that MTA's can discover and use. That's my entire reason for having this discussion. > Where's the problem? > /You/ (and that's the analogy here) are free to block all connections to > /your/ SMTP port and only allow a whitelist through. Without your help, that becomes significantly more difficult for me to do. With your help, it becomes almost trivial. So if both of us help each other, then the work that each of us has to do will drop. > If we get a complaint we analyze it, and if there is evident of abuse > we do not filter the customer, we pull the plug and terminate the contract. Let me repeat until my fingers bleed: This is a post-facto, band-aid "solution". You're talking about *intentionally* allowing abuse of the network, because you know that you will stop it after it happens. I don't know that. And I don't see why I should suffer because of your delay between being informed of the abuse, and in stopping the abusive behaviour. I don't see why I should suffer because some user in your system screwed up. It's like saying you don't need to keep your rabid dogs tied up, because a rabies treatment exists. And insurance will cover any personal injury I might have from them attacking me. So it's perfectly OK for you to let them run wild. Any attack I suffer can be dealt with, and you can always pull the dogs off of me... It's ridiculous. In the real world, people are forced to accept responsibility *before* bad things happen. People are forced to change their behaviour, and to restrict their actions, to *prevent* bad things from happening. That's life, and I don't see why it's so hard to apply that attitude towards the net. > The section clearly makes a differentiation because there is > MUA <-> MTA <-- smtp --> MTA <-> MUA > and not > MUA <-- smtp --> MUA > and that's why according to that RFC SMTP is not an end-to-end mechanism. > The RFC does not say anything about companies, users or hosts as end-to-end > partners. Is only says that it is not a MUA <> MUA protocol. It's not a MUA to MTA protocol. So why would people not block ougoing port 25 from dial-up networks, where no MTA's can exist? The only MTA those users should be connecting to is yours, right? > And SMTP is without any doubt an end-to-end mechanism for most SMTP servers Nonsense. The "end to end" principle is about users, not servers. > and without any doubt a large number of companies and organizations that > are customers of ISPs, run their own SMTP speaking MTA in an end-to-end way. > And that is what you want to abolish. WTF? Are you on crack? That's nonsense. Thanks for that last sentence. You've made it perfectly clear to mea that you can't understand what I'm saying, and that I'm wasting my time trying to explain my position to you. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Dec 17 14:21:31 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA27363 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 14:21:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWhEF-0002fS-VX for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 14:21:04 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBHJL3ll010248 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 14:21:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWhEE-0002fB-Cl for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 14:21:02 -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 OAA27360 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 14:20:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWhEB-0004iD-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 14:21:00 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AWhEA-0004i6-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 14:20:59 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWhEA-0004i3-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 14:20:58 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWhDI-0002bu-0S; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 14:20:04 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWhCX-0002aS-R0 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 14:19:22 -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 OAA27311 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 14:19:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWhCT-0004d9-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 14:19:13 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AWhCN-0004d2-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 14:19:07 -0500 Received: from newgiles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ([205.150.200.131] helo=mail.nitros9.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWhCM-0004cm-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 14:19:06 -0500 Received: from newgiles.nitros9.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.nitros9.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40CB516CCA for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 14:19:46 -0500 (EST) From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals: MTA MARK vs port 25 filtering? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 16 Dec 2003 19:25:23 EST." <3FDFA273.1080703@solidmatrix.com> Message-Id: <20031217191946.40CB516CCA@mail.nitros9.org> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 14:19:46 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > 1. Is MTA MARK a useful enough proposal to be pursued further IN > COMBINATION with other anti-spam tools and techniques (including port > filtering)? Yes. > 2. Is port filtering, on port 25 especially, should be something that is > going to be recommended by the ASRG? No. It's something we should describe as an option. We should describe it's benefits, and it's limitations. We should put a big "use at your own risk" warning label on it. We should also say that ISP's MUST tell their users that they do this, to enable informed consent. For ISP's who know (AUP, etc.) that certain IP ranges will never have an MTA sending mail, filtering outbound port 25 may be beneficial. For other situations, it may cause more problems than it solves. > Port blocking on the other hand seems controversial enough, that it > should be something best left to each ISP to decide. Instead we > should recommend that ISPs have a strict AUP and actually enforce > it. I would like to enforce the ISP's AUP, too. The ISP should therefore publish it in a manner in which I can parse: MTAMark, LMAP, etc. My problem with these "solutions" is that they're post-facto, and still permit the AUP to be violated. Blocking port 25 is appealing, because it prevents AUP violations. But it's a very dangerous practice, from a number of perspectives. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Dec 17 14:44:40 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA28092 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 14:44:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWhaf-0003f4-9B for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 14:44:13 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBHJiDhG014068 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 14:44:13 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWhaf-0003ep-4X for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 14:44:13 -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 OAA28064 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 14:44:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWhac-0005EU-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 14:44:10 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AWhab-0005EN-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 14:44:10 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWhab-0005EK-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 14:44:09 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWhaS-0003aS-SH; Wed, 17 Dec 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 1AWhaB-0003aD-Dy for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 14:43:43 -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 OAA28047 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 14:43:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWha8-0005DP-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 14:43:40 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AWha2-0005DI-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 14:43:35 -0500 Received: from newgiles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ([205.150.200.131] helo=mail.nitros9.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWha2-0005DF-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 14:43:34 -0500 Received: from newgiles.nitros9.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.nitros9.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98C4E16CCA for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 14:44:16 -0500 (EST) From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] [1] Why SPAM is worse in SMTP than in other protocols In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 16 Dec 2003 14:00:57 PST." <606804805.20031216140057@brandenburg.com> Message-Id: <20031217194416.98C4E16CCA@mail.nitros9.org> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 14:44:16 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Dave Crocker wrote: > An exercise like the one you are doing can be very useful. I also have planned another document, which discusses which protocols are used in what situations to send email. It will point out which use models, and which fields of which protocols, are being abused to send spam. > Let me strongly encourage you to re-cast the bulk of your document > into non-technical issues, first. I'm not sure why. The intent of the document is clear: To compare and contrast SMTP to other protocols, and to explain why and how technical features in SMTP are being abused to send spam. The only non-technical issue I can see being relevant is that any proposed changes to the use or deployment of SMTP should minimally affect the way users currently send messages. This issue can be dealt with, without getting into any details of human communication modes. > That is, discuss messaging and a > human process, without concern for whether it is paper mail, email, or > whatever. As you offer criticisms of the human communication modes > available for Internet mail, compare whether they differ from the > modes available for other messaging. I honestly don't see why. The intent of the document is to describe what's wrong with SMTP today, not to describe why or how people use SMTP to send messages. End-user human communication modes are not relevant when discussing protocol flaws in SMTP, between MTA's. > After we have some consensus about these issues, in terms of human > communication, it will then be reasonable to see what changes are > needed to the technology. The discussion of human intentions and beliefs about which processes *should* be used to send email is a topic which has spawned countless flamewars on this list. After being burned a number of times, I would prefer to avoid those issues. If you (or anyone else) writes such a document, I'm willing to read it. But I can't contribute to one. By focussing on technical issues, I can avoid these human issues, so long as I ensure that any technical recommendations do not affect current use patterns or beliefs about email properties (whatever those are.) The only other reason I can see to discuss human communication modes and intentions is to see if the design of SMTP fulfills our goals for human communication. Since SMTP has been around for 2 decades, it's a little late to have that discussion. A discussion of human communication modes is best suited for a document which describes the requirements for a protocol to replace SMTP. In that context, it's benefical to define our human requirements and goals; along with the technical limitations of SMTP. This will let us be sure that we don't make the same mistakes again. But I do not propose replacing SMTP. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Dec 17 14:58:38 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA28770 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 14:58:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWhoB-0004Mg-H3 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 14:58:11 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBHJwBD4016772 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 14:58:11 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWhoB-0004MR-Bf for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 14:58:11 -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 OAA28741 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 14:58:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWho8-0005jv-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 14:58:08 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AWho6-0005jg-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 14:58:08 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWho6-0005jc-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 14:58:06 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWho1-0004Hw-DT; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 14:58:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWhni-0004Gi-DA for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 14:57:42 -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 OAA28674 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 14:57:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWhnf-0005gp-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 14:57:39 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AWhnY-0005gW-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 14:57:34 -0500 Received: from newgiles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ([205.150.200.131] helo=mail.nitros9.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWhnX-0005ft-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 14:57:31 -0500 Received: from newgiles.nitros9.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.nitros9.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3684516FE0 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 14:58:14 -0500 (EST) From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] [1] Why SPAM is worse in SMTP than in other protocols In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 16 Dec 2003 19:48:28 EST." <3FDFA7DC.8050004@solidmatrix.com> Message-Id: <20031217195814.3684516FE0@mail.nitros9.org> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 14:58:14 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > Examples of messaging systems include: direct speech (face to face), > telephone, fax, television, radio, email, instant messaging, postal > mail, telegraph, etc. All of these have potential for abuse which varies > from system to system. ... and some have technical design flaws which enable more abusive behaviour than in other protocols. It is clearly within the charter of this group to discuss the design flaws of SMTP. Other messaging systems are relevant only so far as they do not have the same design flaws. It is clearly within the charter of this group to discuss which characteristics of SMTP are being abused by spammers, and how to address those characteristics to prevent abuse. Other messaging systems are not relevant for that discussion. > The underlying problem is a human one and we need to understand it > before changing the technology. The reasons why spam is being sent, and > is profitable, are human reasons which need to be addressed. The psychology of criminals is a complicated topic, with centuries of research and discussion behind it. The final conclusion after that time is that the best way to deal with criminals is to catch them. Their reasons for being criminals are not relevant to that process. Even worse, their reasons for being criminals largely amount to "because I want to". There's little anyone can do to address that problem, either, except by catching and punishing them. In the terms of pharmacology, spam is a problem for which treatment is "symptomatic". The causes don't matter. Once the symptoms are treated, the problem will be solved. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Dec 17 15:05:38 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA29421 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 15:05:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWhux-0004hn-8G for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 15:05:11 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBHK5B1Y018081 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 15:05:11 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWhux-0004gk-3f for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 15:05:11 -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 PAA29372 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 15:05:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWhuu-00069x-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 15:05:08 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AWhuq-00069T-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 15:05:07 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWhup-00069K-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 15:05:03 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWhuo-0004dX-GP; Wed, 17 Dec 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 1AWhu4-0004ct-Ab for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 15:04:16 -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 PAA29262 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 15:04:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWhu1-00067M-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 15:04:13 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AWhtz-00067F-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 15:04:13 -0500 Received: from moebius2.space.net ([195.30.1.100]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWhtz-00067B-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 15:04:11 -0500 Received: (qmail 76669 invoked by uid 1013); 17 Dec 2003 20:04:10 -0000 From: Markus Stumpf To: Alan DeKok Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals: MTA MARK vs port 25 filtering? Message-ID: <20031217200410.GA68095@Space.Net> References: <20031216232706.GI51606@Space.Net> <20031217174358.1994B16CCA@mail.nitros9.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20031217174358.1994B16CCA@mail.nitros9.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Organization: SpaceNet AG, Muenchen, Germany X-PGP-Fingerprint: 66 F3 75 79 01 D0 B8 5F 1A C7 77 88 4A B6 70 DF Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 21:04:10 +0100 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 12:43:58PM -0500, Alan DeKok wrote: > You do. Without the existence of MTAMark or LMAP, there is no way > for a recipient of traffic from your network to determine that both > you and your users are accepting responsibility. And even with the existance of MTAMark or LMAP this is impossible. So I go ahead and set the "I am responsible" flag (even simpler with LMAP) and go ahead and spam you to ashes. I lied ... oh my god, so what? You're in Canada (I assume from the whois for ox.org) and I am in Germany. What do I care. And what do courts care? There are no laws that say you have to publish that information and that you may not lie about that information. And then there is the standard excuse that currently works for everything related to computers: I am sorry, it was not on purpose, it was a misconfiguration. I own the domain "magazin.de" and about 3-4 years ago I was flooded with 100 of bounces because of a mailing with a sender address meingeld@magazin.de I was told this was an "accident" done by a temporary employee of the owner of the domain meingeld-magazin.de and when I tried to sue him all I got were fits of laughter, because the accountable damage caused where some 10 bucks (btw I get spam to the address meingeld@magazin.de since then). Ok, this could have been prevented by LMAP. But is also shows there is no big willingness from the side of the jurisdiction if it can be explained as a mistake. So what did you win? Nothing. You will start to add blocks like "trust the information provided by x and don't trust the information provided by y". Big deal and big difference to current practise. The good guys that publish the correct information are still good guys that don't spam and the bad guys that publish that information are still bad guys that lie and spam. And you will still only know after looking at the message. LMAP and MTAmark will prevent that ressources under my control (hosts, ip addresses, domains) will be as easily abused by others as it is possible know, as I have the chance to say "don't accept that" but it also has the advantage that the receiver may decide what to do. With a block on port 25 set by a transport agency (ISP) the receiver has lost the possibility to decide. > To repeat what I've said multiple times already: To the recipient, > your users are indistinguishable from spammers, unless they accept > responsibility for their actions in ways that spammers do not. > e.g. MTAmark, or LMAP. And even with MTAmark or LMAP it doesn't change a thing. I did write the MTAmark draft. You cannot trust a MTA=yes. It still may be a lie and it will if it comes handy to the one sitting at that IP to lie at you. The only real advantage is a MTA=no as it will make it harder for virus writers or crackers to (ab)use that host to directly send to you. That's all. And my arguments in this thread weren't against LMAP oder MTAmark but against blocks on port 25 outgoing. > If you published MTAMark or LMAP information *before* the attack > occured, then I could *automate* my blocking of the spam attack, and > *automate* my notification to your contact address. You get the > notifications more quickly, and I spend a lot less time dealing with > the problem. It's that easy. Everyone wins. That was my point when I wrote the MTAmark draft. > > And customers that abuse our AUP or have 0wned hosts not only get > > port 25 blocked but they get pulled the plug. > > To repeat again and again: How do I know? Making those statements in > a mailing list is useless. You need to make them in a way that MTA's > can discover and use. That's my entire reason for having this > discussion. To publish that kind of information needs a lot more than LMAP or MTAmark. It would require a system like P3P (http://www.w3c.org/P3P/). And still there is the problem about trust and responsibility. If spammers need to lie and abuse this information they will. "But you promised ..." "I know ..." "But you promised!!" "So what? go away"." Just like if bad guys lie at you with P3P they can do. A quote I saved a long time ago expresses this very good: |> ... Is this legal? ... It is not "legal", but the network police will not read you your rights and drag you away. It will work fine, as long as ... > In the real world, people are forced to accept responsibility > *before* bad things happen. People are forced to change their > behaviour, and to restrict their actions, to *prevent* bad things from > happening. That's life, and I don't see why it's so hard to apply > that attitude towards the net. Exactly, they are /forced/, because it will not work on a voluntary basis. An ISP /starting/ to block port 25 outgoing will have a lot more costs maintaining the ACLs and will have less contracts as people will go to one that doesn't have them. Blocking port 25 outgoing is not restricting others from sending in, but your customers from sending out. So they gain nothing, but in /their feeling/ they get their freedom restricted. In a world were customers decide which ISP to use on basis of the difference of cents in flatrates you will be a good ISP for some weeks and then you will be a dead ISP. Would /you/ change your ISP and pay more money because the new one is a noble one that is caring for the net and is blocking port 25 outgoing, while you current cheaper ISP is not? Would you? How many would change to another ISP that is not blocking port 25 outgoing and that may be cheaper because of this? Would blocking port 25 outgoing be a criteria for choosing one ISP over the other for a CEO? If the fees are identically? Would it be a criteria pro or contra the blocking ISP? We've terminated contracts with customers because of spamming and with the last one we've lost a value of about a monthly salary of one employee. For an ISP with about 50 employees that's a lot of money. Now we can feel really noble. And our ex-customer is now with a competitor that gives a shit and is happily spamming on. As the competitor is fairly large we can't block the mailserver as other emails in the B2B area would also be affected. Court decision in Germany is that commercial email (even unsolicited) to commercial email addresses has to be tolerated in general. The only way to stop it is that each of our customers is telling the spammer to stop sending them email. It's easy to demand such useless actions (in terms of the overall result) from the outside, but it may be your economical death if you're too noble. Sometimes, at night, before sleep, it makes me wonder if nobleness isn't only good for stupid idiots and unacceptable if you have to run a business. > It's not a MUA to MTA protocol. So why would people not block > ougoing port 25 from dial-up networks, where no MTA's can exist? The > only MTA those users should be connecting to is yours, right? No. How about field staff using SMTP AUTH to connect to their company's mailserver from dialins? Their MUA will talk SMTP and use port 25 outgoing. Hundreds of small companies sit behind ADSL/SDSL lines. They use DYNDNS and they run well configured and maintained MTAs. I don't know if you'll call this a "dial-up network" but typically on the same network there also live home users with on demand DSL connections that are not running their computer 7x24. Typical dialin customers use the ISPs MTA as a relay anyway, as they pay per timeframe and trying to deliver email directly is cost intensive and in case of temporarily unreachable destination MTAs it is highly ineffective. But nevertheless there are MTAs behind dialin connections retrieving messages via authenticated ETRN and spooling messages they received from the otherwise unconnected small company intranet they act as a gateway for. Probably not exactly the kind of MTA you were thinking of, but nevertheless legal, existing and useful MTAs. > > And SMTP is without any doubt an end-to-end mechanism for most SMTP servers > > Nonsense. The "end to end" principle is about users, not servers. Nonsense. The "end to end" principle is about end-to-end. Whether the end is a user depends on the protocol you apply the principle to. > > and without any doubt a large number of companies and organizations that > > are customers of ISPs, run their own SMTP speaking MTA in an end-to-end way. > > And that is what you want to abolish. > > WTF? Are you on crack? That's nonsense. > > Thanks for that last sentence. You've made it perfectly clear to > mea that you can't understand what I'm saying, and that I'm wasting my > time trying to explain my position to you. I think I understand pretty well what you are saying - most of the time. But I think your position is rather short sighted and limited. \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 Dec 17 16:00:47 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA05041 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 16:00:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWimH-000782-LU for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 16:00:19 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBHL0Hrd027401 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 16:00:17 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWimH-00077s-Ds for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 16:00:17 -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 QAA05014 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 16:00:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWimF-000203-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 16:00:16 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AWimE-0001zw-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 16:00:15 -0500 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=manatick) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWimE-0001zt-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 16:00:14 -0500 Received: from optimus22.ietf.org ([132.151.6.22] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by manatick with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1AWimF-0004bb-3j for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 16:00:15 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWim5-0006z4-5s; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 16:00:05 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWikM-0006wN-8H for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 15:58:18 -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 PAA04826 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 15:58:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWikK-0001ti-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 15:58:16 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AWikJ-0001tb-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 15:58:16 -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 1AWikJ-0001sq-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 15:58:15 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-389-597.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.235.243]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HQ200FDN4W54G@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 20:57:46 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] [1] Why SPAM is worse in SMTP than in other protocols In-reply-to: <20031217194416.98C4E16CCA@mail.nitros9.org> To: Alan DeKok Cc: asrg@ietf.org Message-id: <3FE0C34B.8020502@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: <20031217194416.98C4E16CCA@mail.nitros9.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 15:57:47 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Alan DeKok wrote: > Dave Crocker wrote: > >> After we have some consensus about these issues, in terms of human >> communication, it will then be reasonable to see what changes are >> needed to the technology. > > > The discussion of human intentions and beliefs about which processes > *should* be used to send email is a topic which has spawned countless > flamewars on this list. After being burned a number of times, I would > prefer to avoid those issues. If you (or anyone else) writes such a > document, I'm willing to read it. But I can't contribute to one. > I will be willing to write up such document. Yakov ------- Yakov Shafranovich / asrg shaftek.org SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / research solidmatrix.com "Among all our enemies / The ones to be most feared are often the smallest" (Jean de la Fontaine) ------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Dec 17 16:12:27 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA05575 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 16:12:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWixb-0007ki-65 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 16:11:59 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBHLBxb7029794 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 16:11:59 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWixb-0007kT-1c for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 16:11:59 -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 QAA05477 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 16:11:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWixZ-0002Lf-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 16:11:57 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AWixY-0002LX-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 16:11:57 -0500 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=manatick) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWilU-0001va-02 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 15:59:28 -0500 Received: from optimus22.ietf.org ([132.151.6.22] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by manatick with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1AWief-0004VE-Ex for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 15:52:29 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWieH-0006ag-Jy; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 15:52:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWicd-0006WR-Gl for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 15:50:20 -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 PAA04181 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 15:50:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWicP-0001Pq-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 15:50:05 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AWicK-0001P2-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 15:50:04 -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 1AWicK-0001J8-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 15:50:00 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-389-597.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.235.243]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HQ200F3B4I34G@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 20:49:25 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] [1] Why SPAM is worse in SMTP than in other protocols In-reply-to: <20031217195814.3684516FE0@mail.nitros9.org> To: Alan DeKok Cc: asrg@ietf.org Message-id: <3FE0C14C.8030609@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: <20031217195814.3684516FE0@mail.nitros9.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 15:49:16 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Alan DeKok wrote: > Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > >>Examples of messaging systems include: direct speech (face to face), >>telephone, fax, television, radio, email, instant messaging, postal >>mail, telegraph, etc. All of these have potential for abuse which varies >>from system to system. > > > ... and some have technical design flaws which enable more abusive > behaviour than in other protocols. > > It is clearly within the charter of this group to discuss the design > flaws of SMTP. Other messaging systems are relevant only so far as > they do not have the same design flaws. > > It is clearly within the charter of this group to discuss which > characteristics of SMTP are being abused by spammers, and how to > address those characteristics to prevent abuse. Other messaging > systems are not relevant for that discussion. > > I believe that the intent here is to compare other messaging system to SMTP in regards to the design flaws and abusive behavior possible, and how other messaging systems have dealt with these problems, in order to see whether similar approaches can be used for SMTP. For example, in the telephone network, every phone call is much more easily traced than emails, and people cannot "0wn" or "hack" your phone in order to send phone spam (well not yet anyway, think VoIP and ENUM). These force marketers to use specific methods, which in turn reduce the amount of junk phone calls. The same analogy can be applied to email - if email is more traceable, and less hackable, then spammers are forced to use other ways. While the methods to achieve the same effect vary, the end goals do not. Therefore, a comparison to other messaging system can provide us with a set of features present in those systems, which accomplish the same goal of reducing abusive behavior. Then we can see which of these features can be added to email as well, if possible. However, for this specific document, the comparison with other systems should be as only go as far, as determining which other systems have similar flaws and which do not, in order to be able to do the analysis later. >>The underlying problem is a human one and we need to understand it >>before changing the technology. The reasons why spam is being sent, and >>is profitable, are human reasons which need to be addressed. > > > The psychology of criminals is a complicated topic, with centuries > of research and discussion behind it. The final conclusion after that > time is that the best way to deal with criminals is to catch them. > Their reasons for being criminals are not relevant to that process. > Even worse, their reasons for being criminals largely amount to > "because I want to". There's little anyone can do to address that > problem, either, except by catching and punishing them. > > In the terms of pharmacology, spam is a problem for which treatment > is "symptomatic". The causes don't matter. Once the symptoms are > treated, the problem will be solved. > Ok, I will agree, but I still think this issue is relevant in a slightly different light. Let me give you an example: most spammers send spam because they make money. Some spammers send spam for revenge ("joe jobs"). Yet some look for time machines and send chain letters. Now given these categories, which ones do we really care about? Probably only the first one or maybe two. The third one is so small, that there is no reason to address it. Therefore, given a proposal that addresses the third one, we probably would not bother researching it, since the benefits are negligable. Given only the technical design flaws in the protocol, will not provide us with a determination of whether specific flaws are significant enough to be pursued. What we should do, is once we have determined what the flaws are, then analyze which of them are more significant then others, in order to best concentrate our efforts. However, your specific document is only for listing the design flaws. The analysis and determination of which flaws are significant is something to be left for the future. 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 Wed Dec 17 16:12:56 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA05666 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 16:12:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWiy4-0007lT-FT for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 16:12:28 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBHLCS0R029841 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 16:12:28 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWiy4-0007lE-BX for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 16:12:28 -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 QAA05571 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 16:12:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWiy2-0002Qg-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 16:12:26 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AWixz-0002QF-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 16:12:26 -0500 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=manatick) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWilV-0001va-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 15:59:29 -0500 Received: from optimus22.ietf.org ([132.151.6.22] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by manatick with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1AWieh-0004VD-GS for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 15:52:32 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWieH-0006aY-5c; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 15:52:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWidK-0006Xs-AI for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 15:51:02 -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 PAA04273 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 15:50:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWidI-0001Vv-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 15:51:00 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AWidH-0001Vk-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 15:51:00 -0500 Received: from moebius2.space.net ([195.30.1.100]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWidH-0001VS-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 15:50:59 -0500 Received: (qmail 79076 invoked by uid 1013); 17 Dec 2003 20:50:57 -0000 From: Markus Stumpf To: Mark Baugher Cc: Markus Stumpf , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - DNS + PKI - Yahoo's "Domain Keys" Message-ID: <20031217205057.GB68095@Space.Net> References: <20031208183344.1857A16CD1@mail.nitros9.org> <3FD4E090.8000808@solidmatrix.com> <20031209193652.GA76454@Space.Net> <3FD626AC.9010002@solidmatrix.com> <20031209201709.GC76454@Space.Net> <3FD63F28.4020608@solidmatrix.com> <20031209221554.GH76454@Space.Net> <6.0.0.22.2.20031209161256.03afcbd0@mira-sjc5-6.cisco.com> <20031210012041.GE96487@Space.Net> <6.0.0.22.2.20031210154936.03d0cd18@mira-sjc5-6.cisco.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <6.0.0.22.2.20031210154936.03d0cd18@mira-sjc5-6.cisco.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: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 21:50:57 +0100 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 05:05:07PM -0800, Mark Baugher wrote: > It would not verify if the signature design was secure. That is, > one should not sign a piece of the message that could be cut and > pasted in this way. I have not seen anything about the signing > proposal to suggest that they were doing this or even signing SMTP > trace record. > > So yes, the problem you describe is a problem that's caused by a > poor signature design. The problem is that I yet have to see a signature design that will work and that will not be broken by a sufficiently large number of mailservers/ features out there. > What gets signed is an open question. This does not strike me as > an insurmountable problem. :-) IMHO exactly this is the problem that hasn't been solved yet. > I think of each message sent as a separate mail transaction that will > have a separate signature applied by the mail submission agent. What is the advantage then? I know who I am talking to directly. So the sending MTA doesn't need the hassle to sign the message. The MTAs could simply use TLS or a key exchange. The advantage of the signing is that I - as the receiver - can validate the signing of the original sender or - that would be fine - of all intermediate hosts. Other than that it's pretty worthless, IMHO. \Maex -- SpaceNet AG | Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 | Fon: +49 (89) 32356-0 Research & Development | D-80807 Muenchen | Fax: +49 (89) 32356-299 "The security, stability and reliability of a computer system is reciprocally proportional to the amount of vacuity between the ears of the admin" _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Dec 17 16:22:36 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA06033 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 16:22:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWj7P-0007zn-Ty for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 16:22:08 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBHLM7Sp030729 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 16:22:07 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWj7P-0007zY-P8 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 16:22:07 -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 QAA05982 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 16:22:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWj7O-0002nI-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 16:22:06 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AWj7N-0002nB-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 16:22:05 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWj7N-0002n8-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 16:22:05 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWj7I-0007wL-Mr; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 16:22:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWj6d-0007vx-9L for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 16:21:19 -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 QAA05948 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 16:21:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWj6b-0002lL-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 16:21:17 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AWj6a-0002lE-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 16:21:16 -0500 Received: from mta04ps.bigpond.com ([144.135.25.158]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWj6Z-0002j2-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 16:21:16 -0500 Received: from lerc-daemon.mta04ps.email.bigpond.com by mta04ps.email.bigpond.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.14 (built Mar 18 2003)) id <0HQ200J765YKT2@mta04ps.email.bigpond.com> for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 07:20:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from email.bigpond.com ([172.26.103.16]) by mta04ps.email.bigpond.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.14 (built Mar 18 2003)) with ESMTP id <0HQ2007J25YG78@mta04ps.email.bigpond.com> for asrg@ietf.org.lerc-daemon (ORCPT asrg@ietf.org); Thu, 18 Dec 2003 07:20:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from [192.168.115.149] by mailms7aps.email.bigpond.com (mshttpd) ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 08:20:40 +1100 From: "ipeter@bigpond.net.au" Subject: Re: [Asrg] [1] Why SPAM is worse in SMTP than in other protocols 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: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 08:20:40 +1100 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT In response to Dave Crocker's invitation to examine human communication in the context of understanding spam, Yakov wrote "In human communications we have a sender, a receiver, the message and a messaging system. The sender creates the message, hands it off to the messaging system, and the system delivers it to the receiver.If the delivery is unsuccessful, depending on the system used, the sender is notified of the failure. Different messaging systems can also deliver the message to multiple receivers, and combine messages from multiple senders into one message before being delivered to receivers. Examples of messaging systems include: direct speech (face to face), telephone, fax, television, radio, email, instant messaging, postal mail, telegraph, etc. All of these have potential for abuse which varies from system to system." Let's add another distinction which might be useful in examining this (traditionally the difference between broadcast or one-way media and communicative or two-way media). This starts then to get to intention, so following on from Yakov's comments: Sometimes the sender intends to engage in a dialogue with the recipients, or request information from them. In such cases the sender has an intent to receive a reply. In other cases, the sender merely wishes to disseminate information. In this case a reply may be totally unwanted - the intention is for the message to initiate some action or increased knowledge on the part of the recipient. An advertisement in print or broadcast media is a case in point here. So is the bosses "Message to all staff". However two-way communications media such as fax, phone and email can also be used with varying degrees of effect to broadcast messages (junk fax, telemarketing, spam) etc. Hope that adds to our understanding. Ian Peter _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Dec 17 17:11:50 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA08683 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 17:11:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWjt3-00023v-IJ for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 17:11:23 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBHMBLWq007928 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 17:11:21 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWjt3-00023n-CG for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 17:11:21 -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 RAA08667 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 17:11:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWjt1-0004tv-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 17:11:19 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AWjt0-0004to-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 17:11:18 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWjt0-0004tl-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 17:11:18 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWjsj-000215-TN; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 17:11:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWjsE-00020p-VC for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 17:10:31 -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 RAA08657 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 17:10:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWjsC-0004t3-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 17:10:28 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AWjsB-0004sv-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 17:10:28 -0500 Received: from newgiles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ([205.150.200.131] helo=mail.nitros9.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWjsB-0004ss-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 17:10:27 -0500 Received: from newgiles.nitros9.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.nitros9.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1498F16FE0 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 17:11:08 -0500 (EST) From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] [1] Why SPAM is worse in SMTP than in other protocols In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 17 Dec 2003 15:49:16 EST." <3FE0C14C.8030609@solidmatrix.com> Message-Id: <20031217221108.1498F16FE0@mail.nitros9.org> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 17:11:08 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > Some spammers send spam for revenge ("joe jobs"). Yet some look for > time machines and send chain letters. Now given these categories, > which ones do we really care about? Probably only the first one or > maybe two. The third one is so small, that there is no reason to > address it. Therefore, given a proposal that addresses the third > one, we probably would not bother researching it, since the benefits > are negligable. If they're using the same methods to spam, they're identical so far as the recipient can tell. If they're using different methods, then they are technically different, and technical methods of distinguishing them can deal differently with each kind of spammer. > Given only the technical design flaws in the protocol, will not provide > us with a determination of whether specific flaws are significant enough > to be pursued. Exactly. > What we should do, is once we have determined what the flaws are, > then analyze which of them are more significant then others, in > order to best concentrate our efforts. And if we don't know what the flaws in SMTP are, we don't even know what kinds of questions to ask, to see which behaviours are more significant than others. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Dec 17 17:19:34 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA09200 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 17:19:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWk0X-0002PD-72 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 17:19:07 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBHMJ5iT009241 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 17:19:05 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWk0X-0002Oy-1Q for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 17:19:05 -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 RAA09184 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 17:19:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWk0U-0005IC-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 17:19:02 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AWk0T-0005I5-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 17:19:02 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWk0T-0005I2-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 17:19:01 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWk0S-0002L5-W3; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 17:19:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWk09-0002KY-Qd for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 17:18:41 -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 RAA09158 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 17:18:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWk07-0005GU-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 17:18:39 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AWk06-0005GN-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 17:18:39 -0500 Received: from moebius2.space.net ([195.30.1.100]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWk06-0005GK-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 17:18:38 -0500 Received: (qmail 82943 invoked by uid 1013); 17 Dec 2003 22:18:37 -0000 From: Markus Stumpf To: "Mark E. Mallett" Cc: Philip Miller , Alan DeKok , ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals: LMAP - Forwarding Comment and Recommended Changes Message-ID: <20031217221837.GB79295@Space.Net> References: <3FDCA293.9040904@zemos.net> <20031217173611.GJ6614@iridium.mv.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20031217173611.GJ6614@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: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 23:18:37 +0100 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 12:36:11PM -0500, Mark E. Mallett wrote: > > The missing link in this scenario is the standardized encoding for the > > return-path within a return-path. > > [ ... ] > With ENVID, the server owning the ID has to either keep some history, > or has to use an algorithm whereby envids can be verified. The first > seems to require more implementation/deployment impact than we're > allowed to consider; the second would seem to provide an abuse path. > > OTOH I may simply be confused. I don't think so (confused ;-). I have always wondered if, with LMAP, abusing sender domains will become impossible, will spammers fall back to empty envelope senders, aka mimiking bounces? How will we solve THAT problem? The first time they started admin started blocking empty envelope senders and if this will be widely used again I fear a lot more admins will block "bounces". However this will solve the problems with return-path rewriting ;/ Otherwise, without tracking, return-path rewriting with routing information may lead to the same problems we had with user%destination@relay addresses, with the diefference that it now has a form user=destination%otheruser@relay \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 Dec 17 17:26:28 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA09408 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 17:26:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWk7F-0002md-Fy for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 17:26:01 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBHMQ1XN010688 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 17:26:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWk7E-0002mJ-So for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 17:26:00 -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 RAA09402 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 17:25:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWk77-0005Ve-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 17:25:53 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AWk6h-0005VL-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 17:25:28 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWk6h-0005VA-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 17:25:27 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWk6I-0002eF-Nk; Wed, 17 Dec 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 1AWk66-0002dm-8P for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 17:24:50 -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 RAA09386 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 17:24:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWk63-0005Ul-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 17:24:48 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AWk63-0005Ue-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 17:24:47 -0500 Received: from www.gamerz.net ([66.92.144.25] helo=play.gamerz.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWk62-0005Ub-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 17:24:46 -0500 Received: from play.gamerz.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by play.gamerz.net (Switch-3.1.3/Switch-3.1.0) with ESMTP id hBHMOkHV014660 (using TLSv1/SSLv3 with cipher EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA (168 bits) verified NO); Wed, 17 Dec 2003 17:24:46 -0500 Received: (from rrognlie@localhost) by play.gamerz.net (Switch-3.1.3/Switch-3.1.0/Submit) id hBHMOjNv014659; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 17:24:45 -0500 From: Richard Rognlie To: Markus Stumpf Cc: "Mark E. Mallett" , Philip Miller , Alan DeKok , ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals: LMAP - Forwarding Comment and Recommended Changes Message-ID: <20031217222445.GO19477@gamerz.net> References: <3FDCA293.9040904@zemos.net> <20031217173611.GJ6614@iridium.mv.net> <20031217221837.GB79295@Space.Net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20031217221837.GB79295@Space.Net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 17:24:45 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 11:18:37PM +0100, Markus Stumpf wrote: > On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 12:36:11PM -0500, Mark E. Mallett wrote: > > > The missing link in this scenario is the standardized encoding for the > > > return-path within a return-path. > > > > [ ... ] > > With ENVID, the server owning the ID has to either keep some history, > > or has to use an algorithm whereby envids can be verified. The first > > seems to require more implementation/deployment impact than we're > > allowed to consider; the second would seem to provide an abuse path. > > > > OTOH I may simply be confused. > > I don't think so (confused ;-). > > I have always wondered if, with LMAP, abusing sender domains will become > impossible, will spammers fall back to empty envelope senders, aka > mimiking bounces? How will we solve THAT problem? The first time they > started admin started blocking empty envelope senders and if this will > be widely used again I fear a lot more admins will block "bounces". One answer is the DRIP portion of the LMAP proposal. DRIP operates on the HELO/EHLO part of the smtp conversation. And LMAP advises that a null sender be thought of as mailer-daemon@HELO.HOST.NAME (for the purposes of validation). -- / \__ | Richard Rognlie / Sultan of Sendmail / Gamerz.NET Lackey \__/ \ | http://www.gamerz.net/rrognlie/ / \__/ | \__/ | CAUTION: may contain Mature material......but I doubt it. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Dec 17 22:46:57 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA20676 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 22:46:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWp7P-0004AL-4F for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 22:46:31 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBI3kV31016007 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 22:46:31 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWp7O-0004A6-Uv for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 22:46:30 -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 WAA20672 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 22:46:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWp7L-0006cr-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 22:46:27 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AWp7K-0006cj-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 22:46:27 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWp7K-0006cg-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 22:46:26 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWp6w-00047P-CV; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 22:46:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWp5w-00045r-9h for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 22:45:00 -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 WAA20604 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 22:44:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWp5s-0006aP-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 22:44:57 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AWp5s-0006aI-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 22:44:56 -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 1AWp5r-0006Ze-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 22:44:56 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-375-685.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.181.209]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HQ20025TNMX9U@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 03:42:40 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich To: ASRG Message-id: <3FE1222D.1050004@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 - LMAP - 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: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 22:42:37 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT We are looking for volunteers to help with the LMAP subgroup. Reply off-list if you can offer some time. Yakov ------- Yakov Shafranovich / asrg shaftek.org SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / research solidmatrix.com "Among all our enemies / The ones to be most feared are often the smallest" (Jean de la Fontaine) ------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Dec 18 09:08:49 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA22436 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 09:08:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWyp7-0003rF-Rw for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 09:08:20 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBIE8HXT014821 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 09:08:17 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWyp6-0003qt-Qg for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 09:08:16 -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 JAA22418 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 09:08:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWyp5-0002Sb-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 09:08:15 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AWyp4-0002SU-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 09:08:14 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWyp4-0002SR-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 09:08:14 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWyor-0003oM-CY; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 09:08:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWyon-0003o8-Km for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 09:07:57 -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 JAA22415 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 09:07:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWyom-0002Rl-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 09:07:56 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AWyol-0002Rd-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 09:07:55 -0500 Received: from fe01.axelero.hu ([195.228.240.89] helo=damo.axelero.hu) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWyok-0002RZ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 09:07:55 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost-02 [127.0.2.1]) by damo.axelero.hu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with SMTP id hBIE7rLp065495 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 15:07:53 +0100 (CET) Received: from fe01.axelero.hu [127.0.2.1] via SMTP gateway by damo [195.228.240.89]; id A0FFD058567 at Thu, 18 Dec 2003 15:07:53 +0100 Received: from axelero.hu (227.14-182-adsl-pool.axelero.hu [81.182.14.227]) (authenticated bits=0) by fe01.axelero.hu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hBIE7q2k065462 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 15:07:53 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3FE1B4B7.90605@axelero.hu> From: "Za'mbori, Zolta'n" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; hu-HU; rv:1.6b) Gecko/20031210 X-Accept-Language: hu, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] [1] Why SPAM is worse in SMTP than in other protocols References: <20031217195814.3684516FE0@mail.nitros9.org> <3FE0C14C.8030609@solidmatrix.com> In-Reply-To: <3FE0C14C.8030609@solidmatrix.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 15:07:51 +0100 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > Therefore, a comparison to other messaging system can provide us with a > set of features present in those systems, which accomplish the same goal > of reducing abusive behavior. Then we can see which of these features > can be added to email as well, if possible. IMHO there are interesting (dis)similarities between SMTP and TCP. For example dictionary attack is like portscan and email address forgery is like IP spoofing. I think making SMTP more TCP-like can help to implement SMTP-firewalling functionality as in the case in the evolution from routers to firewalls. z2 _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Dec 18 16:11:16 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA19109 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 16:11:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AX5Pz-0000b7-Hr for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 16:10:48 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBILAlqu002293 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 16:10:47 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AX5Pz-0000au-Cu for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 16:10:47 -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 QAA19082 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 16:10:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AX5Px-00018z-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 16:10:45 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AX5Pw-00018s-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 16:10:45 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AX5Pw-00018p-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 16:10:44 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AX5PH-0000Y3-6O; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 16:10:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AX5OO-0000X4-6x for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 16:09:08 -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 QAA19024 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 16:09:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AX5OM-00015I-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 16:09:06 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AX5OK-00015A-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 16:09:06 -0500 Received: from ntbbs.winserver.com ([208.247.131.9] helo=winserver.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AX5OK-000157-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 16:09:04 -0500 Received: by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v5.7.450.9b10) for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 16:09:29 -0500 Received: from ([68.215.35.71]) EHLO=FAMILY by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v5.7.450.9b10) with SMTP id 4016234000; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 16:09:27 -0500 Message-ID: <003b01c3c5ab$24d404e0$6401a8c0@FAMILY> From: "Hector Santos" To: "Yakov Shafranovich" , "ASRG" References: <3FCB4606.6000204@solidmatrix.com> 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 Subject: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals - Verification via RCPT TO callback Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 16:08:47 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,DRASTIC_REDUCED, LINES_OF_YELLING autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ----- Original Message ----- From: "Yakov Shafranovich" To: "Hector Santos" ; "ASRG" Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 8:45 AM Subject: 6. Proposals - Verification via RCPT TO callback > Hector, >As you have mentioned, you are going to be deploying > this system as multiple customer sites. What we would like to do, is for > you to come back to the group in a few weeks with the results, and let > us know if any of the issues we have raised played any difference. In > order to have a totally objective analysis, we would recommend to run a > bunch of control systems that do not have the method and than compare > the results. Its been two weeks I am putting together a summary report of our gamma testing. Here is just the Santronics site only WCSAP log statistics and breakdown. I will provide some analysis now and provide more detail analysis in my report gather logs from other gamma testers: Stats for December 1 to 16, 2003 Total Sessions : 31388 total rbl blocked : 18887 60.17% total non-rbl blocked : 12501 total rbl cbv tested : 11988 total cbv ready : 24489 total filter unknowns : 30415 total filter rejects : 38 total filter accepts : 107 total filter test : 828 total cbv test : 24344 total tries : 23248 total rejected : 23770 75.73% total sap refused : 8329 34.21% total cbv tested : 24344 total cbv bad : 21366 87.77% total cbv bad filter : 38 0.16% total cbv bad refused : 8329 34.21% total cbv bad ptr : 2212 9.09% total cbv bad no mx : 521 2.14% total cbv bad no mx host : 0 0.00 total cbv bad connect : 5207 21.39% total cbv bad welcome : 2042 8.39% total cbv bad helo : 7 0.03% total cbv bad mail from : 0 0.00% total cbv bad rcpt : 0 0.00% total cbv bad open relay : 2565 10.54% total multiple mail from attempts : 870 Overall, the system has an average of 85-95% success rate. In our case, its 88% for the month of December. This rate does not include RBL rejected sites. As we were fine tuning it, the last few days included a learning filter algorithm to auto reject thus skipping the CBV process to reduce redundancy. RBL is also included, which for the month of December, rejected 60%. Since the RBL reject is optional, a CBV test can also be performed on RBL rejected sites. This help us in comparison the CBV against blacklisted site. Since some days I had it off and on, the above does not give you a good comparison. To see the comparison, go to http://www.winservercom/public/security. You will see between Dec 4 and 15, when RBL rejection was disabled in WCSAP, it failed slightly better than RBL but I would say they are about here which some what indicates how well the RBL sites work or rather the concept of having a low overhead "central site" to validate a system. But what this shows what RBL does not cover, WCSAP makes it for it. Some additional info: Approximately 22% failed at the PTR, MX, Connect level. 8% failed to respond at the greeting. However, this includes early data where the WCSAP timeout was too low. A new version installed a few days ago solved this problem. Approximately 11% tested as open relay sites. Manual inspection shows this is actually true positives with actual zombies or compromised sites. The multiple mail from attempt counts is a initial analysis where I am going to measure how the systems try multiple MAIL FROM commands when they get rejected. In this case, 870 systems tried more than one mail from. Manual inspection showed it came from specific sites using specific software. One of the other test I am going to see is to analyze the software they use. I found quite a pattern here which I will detail in my report. Of the issues raised: 1) Overhead, Redundancy 2) False Negatives/Positives Solving the redundancy issue is the trick this system. A learning/training concept is suggested at the implementation level. One method used in WCSAP is to pair the email domain with the connection IP which I call DIP. A accept/reject DIP filter is automatically created as the system learns drastically reducing the redundancy. The logic has been in place a day or so with the last 960+ sessions where 107 connections were accepted and 38 were rejected. The speed of the system is fast, 1 to 2 seconds when there are no DNS/connect issues which would add delays. I added options to set timeouts. The one timeout required was the greeting as I found some systems (both legitimate and spammers) have long delays at the greeting. Overhead would be an issue at the most fundamental level. Redundancy logic must be added. In addition to the learning algorithm, there is interest to network the system using some kind of combined C/S, P2P topology of CBV systems. Another idea to reduce CBV overhead is to move the logic to the RCPT TO stage. If the server refuses the RCPT TO:, then there is no need to call the CBV. This has not been implemented yet, but our statistics show that at least 75% of the RCPT TO are rejected. Hence, 75% of the CBV calls can be skipped. The False Negatives are very negliable. Of the 20 or so gamma systems, only a few indicated reports by users at which point a DIP was manually added. A more detail analysis will be provided of the false negative/positives in my report. In summary, this system works with CURRENT standards, a proof of concept is shown that eliminates the majority of access issues using a SMTP compliancy testing concept. Overhead can be address using scalability measures and both overhead and redundancy can be solved with advanced implementation. Note: One tope I will discuss in my report is the technical engineering principles we should be adhering too. Here is a small part of it. We (SMTP Server developers) have NO business trying to "interpret" what SPAM is with the exception of providing administrative policies. No consideration is made to mail context which is the how the ideal TRANSPORT system show work. In my opinion, its a MUTE point once you enforce compliance with SMTP and now CAN-SPAM which requires a valid return path. In the near future, Customers who are looking for a SMTP system will ask one basic question (regardless if they don't know what they talking about): "Is your system CAN-SPAM ready?" Are you prepared to answer this? Or are you prepared to argue with them? If you want SMTP to be ready, two things must be done according to CAN-SPAM: 1) Refine the specification to REMOVE all ambiguity about technical compliance. This includes dealing with the RETURN PATH and/or the VRFY command. 2) To minimize overhead, add a new ESMTP which specifies the SUBJECT: That's its! Fundamental and simple! EHLO Spammer.com SUBJECT: straight from their subject line MAIL FROM: validaddress@spammer.com RCPT TO: DATA QUIT Otherwise, systems will be forced to accept the DATA to do post analysis WHICH is NOT desirable. The SPEC should make the SUBJECT an administrative policy issue. If required, the server will issue a refusal is not provided. Implementations can augment the logic against what is provided in the MAIL FROM and RCPT TO. - VALIDATION OF THE RETURN PATH - TOPIC IDENTIFICATION and you are CAN-SPAM ready. Until next time. -- Hector _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Dec 18 16:42:59 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA22934 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 16:42:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AX5ui-0002Gv-5h for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 16:42:32 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBILgWMp008727 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 16:42:32 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AX5uh-0002Gg-WD for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 16:42:32 -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 QAA22841 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 16:42:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AX5uf-0004DB-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 16:42:30 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AX5ue-0004Cm-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 16:42:29 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AX5l6-0003RM-01 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 16:32:36 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AX5Xx-0000tp-W7; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 16:19:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AX5Xm-0000sd-HJ for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 16:18:50 -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 QAA20492 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 16:18:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AX5Xk-0002Pm-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 16:18:48 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AX5XZ-0002Nt-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 16:18:47 -0500 Received: from ntbbs.winserver.com ([208.247.131.9] helo=winserver.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AX5XY-0002Ne-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 16:18:36 -0500 Received: by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v5.7.450.9b10) for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 16:19:13 -0500 Received: from ([68.215.35.71]) EHLO=FAMILY by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v5.7.450.9b10) with SMTP id 4016818187; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 16:19:12 -0500 Message-ID: <004b01c3c5ac$81117e80$6401a8c0@FAMILY> From: "Hector Santos" To: "Yakov Shafranovich" , "ASRG" References: <3FCB4606.6000204@solidmatrix.com> <003b01c3c5ab$24d404e0$6401a8c0@FAMILY> Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals - Verification via RCPT TO callback 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: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 16:18:29 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ----- Original Message ----- From: "Hector Santos" To: "Yakov Shafranovich" ; "ASRG" Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 4:08 PM Subject: [Asrg] Re: 6. Proposals - Verification via RCPT TO callback > total cbv bad ptr : 2212 9.09% > total cbv bad no mx : 521 2.14% > total cbv bad no mx host : 0 0.00 > total cbv bad connect : 5207 21.39% > > Approximately 22% failed at the PTR, MX, Connect level. That should be 33%. I just want to correct this because it is significant. Most systems do provide an MX. They must put a server behind it, but they do comply with "DNS" - so DNS based proposal need to realized that just because they have a "record" in DNS, does not necessary mean its valid. -- Hector _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Dec 18 17:09:00 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA24408 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 17:09:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AX6Jp-0003bR-10 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 17:08:31 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBIM8SjB013843 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 17:08:28 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AX6Jm-0003b8-Mr for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 17:08:26 -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 RAA24388 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 17:08:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AX6Jj-0005XO-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 17:08:23 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AX6Ji-0005XH-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 17:08:22 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AX6Ji-0005XE-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 17:08:22 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AX6JN-0003Rx-A4; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 17:08:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AX6GZ-0003Ga-Nl for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 17:05:09 -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 RAA24323 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 17:05:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AX6GX-0005U9-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 17:05:05 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AX6GW-0005U2-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 17:05:05 -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 1AX6GW-0005Sy-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 17:05:04 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-375-685.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.181.209]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HQ400FL42NIE2@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 22:04:34 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich To: ASRG , asrg-rmx@ntp.org Message-id: <3FE22471.2010401@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 - LMAP - New Draft of DMP 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, 18 Dec 2003 17:04:33 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT A new draft of DMP, which is one of the LMAP implementation protocols, has been published here: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-fecyk-dmp-01.txt ------- Yakov Shafranovich / asrg shaftek.org SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / research solidmatrix.com "Among all our enemies / The ones to be most feared are often the smallest" (Jean de la Fontaine) ------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Dec 18 17:21:49 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA24736 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 17:21:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AX6WF-00044V-Iy for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 17:21:22 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBIMLJBi015645 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 17:21:19 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AX6WF-00044G-9j for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 17:21:19 -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 RAA24724 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 17:21:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AX6WC-0005rE-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 17:21:17 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AX6WB-0005qy-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 17:21:16 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AX6WB-0005qu-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 17:21:15 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AX6Vy-00041V-9X; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 17:21:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AX6Vk-00040p-NM for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 17:20:51 -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 RAA24699 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 17:20:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AX6Vi-0005pI-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 17:20:46 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AX6Vh-0005pB-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 17:20:46 -0500 Received: from mail.crlf.net ([216.126.92.195]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AX6Vh-0005ov-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 17:20:45 -0500 Received: by mail.crlf.net (Postfix, from userid 100) id D6B511F001; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 17:24:23 -0500 (EST) From: David Maxwell To: Markus Stumpf Cc: Alan DeKok , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals: MTA MARK vs port 25 filtering? Message-ID: <20031218222423.GB17431@mail> References: <20031212214327.GD20229@Space.Net> <20031212220719.E9B7F16CFA@mail.nitros9.org> <20031216232706.GI51606@Space.Net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20031216232706.GI51606@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: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 17:24:23 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Markus Stumpf wrote: > But with the presumption of innocence each one should be allowed to send > a mail to another person on the internet without some authority blocking > it by default "just because". Is the ability to send SMTP email a right, or a privilege? (In most places) You don't get a driver's license without passing a test, and you can't legally drive without one. That doesn't mean that you're presumed to be a guilty driver. -- 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 Dec 18 17:54:36 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA25702 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 17:54:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AX721-0005Tn-Sk for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 17:54:09 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBIMs9xp021057 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 17:54:09 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AX721-0005TY-OQ for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 17:54:09 -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 RAA25695 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 17:54:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AX71z-0006hU-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 17:54:07 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AX71y-0006hN-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 17:54:06 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AX71y-0006hK-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 17:54:06 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AX71t-0005RI-Ik; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 17:54:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AX71J-0005Qt-N7 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 17:53:25 -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 RAA25663 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 17:53:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AX71H-0006h3-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 17:53:23 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AX71G-0006gw-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 17:53:22 -0500 Received: from moebius2.space.net ([195.30.1.100]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AX71F-0006gn-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 17:53:22 -0500 Received: (qmail 69463 invoked by uid 1013); 18 Dec 2003 22:53:20 -0000 From: Markus Stumpf To: David Maxwell Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals: MTA MARK vs port 25 filtering? Message-ID: <20031218225320.GA68195@Space.Net> References: <20031212214327.GD20229@Space.Net> <20031212220719.E9B7F16CFA@mail.nitros9.org> <20031216232706.GI51606@Space.Net> <20031218222423.GB17431@mail> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20031218222423.GB17431@mail> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Organization: SpaceNet AG, Muenchen, Germany X-PGP-Fingerprint: 66 F3 75 79 01 D0 B8 5F 1A C7 77 88 4A B6 70 DF Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 23:53:20 +0100 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 05:24:23PM -0500, David Maxwell wrote: > Markus Stumpf wrote: > > But with the presumption of innocence each one should be allowed to send > > a mail to another person on the internet without some authority blocking > > it by default "just because". > > Is the ability to send SMTP email a right, or a privilege? Is the ability to drop a letter in a postbox a right, or a privilege? And what is the difference to a drivers license? \Maex -- SpaceNet AG | Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 | Fon: +49 (89) 32356-0 Research & Development | D-80807 Muenchen | Fax: +49 (89) 32356-299 "The security, stability and reliability of a computer system is reciprocally proportional to the amount of vacuity between the ears of the admin" _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Dec 18 17:57:31 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA25759 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 17:57:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AX74p-0005in-Qf for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 17:57:04 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBIMv3W1021994 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 17:57:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AX74p-0005hi-JY for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 17:57:03 -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 RAA25756 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 17:56:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AX74n-0006lR-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 17:57:01 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AX74l-0006lK-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 17:57:00 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AX74l-0006lH-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 17:56:59 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AX74m-0005b3-Hp; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 17:57:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AX73p-0005aJ-4w for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 17:56:01 -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 RAA25739 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 17:55:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AX73m-0006ja-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 17:55:58 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AX73k-0006jM-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 17:55:58 -0500 Received: from ntbbs.winserver.com ([208.247.131.9] helo=winserver.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AX73k-0006jJ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 17:55:56 -0500 Received: by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v5.7.450.9b10) for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 17:56:33 -0500 Received: from ([68.215.35.71]) EHLO=FAMILY by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v5.7.450.9b10) with SMTP id 4022658593; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 17:56:32 -0500 Message-ID: <000d01c3c5ba$1a8b94d0$6401a8c0@FAMILY> From: "Hector Santos" To: References: <20031212214327.GD20229@Space.Net> <20031212220719.E9B7F16CFA@mail.nitros9.org> <20031216232706.GI51606@Space.Net> <20031218222423.GB17431@mail> Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals: MTA MARK vs port 25 filtering? 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: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 17:55:56 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I would be on the side that after you after you given the right the send, it would be the professional and ethical duty of the "messenger" to deliver it. That is where ECPA issues may arise and now CAN-SPAM regardless what Section 8 says. CAN-SPAM may not change the fact that policy issues may prevail, the fact is ONCE you do accept a message, you can't just get like it go into the LA-LA land without a policy reason. People better start waking up to the reality that CAN-SPAM will give SPAMMERS the "right" to send as long as they follow the rules and law. If you don't think they will use this in their favor in situations where ISPs and sites are "blocking" them, then be ready for a rude awakening. If the SPAMMER has a "conceptual contract" with the user and you being to block this mail when they did everything in the rule books, look out for fan debris. The IETF best get on the bandwagon to get the specifications cleared up and begin to make them consistent with the law ASAP, not 18 months from now. -- Hector ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Maxwell" To: "Markus Stumpf" Cc: "Alan DeKok" ; Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 5:24 PM Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals: MTA MARK vs port 25 filtering? > Markus Stumpf wrote: > > But with the presumption of innocence each one should be allowed to send > > a mail to another person on the internet without some authority blocking > > it by default "just because". > > Is the ability to send SMTP email a right, or a privilege? > > (In most places) You don't get a driver's license without passing a > test, and you can't legally drive without one. > > That doesn't mean that you're presumed to be a guilty driver. > > -- > 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 > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Dec 18 18:04:36 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA26270 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:04:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AX7Bh-000620-QH for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:04:09 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBIN497K023178 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:04:09 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AX7Bh-00061l-LQ for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:04:09 -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 SAA26167 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:04:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AX7Be-00071F-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:04:06 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AX7BZ-00070P-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:04:06 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AX7BZ-00070K-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:04:01 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AX7BZ-0005xw-0z; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:04:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AX79z-0005va-Fa for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:02:23 -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 SAA26008 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:02:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AX79w-0006tC-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:02:20 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AX79v-0006t5-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:02:20 -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 1AX79v-0006sa-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:02:19 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-375-685.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.181.209]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HQ400H4F579VH@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 22:59:40 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - LMAP - Latest version of the LMAP discussion paper In-reply-to: <3FD63A34.5040905@solidmatrix.com> To: Yakov Shafranovich Cc: Alan DeKok , asrg@ietf.org, asrg-rmx@ntp.org Message-id: <3FE23159.9000001@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: <200312092102.hB9L27L08496@newgiles.nitros9.org> <3FD63A34.5040905@solidmatrix.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 17:59:37 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > Alan DeKok wrote: > >> I've updated the LMAP discussion paper, and put the latest copy on >> my web site at: >> >> http://www.striker.ottawa.on.ca/~aland/draft-irtf-asrg-lmap-discussion-00.txt >> > In case we get SlashDoted, a copy is also available on the ASRG worksite > at: > > http://asrg.kavi.com/apps/group_public/download.php/18/draft-irtf-asrg-lmap-discussion-00.txt > Some comments on the document: Please add the following towards the beginning: > NOTE: This document is intended to evolve, based on comments > from the Anti-Spam Research Group (ASRG) mailing list. > It is certain that the current draft is incomplete and > entirely possible that it is inaccurate. Hence, comments > are eagerly sought, preferably in the form of suggested > text changes, and preferably on the ASRG mailing list, > at . > > NOTE: This protocol is experimental and is not suitable for > wide spread deployment or production use. Section 1.1: > > The policy published by a domain includes statements as to which IP's > are permitted to claim association with the domain in SMTP EHLO/HELO > and MAIL FROM. That policy can request certain decisions to be made > by a recipient on behalf of the domain. For example, "mail from > example.com originates solely from the machine mail.example.com. > Please reject mail allegedly from example.com which originates > elsewhere." I would also add information here about MTA MARK. > SMTP recipients can look up this policy when a domain name is used in > EHLO/HELO and/or MAIL FROM. The recipient can then choose to apply > the requested policy to the message. We can also mention that nothing steps someone from checking the LMAP information against the "From" address inside the actual message body, resulting in a 5xx code after the DATA command. We should also decide whether such behavior should be encouraged or discouraged. > Note that recipients should also publish that they use/enforce LMAP. > Receiving mail transport agents using protocols with the ability to > advertise capabilities should advertise a capability to the sender > that informs the that the sender that the receiver will check the > incoming IP address with LMAP. Have any proposals addressed this? Is this something that should be done via the SMTP banner, DNS records, or perhaps an ESMTP extension? > > > 2. Problem Statement and Scope > > LMAP addresses the problem of forgeries in the argument field of SMTP > EHLO/HELO, and SMTP MAIL FROM. It does not use or examine any other > argument of any other field of the SMTP protocol. Specifically, no > information in the body (DATA portion) of an SMTP message is used in > any part of LMAP. Examination, validation, or verification of the > body "From:" is explicitly not part of this proposal, and this > proposal should not be represented as using body "From:". But should we encourage such behavior or discourage it? The current text seems to stay away from the issue. > > > 2.2 Scope of the proposal > 2.3 Scope of the Problem Some information should also be added about the MTA MARK proposal. The entire LMAP idea is about publishing policy decisions on the Internet, and the MTA MARK proposal does the same for IP addresses, that RMX/DMP/DRIP/etc. do for domains. > 2.3.1 Junk Email > > Since this proposal does not examine or verify the body From: field, > there is still the possibility for spammers to use that field to > fraudulently claim assocation with a well-known domain. We leave > that problem to be addressed by a method other than LMAP. We will > recommend, however, that recipients take additional care when > accepting messages where the domain in the envelope MAIL FROM does > not match the domain in the body From:. Such messages have greater > potential to be forgeries than messages where the domains are > identical, and where an accountability system exists. What kind of care can be taken in this instance? Since the MTA cannot modify the "From" headers, either a custom header or something in the "Received" headers should be added? > > > 2.3.2 Viruses, Trojans, and Worms > > While many malicious programs sometimes use the infected machine's > sender address, they rarely use the sender domain's resources to send > copies of itself, instead running their own SMTP engines. > > Domains implementing LMAP may reject copies of viruses and other > malicious software sent in this manner. This method does have > limitations, however, see also Section 2.4.3. More text on MTA MARK can be useful here as well. > > > 2.4.1 Junk Email with Correct Envelope Information > > LMAP can not stop a spammer from using envelope information that they > are authorized to use. However, maintainers of a spammer's domain > could audit their activity more effectively, as the spammer is forced > to use their correct information. > > If spammers maintain their own domains, domain-based blocking becomes > more effective. In extreme cases, where a spammer hosts multiple > domains, blocking the authoritative DNS servers for the spammer's > domains becomes very effective, as the recipient could reject all > LMAP lookups on the spammers' DNS servers. They would effectively > reject all email from domains hosted there. We have to address the fact that spammers can register new domains much faster than we can block them. The bit about DNS servers might also be a bit controversial, since possible fallout can affect others hosted on the same DNS servers. > > > 2.7 DNS based attacks You can add a reference here to the draft published by one of the DNS working groups on the subject, it has an entire list of issues. DNS SEC can be mentioned as well: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dnsext-dns-threats-05.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 Thu Dec 18 18:11:43 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA27124 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:11:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AX7IZ-0006YT-1S for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:11:17 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBINBE5x025191 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:11:15 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AX7IY-0006YE-SH for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:11:14 -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 SAA27076 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:11:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AX7IW-0007Kf-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:11:12 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AX7IU-0007KR-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:11:11 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AX7IU-0007KO-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:11:10 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AX7IM-0006UA-HR; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:11:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AX7IC-0006Tx-95 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:10:52 -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 SAA27030 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:10:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AX7I9-0007Jx-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:10:49 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AX7I4-0007Jq-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:10:45 -0500 Received: from rwcrmhc13.comcast.net ([204.127.198.39]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AX7I4-0007JN-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:10:44 -0500 Received: from fda.zemos.net ([68.38.12.170]) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc13) with ESMTP id <2003121823100901500k2221e>; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 23:10:09 +0000 Received: from zemos.net (phil [10.0.0.2]) by fda.zemos.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6182018685; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:10:40 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3FE233F6.10103@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: Hector Santos Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals: MTA MARK vs port 25 filtering? References: <20031212214327.GD20229@Space.Net> <20031212220719.E9B7F16CFA@mail.nitros9.org> <20031216232706.GI51606@Space.Net> <20031218222423.GB17431@mail> <000d01c3c5ba$1a8b94d0$6401a8c0@FAMILY> In-Reply-To: <000d01c3c5ba$1a8b94d0$6401a8c0@FAMILY> 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, 18 Dec 2003 18:10:46 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hector Santos wrote: > I would be on the side that after you after you given the right the send, > it would be the professional and ethical duty of the "messenger" to deliver > it. That is where ECPA issues may arise and now CAN-SPAM regardless what > Section 8 says. CAN-SPAM may not change the fact that policy issues may > prevail, the fact is ONCE you do accept a message, you can't just get like > it go into the LA-LA land without a policy reason. > > People better start waking up to the reality that CAN-SPAM will give > SPAMMERS the "right" to send as long as they follow the rules and law. If > you don't think they will use this in their favor in situations where ISPs > and sites are "blocking" them, then be ready for a rude awakening. If the > SPAMMER has a "conceptual contract" with the user and you being to block > this mail when they did everything in the rule books, look out for fan > debris. No, it doesn't. This has been stated before on this list. CAN-SPAM allows any service provider to block messages for any policy reason. It only defines what senders CAN NOT legally do. > The IETF best get on the bandwagon to get the specifications cleared up and > begin to make them consistent with the law ASAP, not 18 months from now. They are perfectly consistent with the law. The law says recipient servers can do whatever they want with local policy, the RFCs say recipient servers can do whatever they want with local policy. CAN-SPAM 'compliance' is purely the burden of senders of commercial email. There is nothing in it which says that recipient servers can, cannot, should, or should not enforce the requirements placed on senders. CAN-SPAM requires a valid return path in all commercial email. It does NOT require that recipient servers accept all commercial email so long as it has a valid return path. Philip Miller _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Dec 18 18:13:35 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA27350 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:13:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AX7KO-0006xY-UZ for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:13:08 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBIND7GV026735 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:13:08 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AX7KN-0006wz-1p for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:13:07 -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 SAA27300 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:13:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AX7KJ-0007PP-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:13:03 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AX7KI-0007PI-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:13:03 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AX7KI-0007PF-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:13:02 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AX7KI-0006id-Ia; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:13:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AX7Ix-0006cW-Tz for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:11:39 -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 SAA27116 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:11:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AX7Iv-0007L2-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:11:37 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AX7It-0007Kv-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:11:36 -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 1AX7It-0007KC-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:11:35 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-375-685.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.181.209]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HQ4004RW5QDUY@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 23:11:06 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich To: ASRG Message-id: <3FE2340B.8070605@solidmatrix.com> Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/mixed; boundary="Boundary_(ID_kymOJZz9jdYGbLY1Lt3Nsg)" 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 Subject: [Asrg] 0. General - For Hector Santos Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:11:07 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,MAILTO_TO_SPAM_ADDR autolearn=no version=2.60 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --Boundary_(ID_kymOJZz9jdYGbLY1Lt3Nsg) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Your system is rejecting my mail, this is not the first time this happened. Yakov -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Delivery Notification: Delivery has failed Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 23:08:43 +0000 (GMT) From: Internet Mail Delivery To: research@solidmatrix.com This report relates to a message you sent with the following header fields: Return-path: Received: from tcp-daemon.dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) id <0HQ4001KW5MFZZ@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> (original mail from research@solidmatrix.com); Thu, 18 Dec 2003 23:08:43 +0000 (GMT) Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-375-685.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.181.209]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HQ400GX85L5NP@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for winserver.support@winserver.com; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 23:07:57 +0000 (GMT) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:07:59 -0500 From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals: MTA MARK vs port 25 filtering? In-reply-to: <000d01c3c5ba$1a8b94d0$6401a8c0@FAMILY> Sender: yshafranovich02@sprintpcs.com To: Hector Santos Cc: asrg@ietf.org Message-id: <3FE2334F.1090404@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: <20031212214327.GD20229@Space.Net> <20031212220719.E9B7F16CFA@mail.nitros9.org> <20031216232706.GI51606@Space.Net> <20031218222423.GB17431@mail> <000d01c3c5ba$1a8b94d0$6401a8c0@FAMILY> Your message cannot be delivered to the following recipients: Recipient address: winserver.support@winserver.com Reason: SMTP transmission failure has occurred Diagnostic code: smtp;554 Message Not Accepted by filter. Remote system: dns;mail.winserver.com (winserver.com Wildcat! ESMTP Server v5.7.450.9b10 ready) ------- Yakov Shafranovich / asrg shaftek.org SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / research solidmatrix.com "Among all our enemies / The ones to be most feared are often the smallest" (Jean de la Fontaine) ------- --Boundary_(ID_kymOJZz9jdYGbLY1Lt3Nsg) Content-type: message/delivery-status; name="file:///C|/DOCUME%7E1/YAKOV/LOCALS%7E1/TEMP/nsmail.tmp" Content-disposition: inline; filename="file:///C|/DOCUME%7E1/YAKOV/LOCALS%7E1/TEMP/nsmail.tmp" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reporting-MTA: dns;dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (tcp-daemon) Original-recipient: rfc822;winserver.support@winserver.com Final-recipient: rfc822;winserver.support@winserver.com Action: failed Status: 5.0.0 (SMTP transmission failure has occurred) Remote-MTA: dns;mail.winserver.com (winserver.com Wildcat! ESMTP Server v5.7.450.9b10 ready) Diagnostic-code: smtp;554 Message Not Accepted by filter. --Boundary_(ID_kymOJZz9jdYGbLY1Lt3Nsg) Content-type: message/rfc822; name="(null).eml" Return-path: Received: from tcp-daemon.dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) id <0HQ4001KW5MFZZ@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> (original mail from research@solidmatrix.com); Thu, 18 Dec 2003 23:08:43 +0000 (GMT) Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-375-685.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.181.209]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HQ400GX85L5NP@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for winserver.support@winserver.com; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 23:07:57 +0000 (GMT) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:07:59 -0500 From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals: MTA MARK vs port 25 filtering? In-reply-to: <000d01c3c5ba$1a8b94d0$6401a8c0@FAMILY> Sender: yshafranovich02@sprintpcs.com To: Hector Santos Cc: asrg@ietf.org Message-id: <3FE2334F.1090404@solidmatrix.com> Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed 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: <20031212214327.GD20229@Space.Net> <20031212220719.E9B7F16CFA@mail.nitros9.org> <20031216232706.GI51606@Space.Net> <20031218222423.GB17431@mail> <000d01c3c5ba$1a8b94d0$6401a8c0@FAMILY> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Hector Santos wrote: > I would be on the side that after you after you given the right the > send, it would be the professional and ethical duty of the > "messenger" to deliver it. That is where ECPA issues may arise and > now CAN-SPAM regardless what Section 8 says. CAN-SPAM may not change > the fact that policy issues may prevail, the fact is ONCE you do > accept a message, you can't just get like it go into the LA-LA land > without a policy reason. > > People better start waking up to the reality that CAN-SPAM will give > SPAMMERS the "right" to send as long as they follow the rules and > law. If you don't think they will use this in their favor in > situations where ISPs and sites are "blocking" them, then be ready > for a rude awakening. If the SPAMMER has a "conceptual contract" > with the user and you being to block this mail when they did > everything in the rule books, look out for fan debris. > This is a legal issue, and we are not lawyers. What exactly this law will do is subject to debate by LAWYERS, not engineers. From the ASRG charter (http://www.irtf.org/charters/asrg.html): "ASRG will not pursue research into legal issues of spam, other than the extent to which these issues affect, support, or constrain the technology." This topic is out of scope for the ASRG. > The IETF best get on the bandwagon to get the specifications cleared > up and begin to make them consistent with the law ASAP, not 18 months > from now. > Since the IAB is the liason for the entire IETF, this is something to be taken up with them or on the main IETF list. From the IAB charter (RFC 2850): "2. The Role of the IAB ... (f) External Liaison The IAB acts as representative of the interests of the IETF and the Internet Society in technical liaison relationships with other organizations concerned with standards and other technical and organizational issues relevant to the world-wide Internet. " ------- Yakov Shafranovich / asrg shaftek.org SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / research solidmatrix.com "Why are both drug addicts and computer aficionados both called users?" (Clifford Stoll) ------- --Boundary_(ID_kymOJZz9jdYGbLY1Lt3Nsg)-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Dec 18 18:13:35 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA27349 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:13:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AX7KO-0006xX-UE for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:13:08 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBIND7w9026730 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:13:08 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AX7KK-0006rn-5T for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:13:04 -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 SAA27292 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:13:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AX7KH-0007PA-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:13:01 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AX7KF-0007P0-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:13:01 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AX7KF-0007Ox-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:12:59 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AX7KH-0006eX-4R; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:13:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AX7H2-0006Sa-6v for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:09:40 -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 SAA26938 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:09:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AX7Gz-0007IA-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:09:37 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AX7Gy-0007I3-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:09:36 -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 1AX7Gy-0007HY-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:09:36 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-375-685.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.181.209]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HQ4008YZ5N1DO@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 23:09:06 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 1. Inventory of Problems - SMTP In-reply-to: <3FDF7197.4030301@solidmatrix.com> To: Alan DeKok Cc: asrg@ietf.org Message-id: <3FE23393.6080003@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: <200312161921.hBGJLIb02260@newgiles.nitros9.org> <3FDF7197.4030301@solidmatrix.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:09:07 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > [Subject changed to be more readable, was "Re: [Asrg] [1] Why SPAM is > worse in SMTP than in other protocols". Mod.] > > Alan DeKok wrote: > >> I've written a *very* rough first draft of a document. It's >> available at: >> >> http://www.striker.ottawa.on.ca/~aland/smtp-sucks/problems.txt >> Some comments: > > 3. The sender can request that the message be forwarded to (almost) > anyone else. > > SMTP isn't a "user to user" protocol. It's a "submitter to MTA" > protocol. In the case of open proxies, the MTA may be abused to > re-send the mail to anyone on the net. Isn't SMTP an MTA-to-MTA protocol, with SUBMIT being the "submitter to MTA" protocol? > 6. no negative feedback > > TCP has congestion control. ICMP "port unreachable", etc. > > When SMTP messages are thrown away, they're often done so by the end > user. The recipient MTA usually doesn't know, and the originating MTA > doesn't know. So in the absence of negative feedback, spammers > increase their sending rates, in the hope that some messages will get > through. This also has to do with the fact that the body of the message and the SMTP transaction are separate from each other. > What to do about it > ------------------- > e.g. Messages from unknown senders should be treated with great > suspicion. Any and all available information should be used to > determine how to process the message. A good example would be giving a higher value to unknown senders in SpamAssasin. 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 Thu Dec 18 18:18:39 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA27938 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:18:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AX7PI-0007DS-F4 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:18:12 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBINICRg027732 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:18:12 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AX7PI-0007DD-97 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:18:12 -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 SAA27914 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:18:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AX7PF-0007dk-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:18:09 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AX7PC-0007dM-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:18:08 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AX7PC-0007dI-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:18:06 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AX7P7-00078r-St; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:18:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AX7P0-00078R-BD for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:17:54 -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 SAA27890 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:17:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AX7Ox-0007cM-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:17:51 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AX7Ow-0007cF-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:17:51 -0500 Received: from sccrmhc13.comcast.net ([204.127.202.64]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AX7Ow-0007bm-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:17:50 -0500 Received: from fda.zemos.net ([68.38.12.170]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc13) with ESMTP id <2003121823172001600rp99se>; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 23:17:20 +0000 Received: from zemos.net (phil [10.0.0.2]) by fda.zemos.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A02318685 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:17:51 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3FE235A5.30509@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 Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - For Hector Santos References: <3FE2340B.8070605@solidmatrix.com> In-Reply-To: <3FE2340B.8070605@solidmatrix.com> Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------010100080503000102040704" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:17:57 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------010100080503000102040704 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > Your system is rejecting my mail, this is not the first time this happened. Mine as well. It's attached. Philip Miller --------------010100080503000102040704 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="Attached Message" Content-Disposition: inline; filename="Attached Message" Return-Path: <> X-Original-To: millenix@fda.zemos.net Delivered-To: millenix@fda.zemos.net Received: from cia.zemos.net (user-10cm1f8.cable.mindspring.com [64.203.5.232]) by fda.zemos.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEE4318685 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:10:57 -0500 (EST) Received: by cia.zemos.net (Postfix) id 2A6BD33B7C; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 15:11:38 -0800 (PST) Delivered-To: millenix@zemos.net Received: from rwcrmhc13.comcast.net (rwcrmhc13.comcast.net [204.127.198.39]) by cia.zemos.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0608333B7A for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 15:11:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from rwcrmhc13.comcast.net (localhost[127.0.0.1]) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc13) with ESMTP id <2003121823102501500p0uh5e>; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 23:10:25 +0000 From: Mail Delivery Subsystem Subject: Returned mail: delivery problems encountered Message-Id: <2003121823102401500jpv00e@A@000000000000@comcast.net> Date: 18 Dec 2003 23:10:24 +0000 To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/report; report-type=delivery-status; boundary="_3fe233e0.4f3f.0+comcast.net=_" --_3fe233e0.4f3f.0+comcast.net=_ Content-Type: text/plain A message (from ) was received at 18 Dec 2003 23:10:09 +0000. The following addresses had delivery problems: Permanent Failure: Other address status Delivery last attempted at Thu, 18 Dec 2003 23:10:23 -0000 --_3fe233e0.4f3f.0+comcast.net=_ Content-Type: message/delivery-status Reporting-MTA: dns; comcast.net Arrival-Date: 18 Dec 2003 23:10:09 +0000 Final-Recipient: rfc822; Action: failed Status: 5.1.0 MAIL FROM: 552 REPLY: 552_Return_Path_not_verifiable! Diagnostic-Code: smtp; Permanent Failure: Other address status Last-Attempt-Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 23:10:23 -0000 --_3fe233e0.4f3f.0+comcast.net=_ Content-Type: message/rfc822 Received: from fda.zemos.net ([68.38.12.170]) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc13) with ESMTP id <2003121823100901500k2221e>; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 23:10:09 +0000 Received: from zemos.net (phil [10.0.0.2]) by fda.zemos.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6182018685; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:10:40 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3FE233F6.10103@zemos.net> Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:10:46 -0500 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: Hector Santos Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals: MTA MARK vs port 25 filtering? References: <20031212214327.GD20229@Space.Net> <20031212220719.E9B7F16CFA@mail.nitros9.org> <20031216232706.GI51606@Space.Net> <20031218222423.GB17431@mail> <000d01c3c5ba$1a8b94d0$6401a8c0@FAMILY> In-Reply-To: <000d01c3c5ba$1a8b94d0$6401a8c0@FAMILY> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hector Santos wrote: > I would be on the side that after you after you given the right the send, > it would be the professional and ethical duty of the "messenger" to deliver > it. That is where ECPA issues may arise and now CAN-SPAM regardless what > Section 8 says. CAN-SPAM may not change the fact that policy issues may > prevail, the fact is ONCE you do accept a message, you can't just get like > it go into the LA-LA land without a policy reason. > > People better start waking up to the reality that CAN-SPAM will give > SPAMMERS the "right" to send as long as they follow the rules and law. If > you don't think they will use this in their favor in situations where ISPs > and sites are "blocking" them, then be ready for a rude awakening. If the > SPAMMER has a "conceptual contract" with the user and you being to block > this mail when they did everything in the rule books, look out for fan > debris. No, it doesn't. This has been stated before on this list. CAN-SPAM allows any service provider to block messages for any policy reason. It only defines what senders CAN NOT legally do. > The IETF best get on the bandwagon to get the specifications cleared up and > begin to make them consistent with the law ASAP, not 18 months from now. They are perfectly consistent with the law. The law says recipient servers can do whatever they want with local policy, the RFCs say recipient servers can do whatever they want with local policy. CAN-SPAM 'compliance' is purely the burden of senders of commercial email. There is nothing in it which says that recipient servers can, cannot, should, or should not enforce the requirements placed on senders. CAN-SPAM requires a valid return path in all commercial email. It does NOT require that recipient servers accept all commercial email so long as it has a valid return path. Philip Miller --_3fe233e0.4f3f.0+comcast.net=_-- --------------010100080503000102040704-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Dec 18 18:42:42 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA29070 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:42:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AX7ma-00007g-MD for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:42:16 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBINgGPd000466 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:42:16 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AX7ma-00007R-I2 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:42:16 -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 SAA29013 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:42:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AX7mX-0000bw-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:42:13 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AX7mT-0000bW-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:42:13 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AX7mT-0000bT-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:42:09 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AX7mL-00004t-2e; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:42:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AX7m0-0008W9-Vi for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:41:41 -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 SAA28959 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:41:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AX7lx-0000Xl-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:41:37 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AX7lv-0000XS-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:41:37 -0500 Received: from ntbbs.winserver.com ([208.247.131.9] helo=winserver.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AX7lv-0000XO-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:41:35 -0500 Received: by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v5.7.450.9b10) for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:42:14 -0500 Received: from ([68.215.35.71]) EHLO=FAMILY by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v5.7.450.9b10) with SMTP id 4025398937; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:42:12 -0500 Message-ID: <004201c3c5c0$7c137af0$6401a8c0@FAMILY> From: "Hector Santos" To: "Philip Miller" , "ASRG" References: <3FE2340B.8070605@solidmatrix.com> <3FE235A5.30509@zemos.net> Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - For Hector Santos 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: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:41:37 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ----- Original Message ----- From: "Philip Miller" To: "ASRG" Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 6:17 PM Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - For Hector Santos > Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > > Your system is rejecting my mail, this is not the first time this happened. > > Mine as well. It's attached. > > Philip Miller > Well lets see: A message (from ) was received at 18 Dec 2003 23:10:09 +0000. The following addresses had delivery problems: Permanent Failure: Other address status Delivery last attempted at Thu, 18 Dec 2003 23:10:23 -0000 Useless information.. Lets look further. Here is your session: ************************************************************************** Wildcat! SMTP Server v5.7.450.9b10 SMTP log started at Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:10:54 Connection Time : 20031218 18:10:51 Client IP Address: 204.127.198.39 (unknown) SSL Enabled: NO 18:10:54 S: 220 winserver.com Wildcat! ESMTP Server v5.7.450.9b10 ready 18:10:54 C: EHLO rwcrmhc13.comcast.net 18:10:54 S: 250-winserver.com, Pleased to meet you. 18:10:54 S: 250-SIZE 5120000 18:10:54 S: 250-ETRN 18:10:54 S: 250-AUTH CRAM-MD5 LOGIN PLAIN PLAIN-MD5 SHA-1 18:10:54 S: 250-AUTH=LOGIN 18:10:54 S: 250 HELP 18:10:54 C: MAIL FROM: SIZE=2960 18:11:04 ** WCX Process: wcsap ret: 552 18:11:04 S: 552 Return Path not verifiable! 18:11:04 C: RSET 18:11:04 S: 250 Reset State 18:11:05 C: QUIT 18:11:05 S: 221 closing connection Your path was not verifier. Now lets look at WCSAP log: 20031218 18:10:54 0001ac00 ------------------------------------- 20031218 18:10:54 0001ac00 version: 1.42 / 1.36 20031218 18:10:54 0001ac00 cmd : MAIL FROM 20031218 18:10:54 0001ac00 method : WCSAP 20031218 18:10:54 0001ac00 uid : 0 20031218 18:10:54 0001ac00 ip : 204.127.198.39 20031218 18:10:54 0001ac00 cdn : rwcrmhc13.comcast.net 20031218 18:10:54 0001ac00 hdn : 20031218 18:10:54 0001ac00 rbl : 0 20031218 18:10:54 0001ac00 relay : 0 20031218 18:10:54 0001ac00 from : 20031218 18:10:54 0001ac00 filter : test 20031218 18:10:54 0001ac00 result : 0 20031218 18:11:04 0001ac00 no ptr record - rejected 20031218 18:11:04 0001ac00 SMTP response code: 552 20031218 18:11:04 0001ac00 wcsap finish 20031218 18:12:05 0001ac01 ------------------------------------- Sorry, NO PTR RECORD FOR ZEMOS.NET You ain't GETTING IN! PERIOD! As for Yakov, lets do a search... What address are you using? You and I have been sending mail back and forth with SolidMatrix.net Here is a SAP log at 18:09: 20031218 18:09:23 0001abff ------------------------------------- 20031218 18:09:23 0001abff version: 1.42 / 1.36 20031218 18:09:23 0001abff cmd : MAIL FROM 20031218 18:09:23 0001abff method : WCSAP 20031218 18:09:23 0001abff uid : 0 20031218 18:09:23 0001abff ip : 63.167.114.16 20031218 18:09:23 0001abff cdn : dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net 20031218 18:09:23 0001abff hdn : 20031218 18:09:23 0001abff rbl : 0 20031218 18:09:23 0001abff relay : 0 20031218 18:09:23 0001abff from : 20031218 18:09:23 0001abff filter : test 20031218 18:09:23 0001abff result : 0 20031218 18:09:23 0001abff total mx records: 1 20031218 18:09:23 0001abff trying mx: solidmatrix.com ip: 64.90.180.93 20031218 18:09:23 0001abff # connecting to 64.90.180.93 20031218 18:09:23 0001abff S: 220 std5.imagineis.com ESMTP Sendmail 8.12.8/8.12.8; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:08:40 -0500 20031218 18:09:23 0001abff C: NOOP WCSAP v1.42 Wildcat! Sender Authentication Protocol http://www.santronics.com 20031218 18:09:23 0001abff S: 250 2.0.0 OK 20031218 18:09:23 0001abff C: HELO mail.winserver.com 20031218 18:09:23 0001abff S: 250 std5.imagineis.com Hello ntbbs.winserver.com [208.247.131.9], pleased to meet you 20031218 18:09:23 0001abff C: MAIL FROM: <> 20031218 18:09:23 0001abff S: 250 2.1.0 <>... Sender ok 20031218 18:09:23 0001abff C: RCPT TO: 20031218 18:09:23 0001abff S: 250 2.1.5 ... Recipient ok 20031218 18:09:23 0001abff C: RCPT TO: 20031218 18:09:24 0001abff S: 550 5.7.1 ... Relaying denied. Proper authentication required. 20031218 18:09:24 0001abff C: QUIT 20031218 18:09:24 0001abff result : 250 20031218 18:09:24 0001abff wcsap finish Perfect, a 250 response code! Lets do a solidmatrix.com lookup for the entire month and see if there are any errors. E:\wcsap\logs>grep -li solidmatrix wcsap200312*.log File wcsap20031201.log: File wcsap20031202.log: File wcsap20031203.log: File wcsap20031204.log: File wcsap20031205.log: File wcsap20031207.log: File wcsap20031208.log: File wcsap20031209.log: File wcsap20031212.log: File wcsap20031213.log: File wcsap20031216.log: I just did a detail look at each of the above date logs. Dec 1, 1 successful message from you Dec 2, 1 successful message from you Dec 3, 2 successful messages from you Dec 4, 3 successful messages from you Dec 5, 3 successful messages from you Dec 7, 1 successful message from you Dec 8, 2 successful messages from you Dec 9, 1 successful messages from you Dec 12, 2 successful messages from you Dec 13, 2 successful messages from you Dec 16, 0 successful messages from you But on the 16th, I see I did a test to JUNKUSER@SOLIDMATRIX.COM using the WEB SERVICE mode of WCSAP! 20031216 06:22 00018d71 ------------------------------------- 20031216 06:22 00018d71 version: 1.36 / 1.36 20031216 06:22 00018d71 uid : 0 20031216 06:22 00018d71 ip : LocalHost 20031216 06:22 00018d71 cdn : 20031216 06:22 00018d71 from : junkuser@solidmatrix.com 20031216 06:22 00018d71 rbl : 0 20031216 06:22 00018d71 relay : 0 20031216 06:22 00018d71 hdn : 20031216 06:22 00018d71 trying mx: solidmatrix.com ip: 64.90.180.93 20031216 06:22 00018d71 # connecting to 64.90.180.93 20031216 06:22 00018d71 S: 220 std5.imagineis.com ESMTP Sendmail 8.12.8/8.12.8; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 06:21:34 -0500 20031216 06:22 00018d71 C: HELO mail.winserver.com 20031216 06:22 00018d71 S: 250 std5.imagineis.com Hello ntbbs.winserver.com [208.247.131.9], pleased to meet you 20031216 06:22 00018d71 C: MAIL FROM: <> 20031216 06:22 00018d71 S: 250 2.1.0 <>... Sender ok 20031216 06:22 00018d71 C: RCPT TO: 20031216 06:22 00018d71 S: 550 5.1.1 ... User unknown 20031216 06:22 00018d71 C: QUIT 20031216 06:22 00018d71 result : 550 20031216 06:22 00018d71 SMTP response code: 552 20031216 06:22 00018d71 wcsap finish Sorry Yakov, I checked every log and not one FAILURE to receive. If you want to show me your END of the log then maybe we can match it. Now back to Phillip........ - Hector _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Dec 18 18:53:35 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA29649 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:53:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AX7x7-0000aG-N5 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:53:09 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBINr9kV002238 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:53:09 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AX7x7-0000a1-Ds for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:53:09 -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 SAA29640 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:53:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AX7x4-0001Hr-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:53:06 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AX7x3-0001Ha-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:53:05 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AX7x2-0001HX-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:53:04 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AX7wy-0000SB-TK; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:53:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AX7wR-0000Rc-5J for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:52:27 -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 SAA29611 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:52:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AX7wO-0001G3-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:52:24 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AX7wN-0001Fw-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:52:23 -0500 Received: from moebius2.space.net ([195.30.1.100]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AX7wM-0001Ft-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:52:22 -0500 Received: (qmail 71921 invoked by uid 1013); 18 Dec 2003 23:52:22 -0000 From: Markus Stumpf To: Hector Santos Cc: Philip Miller , ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - For Hector Santos Message-ID: <20031218235222.GB68195@Space.Net> References: <3FE2340B.8070605@solidmatrix.com> <3FE235A5.30509@zemos.net> <004201c3c5c0$7c137af0$6401a8c0@FAMILY> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <004201c3c5c0$7c137af0$6401a8c0@FAMILY> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Organization: SpaceNet AG, Muenchen, Germany X-PGP-Fingerprint: 66 F3 75 79 01 D0 B8 5F 1A C7 77 88 4A B6 70 DF Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 00:52:22 +0100 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 06:41:37PM -0500, Hector Santos wrote: > Sorry, NO PTR RECORD FOR ZEMOS.NET > You ain't GETTING IN! PERIOD! Just out of curiosity. What would you expect a "PTR record for ZEMOS.NET" to look like? \Maex -- SpaceNet AG | Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 | Fon: +49 (89) 32356-0 Research & Development | D-80807 Muenchen | Fax: +49 (89) 32356-299 "The security, stability and reliability of a computer system is reciprocally proportional to the amount of vacuity between the ears of the admin" _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Dec 18 18:53:48 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA29667 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:53:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AX7xK-0000hp-Ov for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:53:22 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBINrMXe002707 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:53:22 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AX7xK-0000ha-Cn for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:53:22 -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 SAA29644 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:53:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AX7x5-0001Hw-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:53:07 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AX7x3-0001Hi-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:53:06 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AX7x3-0001He-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:53:05 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AX7wz-0000SJ-DV; Thu, 18 Dec 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 1AX7wX-0000Ri-Mj for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:52:33 -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 SAA29620 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:52:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AX7wU-0001GR-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:52:30 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AX7wT-0001GK-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:52:30 -0500 Received: from ntbbs.winserver.com ([208.247.131.9] helo=winserver.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AX7wT-0001GH-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:52:29 -0500 Received: by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v5.7.450.9b10) for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:53:10 -0500 Received: from ([68.215.35.71]) EHLO=FAMILY by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v5.7.450.9b10) with SMTP id 4026055093; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:53:09 -0500 Message-ID: <004301c3c5c2$0335ca50$6401a8c0@FAMILY> From: "Hector Santos" To: "Philip Miller" Cc: References: <20031212214327.GD20229@Space.Net> <20031212220719.E9B7F16CFA@mail.nitros9.org> <20031216232706.GI51606@Space.Net> <20031218222423.GB17431@mail> <000d01c3c5ba$1a8b94d0$6401a8c0@FAMILY> <3FE233F6.10103@zemos.net> Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals: MTA MARK vs port 25 filtering? 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: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:52:34 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,GUARANTEE autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ----- Original Message ----- > > No, it doesn't. This has been stated before on this list. CAN-SPAM allows > any service provider to block messages for any policy reason. It only > defines what senders CAN NOT legally do. No, read it again, the ACT does not attempt to CHANGE any current policy or status quo. > > The IETF best get on the bandwagon to get the specifications cleared up and > > begin to make them consistent with the law ASAP, not 18 months from now. > > They are perfectly consistent with the law. The law says recipient servers > can do whatever they want with local policy, the RFCs say recipient servers > can do whatever they want with local policy. Read the ECPA, CAN-SPAM and speak to a lawyer, like I have. There are inconsistencies and new issues now. > CAN-SPAM 'compliance' is purely the burden of senders of commercial email. No quite. Without POLICY, you can not just BLOCK mail when there is consent with a user. That is how it is today with the ECPA! > There is nothing in it which says that recipient servers can, cannot, > should, or should not enforce the requirements placed on senders. If you going to BLOCK, then you better have a good reason. > CAN-SPAM requires a valid return path in all commercial email. It does NOT > require that recipient servers accept all commercial email so long as it has > a valid return path. Not quite. It has been a LONG STANDING practice held by ECPA precedence that ONCE you accept a message, it must be delivered. You can't just accept it and do whatever you want with it. If you are, you shouldn't be servicing anyone and TRUST me, you OPEN yourself to a lawsuit. You can have ALL the policies in the world, that doesn't say ANYTHING that stops me sending lawyers after you. There are noted inconsistencies in the CAN-SPAM act. The ACT will GIVE spammers a legal argument if they are in compliance and you are are NOT in compliance, you open yourself to Mal-practice, Tortious inference and ECPA related issues. Look, I've been designing mail servers and hosting systems for over 25 years! Do you think I speak out my rear end If you have the experience, then you would know better. And again, I have spoken with my lawyer, who is one of the best IP lawyers in the country. The CAN-SPAM Act opens up a whole new frontier. It needs to be fine tune, like any law does. After all, thats the hallmark our our american society - a constant fine tuning. Of course, I am speaking as a professional with products serving the professional and corporate environment. Many ISPs small and large. The design of our product must comply with the standards, ethical engineering and the applicable laws governing electronic communications. There is NOTHING new about that. The ECPA made sure of that. Now sure, SYSOPS can have a POLICY. But that POLICY must also include the fact that there is NO GUARANTEE delivery. If you don't and you accept the mail, you can be LIABLE - not because of CAN-SPAM, but because ECPA. In the past, SPAMMERS didn't care. They were getting away with Murder. Now with CAN-SPAM, I highly recommend you have your policy and your system in order. -- Hector _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Dec 18 19:03:32 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA27351 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:13:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AX7KO-0006xZ-Uv for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:13:08 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBIND7xD026729 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:13:08 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AX7KK-0006rG-5I for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:13:04 -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 SAA27290 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:13:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AX7KH-0007P7-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:13:01 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AX7KF-0007Os-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:13:00 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AX7KF-0007Op-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:12:59 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AX7KG-0006dy-CK; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:13:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AX7Ga-0006SK-Q0 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:09:12 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA26890 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:09:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AX7GX-0007Hi-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:09:10 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AX7GX-0007Hb-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:09:09 -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 1AX7GW-0007G5-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:09:09 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-375-685.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.181.209]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HQ400GX85L5NP@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 23:07:57 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals: MTA MARK vs port 25 filtering? In-reply-to: <000d01c3c5ba$1a8b94d0$6401a8c0@FAMILY> To: Hector Santos Cc: asrg@ietf.org Message-id: <3FE2334F.1090404@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: <20031212214327.GD20229@Space.Net> <20031212220719.E9B7F16CFA@mail.nitros9.org> <20031216232706.GI51606@Space.Net> <20031218222423.GB17431@mail> <000d01c3c5ba$1a8b94d0$6401a8c0@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: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:07:59 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Hector Santos wrote: > I would be on the side that after you after you given the right the > send, it would be the professional and ethical duty of the > "messenger" to deliver it. That is where ECPA issues may arise and > now CAN-SPAM regardless what Section 8 says. CAN-SPAM may not change > the fact that policy issues may prevail, the fact is ONCE you do > accept a message, you can't just get like it go into the LA-LA land > without a policy reason. > > People better start waking up to the reality that CAN-SPAM will give > SPAMMERS the "right" to send as long as they follow the rules and > law. If you don't think they will use this in their favor in > situations where ISPs and sites are "blocking" them, then be ready > for a rude awakening. If the SPAMMER has a "conceptual contract" > with the user and you being to block this mail when they did > everything in the rule books, look out for fan debris. > This is a legal issue, and we are not lawyers. What exactly this law will do is subject to debate by LAWYERS, not engineers. From the ASRG charter (http://www.irtf.org/charters/asrg.html): "ASRG will not pursue research into legal issues of spam, other than the extent to which these issues affect, support, or constrain the technology." This topic is out of scope for the ASRG. > The IETF best get on the bandwagon to get the specifications cleared > up and begin to make them consistent with the law ASAP, not 18 months > from now. > Since the IAB is the liason for the entire IETF, this is something to be taken up with them or on the main IETF list. From the IAB charter (RFC 2850): "2. The Role of the IAB ... (f) External Liaison The IAB acts as representative of the interests of the IETF and the Internet Society in technical liaison relationships with other organizations concerned with standards and other technical and organizational issues relevant to the world-wide Internet. " ------- 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 Thu Dec 18 19:13:43 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA00527 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 19:13:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AX8GY-0002Ng-2c for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 19:13:15 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBJ0DEfl009146 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 19:13:14 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AX8GX-0002NR-UZ for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 19:13:13 -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 TAA00520 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 19:13:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AX8GW-00025F-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 19:13:12 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AX8GV-000258-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 19:13:12 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AX8GV-000255-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 19:13:11 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AX8GJ-0002Jd-SD; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 19:12:59 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AX87x-0001W4-7B for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 19:04:21 -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 TAA00146 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 19:04:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AX87s-0001jZ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 19:04:16 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AX87q-0001jA-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 19:04:16 -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 1AX87q-0001hH-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 19:04:14 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-375-685.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.181.209]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HQ400IFT85WN6@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 00:03:44 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals: MTA MARK vs port 25 filtering? In-reply-to: <004301c3c5c2$0335ca50$6401a8c0@FAMILY> To: ASRG Cc: John R Levine Message-id: <3FE24057.90705@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: <20031212214327.GD20229@Space.Net> <20031212220719.E9B7F16CFA@mail.nitros9.org> <20031216232706.GI51606@Space.Net> <20031218222423.GB17431@mail> <000d01c3c5ba$1a8b94d0$6401a8c0@FAMILY> <3FE233F6.10103@zemos.net> <004301c3c5c2$0335ca50$6401a8c0@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: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 19:03:35 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,GUARANTEE autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Once again, this issue is out of scope for the ASRG, and the proper forum for this would be the main IETF list, directly speaking to the IAB or some lawyers. If you want to continue this discussion, do it off-list. Sincerely, Yakov Shafranovich Co-Chair, ASRG Hector Santos wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > > >>No, it doesn't. This has been stated before on this list. CAN-SPAM allows >>any service provider to block messages for any policy reason. It only >>defines what senders CAN NOT legally do. > > > No, read it again, the ACT does not attempt to CHANGE any current policy or > status quo. > > >>>The IETF best get on the bandwagon to get the specifications cleared up > > and > >>>begin to make them consistent with the law ASAP, not 18 months from now. >> >>They are perfectly consistent with the law. The law says recipient servers >>can do whatever they want with local policy, the RFCs say recipient > > servers > >>can do whatever they want with local policy. > > > Read the ECPA, CAN-SPAM and speak to a lawyer, like I have. There are > inconsistencies and new issues now. > > >>CAN-SPAM 'compliance' is purely the burden of senders of commercial email. > > > No quite. Without POLICY, you can not just BLOCK mail when there is consent > with a user. That is how it is today with the ECPA! > > >>There is nothing in it which says that recipient servers can, cannot, >>should, or should not enforce the requirements placed on senders. > > > If you going to BLOCK, then you better have a good reason. > > >>CAN-SPAM requires a valid return path in all commercial email. It does NOT >>require that recipient servers accept all commercial email so long as it > > has > >>a valid return path. > > > > Not quite. > > It has been a LONG STANDING practice held by ECPA precedence that ONCE you > accept a message, it must be delivered. You can't just accept it and do > whatever you want with it. If you are, you shouldn't be servicing anyone > and TRUST me, you OPEN yourself to a lawsuit. You can have ALL the > policies in the world, that doesn't say ANYTHING that stops me sending > lawyers after you. > > There are noted inconsistencies in the CAN-SPAM act. The ACT will GIVE > spammers a legal argument if they are in compliance and you are are NOT in > compliance, you open yourself to Mal-practice, Tortious inference and ECPA > related issues. > > Look, I've been designing mail servers and hosting systems for over 25 > years! Do you think I speak out my rear end If you have the experience, > then you would know better. And again, I have spoken with my lawyer, who is > one of the best IP lawyers in the country. The CAN-SPAM Act opens up a > whole new frontier. It needs to be fine tune, like any law does. After > all, thats the hallmark our our american society - a constant fine tuning. > > Of course, I am speaking as a professional with products serving the > professional and corporate environment. Many ISPs small and large. The > design of our product must comply with the standards, ethical engineering > and the applicable laws governing electronic communications. There is > NOTHING new about that. The ECPA made sure of that. > > Now sure, SYSOPS can have a POLICY. But that POLICY must also include the > fact that there is NO GUARANTEE delivery. If you don't and you accept the > mail, you can be LIABLE - not because of CAN-SPAM, but because ECPA. > > In the past, SPAMMERS didn't care. They were getting away with Murder. Now > with CAN-SPAM, I highly recommend you have your policy and your system in > order. > > -- Hector > > > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > ------- 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 Thu Dec 18 19:44:45 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA02614 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 19:44:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AX8ka-0003cI-KJ for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 19:44:17 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBJ0iGdo013896 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 19:44:16 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AX8ka-0003c3-E2 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 19:44:16 -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 TAA02526 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 19:44:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AX8kY-00049Z-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 19:44:14 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AX8i7-0003hk-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 19:44:12 -0500 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=manatick) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AX8i5-0003hQ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 19:41:41 -0500 Received: from optimus22.ietf.org ([132.151.6.22] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by manatick with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1AX8hw-0007fQ-Ng for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 19:41:36 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AX8hQ-0003Mj-3U; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 19:41:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AX8gd-0003Jx-T8 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 19:40:11 -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 TAA01900 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 19:40:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AX8gc-0003Rx-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 19:40:10 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AX8gA-0003Nk-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 19:40:08 -0500 Received: from ntbbs.winserver.com ([208.247.131.9] helo=winserver.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AX8g9-0003NU-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 19:39:41 -0500 Received: by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v5.7.450.9b10) for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 19:40:05 -0500 Received: from ([68.215.35.71]) EHLO=FAMILY by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v5.7.450.9b10) with SMTP id 4028870125; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 19:40:04 -0500 Message-ID: <005301c3c5c8$91422c70$6401a8c0@FAMILY> From: "Hector Santos" To: "Markus Stumpf" Cc: "Anti-Spam" References: <3FE2340B.8070605@solidmatrix.com> <3FE235A5.30509@zemos.net> <004201c3c5c0$7c137af0$6401a8c0@FAMILY> <20031218235222.GB68195@Space.Net> Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - For Hector Santos 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: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 19:39:29 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit A domain name pointer record? Lets use NT's NSLOOKUP: WC5 L:\wc5>nslookup -querytype=ptr zemos.net Server: ns.santronics.com Address: 208.247.131.10 *** No domain name pointer (PTR) records available for zemos.net WC5 L:\wc5>nslookup -querytype=cname zemos.net Server: ns.santronics.com Address: 208.247.131.10 *** No canonical name (CNAME) records available for zemos.net WC5 L:\wc5>nslookup -querytype=mx zemos.net Server: ns.santronics.com Address: 208.247.131.10 Non-authoritative answer: zemos.net MX preference = 40, mail exchanger = coda.club.cc.cmu.edu zemos.net MX preference = 0, mail exchanger = cia.zemos.net zemos.net MX preference = 20, mail exchanger = fda.zemos.net zemos.net MX preference = 30, mail exchanger = mike.zemos.net coda.club.cc.cmu.edu internet address = 128.2.4.166 cia.zemos.net internet address = 64.203.5.232 fda.zemos.net internet address = 68.38.12.170 mike.zemos.net internet address = 12.226.225.174 Let me test it with our DNS MX resolver in our code:: D:\local\wc5\wcsmtp\wcdns>testwcdns zemos.net -- [zemos.net] -- 0 | 64.203.5.232 | zemos.net | cia.zemos.net 20 | 68.38.12.170 | zemos.net | fda.zemos.net 30 | 12.226.225.174 | zemos.net | mike.zemos.net 40 | 128.2.4.166 | zemos.net | coda.club.cc.cmu.edu Its working now!!! Lets do: a manual WCSAP run d:\wc5beta>wcrun -r wcsap "&debug=1&from=&ip=204.127.198.39" 20031218 19:25:28 000000c0 ------------------------------------- 20031218 19:25:28 000000c0 version: 1.42 / 1.42 20031218 19:25:28 000000c0 method : WCSAP 20031218 19:25:28 000000c0 ip : 204.127.198.39 20031218 19:25:28 000000c0 from : 20031218 19:25:28 000000c0 filter : test 20031218 19:25:28 000000c0 result : 0 20031218 19:25:28 000000c0 total mx records: 4 20031218 19:25:28 000000c0 trying mx: cia.zemos.net ip: 64.203.5.232 20031218 19:25:28 000000c0 # connecting to 64.203.5.232 20031218 19:25:29 000000c0 S: 220 cia.zemos.net SMTP DAEMON 20031218 19:25:29 000000c0 C: NOOP WCSAP v1.42 Wildcat! Sender Authentication Protocol http://www.santronics.com 20031218 19:25:29 000000c0 S: 250 Ok 20031218 19:25:29 000000c0 C: HELO localhost 20031218 19:25:29 000000c0 S: 250 cia.zemos.net 20031218 19:25:29 000000c0 C: MAIL FROM: <> 20031218 19:25:29 000000c0 S: 250 Ok 20031218 19:25:29 000000c0 C: RCPT TO: 20031218 19:25:29 000000c0 S: 250 Ok 20031218 19:25:29 000000c0 C: RCPT TO: 20031218 19:25:34 000000c0 S: 554 : Recipient address rejected: Relay access denied 20031218 19:25:34 000000c0 C: QUIT 20031218 19:25:34 000000c0 result : 250 20031218 19:25:34 000000c0 wcsap finish (6339 msecs) Workng great. Can't explain other than it looks like someone updated their system! Maybe my network DNS at HQ has a problem. lets run it from the production site: L:\wc5>wcrun -r wcsap "&debug=1&from=&ip=204.127.198.39" 20031218 19:29:06 0001acc1 ------------------------------------- 20031218 19:29:06 0001acc1 version: 1.42 / 1.42 20031218 19:29:06 0001acc1 cmd : MAIL FROM 20031218 19:29:06 0001acc1 method : WCSAP 20031218 19:29:06 0001acc1 uid : 0 20031218 19:29:06 0001acc1 ip : 204.127.198.39 20031218 19:29:06 0001acc1 cdn : 20031218 19:29:06 0001acc1 hdn : 20031218 19:29:06 0001acc1 rbl : 0 20031218 19:29:06 0001acc1 relay : 0 20031218 19:29:06 0001acc1 from : 20031218 19:29:06 0001acc1 filter : test 20031218 19:29:06 0001acc1 result : 0 20031218 19:29:06 0001acc1 total mx records: 4 20031218 19:29:06 0001acc1 trying mx: cia.zemos.net ip: 64.203.5.232 20031218 19:29:06 0001acc1 # connecting to 64.203.5.232 20031218 19:29:07 0001acc1 S: 220 cia.zemos.net SMTP DAEMON 20031218 19:29:07 0001acc1 C: NOOP WCSAP v1.42 Wildcat! Sender Authentication Protocol http://www.santronics.com 20031218 19:29:07 0001acc1 S: 250 Ok 20031218 19:29:07 0001acc1 C: HELO mail.winserver.com 20031218 19:29:07 0001acc1 S: 250 cia.zemos.net 20031218 19:29:07 0001acc1 C: MAIL FROM: <> 20031218 19:29:07 0001acc1 S: 250 Ok 20031218 19:29:11 0001acc1 C: RCPT TO: 20031218 19:29:11 0001acc1 S: 250 Ok 20031218 19:29:11 0001acc1 C: RCPT TO: 20031218 19:29:16 0001acc1 S: 554 : Recipient address rejected: Relay access denied 20031218 19:29:16 0001acc1 C: QUIT 20031218 19:29:16 0001acc1 result : 250 20031218 19:29:16 0001acc1 wcsap finish No problem. Oh well! -- Hector ----- Original Message ----- From: "Markus Stumpf" To: "Hector Santos" Cc: "Philip Miller" ; "ASRG" Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 6:52 PM Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - For Hector Santos > On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 06:41:37PM -0500, Hector Santos wrote: > > Sorry, NO PTR RECORD FOR ZEMOS.NET > > You ain't GETTING IN! PERIOD! > > Just out of curiosity. > What would you expect a "PTR record for ZEMOS.NET" to look like? > > \Maex > > -- > SpaceNet AG | Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 | Fon: +49 (89) 32356-0 > Research & Development | D-80807 Muenchen | Fax: +49 (89) 32356-299 > "The security, stability and reliability of a computer system is reciprocally > proportional to the amount of vacuity between the ears of the admin" > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Dec 18 19:49:42 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA03352 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 19:49:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AX8pN-0003s8-4I for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 19:49:13 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBJ0nDRJ014878 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 19:49:13 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AX8pN-0003rt-0l for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 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 TAA03264 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 19:49:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AX8pK-0004v0-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 19:49:10 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AX8oh-0004n1-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 19:49:09 -0500 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=manatick) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AX8of-0004mY-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 19:48:30 -0500 Received: from optimus22.ietf.org ([132.151.6.22] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by manatick with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1AX8ob-0007oa-Lk for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 19:48:28 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AX8oD-0003io-2U; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 19:48:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AX8nw-0003iN-19 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 19:47:44 -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 TAA03062 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 19:47:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AX8nu-0004fB-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 19:47:42 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AX8nc-0004d5-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 19:47:40 -0500 Received: from moebius2.space.net ([195.30.1.100]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AX8na-0004cl-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 19:47:22 -0500 Received: (qmail 74396 invoked by uid 1013); 19 Dec 2003 00:47:20 -0000 From: Markus Stumpf To: Anti-Spam Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - For Hector Santos Message-ID: <20031219004720.GA73579@Space.Net> References: <3FE2340B.8070605@solidmatrix.com> <3FE235A5.30509@zemos.net> <004201c3c5c0$7c137af0$6401a8c0@FAMILY> <20031218235222.GB68195@Space.Net> <005301c3c5c8$91422c70$6401a8c0@FAMILY> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <005301c3c5c8$91422c70$6401a8c0@FAMILY> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Organization: SpaceNet AG, Muenchen, Germany X-PGP-Fingerprint: 66 F3 75 79 01 D0 B8 5F 1A C7 77 88 4A B6 70 DF Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 01:47:20 +0100 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 07:39:29PM -0500, Hector Santos wrote: > A domain name pointer record? And what would that be? > Lets use NT's NSLOOKUP: > WC5 L:\wc5>nslookup -querytype=ptr zemos.net > Server: ns.santronics.com > Address: 208.247.131.10 > > *** No domain name pointer (PTR) records available for zemos.net What you are doing here is nonsense. PTR records do the mapping from IP addresses to hostnames. I.e. you get a connection from 195.30.0.8 then you lookup the PTR record for 8.0.30.195.in-addr.arpa and you get mail.space.net. A PTR record can be thought of as the reverse of an A(ddress) record. moebius2.space.net(1:4725) $ nslookup -querytype=ptr winserver.com Server: ns2.Space.Net Address: 195.30.0.2 *** No domain name pointer (PTR) records available for winserver.com So you expect others to have records that you don't have yourself? \Maex -- SpaceNet AG | Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 | Fon: +49 (89) 32356-0 Research & Development | D-80807 Muenchen | Fax: +49 (89) 32356-299 "The security, stability and reliability of a computer system is reciprocally proportional to the amount of vacuity between the ears of the admin" _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Dec 18 19:52:35 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA03810 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 19:52:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AX8sA-00043W-Sf for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 19:52:06 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBJ0q6c3015584 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 19:52:06 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AX8sA-00043H-OL for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 19:52:06 -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 TAA03773 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 19:52:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AX8s8-0005JT-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 19:52:05 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AX8s7-0005JE-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 19:52:04 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AX8s7-0005JB-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 19:52:03 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AX8s5-0003yg-2D; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 19:52:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AX8rX-0003xN-8i for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 19:51:27 -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 TAA03688 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 19:51:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AX8rV-0005DV-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 19:51:25 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AX8rB-0005Ab-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 19:51:24 -0500 Received: from ntbbs.winserver.com ([208.247.131.9] helo=winserver.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AX8rA-0005AJ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 19:51:05 -0500 Received: by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v5.7.450.9b10) for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 19:51:36 -0500 Received: from ([68.215.35.71]) EHLO=FAMILY by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v5.7.450.9b10) with SMTP id 4029561921; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 19:51:35 -0500 Message-ID: <006501c3c5ca$2da2de60$6401a8c0@FAMILY> From: "Hector Santos" To: "Anti-Spam" Cc: "Yakov Shafranovich" 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 Subject: [Asrg] Re: Undeliverable mail Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 19:50:58 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Yo Markus, what's up this? I sent my reply to the list and direct to you. The bounce can back immediately from you: The message can not be sent to recipient: maex-lists-spam-ietf-asrg@Space.Net Reason: A transaction failure was reported by remote server: "553 Blocked (ip=208.247.131.9; date=20031211) Your mailserver is sending spam/UCE, probably an open relay. See http://www.space.net/abuse/rbl/" What does http://www.space.net/abuse/rbl/ have anything to do my address? I see this is foriegn site. The information is completely wrong. I hope you correct this ASAP. I don't take this very lightly. -- Hector _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Dec 18 20:15:45 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA04492 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 20:15:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AX9Ea-0004zZ-S7 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 20:15:16 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBJ1FGc9019183 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 20:15:16 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AX9Ea-0004zK-NG for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 20:15:16 -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 UAA04488 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 20:15:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AX9EY-00064V-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 20:15:14 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AX9EX-00064M-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 20:15:14 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AX9EX-00064J-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 20:15:13 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AX9EM-0004vy-Pf; Thu, 18 Dec 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 1AX9Da-0004uo-72 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 20:14:14 -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 UAA04336 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 20:14:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AX9DY-0005x5-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 20:14:12 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AX9DW-0005wq-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 20:14:11 -0500 Received: from rwcrmhc11.comcast.net ([204.127.198.35]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AX9DW-0005wE-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 20:14:10 -0500 Received: from fda.zemos.net ([68.38.12.170]) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc11) with ESMTP id <200312190113400130071lpfe>; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 01:13:40 +0000 Received: from zemos.net (phil [10.0.0.2]) by fda.zemos.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01C0618685; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 20:14:10 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3FE250E8.8060304@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: Hector Santos Cc: ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - For Hector Santos References: <3FE2340B.8070605@solidmatrix.com> <3FE235A5.30509@zemos.net> <004201c3c5c0$7c137af0$6401a8c0@FAMILY> In-Reply-To: <004201c3c5c0$7c137af0$6401a8c0@FAMILY> 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, 18 Dec 2003 20:14:16 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hector Santos wrote: > Well lets see: > > A message (from ) was received at 18 Dec 2003 23:10:09 > +0000. > > The following addresses had delivery problems: > > > Permanent Failure: Other address status > Delivery last attempted at Thu, 18 Dec 2003 23:10:23 -0000 > > Useless information.. Lets look further. Here is your session: > > ************************************************************************** > Wildcat! SMTP Server v5.7.450.9b10 > SMTP log started at Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:10:54 > Connection Time : 20031218 18:10:51 > Client IP Address: 204.127.198.39 (unknown) > SSL Enabled: NO > 18:10:54 S: 220 winserver.com Wildcat! ESMTP Server v5.7.450.9b10 ready > 18:10:54 C: EHLO rwcrmhc13.comcast.net > 18:10:54 S: 250-winserver.com, Pleased to meet you. > 18:10:54 S: 250-SIZE 5120000 > 18:10:54 S: 250-ETRN > 18:10:54 S: 250-AUTH CRAM-MD5 LOGIN PLAIN PLAIN-MD5 SHA-1 > 18:10:54 S: 250-AUTH=LOGIN > 18:10:54 S: 250 HELP > 18:10:54 C: MAIL FROM: SIZE=2960 > 18:11:04 ** WCX Process: wcsap ret: 552 > 18:11:04 S: 552 Return Path not verifiable! > 18:11:04 C: RSET > 18:11:04 S: 250 Reset State > 18:11:05 C: QUIT > 18:11:05 S: 221 closing connection > > > Your path was not verifier. Now lets look at WCSAP log: > > 20031218 18:10:54 0001ac00 ------------------------------------- > 20031218 18:10:54 0001ac00 version: 1.42 / 1.36 > 20031218 18:10:54 0001ac00 cmd : MAIL FROM > 20031218 18:10:54 0001ac00 method : WCSAP > 20031218 18:10:54 0001ac00 uid : 0 > 20031218 18:10:54 0001ac00 ip : 204.127.198.39 > 20031218 18:10:54 0001ac00 cdn : rwcrmhc13.comcast.net > 20031218 18:10:54 0001ac00 hdn : > 20031218 18:10:54 0001ac00 rbl : 0 > 20031218 18:10:54 0001ac00 relay : 0 > 20031218 18:10:54 0001ac00 from : > 20031218 18:10:54 0001ac00 filter : test > 20031218 18:10:54 0001ac00 result : 0 > 20031218 18:11:04 0001ac00 no ptr record - rejected > 20031218 18:11:04 0001ac00 SMTP response code: 552 > 20031218 18:11:04 0001ac00 wcsap finish > 20031218 18:12:05 0001ac01 ------------------------------------- > > Sorry, NO PTR RECORD FOR ZEMOS.NET > > You ain't GETTING IN! PERIOD! Looking at this log, something is unclear to me. Are you connecting to the comcast.net server that's connected to you, or are you connecting to a query-returned MX for zemos.net? Your manual tests in your later response to Markus indicate that you're checking against zemos.net, but that's not explicit here. In fact, I see no mention of zemos.net in the WSCAP log other than in my address. What exact DNS queries are you making, what connections are you opening, and what commands are you sending? I'm not about to tell all of the other zemos.net MX operators to log SMTP transactions to debug your broken software. If you're connecting to the comcast.net server in an attempt to verify the return path, that's WRONG! If it accepted mail for zemos.net, it would be an open relay. Philip Miller P.S.: There is 1 'L' in my given name. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Dec 18 20:19:37 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA04582 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 20:19:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AX9II-0005Al-4f for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 20:19:08 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBJ1J6mo019877 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 20:19:06 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AX9IH-0005AW-Vf for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 20:19:06 -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 UAA04555 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 20:19:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AX9IF-00067o-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 20:19:03 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AX9IE-00067e-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 20:19:03 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AX9IE-00067b-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 20:19:02 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AX9ID-00058E-4A; Thu, 18 Dec 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 1AX9CF-0004u3-KL for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 20:12:51 -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 UAA04320 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 20:12:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AX9CD-0005vo-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 20:12:49 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AX9CC-0005vh-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 20:12:49 -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 1AX9CC-0005ui-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 20:12:48 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-375-685.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.181.209]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HQ400HZRBCAXB@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 01:12:18 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals: MTA MARK vs port 25 filtering? In-reply-to: <20031218225320.GA68195@Space.Net> To: Markus Stumpf Cc: David Maxwell , asrg@ietf.org Message-id: <3FE2506E.5090302@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: <20031212214327.GD20229@Space.Net> <20031212220719.E9B7F16CFA@mail.nitros9.org> <20031216232706.GI51606@Space.Net> <20031218222423.GB17431@mail> <20031218225320.GA68195@Space.Net> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 20:12:14 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Markus Stumpf wrote: > On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 05:24:23PM -0500, David Maxwell wrote: > >>Markus Stumpf wrote: >> >>>But with the presumption of innocence each one should be allowed to send >>>a mail to another person on the internet without some authority blocking >>>it by default "just because". >> >>Is the ability to send SMTP email a right, or a privilege? > > > Is the ability to drop a letter in a postbox a right, or a privilege? > And what is the difference to a drivers license? > What you are refering is commonly known as the "end to end" principle. A quote from an IAB draft is relevant here (http://www.iab.org/documents/drafts/draft-iab-e2e-futures-04.txt): > While the end to end principle does not require that users implicitly trust > each other, the lack of trust in the Internet today requires that application > and system designers make a choice about how to handle authentication, whereas > that choice was rarely apparent 15 years ago. One of the most common examples > of network elements interposing between end hosts are those dedicated to > security: firewalls, VPN tunnel endpoints, certificate servers, etc. These > intermediaries are designed to protect the network from unimpeded attack or to > allow two end nodes whose users may have no inherent reason to trust each other > to achieve some level of authentication. At the same time, these measures act > as impediments for end to end communications. and the IAB's view on the matter: > Third party trust intermediaries > are not a requirement for security, as end to end security mechanisms, such at > PGP [15], can be used instead, and where third party measures such as PKI > infrastructure or keys in DNS are utilized to exchange keying material, they > don't necessarily impinge on end to end traffic after authentication has been > achieved. Even if third parties are involved, ultimately it is up to the > endpoints and their users in particular, to determine which third parties they > trust. 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 Thu Dec 18 20:31:40 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA04999 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 20:31:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AX9Tz-0005oV-Rt for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 20:31:11 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBJ1VBPG022341 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 20:31:11 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AX9Tz-0005oG-LS for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 20:31:11 -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 UAA04943 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 20:31:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AX9Tx-0006OB-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 20:31:09 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AX9Tw-0006O3-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 20:31:09 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AX9Tw-0006O0-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 20:31:08 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AX9Tr-0005jC-Fs; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 20:31:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AX9TK-0005hy-7i for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 20:30:30 -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 UAA04886 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 20:30:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AX9TD-0006M7-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 20:30:23 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AX9Sn-0006Ly-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 20:29:57 -0500 Received: from sccrmhc13.comcast.net ([204.127.202.64]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AX9Sn-0006LN-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 20:29:57 -0500 Received: from fda.zemos.net ([68.38.12.170]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc13) with ESMTP id <2003121901285401600ritc8e>; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 01:28:54 +0000 Received: from zemos.net (phil [10.0.0.2]) by fda.zemos.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A4B218685; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 20:29:27 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3FE2547C.5090301@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: Hector Santos Cc: Anti-Spam Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - For Markus References: <3FE2340B.8070605@solidmatrix.com> <3FE235A5.30509@zemos.net> <004201c3c5c0$7c137af0$6401a8c0@FAMILY> <20031218235222.GB68195@Space.Net> <005301c3c5c8$91422c70$6401a8c0@FAMILY> <20031219004720.GA73579@Space.Net> <000b01c3c5ce$15b0d0b0$6401a8c0@FAMILY> In-Reply-To: <000b01c3c5ce$15b0d0b0$6401a8c0@FAMILY> 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, 18 Dec 2003 20:29:32 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hector, Could you publish the exact algorithm your software is currently using to do return-path verification? Hopefully, this isn't some sort of trade secret. Publishing this would make it much clearer to us what exactly it's testing, as I don't recall you're ever said that explicitly. Thanks, Philip Miller _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Dec 18 20:34:34 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA05163 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 20:34:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AX9Wo-00064x-2p for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 20:34:06 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBJ1Y6ED023361 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 20:34:06 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AX9Wn-00064e-Qx for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 20:34:05 -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 UAA05130 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 20:34:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AX9Wl-0006TA-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 20:34:03 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AX9Wi-0006SX-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 20:34:03 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AX9Wi-0006SU-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 20:34:00 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AX9Wj-0005wi-0g; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 20:34:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AX9TT-0005i3-PC for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 20:30:39 -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 UAA04889 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 20:30:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AX9TR-0006Mj-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 20:30:37 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AX9TG-0006MQ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 20:30:27 -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 1AX9TG-0006LS-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 20:30:26 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-375-685.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.181.209]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HQ400GEIBYDFS@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 01:25:29 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - For Markus In-reply-to: <000b01c3c5ce$15b0d0b0$6401a8c0@FAMILY> To: ASRG Message-id: <3FE25388.3090704@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: <3FE2340B.8070605@solidmatrix.com> <3FE235A5.30509@zemos.net> <004201c3c5c0$7c137af0$6401a8c0@FAMILY> <20031218235222.GB68195@Space.Net> <005301c3c5c8$91422c70$6401a8c0@FAMILY> <20031219004720.GA73579@Space.Net> <000b01c3c5ce$15b0d0b0$6401a8c0@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: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 20:25:28 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Hector Santos wrote: > First thing first, what is nonsense is to first CORRECT your god damn > BLACKLIST and remove our ADDRESS from that RBL list! > Keep it civilized folks. Yakov ------- Yakov Shafranovich / asrg shaftek.org SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / research solidmatrix.com "But in this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes" (Benjamin Franklin) ------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Dec 18 20:45:40 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA05873 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 20:45:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AX9hX-0006fJ-6f for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 20:45:11 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBJ1jBC6025615 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 20:45:11 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AX9hX-0006f4-0w for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 20:45:11 -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 UAA05850 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 20:45:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AX9hU-0007Da-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 20:45:08 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AX9hR-0007Cx-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 20:45:08 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AX9hQ-0007Ct-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 20:45:04 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AX9hO-0006b2-E6; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 20:45:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AX9hG-0006a6-68 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 20:44:54 -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 UAA05830 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 20:44:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AX9hD-0007Ay-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 20:44:51 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AX9hB-0007Ag-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 20:44:51 -0500 Received: from ntbbs.winserver.com ([208.247.131.9] helo=winserver.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AX9hB-0007Ad-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 20:44:49 -0500 Received: by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v5.7.450.9b10) for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 20:45:17 -0500 Received: from ([68.158.208.108]) EHLO=FAMILY by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v5.7.450.9b10) with SMTP id 4032782625; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 20:45:16 -0500 Message-ID: <001a01c3c5d1$a80bfae0$6401a8c0@FAMILY> From: "Hector Santos" To: "Philip Miller" Cc: "ASRG" References: <3FE2340B.8070605@solidmatrix.com> <3FE235A5.30509@zemos.net> <004201c3c5c0$7c137af0$6401a8c0@FAMILY> <3FE250E8.8060304@zemos.net> Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - For Hector Santos 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: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 20:44:32 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ----- Original Message ----- > > Your path was not verifier. Now lets look at WCSAP log: > > > > 20031218 18:10:54 0001ac00 ------------------------------------- > > 20031218 18:10:54 0001ac00 version: 1.42 / 1.36 > > 20031218 18:10:54 0001ac00 cmd : MAIL FROM > > 20031218 18:10:54 0001ac00 method : WCSAP > > 20031218 18:10:54 0001ac00 uid : 0 > > 20031218 18:10:54 0001ac00 ip : 204.127.198.39 > > 20031218 18:10:54 0001ac00 cdn : rwcrmhc13.comcast.net > > 20031218 18:10:54 0001ac00 hdn : > > 20031218 18:10:54 0001ac00 rbl : 0 > > 20031218 18:10:54 0001ac00 relay : 0 > > 20031218 18:10:54 0001ac00 from : > > 20031218 18:10:54 0001ac00 filter : test > > 20031218 18:10:54 0001ac00 result : 0 > > 20031218 18:11:04 0001ac00 no ptr record - rejected > > 20031218 18:11:04 0001ac00 SMTP response code: 552 > > 20031218 18:11:04 0001ac00 wcsap finish > > 20031218 18:12:05 0001ac01 ------------------------------------- > > > > Sorry, NO PTR RECORD FOR ZEMOS.NET > > > > You ain't GETTING IN! PERIOD! > > Looking at this log, something is unclear to me. Are you connecting to the > comcast.net server that's connected to you, or are you connecting to a > query-returned MX for zemos.net? Your manual tests in your later response to > Markus indicate that you're checking against zemos.net, but that's not > explicit here. In fact, I see no mention of zemos.net in the WSCAP log other > than in my address. Good point. I'll make sure its logged better. The PTR logging was incorrect. I copied some PTR lookup (not used yet) logging code. It was an DNS MX lookup error that was returned. It a NX_DOMAIN DNS error (non existent domain). I can't explain why it happen that one time, but it seems ok now. I think it might have been a timeout. As you can see there was a 10 second delay in the response. I need to increase this timeout. That will resolve it. > What exact DNS queries are you making, what connections are you opening, and > what commands are you sending? I'm not about to tell all of the other > zemos.net MX operators to log SMTP transactions to debug your broken > software. Oh, and you think you can write better software than I? What have you out there? Don't get go buddy. > If you're connecting to the comcast.net server in an attempt to > verify the return path, that's WRONG! If it accepted mail for zemos.net, it > would be an open relay. Look, the DOMAIN PART of your return address, ZEMOS..NET is used for the verification. Thats obvious ok? rwcrmhc13.comcast.net is the client domain provided by your MTA at the HELO/EHLO state. It is just logged in wcSAP and will be used in the future when the SMTP specs are tighten. > Philip Miller > > P.S.: There is 1 'L' in my given name. Sorry. I'll make sure to remember there is one 'l' in your given name. PS: Why are you an A-HOLES!? No wonder nothing is getting DONE!! Anyone who tries to contributes GETS shot down with ad-nuisance rhetoric. Maybe if you shit and get off the pot and WRITE SOME BETTER SOFTWARE with all the EXPERTISE you speak of, then maybe the world would be better off with PHIL-WARE! _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Dec 18 21:00:46 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA06274 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:00:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AX9wA-0006zP-47 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:00:18 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBJ20IvW026861 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:00:18 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AX9w9-0006zA-T5 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:00:17 -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 VAA06228 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:00:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AX9w7-0007c6-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:00:15 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AX9w6-0007by-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:00:15 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AX9w6-0007bv-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:00:14 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AX9vx-0006wm-11; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:00:05 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AX9vC-0006vL-7v for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 20:59:18 -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 UAA06201 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 20:59:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AX9v9-0007bN-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 20:59:15 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AX9v8-0007bG-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 20:59:15 -0500 Received: from ntbbs.winserver.com ([208.247.131.9] helo=winserver.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AX9v8-0007bD-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 20:59:14 -0500 Received: by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v5.7.450.9b10) for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 20:59:53 -0500 Received: from ([68.158.208.108]) EHLO=FAMILY by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v5.7.450.9b10) with SMTP id 4033657968; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 20:59:51 -0500 Message-ID: <002901c3c5d3$b1d7d830$6401a8c0@FAMILY> From: "Hector Santos" To: "Anti-Spam" References: <3FE2340B.8070605@solidmatrix.com> <3FE235A5.30509@zemos.net> <004201c3c5c0$7c137af0$6401a8c0@FAMILY> <20031218235222.GB68195@Space.Net> <005301c3c5c8$91422c70$6401a8c0@FAMILY> <20031219004720.GA73579@Space.Net> <000b01c3c5ce$15b0d0b0$6401a8c0@FAMILY> <3FE2547C.5090301@zemos.net> Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - For Markus 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: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 20:59:08 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit This is getting really ridiculous here. What/who do we have here? Where are the developers? Where are the vendors? We can't leave this to the whims of people like you! I made it PERFECTLY PLAIN AND CLEAR in the many messages here what steps and add-valued functionality was added to enhanced the results. 1) RFC 2821 compliancy test by using compliant SMTP-BASED callback on the RETURN PATH provided by the client. 2) Add-value: Open Relay Test Now, the only PART that was weak about the SMTP-BASE callback was the TIMEOUT as you saw with your system. I need to relax it more per the recommendation in the spec. The CALLBACK was designed to be fast. One or two mishaps is should not throw the baby with the bath water. Not when its knocking off over 85% of the spoofing spammers! -- Hector ----- Original Message ----- From: "Philip Miller" To: "Hector Santos" Cc: "Anti-Spam" Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 8:29 PM Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - For Markus > Hector, > Could you publish the exact algorithm your software is currently using to do > return-path verification? Hopefully, this isn't some sort of trade secret. > Publishing this would make it much clearer to us what exactly it's testing, > as I don't recall you're ever said that explicitly. > > Thanks, > Philip Miller > > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Dec 18 21:01:33 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA06347 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:01:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AX9wu-0007As-VP for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:01:05 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBJ214JK027572 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:01:04 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AX9wu-0007Ad-Qc for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:01:04 -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 VAA06321 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:01:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AX9ws-0007go-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:01:02 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AX9wr-0007ge-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:01:01 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AX9wq-0007gb-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:01:00 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AX9ws-00076X-4s; Thu, 18 Dec 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 1AX9wh-00075m-3V for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:00:51 -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 VAA06290 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:00:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AX9we-0007gC-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:00:48 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AX9wd-0007g5-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:00:48 -0500 Received: from mail2.asianet.co.th ([203.144.222.230] helo=mail.asianet.co.th) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AX9wd-0007c3-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:00:47 -0500 Received: from virscan2.asianet.co.th (HELO mail.asianet.co.th) ([203.144.222.198]) (envelope-sender ) by mail2.asianet.co.th (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 19 Dec 2003 09:00:13 +0700 Received: from ppp-203.144.179.126.revip.asianet.co.th (HELO localhost) ([203.144.179.126]) (envelope-sender ) by mx1.asianet.co.th (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 19 Dec 2003 09:00:12 +0700 From: "Dr. Jeffrey Race" To: "asrg@ietf.org" Reply-To: "Dr. Jeffrey Race" Priority: Normal X-Mailer: PMMail 1.96a For OS/2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - For Hector Santos Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 09:00:13 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,DATE_IN_FUTURE_06_12, TO_ADDRESS_EQ_REAL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 20:44:32 -0500, Hector Santos wrote: >Maybe if you shit Sir, your message lacks both elegance and precision. Please refer to a good style guide :) Jeffrey Race _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Dec 18 21:06:38 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA06495 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:06:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AXA1o-0007SB-PA for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:06:10 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBJ2684B028645 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:06:08 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AXA1o-0007Rw-KM for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:06:08 -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 VAA06474 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:06:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AXA1m-000012-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:06:06 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AXA1k-00000u-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:06:05 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AXA1k-00000r-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:06:04 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AXA1h-0007NO-M1; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:06:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AXA13-0007Kp-Qw for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:05:21 -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 VAA06458 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:05:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AXA11-0007nD-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:05:19 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AXA10-0007n6-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:05:19 -0500 Received: from moebius2.space.net ([195.30.1.100]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AXA0z-0007n2-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:05:18 -0500 Received: (qmail 77587 invoked by uid 1013); 19 Dec 2003 02:05:17 -0000 From: Markus Stumpf To: Hector Santos Cc: Anti-Spam , Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: Undeliverable mail Message-ID: <20031219020517.GB73579@Space.Net> References: <006501c3c5ca$2da2de60$6401a8c0@FAMILY> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <006501c3c5ca$2da2de60$6401a8c0@FAMILY> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Organization: SpaceNet AG, Muenchen, Germany X-PGP-Fingerprint: 66 F3 75 79 01 D0 B8 5F 1A C7 77 88 4A B6 70 DF Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 03:05:17 +0100 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 07:50:58PM -0500, Hector Santos wrote: > Yo Markus, what's up this? I sent my reply to the list and direct to you. > The bounce can back immediately from you: Our mailserver is fast. > The message can not be sent to recipient: > maex-lists-spam-ietf-asrg@Space.Net > Reason: A transaction failure was reported by remote server: > "553 Blocked (ip=208.247.131.9; date=20031211) Your mailserver is sending > spam/UCE, probably an open relay. See http://www.space.net/abuse/rbl/" > > What does http://www.space.net/abuse/rbl/ have anything to do my address? > I see this is foriegn site. The information is completely wrong. I hope > you correct this ASAP. I don't take this very lightly. I'd recommend you get better glasses then. My eMail-adress ends in @space.net and the information for blocked hosts is at http://www.SPACE.NET/abuse/rbl/ because we run our own DNSDBL. You notice the identical domain names in the URL and the email address, do you? Your host was automatically blocked because it tried to relay bounces through our server for a domain alqwejad.com that is neither delegated to that server nor does it exist at all: Dec 10 01:12:50 ntbbs.winserver.com:208.247.131.9 rejected: <> to relaying denied Dec 10 01:21:13 ntbbs.winserver.com:208.247.131.9 rejected: <> to relaying denied We don't like this, so hosts behaving that way get blocked. -------------------------- Btw, you are rejecting mails from me also, not only from the others: ---------------- Hi. This is the qmail-send program at moebius2.Space.Net. I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following addresses. This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out. : Connected to 208.247.131.9 but sender was rejected. Remote host said: 552 Return Path not verifiable! ---------------- $ host -t mx space.net space.net mail is handled (pri=12801) by moebius.space.net $ host -t a moebius.space.net moebius.space.net has address 195.30.1.25 $ host -t ptr 25.1.30.195.in-addr.arpa 25.1.30.195.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer moebius.Space.Net $ host -t a moebius2.space.net moebius2.space.net has address 195.30.1.100 $ host -t ptr 100.1.30.195.in-addr.arpa 100.1.30.195.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer moebius2.Space.Net Your software is fsck'ed up beyond recognition it seems. And your lame arguments about "new code" are even lamer in the light of your 20 years of experience in mailserver programming. You should have already learnt in at most 20 days not to test broken code in production environments. *> Maybe if you shit and get off the pot and WRITE SOME BETTER SOFTWARE with *> all the EXPERTISE you speak of, then maybe the world would be better off *> with PHIL-WARE! I'd think I'll always prefer PHIL-WARE to your "better software". \Maex P.S. In the case you're wondering ... no I will not remove the block for your broken mailserver. Who knows what else is broken and can be exploited. P.P.S. A well meant advice: Before you tell the next person to get of the pot you should remember: http://www.google.com/ might be your friend. -- SpaceNet AG | Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 | Fon: +49 (89) 32356-0 Research & Development | D-80807 Muenchen | Fax: +49 (89) 32356-299 "The security, stability and reliability of a computer system is reciprocally proportional to the amount of vacuity between the ears of the admin" _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Dec 18 21:11:36 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA06639 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:11:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AXA6e-0007zQ-53 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:11:08 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBJ2B8FI030706 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:11:08 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AXA6e-0007zB-05 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:11:08 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA06617 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:11:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AXA6b-0000A2-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:11:05 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AXA6a-00009v-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:11:05 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AXA6a-00009s-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:11:04 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AXA6Y-0007ri-1L; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:11:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AXA6U-0007rB-Pu for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:10:58 -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 VAA06603 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:10:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AXA6Q-00009U-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:10:54 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AXA6P-00009M-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:10:54 -0500 Received: from ntbbs.winserver.com ([208.247.131.9] helo=winserver.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AXA6P-00009J-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:10:53 -0500 Received: by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v5.7.450.9b10) for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:11:33 -0500 Received: from ([68.158.208.108]) EHLO=FAMILY by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v5.7.450.9b10) with SMTP id 4034358765; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:11:32 -0500 Message-ID: <004801c3c5d5$5397d070$6401a8c0@FAMILY> From: "Hector Santos" To: References: Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - For Hector Santos 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: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:10:49 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit My apology. I know better. I rolled up my sleeves there for a minute. :-) Thanks for the chill pill. -- Hector ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dr. Jeffrey Race" To: Sent: Friday, December 19, 2003 9:00 AM Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - For Hector Santos > On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 20:44:32 -0500, Hector Santos wrote: > > >Maybe if you shit > > Sir, your message lacks both elegance and precision. Please refer > to a good style guide :) > > Jeffrey Race > > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Dec 18 21:13:34 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA06730 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:13:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AXA8W-00083a-08 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:13:06 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBJ2D3ev030964 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:13:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AXA8V-00083L-S9 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:13:03 -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 VAA06708 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:13:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AXA8T-0000Fi-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:13:01 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AXA8R-0000FY-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:13:00 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AXA8R-0000FU-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:12:59 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AXA8S-000812-RG; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:13:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AXA7W-00080A-Pj for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:12:02 -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 VAA06682 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:12:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AXA7U-0000E7-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:12:00 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AXA7T-0000E0-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:11:59 -0500 Received: from sccrmhc11.comcast.net ([204.127.202.55]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AXA7T-0000Af-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:11:59 -0500 Received: from fda.zemos.net ([68.38.12.170]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc11) with ESMTP id <2003121902112901100ihekee>; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 02:11:29 +0000 Received: from zemos.net (phil [10.0.0.2]) by fda.zemos.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D84218685; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:12:01 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3FE25E76.6080405@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: Hector Santos Cc: ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - For Hector Santos References: <3FE2340B.8070605@solidmatrix.com> <3FE235A5.30509@zemos.net> <004201c3c5c0$7c137af0$6401a8c0@FAMILY> <3FE250E8.8060304@zemos.net> <001a01c3c5d1$a80bfae0$6401a8c0@FAMILY> In-Reply-To: <001a01c3c5d1$a80bfae0$6401a8c0@FAMILY> 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, 18 Dec 2003 21:12:06 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hector Santos wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > >>>Your path was not verifier. Now lets look at WCSAP log: >>> >>>20031218 18:10:54 0001ac00 ------------------------------------- >>>20031218 18:10:54 0001ac00 version: 1.42 / 1.36 >>>20031218 18:10:54 0001ac00 cmd : MAIL FROM >>>20031218 18:10:54 0001ac00 method : WCSAP >>>20031218 18:10:54 0001ac00 uid : 0 >>>20031218 18:10:54 0001ac00 ip : 204.127.198.39 >>>20031218 18:10:54 0001ac00 cdn : rwcrmhc13.comcast.net >>>20031218 18:10:54 0001ac00 hdn : >>>20031218 18:10:54 0001ac00 rbl : 0 >>>20031218 18:10:54 0001ac00 relay : 0 >>>20031218 18:10:54 0001ac00 from : >>>20031218 18:10:54 0001ac00 filter : test >>>20031218 18:10:54 0001ac00 result : 0 >>>20031218 18:11:04 0001ac00 no ptr record - rejected >>>20031218 18:11:04 0001ac00 SMTP response code: 552 >>>20031218 18:11:04 0001ac00 wcsap finish >>>20031218 18:12:05 0001ac01 ------------------------------------- >>> >>>Sorry, NO PTR RECORD FOR ZEMOS.NET >>> >>>You ain't GETTING IN! PERIOD! >> >> Looking at this log, something is unclear to me. Are you connecting to >> the comcast.net server that's connected to you, or are you connecting >> to a query-returned MX for zemos.net? Your manual tests in your later >> response to Markus indicate that you're checking against zemos.net, but >> that's not explicit here. In fact, I see no mention of zemos.net in the >> WSCAP log other than in my address. > > Good point. I'll make sure its logged better. The PTR logging was > incorrect. I copied some PTR lookup (not used yet) logging code. It was an > DNS MX lookup error that was returned. It a NX_DOMAIN DNS error (non > existent domain). I can't explain why it happen that one time, but it > seems ok now. I think it might have been a timeout. As you can see there > was a 10 second delay in the response. I need to increase this timeout. > That will resolve it. > >> What exact DNS queries are you making, what connections are you >> opening, and what commands are you sending? I'm not about to tell all >> of the other zemos.net MX operators to log SMTP transactions to debug >> your broken software. > > Oh, and you think you can write better software than I? What have you out > there? Don't get go buddy. I said no such thing. The log message you posted gave no indication that WCSAP received the response NXDOMAIN. Thus, I assumed that it made the connection that one would expect (to a zemos.net MX) and the verification failed there. >> If you're connecting to the comcast.net server in an attempt to verify >> the return path, that's WRONG! If it accepted mail for zemos.net, it >> would be an open relay. > > Look, the DOMAIN PART of your return address, ZEMOS.NET is used for the > verification. Thats obvious ok? > > rwcrmhc13.comcast.net is the client domain provided by your MTA at the > HELO/EHLO state. It is just logged in wcSAP and will be used in the future > when the SMTP specs are tighten. I see that, but it was something I had to ask, since your log output didn't indicate it explicitly. >>Philip Miller >> >>P.S.: There is 1 'L' in my given name. > > Sorry. I'll make sure to remember there is one 'l' in your given name. No memory required. It appears in the headers of every email I send. > PS: Why are you an A-HOLES!? No wonder nothing is getting DONE!! > Anyone who tries to contributes GETS shot down with ad-nuisance rhetoric. > Maybe if you shit and get off the pot and WRITE SOME BETTER SOFTWARE with > all the EXPERTISE you speak of, then maybe the world would be better off > with PHIL-WARE! There's no question in my mind that the software you are writing is useful and is an improvement over many other things on the market or freely available. Look at it this way: You're writing commercial software. We are debugging edge cases in your software for free. I understand that the DNS failure we just witnessed was an odd anomaly that your software couldn't have done anything to prevent. However, its log output didn't indicate that anomalous result, but something else. This isn't about who's smarter. It's about reducing spam through technological means. Yes, I made remarks I shouldn't have, and I regret that. We don't need personal remarks on this list. Philip Miller _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Dec 18 21:43:36 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA07420 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:43:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AXAbd-00011s-4l for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:43:09 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBJ2h9sS003950 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:43:09 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AXAbc-00011d-Vh for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:43:09 -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 VAA07407 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:43:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AXAba-00011N-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:43:06 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AXAbY-00011F-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:43:05 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AXAbY-00011C-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:43:04 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AXAbV-0000xq-2m; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:43:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AXAae-0000xE-La for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:42:08 -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 VAA07381 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:42:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AXAab-00010V-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:42:05 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AXAaa-00010O-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:42:05 -0500 Received: from ntbbs.winserver.com ([208.247.131.9] helo=winserver.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AXAaa-00010L-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:42:04 -0500 Received: by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v5.7.450.9b10) for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:42:46 -0500 Received: from ([68.158.208.108]) EHLO=FAMILY by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v5.7.450.9b10) with SMTP id 4036231000; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:42:44 -0500 Message-ID: <004c01c3c5d9$afa1af90$6401a8c0@FAMILY> From: "Hector Santos" To: "Anti-Spam" References: <006501c3c5ca$2da2de60$6401a8c0@FAMILY> <20031219020517.GB73579@Space.Net> Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: Undeliverable mail - for Markus 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: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:42:01 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Markus ----- Original Message ----- > On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 07:50:58PM -0500, Hector Santos wrote: > > Yo Markus, what's up this? I sent my reply to the list and direct to you. > > The bounce can back immediately from you: > > Our mailserver is fast. Good try, but this is nonsense. (How do you like those apples? ) It was our SERVER who attempted to to deliver to your maex-lists-spam-ietf-asrg@Space.Net at space.net. Your refusal 553 response code caused our server to send an immediate response to back to me. If you had issued an 45x code, our server would of put it into a queue. > I'd recommend you get better glasses then. > My eMail-adress ends in @space.net and the information for blocked > hosts is at http://www.SPACE.NET/abuse/rbl/ because we run our own > DNSDBL. You notice the identical domain names in the URL and the email > address, do you? Huh? Is this language thing? > Your host was automatically blocked because it tried to relay bounces > through our server for a domain alqwejad.com that is neither delegated > to that server nor does it exist at all: > > Dec 10 01:12:50 ntbbs.winserver.com:208.247.131.9 > rejected: <> to > relaying denied > Dec 10 01:21:13 ntbbs.winserver.com:208.247.131.9 > rejected: <> to > relaying denied That is our WCSAP OPEN RELAY test on your system to see if YOU were a spammer because YOU were trying to send mail to US!!! We were not sending mail to you! > We don't like this, so hosts behaving that way get blocked. I'm afraid you are black listing for all the wrong reasons. You need to get your facts STRAIGHT by understanding your system first! > Btw, you are rejecting mails from me also, not only from the others: > Hi. This is the qmail-send program at moebius2.Space.Net. > I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following addresses. > This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out. > > : > Connected to 208.247.131.9 but sender was rejected. > Remote host said: 552 Return Path not verifiable! > ---------------- well, lets see. E:\logs\split>grep -li "space.net" wcsap*.log File wcsap20031209.log: The first contact was on the 9th which validated a message you were sending to me. It worked fine. Your stupid system rejected the relay test as it should. Again, YOU WERE SENDING A MESSAGE TO US. We were NOT sending to you! 20031209 19:13 000122cf ------------------------------------- 20031209 19:13 000122cf version: 1.39 / 1.35 20031209 19:13 000122cf cmd : MAIL FROM 20031209 19:13 000122cf method : WCSAP 20031209 19:13 000122cf uid : 0 20031209 19:13 000122cf ip : 195.30.1.100 20031209 19:13 000122cf cdn : moebius2.space.net 20031209 19:13 000122cf hdn : 20031209 19:13 000122cf rbl : 0 20031209 19:13 000122cf relay : 0 20031209 19:13 000122cf from : 20031209 19:13 000122cf trying mx: moebius.space.net ip: 195.30.1.25 20031209 19:13 000122cf # connecting to 195.30.1.25 20031209 19:13 000122cf S: 220 moebius.space.net ESMTP 20031209 19:13 000122cf C: NOOP WCSAP v1.39 Wildcat! Sender Authentication Protocol http://www.santronics.com 20031209 19:13 000122cf S: 250 ok 20031209 19:13 000122cf C: HELO mail.winserver.com 20031209 19:13 000122cf S: 250 moebius.space.net 20031209 19:13 000122cf C: MAIL FROM: <> 20031209 19:13 000122cf S: 250 ok 20031209 19:13 000122cf C: RCPT TO: 20031209 19:13 000122cf S: 250 ok 20031209 19:13 000122cf C: RCPT TO: 20031209 19:13 000122cf S: 553 sorry, that domain isn't in my list of allowed rcpthosts (#5.7.1) 20031209 19:13 000122cf C: QUIT 20031209 19:13 000122cf result : 250 20031209 19:13 000122cf wcsap finish 20031209 19:21 000122e8 ------------------------------------- 20031209 19:21 000122e8 version: 1.39 / 1.35 20031209 19:21 000122e8 cmd : MAIL FROM 20031209 19:21 000122e8 method : WCSAP 20031209 19:21 000122e8 uid : 0 20031209 19:21 000122e8 ip : 195.30.1.100 20031209 19:21 000122e8 cdn : moebius2.space.net 20031209 19:21 000122e8 hdn : 20031209 19:21 000122e8 rbl : 0 20031209 19:21 000122e8 relay : 0 20031209 19:21 000122e8 from : 20031209 19:21 000122e8 trying mx: moebius.space.net ip: 195.30.1.25 20031209 19:21 000122e8 # connecting to 195.30.1.25 20031209 19:21 000122e8 S: 220 moebius.space.net ESMTP 20031209 19:21 000122e8 C: NOOP WCSAP v1.39 Wildcat! Sender Authentication Protocol http://www.santronics.com 20031209 19:21 000122e8 S: 250 ok 20031209 19:21 000122e8 C: HELO mail.winserver.com 20031209 19:21 000122e8 S: 250 moebius.space.net 20031209 19:21 000122e8 C: MAIL FROM: <> 20031209 19:21 000122e8 S: 250 ok 20031209 19:21 000122e8 C: RCPT TO: 20031209 19:21 000122e8 S: 250 ok 20031209 19:21 000122e8 C: RCPT TO: 20031209 19:21 000122e8 S: 553 sorry, that domain isn't in my list of allowed rcpthosts (#5.7.1) 20031209 19:21 000122e8 C: QUIT 20031209 19:21 000122e8 result : 250 20031209 19:21 000122e8 wcsap finish 20031209 19:22 000122e9 ------------------------------------- Two contacts. The next time was the 18th (today) 20031218 18:53:06 0001ac47 ------------------------------------- 20031218 18:53:06 0001ac47 version: 1.42 / 1.36 20031218 18:53:06 0001ac47 cmd : MAIL FROM 20031218 18:53:06 0001ac47 method : WCSAP 20031218 18:53:06 0001ac47 uid : 0 20031218 18:53:06 0001ac47 ip : 195.30.1.100 20031218 18:53:06 0001ac47 cdn : moebius2.space.net 20031218 18:53:06 0001ac47 hdn : 20031218 18:53:06 0001ac47 rbl : 0 20031218 18:53:06 0001ac47 relay : 0 20031218 18:53:06 0001ac47 from : 20031218 18:53:06 0001ac47 filter : test 20031218 18:53:06 0001ac47 result : 0 20031218 18:53:12 0001ac47 total mx records: 1 20031218 18:53:12 0001ac47 trying mx: moebius.space.net ip: 195.30.1.25 20031218 18:53:12 0001ac47 # connecting to 195.30.1.25 20031218 18:53:13 0001ac47 S: 220 rblsmtpd.local 20031218 18:53:13 0001ac47 C: NOOP WCSAP v1.42 Wildcat! Sender Authentication Protocol http://www.santronics.com 20031218 18:53:13 0001ac47 S: 250 rblsmtpd.local 20031218 18:53:13 0001ac47 C: HELO mail.winserver.com 20031218 18:53:13 0001ac47 S: 250 rblsmtpd.local 20031218 18:53:13 0001ac47 C: MAIL FROM: <> 20031218 18:53:13 0001ac47 S: 250 rblsmtpd.local 20031218 18:53:13 0001ac47 C: RCPT TO: 20031218 18:53:13 0001ac47 S: 553 Blocked (ip=208.247.131.9; date=20031211) Your mailserver is sending spam/UCE, probably an open relay. See http://www.space.net/abuse/rbl/ 20031218 18:53:13 0001ac47 C: QUIT 20031218 18:53:14 0001ac47 result : 553 20031218 18:53:14 0001ac47 SMTP response code: 552 20031218 18:53:14 0001ac47 wcsap finish 20031218 18:53:45 0001ac49 ------------------------------------- where you blocked it, hence your system will bounce your mail to NO-WHERE because it will never GET here! Your software is so stupid, you have us BLOCKED, yet you tried to send mail to us??!! Huh? Doesn't make sense does it? Maybe your RBL should be BOTH WAYS? Simply put, YOUR mail that you are trying to send to US, NOT us to YOU, will never get here! > Your software is fsck'ed up beyond recognition it seems. Get your facts straight about who's software is f$%ked up. Your server is stupid! Its so dumb it probably has EVERYONE in europe blacklisted, and yet, what is SO funny, it is YOUR ATTEMPT to send mail that is causing it! Not ME! I am not sending mail to you, you paper hat! > And your lame > arguments about "new code" are even lamer in the light of your 20 years > of experience in mailserver programming. You should have already learnt > in at most 20 days not to test broken code in production environments. Oh, I've put out production code in 1 hour without FAIL!! Have you? Its called experience buddy! There is nothing wrong with the code. Whatt's going is your idiotic BLACKLISTER. Why are you trying to send mail to me in the first place if we are blacklisted? Talk about what comes first, the chicken or the egg? Hey, no problem here. You are just lucky you across the pond! -- Hector _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Dec 18 21:44:31 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA07463 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:44:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AXAcV-0001DY-50 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:44:03 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBJ2i38W004680 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:44:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AXAcU-0001DN-Q0 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:44:02 -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 VAA07441 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:43:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AXAcR-00012t-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:44:00 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AXAcQ-00012m-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:43:59 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AXAcQ-00012j-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:43:58 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AXAcS-00015u-Lv; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:44:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AXAXn-0000v2-79 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:39:11 -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 VAA07353 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:39:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AXAXk-0000xh-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:39:08 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AXAXj-0000xa-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:39:08 -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 1AXAXj-0000xJ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:39:07 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-375-685.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.181.209]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HQ400MIMFC62O@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 02:38:38 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - For Hector Santos In-reply-to: <001a01c3c5d1$a80bfae0$6401a8c0@FAMILY> To: Hector Santos Cc: Philip Miller , John R Levine , ASRG Message-id: <3FE264AA.1080705@solidmatrix.com> Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, he, ru User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007 X-Enigmail-Version: 0.82.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime References: <3FE2340B.8070605@solidmatrix.com> <3FE235A5.30509@zemos.net> <004201c3c5c0$7c137af0$6401a8c0@FAMILY> <3FE250E8.8060304@zemos.net> <001a01c3c5d1$a80bfae0$6401a8c0@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: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:38:34 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Hector, COOL IT! If you have personal remarks of this nature to make, and feel absolutely required to make them, do it off-list or email both co-chairs off-list. If you cannot maintain civilized behavior without resorting to flaming, than you are more than welcome to leave. Sincerely, Yakov Shafranovich Co-Chair, ASRG Hector Santos wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- .... > >>What exact DNS queries are you making, what connections are you opening, > > and > >>what commands are you sending? I'm not about to tell all of the other >>zemos.net MX operators to log SMTP transactions to debug your broken >>software. > > > Oh, and you think you can write better software than I? What have you out > there? Don't get go buddy. > .... > >>Philip Miller >> >>P.S.: There is 1 'L' in my given name. > > > Sorry. I'll make sure to remember there is one 'l' in your given name. > > PS: Why are you an A-HOLES!? No wonder nothing is getting DONE!! > Anyone who tries to contributes GETS shot down with ad-nuisance rhetoric. > Maybe if you shit and get off the pot and WRITE SOME BETTER SOFTWARE with > all the EXPERTISE you speak of, then maybe the world would be better off > with PHIL-WARE! ------- Yakov Shafranovich / asrg shaftek.org SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / research solidmatrix.com "Among all our enemies / The ones to be most feared are often the smallest" (Jean de la Fontaine) ------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Dec 18 21:52:32 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA07688 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:52:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AXAkG-0001Rg-2h for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:52:04 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBJ2q4Nq005550 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:52:04 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AXAkF-0001RR-VD for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:52:03 -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 VAA07678 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:52:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AXAkD-0001Ia-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:52:01 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AXAkC-0001IR-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:52:00 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AXAkB-0001IO-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:51:59 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AXAkC-0001NL-C6; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:52:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AXAjp-0001Ma-5N for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:51:37 -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 VAA07662 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:51:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AXAjm-0001HL-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:51:34 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AXAjl-0001HE-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:51:33 -0500 Received: from mail.asarian-host.net ([194.109.160.70] helo=asarian-host.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AXAjk-0001HB-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:51:33 -0500 Comments: To protect the identity of the sender, certain header fields are either not shown, or masked. Anonymous email accounts can be requested by filling in the appropriate form at: https://asarian-host.net/cgi-bin/signup.cgi Received: (from root@localhost) by mail.asarian-host.net (8.12.10/8.12.10) id hBJ2pWWk039849 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 03:51:32 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from admin@asarian-host.net) From: Mark Received-SPF: pass (asarian-host.net: domain of admin@asarian-host.net designates sender IP as SASL permitted sender) Message-Id: <200312190251.HBJ2PW8W039839@asarian-host.net> X-Authenticated-Sender: admin@asarian-host.net Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: Undeliverable mail - for Markus X-Trace: WqArlKFmQpFJrZXtBDS9HhPHpOCAv0rB6CFYU91l5ObdvSDhHqPkFKoj5cosoDVORtcJrIJHM3N2OzN75HYbuA== X-Complaints-To: abuse@asarian-host.net X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers, otherwise we are unable to process your complaint Organization: Asarian-host To: References: <006501c3c5ca$2da2de60$6401a8c0@FAMILY> <20031219020517.GB73579@Space.Net> <004c01c3c5d9$afa1af90$6401a8c0@FAMILY> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 X-Auth: Asarian-host PGP signature iQEVAwUAP+JntDFqW1BleBN9AQHSyQf8CIM0i6r4H812sBYgc6Ea6SWRx3mbL1gn 6L1gWHwuFjM3Xe6OHI/RD2Ftt5Bh7ynTNhMR1KiwHF5b0ENJTvuYq5Rr8pRDq1cG 6Br3lazORG09Ce9PD8mhwdx9tysB4kIKyShGcsvvFiKZVV9mw1UrO6RTBWUoA3Lg sVxqE1LLUjG0yg1NogkC62TWsZt/jsdGWkAR+x8U+K5TAG4l+Q8HzC2AWvSEGLKM onrrq5FeLpStJ+KMsueDO6wTuuawC0XV6sJ9ARQJMQvmuaw5delqWmBH6bwkIbgK m5WmWT2BJ58q3nPayl6m7of9nxcVqhlBtt8V0hG9+J8RtoiahBjD+g== =0gaO Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 02:51:32 GMT X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.8 required=5.0 tests=PRIORITY_NO_NAME autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ----- Original Message ----- From: "Hector Santos" To: "Anti-Spam" Sent: Friday, December 19, 2003 3:43 AM Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: Undeliverable mail - for Markus > Good try, but this is nonsense. > > Your software is fsck'ed up beyond recognition it seems. > > Get your facts straight about who's software is f$%ked up. > Your server is ... Guys, can you please take it outside? :) Personal feuds should be taken off-list. - Mark _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Dec 18 22:00:40 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA07960 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 22:00:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AXAs9-0001hJ-6F for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 22:00:13 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBJ30D36006525 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 22:00:13 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AXAs9-0001hA-0z for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 22:00:13 -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 WAA07954 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 22:00:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AXAs6-0001Wr-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 22:00:10 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AXAs5-0001Wj-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 22:00:09 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AXAs5-0001Wg-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 22:00:09 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AXArz-0001dA-V5; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 22:00:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AXAp0-0001Zf-Jf for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:56:58 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA07867 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:56:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AXAox-0001RI-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:56:55 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AXAow-0001R9-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:56:55 -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 1AXAow-0001Ob-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:56:54 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-375-685.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.181.209]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HQ4004FFFZ6UY@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 02:52:23 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: Undeliverable mail - for Markus In-reply-to: <20031219020517.GB73579@Space.Net> To: Anti-Spam Cc: John R Levine Message-id: <3FE267E6.8000507@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 X-Priority: 3) 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: <006501c3c5ca$2da2de60$6401a8c0@FAMILY> <20031219020517.GB73579@Space.Net> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:52:22 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,PRIORITY_NO_NAME autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT This discussion should be continued OFF-LIST. If you have problems sending email directly to each other, than have someone else relay it, or use a different system. Sincerely, Yakov Shafranovich Co-Chair, ASRG ------- 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 Thu Dec 18 22:10:46 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA08464 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 22:10:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AXB1u-0002KO-TU for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 22:10:18 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBJ3AI08008942 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 22:10:18 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AXB1u-0002K9-PY for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 22:10:18 -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 WAA08453 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 22:10:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AXB1r-0001vi-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 22:10:15 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AXB1q-0001vb-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 22:10:15 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AXB1q-0001vY-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 22:10:14 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AXB1e-0002G5-NN; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 22:10:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AXAzt-0002ES-UV for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 22:08:13 -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 WAA08422 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 22:08:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AXAzq-0001tc-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 22:08:10 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AXAzq-0001tV-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 22:08:10 -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 1AXAzp-0001rs-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 22:08:10 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-375-685.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.181.209]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HQ400MBGGOO2O@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 03:07:40 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich To: ASRG Cc: John R Levine Message-id: <3FE26B7C.8050305@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 - Moderation of the List Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 22:07:40 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT From RFC 2014, section 5.3: " Moderate the Research Group email list The Chair should attempt to ensure that the discussions on this list are relevant and that not devolve to "flame" attacks or rat- hole into technical trivia. The Chair should make sure that discussions on the list are summarized and that the outcome is well documented (to avoid repetition). " In cases where specific group members start making frequent flame attacks, we may begin to moderate the posts of those members on case by case basis. If the flame behavior does not cease, we may choose to remove those members from the list. Sincerely, Yakov Shafranovich Co-Chair, ASRG ------- Yakov Shafranovich / asrg shaftek.org SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / research solidmatrix.com "I want to know G-d's thoughts... the rest are details" (Albert Einstein) ------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Dec 18 22:49:38 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA09494 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 22:49:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AXBdW-0003Y4-Vh for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 22:49:11 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBJ3nAo3013634 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 22:49:10 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AXBdW-0003Xp-Qf for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 22:49:10 -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 WAA09488 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 22:49:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AXBdT-0002yl-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 22:49:07 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AXBdS-0002yd-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 22:49:07 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AXBdS-0002ya-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 22:49:06 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AXBdN-0003Va-Kj; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 22:49:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AXBd4-0003VH-L9 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 22:48:42 -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 WAA09485 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 22:48:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AXBd1-0002yK-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 22:48:39 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AXBd0-0002yD-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 22:48:38 -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 1AXBcz-0002xk-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 22:48:38 -0500 Received: from zardoc.esmtp.org ([127.0.0.1]) by zardoc.esmtp.org (sendmail 9.0.0.PreAlpha10) with ESMTP id S000000003FDB5A6701; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 19:48:56 -0800 Received: (from ca@localhost) by zardoc.esmtp.org (8.12.10.Beta4/8.12.10.Beta0/Submit) id hBJ3muWa016573 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 19:48:56 -0800 (PST) From: Claus Assmann To: Anti-Spam Message-ID: <20031219034855.GA6347@zardoc.esmtp.org> Reply-To: asrg@ietf.org Mail-Followup-To: Anti-Spam References: <006501c3c5ca$2da2de60$6401a8c0@FAMILY> <20031219020517.GB73579@Space.Net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20031219020517.GB73579@Space.Net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i Subject: [Asrg] Re: anti-spam measure (was: Undeliverable mail) Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 19:48:55 -0800 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 This could be sooo funny... "anti-spam"mers not being able to send e-mail to each other because of their anti-spam measures... and then fighting whose anti-spam measures are (more) broken... Here you have proof that e-mail is being destroyed by spammers AND anti-spammers. PS: don't try to send me mail either :-) _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Dec 19 00:28:32 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA11926 for ; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 00:28:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AXDBF-0006pc-4f for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 00:28:05 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBJ5S5TG026254 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 00:28:05 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AXDBE-0006pN-V6 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 00:28:04 -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 AAA11911 for ; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 00:28:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AXDB7-0005GC-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 00:27:57 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AXDAh-0005Fy-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 00:27:32 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AXDAh-0005F5-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 00:27:31 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AXDAB-0006gf-Ua; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 00:26:59 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AXD9V-0006fg-DM for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 00:26:21 -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 AAA11872 for ; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 00:26:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AXD9L-0005Cj-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 00:26:08 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AXD8v-0005CE-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 00:25:42 -0500 Received: from www.somewhere.com ([66.92.72.194] helo=somewhere.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AXD8v-0005BW-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 00:25:41 -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 3365436; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 00:25:17 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: nazgul@somewhere.com@pop.messagefire.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <001a01c3c5d1$a80bfae0$6401a8c0@FAMILY> References: <3FE2340B.8070605@solidmatrix.com> <3FE235A5.30509@zemos.net> <004201c3c5c0$7c137af0$6401a8c0@FAMILY> <3FE250E8.8060304@zemos.net> <001a01c3c5d1$a80bfae0$6401a8c0@FAMILY> To: "Hector Santos" From: Kee Hinckley Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - For Hector Santos Cc: "ASRG" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 00:24:18 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 At 8:44 PM -0500 12/18/03, Hector Santos wrote: >seems ok now. I think it might have been a timeout. As you can see there >was a 10 second delay in the response. I need to increase this timeout. >That will resolve it. That will make it less likely. Failures are always possible, and long delays as well. True, spam is more likely to delay longer--legit senders tend to have better DNS servers, but it won't solve the problem. What we've found is that every DNS-related test needs to have three exit paths--succeeded, failed, and didn't finish. And even failed can't always be trusted. (Nor succeeded, if Verisign pops up its ugly head again.) We use mail verification in certain limited circumstances with our software. It can't be used as a definitive indicator, but it can add some weight to a decision. One thing you will run into. There are a quite a few auto-responders out there (including at least one challenge/response system) that send replies to anyone who sends them a RCPT TO--regardless of whether you send a DATA command. So make sure your MAIL FROM is *not* the recipient of the message you are testing, but is a separate address that can handle spurious replies. >rwcrmhc13.comcast.net is the client domain provided by your MTA at the >HELO/EHLO state. It is just logged in wcSAP and will be used in the future >when the SMTP specs are tighten. That particularly tightening will never happen. At the HELO prompt most mail servers have absolutely no idea what domain is going to be used in the MAIL FROM of the message, and of course there may be multiple MAIL FROM's from multiple domains in a given session. You could ask, and it could happen, that the domain in the HELO actually resolve to the machine doing the sending (although even that can be problematic). But mapping it to a relationship with the MX of the MAIL FROM is a major architectural change. >Maybe if you shit and get off the pot and WRITE SOME BETTER SOFTWARE with Feel free to try it and see if you think it's better :-). -- 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 Dec 19 16:25:37 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA28110 for ; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 16:25:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AXS7Q-0004Gn-9a for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 16:25:08 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBJLP8uW016412 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 16:25:08 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AXS7P-0004GM-RE for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 16:25:08 -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 QAA27954 for ; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 16:25:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AXS7O-0003ST-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 16:25:06 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AXS7K-0003Rr-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 16:25:05 -0500 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=manatick) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AXS7J-0003Rm-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 16:25:01 -0500 Received: from optimus22.ietf.org ([132.151.6.22] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by manatick with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1AXS7D-0003IK-TW for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 16:25:01 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AXS6L-0003gO-86; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 16:24:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AXR3g-0001yY-In for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 15:17:16 -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 PAA24595 for ; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 15:17:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AXR3f-0000MY-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 15:17:11 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AXR3e-0000MR-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 15:17:11 -0500 Received: from newgiles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ([205.150.200.131] helo=mail.nitros9.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AXR3e-0000LT-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 15:17:10 -0500 Received: from newgiles.nitros9.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.nitros9.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A221516FD1 for ; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 15:17:51 -0500 (EST) From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] [1] Why SPAM is worse in SMTP than in other protocols In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 18 Dec 2003 08:20:40 +1100." Message-Id: <20031219201751.A221516FD1@mail.nitros9.org> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 15:17:51 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 "ipeter@bigpond.net.au" wrote: > Sometimes the sender intends to engage in a dialogue with the > recipients, or request information from them. In such cases the > sender has an intent to receive a reply. In other cases, the sender > merely wishes to disseminate information. Which is (IMHO) the vast majority of spam. Very little spam is intended to establish an ongoing SMTP conversation. The vast majority is intended to distribute information through SMTP, about URL's, 1-800 numbers, or other non-SMTP response mechanisms. That, alone, says that the vast majority of spam is abusive of SMTP, as SMTP is not a one-way message delivery protocol. If we wanted to have a one-way message delivery protocol, it would look very different from SMTP. Therefore, changing SMTP to make it less useful for high-volume one-way "messaging" is probably not a bad thing. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Dec 20 06:47:00 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA06240 for ; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 06:47:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AXfY4-0000sf-7r for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 06:45:32 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBKBjW4g003381 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 06:45:32 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AXfY4-0000sS-1n for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 06:45:32 -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 GAA06141 for ; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 06:45:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AXfY0-0005rl-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 06:45:28 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AXfXz-0005re-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 06:45:27 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AXfXz-0005rb-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 06:45:27 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AXfXa-0000pf-NV; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 06:45:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AXfWw-0000or-Bx for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 06:44:22 -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 GAA06097 for ; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 06:44:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AXfWs-0005pW-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 06:44:18 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AXfWr-0005pH-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 06:44:17 -0500 Received: from fe01.axelero.hu ([195.228.240.89] helo=damo.axelero.hu) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AXfWq-0005pE-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 06:44:16 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost-02 [127.0.2.1]) by damo.axelero.hu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with SMTP id hBKBiGLp060404 for ; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 12:44:16 +0100 (CET) Received: from fe01.axelero.hu [127.0.2.1] via SMTP gateway by damo [195.228.240.89]; id A0EBF1730C8 at Sat, 20 Dec 2003 12:44:16 +0100 Received: from axelero.hu (177.13-182-adsl-pool.axelero.hu [81.182.13.177]) (authenticated bits=0) by fe01.axelero.hu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hBKBiFHU060390 for ; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 12:44:16 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3FE4360F.3070604@axelero.hu> From: "Za'mbori, Zolta'n" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; hu-HU; rv:1.6b) Gecko/20031210 X-Accept-Language: hu, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] [1] Why SPAM is worse in SMTP than in other protocols References: <20031219201751.A221516FD1@mail.nitros9.org> In-Reply-To: <20031219201751.A221516FD1@mail.nitros9.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: Sat, 20 Dec 2003 12:44:15 +0100 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Alan DeKok wrote: > That, alone, says that the vast majority of spam is abusive of SMTP, > as SMTP is not a one-way message delivery protocol. IMHO SMTP is a "move the message closer to the recipient mailbox" protocol. On the SMTP level there are no such thing like one-time one-way or two-way. (MTA is comparable to a router. And non-firewall routers does not know about sessions.) And something about the subject: SMTP compared to other protocols is more attackable because there are no rules assigned to email addresses while there are rules assigned to ports. (For example nobody can use a DNS service as an NTP service.) z2 _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Dec 20 09:56:21 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA09209 for ; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 09:56:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AXiWF-0005ls-Pl for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 09:55:54 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBKEtpbm022181 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 09:55:51 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AXiWF-0005lg-D1 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 09:55:51 -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 JAA09174 for ; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 09:55:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AXiWD-0002mi-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 09:55:49 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AXiVy-0002mZ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 09:55:35 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AXiVy-0002mM-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 09:55:34 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AXiVS-0005fm-M9; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 09:55:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AXiUM-0005f9-D7 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 20 Dec 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 JAA09153 for ; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 09:53:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AXiUF-0002jy-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 09:53:47 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AXiTk-0002jp-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 09:53:17 -0500 Received: from newgiles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ([205.150.200.131] helo=mail.nitros9.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AXiTk-0002jO-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 09:53:16 -0500 Received: from newgiles.nitros9.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.nitros9.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06E9216FAC for ; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 09:53:36 -0500 (EST) From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] [1] Why SPAM is worse in SMTP than in other protocols In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 20 Dec 2003 12:44:15 +0100." <3FE4360F.3070604@axelero.hu> Message-Id: <20031220145336.06E9216FAC@mail.nitros9.org> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2003 09:53:35 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 "Za'mbori, Zolta'n" wrote: > IMHO SMTP is a "move the message closer to the recipient mailbox" > protocol. On the SMTP level there are no such thing like one-time > one-way or two-way. (MTA is comparable to a router. And non-firewall > routers does not know about sessions.) Of course. But the *intent* behind SMTP was to enable two-way human communication. If the intent was to publish information only in one direction, then the protocol would look very different. e.g. UDP "notification" packets, containing URL's where the information may be found. The entire complexity of SMTP is there to support two-way communication. > SMTP compared to other protocols is more attackable because there are no > rules assigned to email addresses while there are rules assigned to > ports. (For example nobody can use a DNS service as an NTP service.) Ports are not protocols. Someone can easily run DNS on the port assigned to NTP. This is a big problem for an IDS. If TCP had a "protocol" field, in addition to "src/dst port" fields, then a number of network problems, and application insecurities could have been avoided. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Dec 20 10:39:38 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA11229 for ; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 10:39:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AXjCA-00071U-Mx for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 10:39:11 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBKFdARr026992 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 10:39:10 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AXjCA-00071H-IM for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 10:39:10 -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 KAA11226 for ; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 10:39:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AXjC8-00040w-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 10:39:08 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AXjC7-00040o-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 10:39:08 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AXjC7-00040l-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 10:39:07 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AXjC0-0006z3-Pe; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 10:39:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AXjB9-0006yn-SS for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 10:38:08 -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 KAA11222 for ; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 10:38:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AXjB4-0003zo-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 10:38:02 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AXjB3-0003zh-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 10:38:02 -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 1AXjB3-0003yz-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 10:38:01 -0500 Received: from sj-core-4.cisco.com (171.68.223.138) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 20 Dec 2003 07:41:17 +0000 Received: from mbaugher-w2k07.cisco.com (sjc-vpn2-466.cisco.com [10.21.113.210]) by sj-core-4.cisco.com (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id hBKFbRm0026075; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 07:37:28 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <6.0.0.22.2.20031220073321.03b7d968@mira-sjc5-6.cisco.com> X-Sender: mbaugher@mira-sjc5-6.cisco.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.0.22 To: Markus Stumpf From: Mark Baugher Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - DNS + PKI - Yahoo's "Domain Keys" Cc: Markus Stumpf , asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <20031217205057.GB68095@Space.Net> References: <20031208183344.1857A16CD1@mail.nitros9.org> <3FD4E090.8000808@solidmatrix.com> <20031209193652.GA76454@Space.Net> <3FD626AC.9010002@solidmatrix.com> <20031209201709.GC76454@Space.Net> <3FD63F28.4020608@solidmatrix.com> <20031209221554.GH76454@Space.Net> <6.0.0.22.2.20031209161256.03afcbd0@mira-sjc5-6.cisco.com> <20031210012041.GE96487@Space.Net> <6.0.0.22.2.20031210154936.03d0cd18@mira-sjc5-6.cisco.com> <20031217205057.GB68095@Space.Net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2003 07:37:26 -0800 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Markus, At 12:50 PM 12/17/2003, Markus Stumpf wrote: >On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 05:05:07PM -0800, Mark Baugher wrote: > > It would not verify if the signature design was secure. That is, > > one should not sign a piece of the message that could be cut and > > pasted in this way. I have not seen anything about the signing > > proposal to suggest that they were doing this or even signing SMTP > > trace record. > > > > So yes, the problem you describe is a problem that's caused by a > > poor signature design. > >The problem is that I yet have to see a signature design that will work >and that will not be broken by a sufficiently large number of mailservers/ >features out there. There are many alternative signature designs. One may sign the actual mail message, or the design could be to "sign" the TLS connection between mail agents, for example. Furthermore, the signature could attest to the address or the signature could attest to the fact that a particular mail operator forwarded the mail. Here are four alternatives and there may be more. Which of these are you thinking of or are you thinking of all of them? > > What gets signed is an open question. This does not strike me as > > an insurmountable problem. > >:-) IMHO exactly this is the problem that hasn't been solved yet. Before going further down this path. Is the problem that you address concerned with adding a signature to the message and having that message re-written in ways to invalidate the signature? Cheers, Mark > > I think of each message sent as a separate mail transaction that will > > have a separate signature applied by the mail submission agent. > >What is the advantage then? >I know who I am talking to directly. So the sending MTA doesn't need the >hassle to sign the message. The MTAs could simply use TLS or a key >exchange. The advantage of the signing is that I - as the receiver - >can validate the signing of the original sender or - that would be fine - >of all intermediate hosts. >Other than that it's pretty worthless, IMHO. > > \Maex > >-- >SpaceNet AG | Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 | Fon: +49 (89) 32356-0 >Research & Development | D-80807 Muenchen | Fax: +49 (89) 32356-299 >"The security, stability and reliability of a computer system is reciprocally > proportional to the amount of vacuity between the ears of the admin" _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Dec 20 19:25:07 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA25067 for ; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 19:25:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AXrOh-0006MH-Jt for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 19:24:39 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBL0OdG6024441 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 19:24:39 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AXrOg-0006M6-MD for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 19:24:39 -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 TAA25046 for ; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 19:24:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AXrOe-00034y-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 19:24:37 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AXrOd-00034r-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 19:24:36 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AXrOd-00034o-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 19:24:35 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AXrO5-0006JL-Ec; Sat, 20 Dec 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 1AXkbh-00027i-M2 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 12:09:37 -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 MAA13372 for ; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 12:09:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AXkbg-0007IJ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 12:09:36 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AXkbe-0007I5-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 12:09:36 -0500 Received: from ntbbs.winserver.com ([208.247.131.9] helo=winserver.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AXkbe-0007Hz-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 12:09:34 -0500 Received: by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v5.7.450.9b10) for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 12:10:04 -0500 Received: from ([68.158.113.249]) EHLO=FAMILY by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v5.7.450.9b10) with SMTP id 4174669953; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 12:10:03 -0500 Message-ID: <002e01c3c71c$0b7e3ca0$6401a8c0@FAMILY> From: "Hector Santos" To: "Anti-Spam" Subject: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - DMP comments 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, 20 Dec 2003 12:09:34 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I have some comments, experience info about our DMP implementation: I've implemented DMP into our WCSAP system as an option. WCSAP is called from the MAIL FROM state: The main input variables into WCSAP - Connection IP (cip) - HELO/EHLO domain name (cdn) - MAIL FROM: Return Path (rp) Output Variables: - Mail From: Response Code - Optional Mail From: Response String The SMTP compatible fallback logic flow is: - Optional, Check White/Black List (Accept,Reject,Continue) - Optional, Check RBL (Accept,Reject,Continue) - Optional, Check LMAP/DMP (Accept,Reject,Continue) - If Continue Perform CBV (Call Back Verifier) Comments: 1) Clarification of the MAIL FROM: response code/response: I am sure the author did not attempt to be strict. The administrative usage/policies can dictate behavior and responses but section 5.5 and 5.6 should be more "clear" about the responses. First time implementations tend to use the "examples" provided for guidance. 5.5 Non-Participating Domain's User, Non-Participating Client where Server permits Non-Participating Domains S: 220 mail.example.net MMS SMTPRCV service v0.95 C: HELO sender.example.com S: 250 mail.example.net Hello sender.example.com [192.0.2.1] C: MAIL FROM: (server looks up 1.2.0.192.in-addr._smtp-client.example.com and returns with NXDOMAIN) (server looks up _smtp-client.example.com and returns NXDOMAIN) S: 250 OK client at 192.0.2.1 verified as sender.example.com [resume normally] This is not a "verified" response. Same with 5.6. If you removed the parenthetical comments, it will look and be logged as a DMP validated success: S: 220 mail.example.net MMS SMTPRCV service v0.95 C: HELO sender.example.com S: 250 mail.example.net Hello sender.example.com [192.0.2.1] C: MAIL FROM: S: 250 OK client at 192.0.2.1 verified as sender.example.com This is a pure fall back situation for non-compatible clients so the response should not say it was verified. Thats my only point about this. This will most likely be the most common situation during the initial deployment stages. In our case, we will fallback to the CBV check and will produce a response based on its result. 2) Redirected lookups: dmp=altdomain:$ALTDOMAIN.[,$ALTDOMAIN.] Implementers need to be careful for redundant altdomains and continues loops. My recommendations is to add a paragraph or comment about watching for this situation and to suggest a MAXIMUM number of checks or a maximum X level of redirection is allowed. Also a note to coders, developers about how to design such a redirection: The trick is to use a stack for the DMP lookup. // Push client/user dmp reverse domain addresses Push Client DMP Domain Address Push User DMP Domain Address Attempts = 0 MaxCheck = 10 // Start DMP Lookup : NEXT Pop DMP Domain Address (Exit Negative if empty) Perform DMP lookup if Allow Exit Positive Result if ALTDOMAIN Parse and Push DMP domains (reverse order) if Attempts > MaxCheck Exit Negative Result Goto Next and based on the proposal, the following is the truth table for the logic: ========================================================================= User Client Result DMP Proposal Section Description ========================================================================= Allow n/r 250 5.2 Participating Domain's User and Client Deny n/r 55X ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Deny Allow 250 5.3 Participating Domain's User, Forwarding Deny Deny 55X Service on Participating Client ------------------------------------------------------------------------- <> Allow 250 5.4 Null Reverse Path, Participating Client <> Deny 55X ------------------------------------------------------------------------- *nxdom nxdom 251 5.5 Non-Participating Domain's User, Non-Participating Client where Server permits Non-Participating Domains ------------------------------------------------------------------------- *<> nxdom 251 5.6 Null Reverse Path, Non-Participating Client where Server permits Non-Participating Domains ------------------------------------------------------------------------- SERVFAIL SERVFAIL 451 5.7 Participating Domain's User and Client where DMP lookup fails (SERVFAIL) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- deny nxdom 550 5.8 Participating Domain's User, Not Participating Domain's Client (dmp=deny, NXDOMAIN) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- deny SERVFAIL 451 5.8.1 Participating Domain's User, Not Participating Domain's Client (dmp=deny, SERVFAIL) ========================================================================= * WcSAP Fallbacks to CBV will occur --- 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 Sat Dec 20 19:56:24 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA25567 for ; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 19:56:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AXrsx-0007Es-Du for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 19:55:55 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBL0tt9W027822 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 19:55:55 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AXrsx-0007Ef-8y for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 19:55:55 -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 TAA25548 for ; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 19:55:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AXrsq-0003rS-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 19:55:48 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AXrsP-0003qq-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 19:55:23 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AXrsP-0003q8-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 19:55:21 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AXrs7-00075F-B8; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 19:55:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AXrrs-00074Y-Ut for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 19:54:48 -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 TAA25523 for ; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 19:54:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AXrrm-0003od-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 19:54:42 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AXrrM-0003oL-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 19:54:16 -0500 Received: from moebius2.space.net ([195.30.1.100]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AXrrL-0003nr-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 19:54:15 -0500 Received: (qmail 15169 invoked by uid 1013); 21 Dec 2003 00:53:49 -0000 From: Markus Stumpf To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] [1] Why SPAM is worse in SMTP than in other protocols Message-ID: <20031221005349.GH79972@Space.Net> References: <3FE4360F.3070604@axelero.hu> <20031220145336.06E9216FAC@mail.nitros9.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20031220145336.06E9216FAC@mail.nitros9.org> 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: Sun, 21 Dec 2003 01:53:49 +0100 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,WEIRD_PORT autolearn=no version=2.60 On Sat, Dec 20, 2003 at 09:53:35AM -0500, Alan DeKok wrote: > Of course. But the *intent* behind SMTP was to enable two-way human > communication. Says who? Nearly all protocols on the Internet I know of have the itent to enable two-way human communication. Even router protocols like BGP do. HTTP, POP3, DNS, LDAP, FTP they all do, just like SMTP does and SMTP does it in no way more special than any of these, except for protocols like IRC or VoIP that are specially designed for direct two-way human interaction. The intent with SMTP was to deliver an "electronic message" from one point to another. As WAN links were crowded and unstable the design clearly allowed for relaying and "backup MX" to route messages if the target host was not directly accessible. Another name for this is a store-and-forward system. > e.g. UDP "notification" packets, containing URL's where the > information may be found. At the time SMTP was designed URLs didn't even exist. UDP was really unreliable and lines were as flaky as hell. > > SMTP compared to other protocols is more attackable because there are no > > rules assigned to email addresses while there are rules assigned to > > ports. (For example nobody can use a DNS service as an NTP service.) Surely I can use a DNS service as an NTP service. I could even use DNS for SMTP. All necessary information can be coded in TXT records. All you need is some protocol agreement between sender and receiver how to transfer the SMTP protocol via DNS. I can use SMTP to transfer all kinds of data like executable programs, XML files, movies, sound files, ... streaming protocols could be a bit harder to handle but not impossible. There are services like ftp-mailer that allow FTP Archive access via SMTP. Just like there are services like HTTP that can be used to transport (encoded) SMTP protocol or a lot of other protocols. > Ports are not protocols. Someone can easily run DNS on the port > assigned to NTP. This is a big problem for an IDS. If TCP had a > "protocol" field, in addition to "src/dst port" fields, then a number > of network problems, and application insecurities could have been > avoided. No. Nothing stops me from abusing the HTTP Protocol like in POST http://some.mail.server:25/ for SMTP POST http://some.telnet.server:23/ for telnet POST http://some.www.server:80/cgi-bin/telnet.emu for telnet As SMTP, telnet, HTTP operate at another protocol level they don't know (and need not know) about any fields in TCP/UDP or IP packets. The idea behind protocol stacks should show you that ports or "protocol fields" don't say *anything* about the data contained, at best they give information about the encoding and protocol used to transport the data and thus it is useless. You cannot pevent users from accessing the data of a FTP archive by blocking the FTP ports. If the data is also available via SMTP or HTTP you have gained nothing. \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 Sat Dec 20 22:55:48 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA01186 for ; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 22:55:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AXuga-0003lw-Ly for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 22:55:22 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBL3tKGS014494 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 22:55:20 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AXuga-0003lh-I8 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 22:55:20 -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 WAA01179 for ; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 22:55:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AXugX-0003dF-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 22:55:17 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AXugV-0003d5-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 22:55:16 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AXugV-0003d2-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 22:55:15 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AXugJ-0003jQ-AF; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 22:55:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AXuYL-0003c9-1A for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 22:46:49 -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 WAA00621 for ; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 22:46:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AXuYH-00039W-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 22:46:45 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AXuYG-00039P-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 22:46:45 -0500 Received: from p13.n-chpop03.stsn.com ([63.240.154.13] helo=chpop.smtp.stsn.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AXuYG-00036L-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 22:46:44 -0500 Received: from BBFUJIP ([10.24.143.132]) by chpop.smtp.stsn.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Sun, 21 Dec 2003 21:42:07 -0600 From: Dave Crocker To: Yakov Shafranovich CC: X-Mailer: PocoMail 3.01 (1661) - EVALUATION VERSION X-URL: http://www.pocomail.com/ Reply-To: Dave Crocker Message-ID: <20031220214249.429835@BBFUJIP> In-Reply-To: <3FE23393.6080003@solidmatrix.com> Subject: Re: [Asrg] 1. Inventory of Problems - SMTP Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Dec 2003 03:42:07.0656 (UTC) FILETIME=[92B76A80:01C3C83D] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 20 Dec 2003 21:42:49 -0600 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,HTML_50_60,HTML_MESSAGE, MIME_HTML_ONLY autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Yakov,

 

>> 3. The sender can request that the message be forwarded to (almost)

>> anyone else.

>>

>> SMTP isn't a "user to user" protocol. It's a "submitter to MTA"

>> protocol. In the case of open proxies, the MTA may be abused to

>> re-send the mail to anyone on the net.

 

YS> Isn't SMTP an MTA-to-MTA protocol, with SUBMIT being the "submitter to

YS> MTA" protocol?

 

yes, although that is recent, and most poster-to-MTA interactions do

use SMTP. However access control is now typical, so the problem of

open relaying is solved technically. Whether the solution is used is

not a problem with SMTP.

 

 

>> 6. no negative feedback

>>

>> TCP has congestion control. ICMP "port unreachable", etc.

>>

>> When SMTP messages are thrown away, they're often done so by the end

>> user. The recipient MTA usually doesn't know, and the originating MTA

>> doesn't know. So in the absence of negative feedback, spammers

>> increase their sending rates, in the hope that some messages will get

>> through.

 

YS> This also has to do with the fact that the body of the message and the

YS> SMTP transaction are separate from each other.

 

Huh?

 

1. SMTP is equivalent to a link-level, point-to-point protocol. As

such, it has plenty of negative feedback and congestion control. The

larger mail service is a classic datagram model, like UDP. And, no,

it has no congestion control. However as one contemplates this

problem, keep in mind the challenge of doing meaningful end-to-end

congestion control in the face of multi-day latencies.

 

2. I think folks are trying to make the underlying transport service

be responsible for higher-level, user-to-user problems. Remember that

spam is a social problem, not a technical one. So, worry about the

end-to-end object/envelope, rather than the hop-by-hop transfer

protocool.

 

 

>> e.g. Messages from unknown senders should be treated with great

>> suspicion. Any and all available information should be used to

>> determine how to process the message.

 

YS> A good example would be giving a higher value to unknown senders in

YS> SpamAssasin.

 

How is this different from whitelisting?

 

How is it affected by spoofing?

 

d/

--

  Dave Crocker <dcrocker-at-brandenburg-dot-com>

  Brandenburg InternetWorking <www.brandenburg.com>

  Sunnyvale, CA USA <tel:+1.408.246.8253>

 

 

 

_______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Dec 21 01:19:41 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA03468 for ; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 01:19:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AXwvo-0007Ub-Qo for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 01:19:12 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBL6JCRo028798 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 01:19:12 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AXwvo-0007UP-Lc for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 01:19:12 -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 BAA03465 for ; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 01:19:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AXwvl-0006BB-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 01:19:09 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AXwvk-0006B4-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 01:19:09 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AXwvk-0006B1-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 01:19:08 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AXwvd-0007S4-3P; Sun, 21 Dec 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 1AXwsV-0007Q9-1k for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 01:15:47 -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 BAA03428 for ; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 01:15:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AXwsS-000689-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 01:15:44 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AXwsR-000682-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 01:15:43 -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 1AXwsR-00067y-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 01:15:43 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-371-558.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.165.194]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HQ800KZVEP7YH@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 06:15:13 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 1. Inventory of Problems - SMTP In-reply-to: <20031220214249.429835@BBFUJIP> To: Dave Crocker Cc: asrg@ietf.org Message-id: <3FE53A73.1040504@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: <20031220214249.429835@BBFUJIP> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2003 01:15:15 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Dave Crocker wrote: >> > 6. no negative feedback >> > >> > TCP has congestion control. ICMP "port unreachable", etc. > >> > When SMTP messages are thrown away, they're often done so by the end >> > user. The recipient MTA usually doesn't know, and the originating MTA >> > doesn't know. So in the absence of negative feedback, spammers >> > increase their sending rates, in the hope that some messages will get >> > through. > > YS> This also has to do with the fact that the body of the message and the > YS> SMTP transaction are separate from each other. > > Huh? > > 1. SMTP is equivalent to a link-level, point-to-point protocol. As > such, it has plenty of negative feedback and congestion control. The > larger mail service is a classic datagram model, like UDP. And, no, > it has no congestion control. However as one contemplates this > problem, keep in mind the challenge of doing meaningful end-to-end > congestion control in the face of multi-day latencies. > > 2. I think folks are trying to make the underlying transport service > be responsible for higher-level, user-to-user problems. Remember that > spam is a social problem, not a technical one. So, worry about the > end-to-end object/envelope, rather than the hop-by-hop transfer > protocool. > So are you implying that we shouldn't worry about the SMTP transaction at all, and concentrate on the message content itself, kind of like the DK proposal? While spam itself is an end-to-end problem, the abuse of the hop-by-hop protocol is one of the reasons why spam happens. For example, in Ethernet the actual cables between different network segments are hop-by-hop. Someone slicing a cable at that point can introduce malicous traffic into the system, the same way somebody messing with a single SMTP hop-by-hop transaction can introduce spam into the network. I think we need to address both issues of hop-by-hop protocol security, and end-to-end user issues. I do have your original suggestion in mind, and I am working on a document about email problems from the point of view of human communications in general. However, Alan's document concentrates specifically on SMTP. > >> > e.g. Messages from unknown senders should be treated with great >> > suspicion. Any and all available information should be used to >> > determine how to process the message. > > YS> A good example would be giving a higher value to unknown senders in > YS> SpamAssasin. > > How is this different from whitelisting? > How is it affected by spoofing? We do not want to reject all email from unknown senders since any anti-spam system that is deployment needs to be adoped gradually. Therefore, a completely unknown sender will be given a higher value in the filter, as opposed to a known sender that will be given a lower value. Alan's document was refering to LMAP where even a known sender that uses LMAP is not necessarily trusted. Yakov ------- Yakov Shafranovich / asrg shaftek.org SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / research solidmatrix.com "I want to know G-d's thoughts... the rest are details" (Albert Einstein) ------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Dec 21 03:19:47 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA18213 for ; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 03:19:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AXyo1-0004QV-Bd for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 03:19:18 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBL8JHwC017014 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 03:19:17 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AXyo0-0004QL-Qv for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 03:19:16 -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 DAA18210 for ; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 03:19:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AXyny-0000PX-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 03:19:14 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AXynx-0000PP-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 03:19:14 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AXynx-0000PM-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 03:19:13 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AXynl-0004O1-IP; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 03:19:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AXymJ-0004MV-Tq for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 03:17:32 -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 DAA18194 for ; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 03:17:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AXymH-0000OH-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 03:17:29 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AXymG-0000OA-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 03:17:29 -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 1AXymG-0000Np-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 03:17:28 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-371-558.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.165.194]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HQ800HF7KC3JS@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 08:17:00 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich To: Hector Santos Cc: John R Levine , ASRG Message-id: <3FE556FA.5040206@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 - Revocation of Posting Privileges for Hector Santos Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2003 03:16:58 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Hector, As per section 5.3 of RFC 2014, the chairs have made a decision to revoke your posting privileges to the ASRG discussion list. This decision was made because you have continued to ignore the scope of the ASRG list and posting guidelines, continued to promote your CBV system, and personally attacked other list members. As has been the case before with Mark McCarron (https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg06363.html), if you can stay in scope, and stop flaming, we may conditionally allow you to have posting privileges again. Information about managing your subscription to the list, may be found here: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg Sincerely, Yakov Shafranovich Co-Chair, ASRG -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Wasted time? Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2003 12:40:14 -0500 From: Hector Santos Organization: Santronics Software, Inc To: Anti-Spam , Yakov Shafranovich I don't wish to be wasting time providing any feedback or information or comments if I am going to censored. I posted mail that never was distributed. Please let me know if I am allowed to post in the group. It is a simple Yes or No answer. If no, simply remove me from the list and don't send me any list mail. ... ------- Yakov Shafranovich / asrg shaftek.org SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / research solidmatrix.com "All that is gold does not glitter" (LOTR) ------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Dec 21 07:35:49 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA22667 for ; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 07:35:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AY2no-0005NF-0u for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 07:35:20 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBLCZJRN020653 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 07:35:20 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AY2nn-0005N2-TQ for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 07:35:19 -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 HAA22663 for ; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 07:35:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AY2nn-0004hi-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 07:35:19 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AY2nm-0004hb-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 07:35:18 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AY2nm-0004hY-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 07:35:18 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AY2nX-0005Ka-Bc; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 07:35:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AY2n4-0005Js-Un for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 07:34:34 -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 HAA22652 for ; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 07:34:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AY2n4-0004gp-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 07:34:34 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AY2n2-0004gg-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 07:34:33 -0500 Received: from mail.chariot.net.au ([203.87.95.38]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AY2n2-0004gT-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 07:34:32 -0500 Received: from wanderer (ppp-033.cust203-87-110.ghr.chariot.net.au [203.87.110.33]) by mail.chariot.net.au (Postfix) with SMTP id E216064504 for ; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 23:04:24 +1030 (CST) From: "Chris" To: "ASRG" Subject: [Asrg] 0. General - Not sure where this fits Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 In-Reply-To: <3FE556FA.5040206@solidmatrix.com> Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2003 23:03:27 +1030 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi All An interesting job was recently advertised on a software coders auction site. It goes something like this.... ======================================= Coder wanted to create perl mail program Mail program operates as an MTA-intermediate Mail program must be able to forge the previous domain in the MTA chain, this domain is selectable and will be a valid domain with a reverse DNS Mail program must be able to switch domains using domain list text file ... ======================================= From what I can see this "job" specifically targets anti spam measures that use reverse DNS (ip blacklists) to determine the sender. by simply saying my name is joe.com and I got message from jane.com for you. because everybody knows jane.com the message is accepted. (until Jane is blacklisted through no fault of her own) Which of the proposed systems will overcome this form of "spoofing"? Is this what is reffered to as "envelope forging" I tried a search on Gmane but did not come up with much. The only two forms I can think of are a pull system (you just knew I was going to say that) and a message digest key (yahoo etc). ( I am ignoring Challenge Response Systems as they seem to be both patented and without real value IMHO) from what I have read and I admit to some slackness here, most other verification systems ignore the MTA-i and just concentrate on the MTA-s. In which case as the supposed sender domain is legitimate (and perhaps even the senders email address) the message slips thru most filters. By simply monitoring the IP blacklists the spammer changes the spoofed source domain as soon as the current one gets listed. so no messages are lost. also if the spammer simply gets a one month account on any of thousands of available servers he just deletes the source code on one server and moves to the next when joe.com gets listed as the source of the spam. Chris _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Dec 21 07:47:19 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA22870 for ; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 07:47:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AY2yw-00065D-6I for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 07:46:50 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBLCkoT7023377 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 07:46:50 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AY2yw-00064y-1c for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 07:46:50 -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 HAA22861 for ; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 07:46:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AY2yq-0004uU-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 07:46:44 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AY2yP-0004tv-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 07:46:18 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AY2yP-0004tW-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 07:46:17 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AY2yA-0005xB-8W; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 07:46:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AY2xx-0005wH-7E for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 07:45:49 -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 HAA22830 for ; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 07:45:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AY2xp-0004s4-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 07:45:41 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AY2xO-0004r1-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 07:45:16 -0500 Received: from fe04.axelero.hu ([195.228.240.92] helo=amitabha.axelero.hu) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AY2xO-0004pr-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 07:45:14 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost-02 [127.0.2.1]) by amitabha.axelero.hu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with SMTP id hBLCilg5011579 for ; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 13:44:47 +0100 (CET) Received: from fe04.axelero.hu [127.0.2.1] via SMTP gateway by amitabha.axelero.hu [195.228.240.92]; id A02D37B2F44 at Sun, 21 Dec 2003 13:44:47 +0100 Received: from axelero.hu (223.14-182-adsl-pool.axelero.hu [81.182.14.223]) (authenticated bits=0) by fe04.axelero.hu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hBLCikYL011565 for ; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 13:44:47 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3FE595BE.8040706@axelero.hu> From: "Za'mbori, Zolta'n" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; hu-HU; rv:1.6b) Gecko/20031210 X-Accept-Language: hu, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] [1] Why SPAM is worse in SMTP than in other protocols References: <20031220145336.06E9216FAC@mail.nitros9.org> In-Reply-To: <20031220145336.06E9216FAC@mail.nitros9.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, 21 Dec 2003 13:44:46 +0100 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Alan, >>SMTP compared to other protocols is more attackable because there are no >>rules assigned to email addresses while there are rules assigned to >>ports. (For example nobody can use a DNS service as an NTP service.) Sorry about the uninformative text. I mean making some email handling rules predictable will do the spam-volume to be smaller. For example it is predictable by everybody based on the port address of a running service that the service software will read a specific protocol data unit or not; will accept the content for processing or not. It is predictable how transport level and content level information will be filtered out or processed. Back to SMTP. It is unpredictable by spammers that a mailbox address is send-only or not, handshake is neccessary or not, 'sequence numbers' are necessary or not, session-IDs or secret tokens are necessary or not, the address accept emails only from predefined senders or not, a content filter will filter out emails based on the content or not, etc. The result of this unpredictability (lack of 'rules' assigned to email addresses): spammers will send spam to any email address what they have because they dont have informations how to do self-filtering. (As opposed to TCP where almost nobody send out random packets to random host:port addresses, and IP-spoofing is almost impossible.) For example spammers will not stop using Yahoo addresses as sender addresses because spammers will not know based on the receiver email address that the receiver filter out emails with the help of YDK or not. z2 _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Dec 21 10:34:59 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA27194 for ; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 10:34:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AY5ay-0002GD-3G for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 10:34:18 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBLFYGS0008683 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 10:34:16 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AY5ax-0002Fy-Vx for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 10:34:16 -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 KAA27125 for ; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 10:34:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AY5av-0000fz-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 10:34:13 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AY5at-0000fl-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 10:34:13 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AY5at-0000fe-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 10:34:11 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AY5aj-0002Ao-G0; Sun, 21 Dec 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 1AY5Zp-0002A6-J1 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 10:33:06 -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 KAA27064 for ; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 10:33:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AY5Zn-0000dB-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 10:33:03 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AY5Zm-0000d4-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 10:33:02 -0500 Received: from newgiles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ([205.150.200.131] helo=mail.nitros9.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AY5Zm-0000d0-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 10:33:02 -0500 Received: from newgiles.nitros9.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.nitros9.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A1F216FD7 for ; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 10:33:54 -0500 (EST) From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 1. Inventory of Problems - SMTP In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 20 Dec 2003 21:42:49 CST." <20031220214249.429835@BBFUJIP> Message-Id: <20031221153354.2A1F216FD7@mail.nitros9.org> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2003 10:33:54 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Dave Crocker wrote: > 1. SMTP is equivalent to a link-level, point-to-point protocol. As > such, it has plenty of negative feedback and congestion control. Which is why people using Greylisting have shown it to be useless. Hmm... that doesn't sound right. Ah, that's it: "plenty != sufficient" > The larger mail service is a classic datagram model, like UDP. And, > no, it has no congestion control. However as one contemplates this > problem, keep in mind the challenge of doing meaningful end-to-end > congestion control in the face of multi-day latencies. I don't see constructive criticism on the *technical* merits of the documents. Vague generalities sound helpful, but don't contribute meaningfully to achieving any end goal. > 2. I think folks are trying to make the underlying transport service > be responsible for higher-level, user-to-user problems. Not me. I'm looking at tweaking the underlying transport service so it's less amenable to being abused by user-to-user problems. > Remember that spam is a social problem, not a technical one. Ah. So the technical flaws in SMTP which *enable* spammers are meaningless. The "joe jobbing" and forgery associated with the attempted theft of account information are direct results of those technical flaws... but addressing those flaws is a low priority, as spam is a social problem, not a technical one. > So, worry about the end-to-end object/envelope, rather than the > hop-by-hop transfer protocool. I'm sorry Dave, but everything I see from you can be paraphrased as "SMTP is perfect. Let's do nothing technical to solve this problem." Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Dec 21 10:56:28 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA27698 for ; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 10:56:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AY5w1-0003CQ-L3 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 10:56:01 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBLFu18q012274 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 10:56:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AY5w0-0003Bl-Ma for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 10:56:00 -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 KAA27656 for ; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 10:55:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AY5vt-0001EL-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 10:55:53 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AY5vT-0001E2-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 10:55:27 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AY5vT-0001DS-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 10:55:27 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AY5v7-00030A-2Y; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 10:55:05 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AY5uy-0002z1-UN for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 10:54:56 -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 KAA27607 for ; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 10:54:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AY5ur-0001CV-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 10:54:49 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AY5uL-0001Bz-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 10:54:19 -0500 Received: from newgiles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ([205.150.200.131] helo=mail.nitros9.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AY5uL-0001Be-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 10:54:17 -0500 Received: from newgiles.nitros9.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.nitros9.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8793116FCB for ; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 10:54:55 -0500 (EST) From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] [1] Why SPAM is worse in SMTP than in other protocols In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 21 Dec 2003 01:53:49 +0100." <20031221005349.GH79972@Space.Net> Message-Id: <20031221155455.8793116FCB@mail.nitros9.org> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2003 10:54:55 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,WEIRD_PORT autolearn=no version=2.60 Markus Stumpf wrote: > On Sat, Dec 20, 2003 at 09:53:35AM -0500, Alan DeKok wrote: > > Of course. But the *intent* behind SMTP was to enable two-way human > > communication. > > Says who? Says the protocol. > Nearly all protocols on the Internet I know of have the itent to enable > two-way human communication. Even router protocols like BGP do. Now you're being cute. Isn't that nice. > HTTP, POP3, DNS, LDAP, FTP they all do, just like SMTP does and SMTP does > it in no way more special than any of these, All those protocols are just like SMTP, so that's why we have so many protocols, right? They all do the same thing! > > e.g. UDP "notification" packets, containing URL's where the > > information may be found. > > At the time SMTP was designed URLs didn't even exist. UDP was really > unreliable and lines were as flaky as hell. And nothing on the Net has changed since then. So if, as I said, we WERE to design such a notification protocol, we would not (of course) use anything we've learned in the past two decades. > > If TCP had a > > "protocol" field, in addition to "src/dst port" fields, then a number > > of network problems, and application insecurities could have been > > avoided. > > No. Nothing stops me from abusing the HTTP Protocol like in > POST http://some.mail.server:25/ for SMTP ... > As SMTP, telnet, HTTP operate at another protocol level they don't know > (and need not know) about any fields in TCP/UDP or IP packets. You've taken my statement exactly backwards. Congratulations! The point ( to re-iterate) was that TCP would contain information about the protocol it was carrying. I said nothing about SMTP knowing about fields in TCP or IP packets. I have no clue how you totally inverted the meaning of my statements. When you have nested protocols, each protocol SHOULD contain information about any sub-protocol it contains. The failure to do so leads to huge problems when examining network traffic. I should know. My day job is writing software for multi-protocol, multi-field, gigabit packet classification, that other people put into network devices. Issues like TCP ports being loosely coupled to the protocol in the TCP data are a *huge* problem for anyone wanting to examine network traffic. > The idea behind protocol stacks should show you that ports or "protocol > fields" don't say *anything* about the data contained, at best they > give information about the encoding and protocol used to transport the > data and thus it is useless. When your protocol stack gets IP packets with proto TCP, and the IP data contains something other than TCP, your stack still does something useful with it? That protocol field has no bearing on how you treat the encapsulated data? Nonsense. Have you ever done any work with networks, or protocols? Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Dec 21 11:11:34 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA27951 for ; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 11:11:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AY6Ae-0003qV-9B for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 11:11:08 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBLGB8qG014777 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 11:11:08 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AY6Ae-0003qG-4x for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 11:11:08 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA27943 for ; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 11:11:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AY6Ab-0001hd-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 11:11:05 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AY6Aa-0001hW-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 11:11:05 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AY6Aa-0001hT-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 11:11:04 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AY6AY-0003mC-0K; Sun, 21 Dec 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 1AY69h-0003lu-8t for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 11:10:09 -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 LAA27917 for ; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 11:10:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AY69e-0001gb-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 11:10:06 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AY69d-0001gT-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 11:10:06 -0500 Received: from newgiles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ([205.150.200.131] helo=mail.nitros9.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AY69c-0001gL-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 11:10:05 -0500 Received: from newgiles.nitros9.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.nitros9.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D00F16FCB for ; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 11:10:55 -0500 (EST) From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] [1] Why SPAM is worse in SMTP than in other protocols In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 21 Dec 2003 13:44:46 +0100." <3FE595BE.8040706@axelero.hu> Message-Id: <20031221161055.4D00F16FCB@mail.nitros9.org> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2003 11:10:55 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 "Za'mbori, Zolta'n" wrote: > For example it is predictable by everybody based on the port address of > a running service that the service software will read a specific > protocol data unit or not; will accept the content for processing or > not. No. I can run HTTP servers on any port. When used in conjunction with something like RPC, you have *no* way to use TCP ports to classify a packet on your network as RPC or HTTP. The TCP ports don't tell you. The *only* thing you can do is to examine the application data, compare it to RPC and HTTP, to see which one it matches. The problem is that the intersection of RPC and HTTP isn't empty. So there are some packets which you can't classify just by looking at the packet. You've got to go poke the port yourself, to see what application server is running. > The result of this unpredictability (lack of 'rules' assigned to email > addresses): spammers will send spam to any email address what they have > because they dont have informations how to do self-filtering. No. Spammers already have sufficient information to do self-filtering. There are domains which didn't have an MX for years, and when one was put into DNS, it was immediately spammed. There are systems which reject traffic to all SMTP destinations, and spammers still try those destinations years later. Spammers have plenty of negative feedback, as information. But simply NACK'ing a message is insufficient. What is needed is negative feedback as *punishment*. e.g. Greylisting is network-based negative feedback that works by slowing down the rate at which spam is sent. Recipient MTA's often do *nothing* when they're attacked by spammers. This creates a de-facto positive feedback system, giving the spammers every incentive to increase their rates. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Dec 21 11:24:00 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA27193 for ; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 10:34:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AY5ax-0002Fx-Qm for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 10:34:16 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBLFYFl7008667 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 10:34:15 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AY5ax-0002Fi-L9 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 10:34:15 -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 KAA27122 for ; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 10:34:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AY5av-0000fw-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 10:34:13 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AY5at-0000fi-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 10:34:13 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AY5at-0000fd-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 10:34:11 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AY5ak-0002B2-5P; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 10:34:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AY5Zk-00029w-Ih for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 10:33:00 -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 KAA27055 for ; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 10:32:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AY5Zi-0000ck-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 10:32:58 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AY5Zg-0000cV-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 10:32:57 -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 1AY5Zg-0000bY-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 10:32:56 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-364-335.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.137.167]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HQ9007BQ4HRYU@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 15:32:23 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] [1] Why SPAM is worse in SMTP than in other protocols In-reply-to: <3FE595BE.8040706@axelero.hu> To: "Za'mbori, Zolta'n" Cc: asrg@ietf.org Message-id: <3FE5BD03.80706@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: <20031220145336.06E9216FAC@mail.nitros9.org> <3FE595BE.8040706@axelero.hu> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2003 10:32:19 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Za'mbori, Zolta'n wrote: > Hi Alan, > >>> SMTP compared to other protocols is more attackable because there are >>> no rules assigned to email addresses while there are rules assigned >>> to ports. (For example nobody can use a DNS service as an NTP service.) > > > Sorry about the uninformative text. > > I mean making some email handling rules predictable will do the > spam-volume to be smaller. > > For example it is predictable by everybody based on the port address of > a running service that the service software will read a specific > protocol data unit or not; will accept the content for processing or > not. It is predictable how transport level and content level information > will be filtered out or processed. > > Back to SMTP. It is unpredictable by spammers that a mailbox address is > send-only or not, handshake is neccessary or not, 'sequence numbers' are > necessary or not, session-IDs or secret tokens are necessary or not, the > address accept emails only from predefined senders or not, a content > filter will filter out emails based on the content or not, etc. > > The result of this unpredictability (lack of 'rules' assigned to email > addresses): spammers will send spam to any email address what they have > because they dont have informations how to do self-filtering. (As > opposed to TCP where almost nobody send out random packets to random > host:port addresses, and IP-spoofing is almost impossible.) > > For example spammers will not stop using Yahoo addresses as sender > addresses because spammers will not know based on the receiver email > address that the receiver filter out emails with the help of YDK or not. > I am not sure how would help us, perhaps you can elaborate. Are you suggesting that we should let spammers know about how their spam is being filtered? Wouldn't that let them adjust their spam messages so they can go through better? 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 Dec 21 14:49:46 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA02517 for ; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 14:49:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AY9Zm-00010P-T0 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 14:49:19 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBLJnIic003858 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 14:49:18 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AY9Zm-000109-M5 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 14:49:18 -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 OAA02511 for ; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 14:49:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AY9Zj-0007Bt-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 14:49:15 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AY9Zi-0007Bf-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 14:49:15 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AY9Zi-0007Bc-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 14:49:14 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AY9ZU-0000xT-MF; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 14:49:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AY9Yy-0000wq-O3 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 14:48:28 -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 OAA02476 for ; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 14:48:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AY9Yv-00079h-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 14:48:26 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AY9Yu-00079T-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 14:48:25 -0500 Received: from fe06.axelero.hu ([195.228.240.94]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AY9Yu-00079M-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 14:48:24 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost-02 [127.0.2.1]) by fe06.axelero.hu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with SMTP id hBLJm6l5038232 for ; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 20:48:11 +0100 (CET) Received: from fe06.axelero.hu [127.0.2.1] via SMTP gateway by fe06 [195.228.240.94]; id A09550CDB8A at Sun, 21 Dec 2003 20:48:06 +0100 Received: from axelero.hu (223.14-182-adsl-pool.axelero.hu [81.182.14.223]) by fe06.axelero.hu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hBLJm6nx038143 for ; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 20:48:06 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3FE5F8F5.90006@axelero.hu> From: "Za'mbori, Zolta'n" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; hu-HU; rv:1.6b) Gecko/20031210 X-Accept-Language: hu, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] [1] Why SPAM is worse in SMTP than in other protocols Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-RAVMilter-Version: 8.4.3(snapshot 20030217) (fe06.axelero.hu) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2003 20:48:05 +0100 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > I am not sure how would help us, perhaps you can elaborate. Are you > suggesting that we should let spammers know about how their spam is > being filtered? Wouldn't that let them adjust their spam messages so > they can go through better? I dont think so. They adjust their spam messages already so they will go through better. Publishing the filtering rules does not help against undetectable spam. But it can help against detectable spam. If a smart spammer (software) see that the actual spam is filterable by the domain the software will skip the whole domain. And not sended spam will make the spam volume smaller. IMHO publishing filtering rules can be a valuable out-of-band negative response for smarter spammers (or softwares). z2 _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Dec 21 14:51:33 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA02579 for ; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 14:51:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AY9bT-0001Er-De for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 14:51:06 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBLJp3vG004755 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 14:51:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AY9bT-0001Ec-8S for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 14:51:03 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA02558 for ; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 14:50:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AY9bQ-0007Df-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 14:51:00 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AY9bP-0007DY-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 14:51:00 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AY9bP-0007DU-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 14:50:59 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AY9bR-00018g-4f; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 14:51:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AY9Zm-00010O-Sl for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 14:49:19 -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 OAA02514 for ; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 14:49:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AY9Zk-0007Bw-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 14:49:16 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AY9Zi-0007Bm-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 14:49:15 -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 1AY9Zi-0007Ax-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 14:49:14 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-364-335.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.137.167]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HQ900FZSGD3CA@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 19:48:44 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - Not sure where this fits In-reply-to: To: Chris Cc: ASRG Message-id: <3FE5F919.1030300@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, 21 Dec 2003 14:48:41 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Chris wrote: > Hi All > > An interesting job was recently advertised on a software coders auction > site. > > It goes something like this.... > > > ======================================= > > Coder wanted to create perl mail program > > Mail program operates as an MTA-intermediate > > Mail program must be able to forge the previous domain in the MTA chain, > this domain is selectable and will be a valid domain with a reverse DNS > > Mail program must be able to switch domains using domain list text file > > ... > > ======================================= > > >>From what I can see this "job" specifically targets anti spam measures that > use reverse DNS (ip blacklists) to determine the sender. by simply saying my > name is joe.com and I got message from jane.com for you. > > because everybody knows jane.com the message is accepted. (until Jane is > blacklisted through no fault of her own) > ... That is not necessarily true, usually you check the incoming MTA's IP, not the one further away. This is how open relays get caught, even the ones claiming to relay mail from Yahoo. 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 Dec 21 16:00:53 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA05041 for ; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 16:00:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYAgY-0002ww-KL for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 16:00:25 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBLL0Mob011338 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 16:00:22 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYAgY-0002wn-Fg for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 16:00:22 -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 QAA05027 for ; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 16:00:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYAgW-0000m8-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 16:00:20 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AYAgT-0000lU-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 16:00:20 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYAgT-0000lR-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 16:00:17 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYAgF-0002ti-0i; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 16:00:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYAfv-0002sZ-MV for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 15:59:47 -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 PAA05003 for ; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 15:59:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYAfu-0000ka-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 15:59:42 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AYAft-0000kT-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 15:59:41 -0500 Received: from moebius2.space.net ([195.30.1.100]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYAfs-0000kQ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 15:59:40 -0500 Received: (qmail 58405 invoked by uid 1013); 21 Dec 2003 20:59:38 -0000 From: Markus Stumpf To: Alan DeKok Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] [1] Why SPAM is worse in SMTP than in other protocols Message-ID: <20031221205938.GC15194@Space.Net> References: <20031221005349.GH79972@Space.Net> <20031221155455.8793116FCB@mail.nitros9.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20031221155455.8793116FCB@mail.nitros9.org> 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: Sun, 21 Dec 2003 21:59:38 +0100 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 On Sun, Dec 21, 2003 at 10:54:55AM -0500, Alan DeKok wrote: > Says the protocol. Blah. > All those protocols are just like SMTP, so that's why we have so > many protocols, right? They all do the same thing! Yes they are all just like SMTP with regard to *> But the *intent* behind SMTP was to enable two-way human *> communication. Read what I write. > And nothing on the Net has changed since then. Changes are irrelevant. You said it was the design intent with SMTP otherwise they would have used URLs. This is nonsense as URLs didn't exist when they designed SMTP. > So if, as I said, we > WERE to design such a notification protocol, we would not (of course) > use anything we've learned in the past two decades. No, you didn't talk about future protocols or future design, you talk about the intent of the design of SMTP. > When your protocol stack gets IP packets with proto TCP, and the IP > data contains something other than TCP, your stack still does > something useful with it? That protocol field has no bearing on how > you treat the encapsulated data? What happens depends on the protocol stack that the sender and the receiver use. But whether this will be "real" TCP data or something only decodable by sender/receiver is absolutely irrelevant to the IP stack. Totally damages TCP data will be transported on IP level from sender to receiver without and problems and this is good as it is. So setting a protocol identifier in the underlying protocol may be a nice idea, but the underlying protocol has to ignore it. It's not its business. If this is a problem for IDS than this is the problem of the IDS, as it tries to interpret data that may not be encoded for it to decode. This is a problem that has always been present for listeners that listen to data they're not supposed to receive. > Nonsense. Have you ever done any work with networks, or protocols? You're always so easy with your "nonsense". And it's always easy for you to try to discredit others by asking them "are you on crack or what?". Maybe you should simply think before writing all those bullshit. You just can't stand it if others have a different opinion that doesn't match your - of course - unfailing point of (limited) view. When e.g. the ethernet stack gets a frame it doesn't care what the contents is. The ethernet stack takes the packet, drops the envelope and hands it off to the next stack. This looks at the content and dispatches it e.g. to the IP stack handler. This drops the IP envelope and hands it off to the next handler which decides whether to e.g. dispatch it to TCP/UDP/ICMP. It is an explicit design goal of protocol stacks that the higher level protocol doesn't have to know anything about the lower level protocols to peer communicate with its partner and the lower level protocol doesn't have to know anything about the contents/data/encoding of the higher level protocol to transport it. If the sender and receiver agree on using an UDP ident for TCP stack and an TCP ident for UDP stack they will communicate perfectly, as will the underlying and overlying protocols. So if sender and receiver agree to use the http ports for smtp is the same thing as if they would agree to use the HTTP ident for SMTP and put it in the underlying protocol. Your IDS would choke, just like it would if they'd use port 80 for SMTP. \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 Sun Dec 21 16:16:37 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA05762 for ; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 16:16:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYAvq-0003i3-7r for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 16:16:10 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBLLGA1V014253 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 16:16:10 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYAvq-0003ho-3R for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 16:16:10 -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 QAA05758 for ; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 16:16:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYAvo-0001VE-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 16:16:08 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AYAvn-0001V1-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 16:16:08 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYAvm-0001Uy-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 16:16:06 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYAvf-0003dL-Vp; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 16:15:59 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYAvT-0003cM-Rx for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 16:15:47 -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 QAA05709 for ; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 16:15:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYAvS-0001RP-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 16:15:46 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AYAvR-0001RI-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 16:15:45 -0500 Received: from fe05.axelero.hu ([195.228.240.93]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYAvQ-0001R4-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 16:15:45 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost-02 [127.0.2.1]) by fe05.axelero.hu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with SMTP id hBLLFhRh028988; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 22:15:43 +0100 (CET) Received: from fe05.axelero.hu [127.0.2.1] via SMTP gateway by fe05 [195.228.240.93]; id A0712E32FA2 at Sun, 21 Dec 2003 22:15:43 +0100 Received: from axelero.hu (223.14-182-adsl-pool.axelero.hu [81.182.14.223]) (authenticated bits=0) by fe05.axelero.hu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hBLLFfgJ028910; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 22:15:42 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3FE60D7D.6050901@axelero.hu> From: "Za'mbori, Zolta'n" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; hu-HU; rv:1.6b) Gecko/20031210 X-Accept-Language: hu, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Yakov Shafranovich , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] [1] Why SPAM is worse in SMTP than in other protocols References: <20031220145336.06E9216FAC@mail.nitros9.org> <3FE595BE.8040706@axelero.hu> <3FE5BD03.80706@solidmatrix.com> <3FE5EEB6.7000406@axelero.hu> <3FE5F98A.9020509@solidmatrix.com> In-Reply-To: <3FE5F98A.9020509@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: Sun, 21 Dec 2003 22:15:41 +0100 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > Za'mbori, Zolta'n wrote: >> >> If a smart spammer (software) see that the actual spam is filterable >> by the domain the software will skip the whole domain. And not sended >> spam will make the spam volume smaller. >> > > Wouldn't that cause the domains not skipped to get more spam? You are true. The volume will not change. Just the direction. Sorry about wasting the time. z2 _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Dec 21 18:13:41 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA10164 for ; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 18:13:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYCl7-00073R-9d for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 18:13:15 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBLNDDEd027111 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 18:13:13 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYCl7-00073C-5D for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 18:13:13 -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 SAA10116 for ; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 18:13:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYCl4-0004qR-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 18:13:10 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AYCl3-0004qK-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 18:13:10 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYCl3-0004qH-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 18:13:09 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYCkv-00070z-1U; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 18:13:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYCiu-0006y8-DG for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 18:10:56 -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 SAA09796 for ; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 18:10:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYCir-0004kF-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 18:10:53 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AYCiq-0004k6-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 18:10:53 -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 1AYCiq-0004jF-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 18:10:52 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-364-335.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.137.167]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HQ900ECJPP4ML@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 23:10:23 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] [1] Why SPAM is worse in SMTP than in other protocols In-reply-to: <20031221205938.GC15194@Space.Net> To: Markus Stumpf Cc: Alan DeKok , asrg@ietf.org Message-id: <3FE62859.3080507@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 5.0; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007 X-Enigmail-Version: 0.82.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime References: <20031221005349.GH79972@Space.Net> <20031221155455.8793116FCB@mail.nitros9.org> <20031221205938.GC15194@Space.Net> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2003 18:10:17 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Markus Stumpf wrote: > On Sun, Dec 21, 2003 at 10:54:55AM -0500, Alan DeKok wrote: ... >> Nonsense. Have you ever done any work with networks, or protocols? > > > You're always so easy with your "nonsense". And it's always easy for you > to try to discredit others by asking them "are you on crack or what?". > Maybe you should simply think before writing all those bullshit. > You just can't stand it if others have a different opinion that doesn't > match your - of course - unfailing point of (limited) view. > Lets cool it a bit. > When e.g. the ethernet stack gets a frame it doesn't care what the contents > is. The ethernet stack takes the packet, drops the envelope and hands > it off to the next stack. This looks at the content and dispatches it > e.g. to the IP stack handler. This drops the IP envelope and hands it > off to the next handler which decides whether to e.g. dispatch it to > TCP/UDP/ICMP. It is an explicit design goal of protocol stacks that the > higher level protocol doesn't have to know anything about the lower > level protocols to peer communicate with its partner and the lower > level protocol doesn't have to know anything about the > contents/data/encoding of the higher level protocol to transport it. > ... Lets step back for a second. We are comparing the SMTP protocol with other protocols in order to determine which problems the SMTP protocol has similar to other protocols, and see which solutions applied in other protocols can help us here. The point of contention here seems to be whether SMTP is intended to be an end-to-end protocol (like a network layer protocol of the OSI model), or a hop-to-hop protocol (like a link layer protocol). Obviously SMTP is in reality is running above these layers on application layer, but we'll ignore that for a second. Now lets see section 2.1 of RFC 2821: " In other words, message transfer can occur in a single connection between the original SMTP-sender and the final SMTP-recipient, or can occur in a series of hops through intermediary systems. In either case, a formal handoff of responsibility for the message occurs: the protocol requires that a server accept responsibility for either delivering a message or properly reporting the failure to do so. " It seems from here that the SMTP protocol can either operate as an end-to-end protocol or a hop-by-hop protocol. The RFC states that a server must accept responsibility for the message if it is not the final destination, which implies that each individual hop is independent of each other. On the other hand, in many cases only one SMTP transaction takes place between the originating ISP's MTA and the receiver ISP's MTA. So what comes out from this, is that SMTP operates on a hop-by-hop basis, which in many cases is end-to-end since there is only a single hop to be done. Now the question is, what can we, as a RG, learn from this? How is this behavior helpful to stopping spam? What comparisons can we draw from this behavior to other protocols? Yakov ------- Yakov Shafranovich / asrg shaftek.org SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / research solidmatrix.com "Some lies are easier to believe than the truth" (Dune) ------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 22 05:18:58 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA09734 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 05:18:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYN8w-0003LR-Ov for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 05:18:31 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBMAIUqp012851 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 05:18:30 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYN8w-0003LC-Kp for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 05:18:30 -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 FAA09705 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 05:18:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYN8t-0004bU-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 05:18:27 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AYN8s-0004bL-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 05:18:26 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYN8s-0004bI-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 05:18:26 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYN8U-0003IC-P5; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 05:18:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYN8H-0003Hh-V0 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 05:17:49 -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 FAA09682 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 05:17:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYN8E-0004aS-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 05:17:46 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AYN8D-0004aL-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 05:17:46 -0500 Received: from argon.connectinternetsolutions.com ([193.110.243.33] helo=argon.connect.org.uk) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYN8D-0004aI-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 05:17:45 -0500 Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 1AYN8E-0008MF-9T for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 10:17:46 +0000 In-Reply-To: <3FE62859.3080507@solidmatrix.com> Subject: Re: [Asrg] [1] Why SPAM is worse in SMTP than in other protocols To: "ASRG" From: "Jon Kyme" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.10.1] 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, 22 Dec 2003 10:17:46 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Yakov wrote: > > So what comes out from this, is that SMTP operates on a hop-by-hop > basis, which in many cases is end-to-end since there is only a single > hop to be done. > > Now the question is, what can we, as a RG, learn from this? How is this > behavior helpful to stopping spam? What comparisons can we draw from > this behavior to other protocols? > We learn that the system involves at least 1 intermediate between MUAs and MUAr, works asynchonously, in a store-and-forward kinda way. These intermediate agents act (for the most part) to support the intention of the message originator. Intermediates try to provide resources to satisfy the originator, while being paid-for by the recipient (often). Other systems may consider the *message* (the data made available) as being a significant resource - we consider the significant resources as being: 1. the *attention* of the recipient 2. transport and storage requirements Following this reasoning, we can consider the MTS as a system for giving the sender access to (human) recipient *attention* - For making recipient resources available to the sender. The messages it transports are just part of the mechanism for brokering attention. SMTP is, from this viewpoint, much more like a form of RPC than anything else I can think of - but asynchronous, which will allow the sender to overwhelm the recipient. Clearly, what's weak is the access control (and flow control). Recipient resources should be available only subject to recipient policy. That's as far as we need go with this. We can see that we need mechanisms for expressing and enforcing recipient policy in our MTS. -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 22 08:03:41 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA13555 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 08:03:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYPiK-000864-E4 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 08:03:13 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBMD3CT2031118 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 08:03:12 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYPiK-00085p-8s for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 08:03:12 -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 IAA13522 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 08:03:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYPiJ-0000rB-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 08:03:11 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AYPiI-0000r4-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 08:03:11 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYPiI-0000r1-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 08:03:10 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYPi9-00082j-53; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 08:03:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYPhC-00081Q-9p for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 08:02:02 -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 IAA13458 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 08:02:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYPhB-0000np-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 08:02:01 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AYPhA-0000nY-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 08:02:00 -0500 Received: from fe02.axelero.hu ([195.228.240.90] helo=digpala.axelero.hu) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYPh9-0000nM-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 08:01:59 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost-02 [127.0.2.1]) by digpala.axelero.hu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with SMTP id hBMD1wrE053552 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 14:01:58 +0100 (CET) Received: from fe02.axelero.hu [127.0.2.1] via SMTP gateway by digpala [195.228.240.90]; id A0D11C9490B at Mon, 22 Dec 2003 14:01:57 +0100 Received: from axelero.hu (145.14-182-adsl-pool.axelero.hu [81.182.14.145]) (authenticated bits=0) by fe02.axelero.hu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hBMD1ua8053407 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 14:01:57 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3FE6EB43.6060405@axelero.hu> From: "Za'mbori, Zolta'n" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; hu-HU; rv:1.6b) Gecko/20031210 X-Accept-Language: hu, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org References: <3FE62859.3080507@solidmatrix.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] Re: [1] Why SPAM is worse in SMTP than in other protocols Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 14:01:55 +0100 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jon Kyme wrote: > That's as far as we need go with this. We can see that we need mechanisms > for expressing and enforcing recipient policy in our MTS. Is it true that a recipient policy is equivalent with a description of forward licencing of recipient resources? z2 _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 22 10:16:31 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA20726 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 10:16:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYRmu-0004ts-2T for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 10:16:04 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBMFG4fv018830 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 10:16:04 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYRmt-0004td-Tf for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 10:16:03 -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 KAA20641 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 10:16:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYRmr-0006Gc-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 10:16:01 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AYRmq-0006GU-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 10:16:01 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYRmq-0006GR-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 10:16:00 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYRlw-0004hU-Cd; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 10:15:04 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYRlc-0004gc-Pi for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 10:14:44 -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 KAA20473 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 10:14:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYRla-0006FH-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 10:14:42 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AYRlZ-0006F9-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 10:14:42 -0500 Received: from argon.connectinternetsolutions.com ([193.110.243.33] helo=argon.connect.org.uk) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYRlZ-0006F6-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 10:14:41 -0500 Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 1AYRlY-0008Hr-Nr for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 15:14:40 +0000 In-Reply-To: <3FE6EB43.6060405@axelero.hu> Subject: [Asrg] Re: [1] Why SPAM is worse in SMTP than in other protocols To: "ASRG" From: "Jon Kyme" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.10.1] 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, 22 Dec 2003 15:14:40 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 > > for expressing and enforcing recipient policy in our MTS. > > > Is it true that a recipient policy is equivalent with a description of > forward licencing of recipient resources? > That's not a term I'm familiar with. If it means what I guess it means, that might be a good way of looking at it. In the case of prior explicit consent I suppose I'm offering a sender license to use my resources. I guess this is precisely what a consent token does. Without explicit consent, license is conditional, or reserved. "license" smells of contract law - IANAL. I dare say a lawyer might have a view on this. -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 22 13:32:42 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA29122 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 13:32:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYUqc-0003lA-SO for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 13:32:14 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBMIW6Uv014446 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 13:32:06 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYUqc-0003kv-NI for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 13:32:06 -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 NAA29097 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 13:32:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYUqa-0005aN-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 13:32:04 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AYUqZ-0005aE-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 13:32:04 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYUqZ-0005aA-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 13:32:03 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYUpZ-0003ev-D7; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 13:31:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYUpU-0003dq-Of for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 13:30:56 -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 NAA29040 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 13:30:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYUpS-0005XB-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 13:30:54 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AYUpR-0005X4-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 13:30:54 -0500 Received: from newgiles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ([205.150.200.131] helo=mail.nitros9.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYUpR-0005X1-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 13:30:53 -0500 Received: from newgiles.nitros9.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.nitros9.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A189170A5 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 13:31:42 -0500 (EST) From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] [1] Why SPAM is worse in SMTP than in other protocols In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 21 Dec 2003 18:10:17 EST." <3FE62859.3080507@solidmatrix.com> Message-Id: <20031222183142.3A189170A5@mail.nitros9.org> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 13:31:42 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > Lets step back for a second. We are comparing the SMTP protocol with > other protocols in order to determine which problems the SMTP protocol > has similar to other protocols, and see which solutions applied in other > protocols can help us here. Exactly. That's the scope of the document I wrote. > The point of contention here seems to be whether SMTP is intended to be > an end-to-end protocol (like a network layer protocol of the OSI model), > or a hop-to-hop protocol (like a link layer protocol). Almost. We went down a rat-hole of human messaging systems, because of my contention as to the design intent of SMTP: one to one communication. If SMTP was intented to be many to many, with high latencies, it would look like NNTP. If it was intented to be many to many, with low latencies, it would look like IRC. That's all I'm going to say on that topic. > So what comes out from this, is that SMTP operates on a hop-by-hop > basis, which in many cases is end-to-end since there is only a single > hop to be done. > > Now the question is, what can we, as a RG, learn from this? The LMAP discussion document (based on Hadmut's comments in RMX), says that the single hop use of SMTP is a large part of the reason why spam is so wide-spread. There are 100's of millions of senders, each sending to only 100's of thousands of recipient MTA's. > How is this behavior helpful to stopping spam? If that imbalance in the network was addressed, spam would become significantly more manageable. It wouldn't stop entirely, but having a blacklist of 100K MTA's is signficantly easier than having blacklists of millions of IP's. PHB's suggestion that MTA's have "recommendations" in DNS would apply here. LMAP would say "yes, example.com meant to originate SMTP from this IP", and a related protocol would say "example.net thinks I'm an OK MTA, too." You'd still have to query example.net, so see if it agrees, but that's fairly simple. This process builds a web of trust, where MTA's simple don't bother to listen to spammers. > What comparisons can we draw from this behavior to other protocols? Many other protocols are only single-hop. Others are nearly always multi-hop. There are fewer which are a combination of the two, like SMTP. If SMTP was one or the other, the spam problem would probably be easier to solve. It's the combination of factors that makes SMTP worse than other protocols. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 22 13:47:20 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA29743 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 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 1AYV4u-0004f1-8H for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 13:46:52 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBMIkq3Y017909 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 13:46:52 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYV4u-0004em-3c for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 13:46:52 -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 NAA29689 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 13:46:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYV4m-000674-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 13:46:45 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AYV4D-00064e-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 13:46:12 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYV4C-00062X-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 13:46:08 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYV38-0004Vw-Kn; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 13:45:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYV2N-0004Ux-Kc for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 13:44:15 -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 NAA29461 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 13:44:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYV2G-0005rz-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 13:44:08 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AYV1l-0005rM-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 13:43:38 -0500 Received: from newgiles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ([205.150.200.131] helo=mail.nitros9.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYV1l-0005qT-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 13:43:37 -0500 Received: from newgiles.nitros9.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.nitros9.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0B44170AC for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 13:44:15 -0500 (EST) From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: [1] Why SPAM is worse in SMTP than in other protocols In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 22 Dec 2003 15:14:40 GMT." Message-Id: <20031222184415.F0B44170AC@mail.nitros9.org> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 13:44:15 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 "Jon Kyme" wrote: > In the case of prior explicit consent I suppose I'm offering a > sender license to use my resources. I guess this is precisely what a > consent token does. Without explicit consent, license is > conditional, or reserved. Exactly. In many cases, "license" is a synonym for "permission". > "license" smells of contract law - IANAL. I dare say a lawyer might have a > view on this. Many contracts involve the granting of license, if certain conditions are met. You can have a contract without a license, and a license without a contract. The software "click to agree" things are contacts, disguised as licenses. In terms of SMTP, publishing recipient policy may be equivalent to giving license to people to use the recipients resources within that policy. It does make it clear that senders NOT following the policy are forbidden from using the recipients resources. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 22 15:11:16 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA04585 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 15:11:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYWO4-0007wU-6S for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 15:10:49 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBMKAiAp030526 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 15:10:44 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYWO4-0007wH-1K for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 15:10:44 -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 PAA04508 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 15:10:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYWO1-0001OM-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 15:10:41 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AYWO0-0001OF-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 15:10:40 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYWO0-0001OC-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 15:10:40 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYWMP-0007b9-8x; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 15:09:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYW4H-0006ZR-MP for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 14:50:17 -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 OAA02501 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 14:50:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYW49-0000U0-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 14:50:09 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AYW3j-0000Te-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 14:49:44 -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 1AYW3j-0000Rv-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 14:49:43 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-373-562.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.173.142]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HQB007LFAJESL@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 19:38:07 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: [1] Why SPAM is worse in SMTP than in other protocols In-reply-to: <20031222184415.F0B44170AC@mail.nitros9.org> To: ASRG Message-id: <3FE74821.3010706@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 5.0; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007 X-Enigmail-Version: 0.82.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime References: <20031222184415.F0B44170AC@mail.nitros9.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: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 14:38:09 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Alan DeKok wrote: > "Jon Kyme" wrote: > .. >>"license" smells of contract law - IANAL. I dare say a lawyer might have a >>view on this. > > Many contracts involve the granting of license, if certain > conditions are met. You can have a contract without a license, and a > license without a contract. The software "click to agree" things are > contracts, disguised as licenses. > If I remember correctly, "click through" licenses are not easily enforceable without UCITA, which was only passed in two states in the US. In any case, it is important to keep in mind that licenses and contracts of this kind operate because of laws that are in place to enforce them. > In terms of SMTP, publishing recipient policy may be equivalent to > giving license to people to use the recipients resources within that > policy. It does make it clear that senders NOT following the policy > are forbidden from using the recipients resources. > This approach works in conjunction with legal enforcement and proper laws, which is what the "no solicit" extension by Carl Malamud was intended to be. This is important to keep in mind. The hard question would be how to define policy elements that people can agree on, which has been the sticking point until now. Even the elements defined in Carl's draft, people had issues with. Some kind of a registry would probably be needed. Yakov ------- Yakov Shafranovich / asrg shaftek.org SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / research solidmatrix.com "Among all our enemies / The ones to be most feared are often the smallest" (Jean de la Fontaine) ------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 22 15:11:17 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA04601 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 15:11:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYWO6-0007yW-Ov for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 15:10:50 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBMKAknk030650 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 15:10:46 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYWO6-0007yH-LC for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 15:10:46 -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 PAA04515 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 15:10:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYWO3-0001OZ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 15:10:43 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AYWO2-0001OS-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 15:10:43 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYWO2-0001OP-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 15:10:42 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYWNP-0007kJ-3N; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 15:10:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYWKX-0007Iu-25 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 15:07:05 -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 PAA04083 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 15:07:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYWKU-0001II-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 15:07:02 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AYWKQ-0001Hk-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 15:07:01 -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 1AYWKQ-0001Gq-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 15:06:58 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-373-562.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.173.142]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HQB00LX1BUO1M@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 20:06:29 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich To: ASRG Message-id: <3FE74EC4.7080506@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 5.0; 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 - Legal - CAN-SPAM effects Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 15:06:28 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BIZ_TLD,REMOVE_IN_QUOTES, REMOVE_REMOVAL_NEAR autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT I got a bunch of emails advertising "bulletproof" hosting with a new twist - "CAN-SPAM friendly". Below is a copy of the spam message AND a copy of an IM conversation with the spammer following up on that message. Yakov -------- Original Message -------- Subject: CAN-SPAM friendly ISP Date: Tue, 23 Dec 03 15:35:42 GMT From: Elvia Jones Reply-To: Elvia Jones *Direct marketing works!* Send thousands of emails to potentional customers without your web site being shutdown! Real solid and *bullet proof hosting* starting at only $199/month. Powerful linux platforms, offshore location! New CAN-SPAM law friendly!! Sincerely, Jeff -------- Original IM Chat -------- (14:46:42) : hi (14:46:48) : hello (14:46:55) : how can I help you ? (14:47:02) : i got an email from u recent;y and had some questions (14:47:54) : hmm about hosting ? (14:47:59) : yep (14:48:09) : sure, go ahead (14:48:13) : I am here to assist you (14:48:20) : your email mentioned that you are "New CAN-SPAM law friendly!!" (14:48:34) : well, kinda (14:49:00) : depends also on the bulk marketed (who sends the emails out), but we will keep "remove" links working as long as you with us (14:49:32) : and do i have to make the remove link actually remove the email from my lists? (14:49:59) : that would be nice for us both, BUT we are located offshore (14:50:11) : so not a 100% requirement but would be nice of course (14:50:29) : and do u do any kind of emailing also, or just hosting? (14:50:30) : your lists cleaner and less complaints to our upstreams (14:52:01) : well we do send out a bit but prefer more hosting (because currently we are harvesting some email addresses) (14:52:32) : to get better lists (14:54:13) : do i have to make my return addresses valid as well? and do you provide pop accounts? (14:54:56) : well, depends on your local law (if you want to fully comply with CAN-SPAM, you will need to have a valid return address) not 100% required with us (14:55:10) : we do provide POP3 accounts, but not for using in return emails (14:55:38) : if I am in us, but hosting with u, then should i even worry about can spam? (14:55:39) : we will offer this service in the future (we can already supply this, but the prob is that it's a bit higher fee because we do not yet sell it in quantity) (14:56:02) : well up to you (14:56:09) : we have servers offshore (14:56:12) : in China and Brazil (14:56:20) : we are located in Europe (14:56:24) : so all should be OK -------- Original IM Chat -------- ------- Yakov Shafranovich / asrg shaftek.org SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / research solidmatrix.com "But in this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes" (Benjamin Franklin) ------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 22 15:19:17 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA05389 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 15:19:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYWVs-0008Gf-Hj for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 15:18:48 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBMKImhj031775 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 15:18:48 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYWVs-0008GQ-Dj for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 15:18:48 -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 PAA05383 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 15:18:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYWVr-0001iH-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 15:18:47 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AYWVq-0001iA-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 15:18:46 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYWVq-0001i7-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 15:18:46 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYWV6-00087z-P2; Mon, 22 Dec 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 1AYWUI-00087T-0j for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 15:17:10 -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 PAA05306 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 15:17:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYWUF-0001fH-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 15:17:07 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AYWUE-0001fA-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 15:17:07 -0500 Received: from mail017.syd.optusnet.com.au ([211.29.132.168]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYWUD-0001e6-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 15:17:06 -0500 Received: from c211-30-120-204.carlnfd2.nsw.optusnet.com.au (c211-30-120-204.carlnfd2.nsw.optusnet.com.au [211.30.120.204]) by mail017.syd.optusnet.com.au (8.11.6p2/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBMKGW312501 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 07:16:33 +1100 From: Troy Rollo To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: [1] Why SPAM is worse in SMTP than in other protocols User-Agent: KMail/1.5.3 References: <20031222184415.F0B44170AC@mail.nitros9.org> In-Reply-To: <20031222184415.F0B44170AC@mail.nitros9.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200312230716.29709.asrg@troy.rollo.name> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 07:16:29 +1100 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit "Jon Kyme" wrote: > "license" smells of contract law - IANAL. I dare say a lawyer might have a > view on this. On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 05:44, Alan DeKok wrote: > Exactly. In many cases, "license" is a synonym for "permission". In law, "license" means "permission". Having a license literally means you have been given permission. Software licenses are commonly also attempting to be contracts. Whether they actually become contracts depends on a lot of factors, including how you purchased the software, what you have done since receiving it, whether you have relied on it to do something you would not otherwise have been able to do, and which state and country you are in. As for the subject of this thread, it seems to me that the comparison between protocols per se is misguided and although I haven't read the whole thread, I'm surprised the topic has lasted this long. Spam (not SPAM, the meat product) is worse in SMTP because it's the protocol that allows the spammer to put the message in the face of the target. Change the protocol without changing the very nature of email, and spammers will still find ways to exploit it. Take, for example, the MS network popup messaging protocol (whose name I don't recall). It also put the message in the face of the targets. It remained unabused for a long time because it's a low profile protocol that spammers simply hadn't considered. When they realised it was there, they started exploiting it rapidly. As it happened, the protocol wasn't very important, so it was either jettisonned entirely or blocked at routers in most places. -- -- Troy Rollo Chairman, CAUBE.AU asrg@troy.rollo.name Executive Director, iCAUCE _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 22 15:45:58 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA07450 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 15:45:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYWve-0000kl-0J for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 15:45:30 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBMKjP7D002889 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 15:45:25 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYWvd-0000kW-SV for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 15:45:25 -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 PAA07427 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 15:45:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYWuv-0003EZ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 15:44:41 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AYWqV-0002pL-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 15:40:12 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYWqU-0002nz-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 15:40:06 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYWpQ-0000Ts-PG; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 15:39:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYWoW-0000Pm-60 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 15:38:13 -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 PAA06769 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 15:38:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYWoU-0002WK-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 15:38:02 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AYWoT-0002W3-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 15:38:02 -0500 Received: from newgiles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ([205.150.200.131] helo=mail.nitros9.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYWoS-0002Vn-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 15:38:00 -0500 Received: from newgiles.nitros9.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.nitros9.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D549170A5 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 15:38:56 -0500 (EST) From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: [1] Why SPAM is worse in SMTP than in other protocols In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 23 Dec 2003 07:16:29 +1100." <200312230716.29709.asrg@troy.rollo.name> Message-Id: <20031222203856.9D549170A5@mail.nitros9.org> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 15:38:56 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Troy Rollo wrote: > As for the subject of this thread, it seems to me that the > comparison between protocols per se is misguided and although I > haven't read the whole thread, I'm surprised the topic has lasted > this long. Spam (not SPAM, the meat product) is worse in SMTP > because it's the protocol that allows the spammer to put the message > in the face of the target. HTTP puts messages in front of people, too, but the users have to request it. IRC also puts messages in front of people, but spammers get booted off of the IRC network. NNTP does it too, but things like "cancel bots" get rid of a lot of the spam, before it's delivered. (To say nothing of the Usenet Death Penalty.) None of these approaches work in SMTP. > Take, for example, the MS network popup messaging protocol (whose > name I don't recall). It also put the message in the face of the > targets. And as you noticed, the abuse stopped because everyone decided they didn't need the protocol. We can't do that with SMTP. Please read the document. It tries to explain all this in more detail than I've included here. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 22 17:58:52 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA13759 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 17:58:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYZ0L-0004qX-Lb for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 17:58:25 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBMMwPmo018623 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 17:58:25 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYZ0L-0004qH-Ez for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 17:58:25 -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 RAA13627 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 17:58:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYZ0I-0003O6-02 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 17:58:22 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AYYzu-0003LL-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 17:58:06 -0500 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=manatick) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYYzt-0003LB-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 17:57:57 -0500 Received: from optimus22.ietf.org ([132.151.6.22] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by manatick with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1AYYzt-0004Zp-Uk for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 17:57:58 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYYyz-0004bT-A1; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 17:57:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYYyJ-0004WM-2v for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 17:56:19 -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 RAA13019 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 17:56:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYYyG-0002tp-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 17:56:16 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AYYyE-0002uH-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 17:56:15 -0500 Received: from newgiles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ([205.150.200.131] helo=mail.nitros9.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYYyE-0002tr-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 17:56:14 -0500 Received: from newgiles.nitros9.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.nitros9.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E744170A5 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 17:57:10 -0500 (EST) From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: [1] Why SPAM is worse in SMTP than in other protocols In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 22 Dec 2003 14:38:09 EST." <3FE74821.3010706@solidmatrix.com> Message-Id: <20031222225710.1E744170A5@mail.nitros9.org> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 17:57:10 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > The hard question would be how to define policy elements that people can > agree on, which has been the sticking point until now. Even the elements > defined in Carl's draft, people had issues with. Some kind of a registry > would probably be needed. The policies can be opaque tokens in a registry, in which case spammers can claim they don't know about the registry, and therefore can't understand the policy. Or, the policy can be text, in which case there are international language issues. SMTP is pseudo-English text. I don't see why any policies published in SMTP or related protocols can't be pseudo-English text, too. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 22 18:07:15 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA15298 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 18:07:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYZ8S-0005J9-SH for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 18:06:48 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBMN6mh4020397 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 18:06:48 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYZ8S-0005Iu-NV for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 18:06:48 -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 SAA15107 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 18:06:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYZ8P-0004kJ-01 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 18:06:45 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AYZ7P-0004jf-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 18:05:44 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYZ7P-0004jc-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 18:05:43 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYZ6l-00055p-W0; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 18:05:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYZ40-0004z1-6w for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 18:02:12 -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 SAA14176 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 18:02:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYZ3x-00049U-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 18:02:09 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AYZ3M-00041H-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 18:01:33 -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 1AYZ3L-0003wB-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 18:01:32 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-373-562.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.173.142]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HQB00JZ4JXJZV@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 23:01:01 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: [1] Why SPAM is worse in SMTP than in other protocols To: ASRG Message-id: <3FE777AE.2020301@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 5.0; 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: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 18:01:02 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Alan DeKok wrote: > Troy Rollo wrote: ... >>Take, for example, the MS network popup messaging protocol (whose >>name I don't recall). It also put the message in the face of the >>targets. > > And as you noticed, the abuse stopped because everyone decided they > didn't need the protocol. We can't do that with SMTP. > > Please read the document. It tries to explain all this in more > detail than I've included here. > The very nature of MS's protocol is any-to-any, which is exactly what the problem with SMTP is as well. BTW, link to the original document: http://www.striker.ottawa.on.ca/~aland/smtp-sucks/problems.txt 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 Mon Dec 22 19:07:14 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA18654 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 19:07:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYa4U-0007I5-Rv for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 19:06:49 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBN06k6P028019 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 19:06:46 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYa4U-0007Hq-O3 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 19:06:46 -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 TAA18557 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 19:06:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYa4R-00071a-01 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 19:06:43 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AYa3a-00071H-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 19:05:50 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYa3a-00071E-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 19:05:50 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYa2o-00079d-VK; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 19:05:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYa0g-000770-Ev for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 19:02:50 -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 TAA18454 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 19:02:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYa0d-0006tI-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 19:02:47 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AYZyy-0006rt-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 19:01:05 -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 1AYZyy-0006rX-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 19:01:04 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-373-562.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.173.142]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HQB00E56MLX0R@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 23:58:49 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: [1] Why SPAM is worse in SMTP than in other protocols In-reply-to: <20031222225710.1E744170A5@mail.nitros9.org> To: Alan DeKok Cc: asrg@ietf.org Message-id: <3FE78538.1070503@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 5.0; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007 X-Enigmail-Version: 0.82.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime References: <20031222225710.1E744170A5@mail.nitros9.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: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 18:58:48 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Alan DeKok wrote: > Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > >>The hard question would be how to define policy elements that people can >>agree on, which has been the sticking point until now. Even the elements >>defined in Carl's draft, people had issues with. Some kind of a registry >>would probably be needed. > > > The policies can be opaque tokens in a registry, in which case > spammers can claim they don't know about the registry, and therefore > can't understand the policy. > > Or, the policy can be text, in which case there are international > language issues. > > SMTP is pseudo-English text. I don't see why any policies published > in SMTP or related protocols can't be pseudo-English text, too. I see the problem not in defining the format of policy tokens, but rather defitions of policies. For example, if your policy is not to accept UBE or UCE, how do you define UBE or UCE? Since defitions are very hard to arrive at, as we have seen, this would not be an easy task. Yakov ------- Yakov Shafranovich / asrg shaftek.org SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / research solidmatrix.com "Some lies are easier to believe than the truth" (Dune) ------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 22 20:23:25 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA20089 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 20:23:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYbG6-0000w2-70 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 20:22:56 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBN1Mo4o003591 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 20:22:50 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYbG3-0000vq-IC for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 20:22:49 -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 UAA20068 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 20:22:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYbG1-000103-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 20:22:45 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AYbCO-0000yS-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 20:19:01 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYbCO-0000yP-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 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 1AYbBR-0000jW-MA; Mon, 22 Dec 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 1AYaRk-0007xf-PM for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 19:30:48 -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 TAA19116 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 19:30:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYaRi-0007dH-02 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 19:30:46 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AYaPE-0007bs-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 19:28:13 -0500 Received: from smtp.everyone.net ([216.200.145.17] helo=rmta01.mta.everyone.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYaPD-0007bp-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 19:28:11 -0500 Received: from sohonotebook (ip68-100-37-118.dc.dc.cox.net [68.100.37.118]) by rmta01.mta.everyone.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81B86A3CF9; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 16:28:02 -0800 (PST) From: "Eric Dean" To: "'Yakov Shafranovich'" , "'Alan DeKok'" Cc: Message-ID: <00ca01c3c8eb$a84c7a80$6401a8c0@sohonotebook> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00CB_01C3C8C1.BF767280" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 In-Reply-To: <3FE78538.1070503@solidmatrix.com> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Subject: [Asrg] [2] Spam Statistics Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 19:28:15 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_00CB_01C3C8C1.BF767280 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Some dumbass spam company that I apparently do business with accidently forwarded me their entire year-to-date spam history. I sanitized it to protect the innocent, such as removing the "Subject", open relay providers, and client names, but nevertheless found the stats to at least be of interest to this group. Enjoy. ------=_NextPart_000_00CB_01C3C8C1.BF767280 Content-Type: application/vnd.ms-excel; name="spamcounts.xls" Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="spamcounts.xls" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 0M8R4KGxGuEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPgADAP7/CQAGAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABAAAAbgAAAAAAAAAA EAAAcAAAAAEAAAD+////AAAAAG8AAAD///////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////8J CBAAAAYFAEYYzQfBgAAABgIAAOEAAgCwBMEAAgAAAOIAAABcAHAACQAARXJpYyBEZWFuICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIEIAAgCwBGEBAgAAAMABAAA9AQgA BAABAAIAAwCcAAIADgAZAAIAAAASAAIAAAATAAIAAACvAQIAAAC8AQIAAAA9ABIAAAB4ABsw/CE4 AAAAAAABAFgCQAACAAAAjQACAAAAIgACAAAADgACAAEAtwECAAAA2gACAAAAMQAaAMgAAAD/f5AB AAAAAAABBQFBAHIAaQBhAGwAMQAaAMgAAAD/f5ABAAAAAAABBQFBAHIAaQBhAGwAMQAaAMgAAAD/ f5ABAAAAAAABBQFBAHIAaQBhAGwAMQAaAMgAAAD/f5ABAAAAAAABBQFBAHIAaQBhAGwAMQAaAMgA BAAUAJABAAABAAABBQFBAHIAaQBhAGwAMQAaAMgABAAMAJABAAABAAABBQFBAHIAaQBhAGwAMQAa AKAAAAD/f5ABAAAAAAABBQFBAHIAaQBhAGwAMQAaAMgAAwD/f7wCAAAAAgABBQFBAHIAaQBhAGwA MQAaAMgAAQD/f7wCAAAAAgABBQFBAHIAaQBhAGwAMQAaAMgAAAD/f5ABAAAAAgABBQFBAHIAaQBh AGwAHgQcAAUAFwAAIiQiIywjIzBfKTtcKCIkIiMsIyMwXCkeBCEABgAcAAAiJCIjLCMjMF8pO1tS ZWRdXCgiJCIjLCMjMFwpHgQiAAcAHQAAIiQiIywjIzAuMDBfKTtcKCIkIiMsIyMwLjAwXCkeBCcA CAAiAAAiJCIjLCMjMC4wMF8pO1tSZWRdXCgiJCIjLCMjMC4wMFwpHgQ3ACoAMgAAXygiJCIqICMs IyMwXyk7XygiJCIqIFwoIywjIzBcKTtfKCIkIiogIi0iXyk7XyhAXykeBC4AKQApAABfKCogIywj IzBfKTtfKCogXCgjLCMjMFwpO18oKiAiLSJfKTtfKEBfKR4EPwAsADoAAF8oIiQiKiAjLCMjMC4w MF8pO18oIiQiKiBcKCMsIyMwLjAwXCk7XygiJCIqICItIj8/Xyk7XyhAXykeBDYAKwAxAABfKCog IywjIzAuMDBfKTtfKCogXCgjLCMjMC4wMFwpO18oKiAiLSI/P18pO18oQF8pHgQQAKQACwAAIiQi IywjIzAuMDAeBA8ApQAKAAAjLCMjMC4wMDAwHgQOAKYACQAAbW1tXC15eXl5HgQVAKcAEAAAIlll cyI7IlllcyI7Ik5vIh4EGgCoABUAACJUcnVlIjsiVHJ1ZSI7IkZhbHNlIh4EFACpAA8AACJPbiI7 Ik9uIjsiT2ZmIh4EXQCqACwAAVsAJACsIC0AMgBdAFwAIAAjACwAIwAjADAALgAwADAAXwApADsA WwBSAGUAZABdAFwAKABbACQArCAtADIAXQBcACAAIwAsACMAIwAwAC4AMAAwAFwAKQDgABQAAAAA APX/IAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAwCDgABQAAQAAAPX/IAAA9AAAAAAAAAAAwCDgABQAAQAAAPX/IAAA9AAA AAAAAAAAwCDgABQAAgAAAPX/IAAA9AAAAAAAAAAAwCDgABQAAgAAAPX/IAAA9AAAAAAAAAAAwCDg ABQAAAAAAPX/IAAA9AAAAAAAAAAAwCDgABQAAAAAAPX/IAAA9AAAAAAAAAAAwCDgABQAAAAAAPX/ IAAA9AAAAAAAAAAAwCDgABQAAAAAAPX/IAAA9AAAAAAAAAAAwCDgABQAAAAAAPX/IAAA9AAAAAAA AAAAwCDgABQAAAAAAPX/IAAA9AAAAAAAAAAAwCDgABQAAAAAAPX/IAAA9AAAAAAAAAAAwCDgABQA AAAAAPX/IAAA9AAAAAAAAAAAwCDgABQAAAAAAPX/IAAA9AAAAAAAAAAAwCDgABQAAAAAAPX/IAAA 9AAAAAAAAAAAwCDgABQAAAAAAAEAIAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAwCDgABQAAQArAPX/IAAA+AAAAAAAAAAA wCDgABQAAQApAPX/IAAA+AAAAAAAAAAAwCDgABQAAQAsAPX/IAAA+AAAAAAAAAAAwCDgABQAAQAq APX/IAAA+AAAAAAAAAAAwCDgABQABQAAAPT/AAAA9AAAAAAAAAAAwCDgABQABgAAAPT/AAAA9AAA AAAAAAAAwCDgABQAAQAJAPX/IAAA+AAAAAAAAAAAwCDgABQACAADAAEAIgAAPAAgAAAAIAAAwCDg ABQACQCkAAEAIgAAPAAgAAAAIAAAwCDgABQACAADAAEAIgAAfAAgAAAAIAAAwCDgABQAAAAOAAEA IAAABAAAAAAAAAAAwCDgABQACgADAAEAIAAAPAACAABAAAAAwCDgABQACgADAAEAIAAAfAACAABA AAAAwCDgABQACgADAAEAIAAAPCACACBAAAAAwCDgABQACgADAAEAIAAAPAAAAAAAAAAAwCDgABQA CgADAAEAIAAAfAAAAAAAAAAAwCDgABQACgADAAEAIAAAPCAAACAAAAAAwCDgABQAAAADAAEAIAAA JAAAAAAAAAAAwCDgABQAAAAAAAEAIAAAICAAACAAAAAAwCDgABQAAAADAAEAIAAAZAAAAAAAAAAA wCDgABQAAAADAAEAIAAAZAAgAAAAIAAAwCDgABQAAAADAAEAIAAAJAAgAAAAIAAAwCDgABQAAAAA AAEAIAAAICAgACAAIAAAwCDgABQAAAADAAEAIAAAZAACAABAAAAAwCDgABQAAAADAAEAIAAAJAAC AABAAAAAwCDgABQAAAAAAAEAIAAAICACACBAAAAAwCDgABQAAAAAAAEAIAAAYCACACBAAAAAwCDg ABQAAAAAAAEAIAAAYCAAACAAAAAAwCDgABQAAAAUAAEAIAAAJCAAACAAAAAAwCDgABQAAAAAAAEA IAAAIAAgAAAAIAAAwCDgABQAAAAAAAEAIAAAIAAAAAAAAAAAwCDgABQAAAAAAAEAIAAAYAAAAAAA AAAAwCDgABQAAAADAAEAIAAABAAAAAAAAAAAwCDgABQAAAAAAAEAIAAAYCAgACAAIAAAwCDgABQA AAADAAEAIAAAJCAAACAAAAAAwCDgABQAAAADAAEAIAAAJCAgACAAIAAAwCDgABQAAAADAAEAIAAA JCACACBAAAAAwCDgABQAAAADAAEAIAAAZCACACBAAAAAwCCTAgQAEIAD/5MCBAARgAb/kwIEABKA BP+TAgQAE4AH/5MCBAAUgAn/kwIEABWACP+TAgQAAIAA/5MCBAAWgAX/YAECAAAAhQAQAAETAAAA AAgATm92ZW1iZXKFAA4AyLQAAAAABgBTaGVldDGFAA4Az7UAAAAABgBTaGVldDKFAA4A1rYAAAAA BgBTaGVldDOMAAQAAQABAK4BBAAEAAEEFwAIAAEAAAAAAAAAwQEIAMEBAABUjQEA/AC0B+cBAADP AAAADgAAQW1vdW50IG9mIE1haWwJAABEZWxpdmVyZWQFAABvcGVucwYAAGNsaWNrcwcAAGJvdW5j ZWQJAABTZW50IFRpbWUGAAAyOjAwcG0HAAAxMDowMGFtBwAAMTA6NDVhbQYAADg6MzBhbQYAADg6 MDBhbQYAADI6MTVhbQYAADY6MDBhbQYAADQ6MDBhbQcAADEyOjMwYW0GAAA4OjE1YW0GAAA3OjE1 YW0GAAAzOjAwYW0GAAAxOjMwYW0HAAAxMTowMGFtBwAAMTE6MjBhbQcAADEyOjM1cG0HAAAxMjo0 NXBtBgAANDowNXBtBgAAMzoxNXBtBgAAMzoyNXBtBgAAMjo1MHBtBgAAMzozMGFtBgAAMzoxMHBt BgAAODoxNXBtBgAAMzozMHBtBgAAODoyNXBtBgAAODowMHBtBgAAMzozNXBtBgAANTowMGFtBwAA MTA6MTBhbQYAADk6MjBhbQYAADQ6MzBwbQYAADQ6MjVwbQcAADEwOjM1cG0HAAAxMDo0MHBtBwAA MTA6NDVwbQcAADExOjEwcG0HAAAxMDo1MHBtBwAAMTA6MTVhbQYAADM6NDVwbQYAADU6MDBwbQYA ADU6NDVwbQYAADQ6NTVwbQcAADExOjMwcG0GAAA2OjIwcG0GAAA1OjE1cG0GAAA1OjI1cG0GAAA1 OjIwcG0GAAA1OjA1cG0GAAA0OjMwYW0GAAA1OjMwYW0GAAAxOjEwYW0GAAA2OjMwYW0GAAA5OjM1 YW0GAAA5OjQwYW0GAAAxOjMwcG0GAAAxOjQwcG0HAAAxMjo0MGFtBgAAMTowMGFtBgAAMToyMGFt BwAAMTI6NTVhbQYAADI6MzBhbQYAADE6NTVhbQYAADk6MjVhbQcAADExOjE1YW0HAAAxMTozNWFt BwAAMTE6NDVhbQYAADQ6NDVwbQYAADg6MzBwbQYAADY6MDVwbQYAADI6NDVhbQcAADEyOjAwcG0G AAA0OjAwcG0GAAAxOjU1cG0GAAAxOjIwcG0HAAAxMjo1NXBtBgAAMTowNXBtBgAAMToxNXBtBgAA MToyNXBtBwAAMTI6NTBwbQYAADM6NTVwbQYAADQ6MzVwbQcAADExOjE1cG0GAAA2OjEwcG0HAAAx MDoxNXBtBgAAOToxNWFtCwAAMTE6MDBhbSBFU1QHAABhcHByb3ZlBgAAOTo1MGFtBgAAMTozNXBt BgAAMTo0NXBtBwAAMTA6MDVhbQYAADM6MDBwbQcAADEwOjMwYW0HAAAxMDo0MGFtBwAAMTE6MTBh bQYAADI6NTVwbQYAADI6MjBwbQcAADEyOjAwYW0GAAA5OjMwcG0GAAA5OjQ1cG0GAAA1OjM1cG0G AAAxOjA1YW0GAAAyOjQwcG0HAAAxMDo1NWFtBwAAMTE6MDVhbQcAADEwOjM1YW0GAAAyOjEwcG0H AAAxMjowNXBtBwAAMTI6MTVwbQYAADI6MDVwbQYAADg6MTBwbQYAADM6MDVwbQYAADU6NDBwbQYA ADk6MDVwbQYAADU6NTBwbQYAADk6MDBwbQYAADM6MDVhbQYAADM6MTVhbQYAADM6MjVhbQYAADM6 MjBhbQYAADI6MDVhbQYAADQ6NTBwbQYAADc6MjVwbQcAADExOjI1YW0HAAAxMTo1MGFtBwAAMTE6 NTVhbQYAADI6MjVhbQYAADI6MzVhbQYAADI6NTVhbQYAADI6NDBhbQYAADc6MDBwbQYAADc6MDVw bQcAADEyOjA1YW0HAAAxMjoxNWFtBgAAMjowMGFtBwAAMTE6NDBhbQcAADEyOjI1cG0GAAA3OjIw cG0GAAA2OjQwcG0PAABnZW5lcmF0ZSAxMDAwMDAPAABHZW5lcmF0ZSAyNTAwMDAHAAAxMjoyMHBt BwAAMTI6MzBwbQcAADEyOjEwcG0HAAAxMjozNWFtBwAAMTI6NDVhbQYAADc6MTVwbQYAADE6NTBw bQYAADY6NDVwbQYAADc6MzVwbQYAADc6MzBwbQYAADk6NTBwbQYAADc6NDBwbQYAADY6NTVwbQYA ADc6MTBwbQYAADI6MTBhbQcAADExOjMwYW0GAAAyOjI1cG0GAAA1OjEwcG0GAAA2OjE1cG0GAAA2 OjI1cG0GAAA2OjMwcG0GAAAxOjQ1YW0GAAAxOjE1YW0HAAAxMDo1MGFtBgAAMzoyMHBtBgAAMzo0 MHBtBgAANDoxMHBtBgAAOToyNXBtBgAANjozNXBtBgAAMzo0NWFtBgAANDoxNWFtBgAANDo0MHBt BgAANDoxNXBtBgAAMTowMHBtBgAAODo1NXBtBgAAODozNXBtBgAAODoyMHBtBgAAMjozMHBtBgAA NzowMGFtBwAAMTI6NTBhbQcAADEyOjEwYW0GAAAyOjIwYW0GAAAxOjM1YW0HAAAxMTo0NXBtBwAA MTE6MjBwbQYAADk6NTVwbQYAADk6MDBhbQYAADk6MDVhbQYAADg6MzVhbQYAADk6MzBhbQYAADM6 NTBwbQYAADU6NTVwbQYAADE6NTBhbQYAADQ6NDVhbQYAADE6MjVhbQcAADEyOjI1YW0HAAAxMjoy MGFtBgAAY2FuY2VsDgAAZ2VuZXJhdGUgOTAwMDD/ANIACAB7CgAADAAAANIKAABjAAAAHAsAAK0A AABoCwAA+QAAALALAABBAQAA+gsAAIsBAABHDAAA2AEAAJAMAAAhAgAA2QwAAGoCAAAkDQAAtQIA AG4NAAD/AgAAuA0AAEkDAAAIDgAAmQMAAFQOAADlAwAAnw4AADAEAADqDgAAewQAADIPAADDBAAA fQ8AAA4FAADJDwAAWgUAACcQAAC4BQAAcBAAAAEGAAC5EAAASgYAAAIRAACTBgAAShEAANsGAACV EQAAJgcAAN4RAABvBwAACgAAAAkIEAAABhAARhjNB8GAAAAGAgAACwJQAAAAAAAAAAAA7QEAADMX AACjIQAA6ysAAC82AAClQAAA60oAADNVAACDXwAA12kAABt0AADrfgAAsYkAAPeTAABrngAAxagA AB+yAABvtAAADQACAAEADAACAGQADwACAAEAEQACAAAAEAAIAPyp8dJNYlA/XwACAAEAKgACAAAA KwACAAAAggACAAEAgAAIAAAAAAAAAAAAJQIEAAAA/wCBAAIAwQQUAAAAFQAAAIMAAgAAAIQAAgAA AE0ANgMAAEEAdQB0AG8AIABoAHAAIABkAGUAcwBrAGoAZQB0ACAAOAA0ADAAYwAgAHMAZQByAGkA ZQBzACAAbwBuACAAAAABBAAF3ABYAkPvgAcBAAEA6gpvCGQAAQABACwBAQABACwBAgAAAEwAZQB0 AHQAZQByAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEAAAAAAAAAAQAAAAMAAAABAAAAAgEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABE SU5VIgAAADQCJABXVkv7AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAgAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABIAAAABAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAABAAAAAAAAAAIAAgACAAIAAgAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAkAAAAmBkk AgEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAkAAAAmBkkAgEAAAChACIAAQBkAAEAAQABAAIALAEsAQAAAAAAAOA/ AAAAAAAA4D8BAFUAAgAIAH0ADAAAAAAAJAoPAAYAAgB9AAwAAQABAJIPDwAGAAIAfQAMAAIAAgDb CQ8ABgACAH0ADAAGAAYAkgoPAAYAAgAAAg4AAAAAAO0BAAAAAAkAAAAIAhAAAAAAAAcADgEAAAAA AAEPIAgCEAABAAAABwD/AAAAAAAAAQ8ACAIQAAIAAAAHAP8AAAAAAAABDwAIAhAAAwAAAAcA/wAA AAAAAAEPAAgCEAAEAAAABwD/AAAAAAAAAQ8ACAIQAAUAAAAHAA4BAAAAAAABDyAIAhAABgAAAAcA /wAAAAAAAAEPAAgCEAAHAAAABwD/AAAAAAAAAQ8ACAIQAAgAAAAHAP8AAAAAAAABDwAIAhAACQAA AAcA/wAAAAAAAAEPAAgCEAAKAAAABwD/AAAAAAAAAQ8ACAIQAAsAAAAHAP8AAAAAAAABDwAIAhAA DAAAAAcADgEAAAAAAAEPIAgCEAANAAAABwD/AAAAAAAAAQ8ACAIQAA4AAAAHAP8AAAAAAAABDwAI AhAADwAAAAcA/wAAAAAAAAEPAAgCEAAQAAAABwD/AAAAAAAAAQ8ACAIQABEAAAAHAP8AAAAAAAAB DwAIAhAAEgAAAAcA/wAAAAAAAAEPAAgCEAATAAAABwD/AAAAAAAAAQ8ACAIQABQAAAAHAP8AAAAA AAABDwAIAhAAFQAAAAcA/wAAAAAAAAEPAAgCEAAWAAAABwAOAQAAAAAAAQ8gCAIQABcAAAAHAP8A AAAAAAABDwAIAhAAGAAAAAcA/wAAAAAAAAEPAAgCEAAZAAAABwD/AAAAAAAAAQ8ACAIQABoAAAAH AP8AAAAAAAABDwAIAhAAGwAAAAcA/wAAAAAAAAEPAAgCEAAcAAAABwD/AAAAAAAAAQ8ACAIQAB0A AAAHAP8AAAAAAAABDwAIAhAAHgAAAAcADgEAAAAAAAEPIAgCEAAfAAAABwD/AAAAAAAAAQ8A/QAK AAAAAQAXAAAAAAD9AAoAAAACABcAAQAAAP0ACgAAAAMAGAACAAAA/QAKAAAABAAXAAMAAAD9AAoA AAAFABkABAAAAP0ACgAAAAYAFwAFAAAAvQAqAAEAAAAaAMCE4kAbAICEPkEbABDjMkEbAED550Ab AAA4gUAcAOBCJ0EFAP0ACgABAAYAHQAGAAAAvQAqAAIAAAAaAMCE4kAeAICEPkEeAJbzYQAeAKBk 4EAeAABwe0AfAPj1F0EFAP0ACgACAAYAIAAHAAAAvQAqAAMAAAAaAMCE4kAhAICELkEhAIaFIAAh AACotkAhAAAAPUAhAMwxFUEFAP0ACgADAAYAIgAIAAAAvQAqAAQAAAAaAMCE4kAjAICEPkEhAN4y WwAhAABo2EAhAAAga0AhACTfHkEFAP0ACgAEAAYAIgAJAAAAvQAqAAUAAAAaAMCE4kAkAICELkEl ADbdJQAlAACTzUAlAACgbEAlAMwrF0EFAP0ACgAFAAYAJgAKAAAAvQAqAAYAAAAaAOCE4kAnAICE LkEoAHyDJ0EoAMAn2EAoAADghUAoABAEDEEFAP0ACgAGAAYAKQALAAAAvQAqAAcAAAAaAOCE4kAj AICELkEhAJ6CJwAhAIAf0kAhAAAAT0AhAFyGFUEFAP0ACgAHAAYAIgAMAAAAvQAqAAgAAAAaAOCE 4kAjAICEPkEhAB6tYgAhAMDC3UAhAADoikAhAORkF0EFAP0ACgAIAAYAIgANAAAAvQAqAAkAAAAa AOCE4kAjAICELkEhAM78JQAhAADdzkAhAACAfEAhADQMF0EFAP0ACgAJAAYAIgAOAAAAvQAqAAoA AAAaAOCE4kAjAICELkEhAExAIkEhAABxtEAhAAAAUkAhAGiIGEEFAP0ACgAKAAYAIgAPAAAAvQAq AAsAAAAaAOCE4kAjAICELkEhAJbPLwAhAAC5z0AhAACgYkAhANhyCkEFAP0ACgALAAYAIgAQAAAA vQAqAAwAAAAaAOCE4kAkAICELkElAA7yIQAlAACVt0AlAABAWEAlACzYGEEFAP0ACgAMAAYAJgAR AAAAvQAqAA0AAAAaAACF4kAoAICEHkEoALCmF0EoALAl90AoAAAQfkAoAIBYwkAFAP0ACgANAAYA KgANAAAAvQAqAA4AAAAaAACF4kAhAICELkEhAO4BKwAhAEAV0EAhAADAb0AhABQHEkEFAP0ACgAO AAYAKwASAAAAvQAqAA8AAAAaAACF4kAhAICELkEhAFzKEEEhAADCt0AhAABAZEAhAFAKGkEFAP0A CgAPAAYAKwATAAAAvQAqABAAAAAaAACF4kAhAICELkEhAKRuHEEhAABoxUAhAAAwcUAhAJD7+UAF AP0ACgAQAAYAKwAUAAAAvQAqABEAAAAaAACF4kAhAHjBCEEhAJAPBkEhAOBh6EAhAAAATkAhAMAF 0kAFAP0ACgARAAYAKwAVAAAAvQAqABIAAAAaAACF4kAhAGBCC0EhAMj9B0EhAOAB7EAhAADAWUAh AIAU2UAFAP0ACgASAAYAKwAWAAAAvQAqABMAAAAaAACF4kAhAICEPkEhAASILUEhAED51UAhAAAA W0AhAIhlBkEFAP0ACgATAAYAIgAXAAAAvQAqABQAAAAaAACF4kAhACBlIUEhAIAdE0EhAABdukAh AAAANUAhAEBn5EAFAP0ACgAUAAYAIgAYAAAAvQAqABUAAAAaAACF4kAhAICELkEhAETrIEEhAIDV xUAhAABAWUAhABBM90AFAP0ACgAVAAYAIgAZAAAAvQAqABYAAAAaAACF4kAlAICELkElAKzlGkEl AABFsEAlAACARkAlAKxMEUEFAP0ACgAWAAYAJgAaAAAAvQAqABcAAAAaACCF4kAoAICELkEoAMA8 HkEoAAAF0UAoAAAQd0AoAEARB0EFAP0ACgAXAAYAKgAbAAAAvQAqABgAAAAaACCF4kAhAICEHkEh APhGDEEhAAD1ukAhAAAgekAhAJCk8kAFAP0ACgAYAAYAIgAcAAAAvQAqABkAAAAaACCF4kAhAICE PkEhAEbbOwAhAMCD00AhAAB4hkAhAKBID0EFAP0ACgAZAAYAIgAZAAAAvQAqABoAAAAaACCF4kAh AICELkEhAAZ6IQAhAABbxEAhAAAASEAhAADh8kAFAP0ACgAaAAYALAAdAAAAvQAqABsAAAAaACCF 4kAhAICELkEhAACWGkEhAAC+rEAhAAAAQUAhACSNEkEFAP0ACgAbAAYAIgAeAAAAvQAqABwAAAAa ACCF4kAhAICELkEhAMjwHkEhAAC9xEAhAADgdUAhAHgxAEEFAP0ACgAcAAYAIgAfAAAAvQAqAB0A AAAaACCF4kAhAICEHkEhAOQzGkEhAIBbxEAhAAAARUAhAKDnCkEFAP0ACgAdAAYAIgAgAAAAvQAq AB4AAAAaACCF4kAlAICELkEtAOxiGkEtAAB0sEAtAADAUUAtAGRIEEEFAP0ACgAeAAYAJgAhAAAA vQAqAB8AAAAaAECF4kAoAICELkEoAMToGkEoAABpwkAoAABAWEAoANDQAEEFAP0ACgAfAAYAKgAi AAAA1wBEABgKAABsAlQAPAA8ADwAPAA8ADwAPAA8ADwAPAA8ADwAPAA8ADwAPAA8ADwAPAA8ADwA PAA8ADwAPAA8ADwAPAA8ADwACAIQACAAAAAHAP8AAAAAAAABDwAIAhAAIQAAAAcA/wAAAAAAAAEP AAgCEAAiAAAABwD/AAAAAAAAAQ8ACAIQACMAAAAHAP8AAAAAAAABDwAIAhAAJAAAAAcA/wAAAAAA AAEPAAgCEAAlAAAABwD/AAAAAAAAAQ8ACAIQACYAAAAHAP8AAAAAAAABDwAIAhAAJwAAAAcA/wAA AAAAAAEPAAgCEAAoAAAABwAOAQAAAAAAAQ8gCAIQACkAAAAHAP8AAAAAAAABDwAIAhAAKgAAAAcA /wAAAAAAAAEPAAgCEAArAAAABwD/AAAAAAAAAQ8ACAIQACwAAAAHAP8AAAAAAAABDwAIAhAALQAA AAcA/wAAAAAAAAEPAAgCEAAuAAAABwAOAQAAAAAAAQ8gCAIQAC8AAAAHAP8AAAAAAAABDwAIAhAA MAAAAAcA/wAAAAAAAAEPAAgCEAAxAAAABwD/AAAAAAAAAQ8ACAIQADIAAAAHAP8AAAAAAAABDwAI AhAAMwAAAAcA/wAAAAAAAAEPAAgCEAA0AAAABwD/AAAAAAAAAQ8ACAIQADUAAAAHAA4BAAAAAAAB DyAIAhAANgAAAAcA/wAAAAAAAAEPAAgCEAA3AAAABwD/AAAAAAAAAQ8ACAIQADgAAAAHAP8AAAAA AAABDwAIAhAAOQAAAAcA/wAAAAAAAAEPAAgCEAA6AAAABwD/AAAAAAAAAQ8ACAIQADsAAAAHAP8A AAAAAAABDwAIAhAAPAAAAAcA/wAAAAAAAAEPAAgCEAA9AAAABwD/AAAAAAAAAQ8ACAIQAD4AAAAH AP8AAAAAAAABDwAIAhAAPwAAAAcA/wAAAAAAAAEPAL0AKgAgAAAAGgBAheJAIQAAaghBIQCQIf5A IQAAHtVAIQAAtKRAIQDAweJABQD9AAoAIAAGACsAIwAAAL0AKgAhAAAAGgBAheJAIQASHrsAIQB6 Ln0AIQCgxPpAIQCAE9JAIQCwS/BABQD9AAoAIQAGACIAJAAAAL0AKgAiAAAAGgBAheJAIQCAhC5B IQDUSSZBIQDAiNJAIQAAgHNAIQBUdRBBBQD9AAoAIgAGACIAJQAAAL0AKgAjAAAAGgBAheJAIQCA hC5BIQCmGC8AIQCAQtZAIQAAiq5AIQC44AtBBQD9AAoAIwAGACIAJgAAAL0AKgAkAAAAGgBAheJA IQCAhC5BIQD4VQxBIQAAk7lAIQAAGIpAIQB0ARdBBQD9AAoAJAAGACIAJwAAAL0AKgAlAAAAGgBA heJAIQCAhC5BIQDgwBNBIQAABdBAIQAAzqVAIQCIbhlBBQD9AAoAJQAGACIAKAAAAL0AKgAmAAAA GgBAheJAIQAG4TcAIQAIfRpBIQCAisZAIQAADqBAIQAg5vBABQD9AAoAJgAGACIAKQAAAL0AKgAn AAAAGgBAheJAIQCAhC5BIQBI2xtBIQCAWcBAIQAAwFZAIQAw0fhABQD9AAoAJwAGACIAKgAAAL0A KgAoAAAAGgBAheJAJQD++zUAJQCkbCZBJQCA4c1AJQAAwGNAJQBgRQJBBQD9AAoAKAAGACYAKwAA AL0AKgApAAAAGgBgheJAKACAhB5BKACgfxdBKAAArfJAKAAAuIdAKACAh8BABQD9AAoAKQAGACoA BwAAAL0AKgAqAAAAGgBgheJAIQCAhD5BIQCERSxBIQAAE9FAIQAA4GpAIQDQAhVBBQD9AAoAKgAG ACsALAAAAL0AKgArAAAAGgBgheJAIQCAhB5BIQCwkQ9BIQAAsrRAIQAAwFVAIQBwq/BABQD9AAoA KwAGACsALQAAAL0AKgAsAAAAGgBgheJAIQBg4zZBIQDOUysAIQCAEspAIQAAAGFAIQDoaQZBBQD9 AAoALAAGACIALgAAAL0AKgAtAAAAGgBgheJAIQCAhD5BIQAGhzcAIQCAdeJAIQAAjJVAIQBgRhZB BQD9AAoALQAGACIALwAAAL0AKgAuAAAAGgBgheJAJQCAhD5BJQD4VBpBJQAA9btAJQAAQGlAJQDU PRBBBQD9AAoALgAGACYAMAAAAL0AKgAvAAAAGgCAheJAKACAhB5BKAAQ4BBBKAAAQqZAKAAAADZA KADgSAtBBQD9AAoALwAGACkAMQAAAL0AKgAwAAAAGgCAheJAIQCAhC5BIQCAjidBIQBAw9xAIQAA cKlAIQD41wtBBQD9AAoAMAAGACIAMgAAAL0AKgAxAAAAGgCAheJAIQCAhC5BIQBehDUAIQAAZNFA IQAAiIRAIQCQEv5ABQD9AAoAMQAGACIAMwAAAL0AKgAyAAAAGgCAheJAIQCAhC5BIQB2vTMAIQCA +c5AIQAA4GhAIQAYlwJBBQD9AAoAMgAGACIANAAAAL0AKgAzAAAAGgCAheJAIQCAhB5BIQCwYBRB IQAAPrxAIQAAwFpAIQCgRwRBBQD9AAoAMwAGACIANQAAAL0AKgA0AAAAGgCAheJAIQCAhD5BIQCe mGcAIQBg8OBAIQAASI9AIQBkeRJBBQD9AAoANAAGACIALgAAAL0AKgA1AAAAGgCAheJAJQCAhD5B JQBOzV8AJQCgS+FAJQAASJFAJQDgRRpBBQD9AAoANQAGACYANgAAAL0AKgA2AAAAGgCgheJAKACA hB5BKAAsuRhBKAAAtb5AKAAAADdAKABQLfdABQD9AAoANgAGACkANwAAAL0AKgA3AAAAGgCgheJA IQCAhC5BIQB+ji4AIQCATclAIQAASIFAIQAA9QxBBQD9AAoANwAGACIAIgAAAL0AKgA4AAAAGgCg heJAIQCAhC5BIQAkuhtBIQAANs9AIQAAAGJAIQDeTiEABQD9AAoAOAAGACIACwAAAL0AKgA5AAAA GgCgheJAIQCAhC5BIQCYUBpBIQAAw91AIQAAEHNAIQA0XCFBBQD9AAoAOQAGACIADAAAAL0AKgA6 AAAAGgCgheJAIQCAhB5BIQAsdBhBIQAAyMBAIQAAUHJAIQBQQfhABQD9AAoAOgAGACIAOAAAAL0A KgA7AAAAGgCgheJAIQAAaghBIQCIPgBBIQCAwMZAIQAAwFhAIQDAydtABQD9AAoAOwAGACIAOQAA AL0AKgA8AAAAGgCgheJAIQCATwJBIQCwW/9AIQAABNxAIQAAADdAIQBADdVABQD9AAoAPAAGACIA OgAAAL0AKgA9AAAAGgCgheJAIQCATwJBIQB4aQBBIQBAjtxAIQAAACxAIQCAYM5ABQD9AAoAPQAG ACIAIgAAAL0AKgA+AAAAGgCgheJAIQBAdztBIQBGdFIAIQDAiuFAIQAAiIFAIQCYaBtBBQD9AAoA PgAGACIABwAAAL0AKgA/AAAAGgCgheJAIQCAhC5BIQAAsCVBIQCAvtBAIQAAoGJAIQAAqRFBBQD9 AAoAPwAGACIAOwAAANcARAAACgAAbAI8ADwAPAA8ADwAPAA8ADwAPAA8ADwAPAA8ADwAPAA8ADwA PAA8ADwAPAA8ADwAPAA8ADwAPAA8ADwAPAA8AAgCEABAAAAABwAOAQAAAAAAAQ8gCAIQAEEAAAAH AP8AAAAAAAABDwAIAhAAQgAAAAcA/wAAAAAAAAEPAAgCEABDAAAABwD/AAAAAAAAAQ8ACAIQAEQA AAAHAP8AAAAAAAABDwAIAhAARQAAAAcA/wAAAAAAAAEPAAgCEABGAAAABwD/AAAAAAAAAQ8ACAIQ AEcAAAAHAA4BAAAAAAABDyAIAhAASAAAAAcA/wAAAAAAAAEPAAgCEABJAAAABwD/AAAAAAAAAQ8A CAIQAEoAAAAHAP8AAAAAAAABDwAIAhAASwAAAAcA/wAAAAAAAAEPAAgCEABMAAAABwD/AAAAAAAA AQ8ACAIQAE0AAAAHAP8AAAAAAAABDwAIAhAATgAAAAcA/wAAAAAAAAEPAAgCEABPAAAABwD/AAAA AAAAAQ8ACAIQAFAAAAAHAP8AAAAAAAABDwAIAhAAUQAAAAcA/wAAAAAAAAEPAAgCEABSAAAABwAO AQAAAAAAAQ8gCAIQAFMAAAAHAP8AAAAAAAABDwAIAhAAVAAAAAcA/wAAAAAAAAEPAAgCEABVAAAA BwD/AAAAAAAAAQ8ACAIQAFYAAAAHAP8AAAAAAAABDwAIAhAAVwAAAAcA/wAAAAAAAAEPAAgCEABY AAAABwD/AAAAAAAAAQ8ACAIQAFkAAAAHAP8AAAAAAAABDwAIAhAAWgAAAAcA/wAAAAAAAAEPAAgC EABbAAAABwD/AAAAAAAAAQ8ACAIQAFwAAAAHAP8AAAAAAAABDwAIAhAAXQAAAAcA/wAAAAAAAAEP AAgCEABeAAAABwD/AAAAAAAAAQ8ACAIQAF8AAAAHAP8AAAAAAAABDwC9ACoAQAAAABoAoIXiQCEA wFwlQSEAXH4eQSEAgDLMQCEAAABcQCEASHYIQQUA/QAKAEAABgAiADwAAAC9ACoAQQAAABoAwIXi QCgAgIQeQSgAqJobQSgAgJbCQCgAAABWQCgAwE7nQAUA/QAKAEEABgApAD0AAAC9ACoAQgAAABoA wIXiQCEAgIQuQSEAhKwXQSEAABy9QCEAAOB9QCEA8F/7QAUA/QAKAEIABgAiAD4AAAC9ACoAQwAA ABoAwIXiQCEAgIQuQSEALoUuACEAgBrMQCEAAIBbQCEAqAcNQQUA/QAKAEMABgAiAD8AAAC9ACoA RAAAABoAwIXiQCEAgIQuQSEAnlguACEAgB/MQCEAAEBUQCEAyGANQQUA/QAKAEQABgAiAEAAAAC9 ACoARQAAABoAwIXiQCEAgIQeQSEAaFQYQSEAAE/HQCEAAIBgQCEAYMD4QAUA/QAKAEUABgAiAEEA AAC9ACoARgAAABoAwIXiQCEAgIQ+QSEAvqFeACEAwLLgQCEAAAB6QCEAhE0bQQUA/QAKAEYABgAi ADcAAAC9ACoARwAAABoAwIXiQCUAgIQ+QSUAJnhhACUAgFHcQCUAABB7QCUA4I0YQQUA/QAKAEcA BgAmAEIAAAC9ACoASAAAABoA4IXiQCgAgNXXQCgAgA/SQCgAADByQCgAAAAQQCgAABi3QAUA/QAK AEgABgAqAEMAAAC9ACoASQAAABoA4IXiQCEAgJDBQCEAAMy8QCEAAABfQCEAAAAQQCEAAFSZQAUA /QAKAEkABgAiAEQAAAC9ACoASgAAABoA4IXiQCEAAMm5QCEAAGyzQCEAAABHQCEAAAAAQCEAAHSZ QAUA/QAKAEoABgAiAEUAAAC9ABgASwAAABoA4IXiQCEAAAAmQCEAAAAmQAIAvgAMAEsAAwAhACEA IQAFAP0ACgBLAAYAIgBGAAAAvQAqAEwAAAAaAOCF4kAhAM77eAAhAODtLkEhAAB/30AhAACATkAh AHi/DkEFAP0ACgBMAAYAIgBHAAAAvQAqAE0AAAAaAOCF4kAhALajXAAhADRyJUEhAEAV1UAhAACA TEAhACDy/kAFAP0ACgBNAAYAIgBIAAAAvQAqAE4AAAAaAOCF4kAhAICEHkEhAOCqFUEhALB+9kAh AAAwfUAhAABTwUAFAP0ACgBOAAYAIgATAAAAvQAqAE8AAAAaAOCF4kAhAPRHKUEhAJBUIkEhAHDD AkEhAADQekAhAABAzkAFAP0ACgBPAAYAIgBJAAAAvQAqAFAAAAAaAOCF4kAhAICEPkEhAMoXaQAh AOAG4UAhAADgeUAhANgVEEEFAP0ACgBQAAYAIgBKAAAAvQAqAFEAAAAaAOCF4kAhAEB3G0EhAHzY EEEhAADgo0AhAAAAWkAhACBY/UAFAP0ACgBRAAYAIgBLAAAAvQAqAFIAAAAaAOCF4kAlAGDjNkEl AFh/KUElAIAs60AlAAAQckAlAKDb40AFAP0ACgBSAAYAJgA1AAAAvQAqAFMAAAAaAACG4kAoAIBE 0UAoAADdxEAoAACAckAoAAAACEAoAADYmEAFAP0ACgBTAAYAKgBDAAAAvQAqAFQAAAAaAACG4kAh AAAbxkAhAAA4v0AhAACQc0AhAAAACEAhAABwqEAFAP0ACgBUAAYAKwBMAAAAvQAYAFUAAAAaAACG 4kAhAAAAJkAhAAAAJkACAL4ADABVAAMAIQAhACEABQD9AAoAVQAGACsATQAAAL0AKgBWAAAAGgAA huJAIQBMZxdBIQC4XA5BIQCARt5AIQAAIGRAIQCg0OxABQD9AAoAVgAGACsATgAAAL0AKgBXAAAA GgAAhuJAIQD4GwhBIQB4AwVBIQAAh+FAIQAAgFdAIQCAOtVABQD9AAoAVwAGACIATwAAAL0AKgBY AAAAGgAAhuJAIQCAsQpBIQDgzQhBIQCgBOdAIQAAoGVAIQCAGcxABQD9AAoAWAAGACIAUAAAAL0A KgBZAAAAGgAAhuJAIQCwDf5AIQBwkfxAIQDAbtpAIQAAgFJAIQAA1K1ABQD9AAoAWQAGACIAFgAA AL0AKgBaAAAAGgAAhuJAIQBga/dAIQAwi/ZAIQDAeNVAIQAAAE5AIQAABqxABQD9AAoAWgAGACIA UQAAAL0AKgBbAAAAGgAAhuJAIQAAwFlAIQAAAFZAIQAAADpAIQAAAAAAIQAAAC5ABQD9AAoAWwAG ACIAUgAAAL0AKgBcAAAAGgAAhuJAIQAA7JhAIQAAzJdAIQAAwH5AIQAAAABAIQAAAFJABQD9AAoA XAAGACIAUwAAAL0AKgBdAAAAGgAAhuJAIQAAJJ5AIQAAFJxAIQAACIBAIQAAABhAIQAAAF1ABQD9 AAoAXQAGACIAVAAAAL0AKgBeAAAAGgAAhuJAIQAASq1AIQAAMqtAIQAAHJRAIQAAAAhAIQAAwGxA BQD9AAoAXgAGACIAUwAAAL0AKgBfAAAAGgAAhuJAIQBsXRdBIQA45hBBIQBAJt9AIQAAYHJAIQCA id1ABQD9AAoAXwAGACIAVQAAANcARAD8CQAAbAI8ADwAPAA8ADwAPAA8ADwAPAA8ADwAOgA8ADwA PAA8ADwAPAA8ADwAPAA6ADwAPAA8ADwAPAA8ADwAPAA8AAgCEABgAAAACQD/AAAAAAAAAQ8ACAIQ AGEAAAAJAP8AAAAAAAABDwAIAhAAYgAAAAkA/wAAAAAAAAEPAAgCEABjAAAACQD/AAAAAAAAAQ8A CAIQAGQAAAAJAP8AAAAAAAABDwAIAhAAZQAAAAkA/wAAAAAAAAEPAAgCEABmAAAACQAOAQAAAAAA AQ8gCAIQAGcAAAAJAP8AAAAAAAABDwAIAhAAaAAAAAkA/wAAAAAAAAEPAAgCEABpAAAACQD/AAAA AAAAAQ8ACAIQAGoAAAAJAP8AAAAAAAABDwAIAhAAawAAAAkA/wAAAAAAAAEPAAgCEABsAAAACQD/ AAAAAAAAAQ8ACAIQAG0AAAAJAP8AAAAAAAABDwAIAhAAbgAAAAkA/wAAAAAAAAEPAAgCEABvAAAA CQD/AAAAAAAAAQ8ACAIQAHAAAAAHAP8AAAAAAAABDwAIAhAAcQAAAAcA/wAAAAAAAAEPAAgCEABy AAAABwD/AAAAAAAAAQ8ACAIQAHMAAAAHAP8AAAAAAAABDwAIAhAAdAAAAAcA/wAAAAAAAAEPAAgC EAB1AAAABwD/AAAAAAAAAQ8ACAIQAHYAAAAHAP8AAAAAAAABDwAIAhAAdwAAAAcA/wAAAAAAAAEP AAgCEAB4AAAABwD/AAAAAAAAAQ8ACAIQAHkAAAAHAP8AAAAAAAABDwAIAhAAegAAAAcADgEAAAAA AAEPIAgCEAB7AAAABwD/AAAAAAAAAQ8ACAIQAHwAAAAHAP8AAAAAAAABDwAIAhAAfQAAAAcA/wAA AAAAAAEPAAgCEAB+AAAABwD/AAAAAAAAAQ8ACAIQAH8AAAAHAP8AAAAAAAABDwC9ACoAYAAAABoA AIbiQCEAUJz8QCEAUFH6QCEAQBfXQCEAAMBYQCEAABPBQAUA/QAKAGAABgAiAFYAAAC9ACoAYQAA ABoAAIbiQCEAYOM2QSEABJI0QSEAAOTcQCEAADBwQCEA4IoCQQUA/QAKAGEABgAiACYAAAC9ACoA YgAAABoAAIbiQCEAYOM2QSEAXrBWACEAQMbWQCEAAOByQCEAkHTzQAUA/QAKAGIABgAiAFcAAAC9 ACoAYwAAABoAAIbiQCEAgIQuQSEAjIwqQSEAgH/RQCEAACBpQCEAML//QAUA/QAKAGMABgAiAEsA AAC9ACoAZAAAABoAAIbiQCEAgIQuQSEAlswwACEAQDvYQCEAAMiEQCEA2HgIQQUA/QAKAGQABgAi AFgAAAC9ACoAZQAAABoAAIbiQCEAQJUmQSEAxqQqACEAgOnEQCEAABB4QCEA4C3kQAUA/QAKAGUA BgAiAFkAAAC9ACoAZgAAABoAAIbiQCUAjpi0ACUAOvaLACUAMBAAQSUAAAO6QCUAqNACQQUA/QAK AGYABgAmAFoAAAC9ACoAZwAAABoAIIbiQCgAYOM2QSgAvmdQACgAwJDcQCgAAABtQCgAAEkGQQUA /QAKAGcABgApAFsAAAD9AAoAZwAHAA8AXAAAAP0ACgBnAAgADwBdAAAAvQAqAGgAAAAaACCG4kAh AGDjNkEhAF6oVQAhAAC7ykAhAAAgbUAhABA390AFAP0ACgBoAAYAIgBeAAAAvQAqAGkAAAAaACCG 4kAhAICEHkEhAHwiFEEhAMDq1EAhAADQeEAhAAjEBEEFAP0ACgBpAAYAKwBfAAAAvQAqAGoAAAAa ACCG4kAhALj5HUEhAAC7FEEhAAACuUAhAABAVEAhAHB9AkEFAP0ACgBqAAYAKwBgAAAAvQAqAGsA AAAaACCG4kAhAACYxUAhAADNskAhAAAgZkAhAAAAGEAhAAAQoUAFAP0ACgBrAAYAKwAsAAAAvQAq AGwAAAAaACCG4kAhAABIyUAhAAAmvUAhAABAakAhAAAA8D8hAADgkUAFAP0ACgBsAAYAIgBhAAAA vQAYAG0AAAAaACCG4kAhAAAAGEAhAAAAGEACAL4ADABtAAMAIQAhACEABQD9AAoAbQAGACsAYgAA AL0AHgBuAAAAGgAghuJAIQAAasFAIQAANLBAIQAAwFdAAwABAgYAbgAEACEAfgIKAG4ABQAhAAA4 gED9AAoAbgAGACIAYwAAAL0AKgBvAAAAGgAghuJAIQAAlsVAIQAAWLVAIQAAAGZAIQAAABRAIQAA cIJABQD9AAoAbwAGACsAZAAAAL0AKgBwAAAAGgAghuJAIQAAwcFAIQAASKhAIQAA4GdAIQAAABBA IQAAnJRABQD9AAoAcAAGACsAZQAAAL0AHgBxAAAAGgAghuJAIQAAWcFAIQAAjqxAIQAAgFhAAwAB AgYAcQAEACEAfgIKAHEABQAhAACwhkD9AAoAcQAGACsARgAAAL0AGAByAAAAGgAghuJAIQAAACJA IQAAACJAAgC+AAwAcgADACEAIQAhAAUA/QAKAHIABgArAGYAAAC9ACoAcwAAABoAIIbiQCEAAEzd QCEAwE7SQCEAAKBzQCEAAAAoQCEAADalQAUA/QAKAHMABgArABMAAAC9ABgAdAAAABoAIIbiQCEA AAAYQCEAAAAYQAIAvgAMAHQAAwAhACEAIQAFAP0ACgB0AAYAKwBnAAAAvQAqAHUAAAAaACCG4kAj AICELkEuAOZtMAAuAICQz0AvAAA4gUAvANDQAUEFAP0ACgB1AAYAIgAdAAAAvQAqAHYAAAAaACCG 4kAhAICELkEhAFSeJEEhAADM00AhAABwckAhAODp/kAFAP0ACgB2AAYAIgBKAAAAvQAqAHcAAAAa ACCG4kAhAICELkEhAJgoKEEhAMBn0kAhAAAAcEAhAKBvCUEFAP0ACgB3AAYAIgBoAAAAvQAqAHgA AAAaACCG4kAhAABqGEEhAITiEUEhAAB0uUAhAAAATUAhAABC7kAFAP0ACgB4AAYAIgBpAAAAvQAq AHkAAAAaAECG4kAhAICEHkEhANgAGkEhAIBcwkAhAADAYUAhAACm8UAFAP0ACgB5AAYAIgBqAAAA vQAqAHoAAAAaACCG4kAlAICEHkElANCDFUElAOCV9EAlAABwfkAlAADRukAFAP0ACgB6AAYAJgBr AAAAvQAqAHsAAAAaAECG4kAoAICELkEoAIYkMgAoAIB03UAoAAB4gUAoAPjIBUEFAP0ACgB7AAYA KgBsAAAAvQAqAHwAAAAaAECG4kAhAICELkEhAMjdKUEhAIBj0kAhAADgaUAhAOCaAkEFAP0ACgB8 AAYAKwBtAAAAvQAqAH0AAAAaAECG4kAhAICEPkEhAAazaQAhAEBK4EAhAAAAT0AhAPReEEEFAP0A CgB9AAYAIgAMAAAAvQAqAH4AAAAaAECG4kAhAABqCEEhAOjXBkEhAABomUAhAAAAFEAhAIAhyUAF AP0ACgB+AAYAIgAMAAAAvQAqAH8AAAAaAECG4kAhAIAb90AhAGBi5UAhAABCoUAhAAAAWEAhAIDy ykAFAP0ACgB/AAYAIgBTAAAA1wBEAC4KAABsAjwAPAA8ADwAPAA8ADwAWAA8ADwAPAA8ADwAOgBI ADwAPABIADoAPAA6ADwAPAA8ADwAPAA8ADwAPAA8ADwACAIQAIAAAAAHAP8AAAAAAAABDwAIAhAA gQAAAAcA/wAAAAAAAAEPAAgCEACCAAAABwD/AAAAAAAAAQ8ACAIQAIMAAAAHAP8AAAAAAAABDwAI AhAAhAAAAAcA/wAAAAAAAAEPAAgCEACFAAAABwD/AAAAAAAAAQ8ACAIQAIYAAAAHAP8AAAAAAAAB DwAIAhAAhwAAAAcA/wAAAAAAAAEPAAgCEACIAAAABwD/AAAAAAAAAQ8ACAIQAIkAAAAHAP8AAAAA AAABDwAIAhAAigAAAAcA/wAAAAAAAAEPAAgCEACLAAAABwD/AAAAAAAAAQ8ACAIQAIwAAAAHAP8A AAAAAAABDwAIAhAAjQAAAAcA/wAAAAAAAAEPAAgCEACOAAAABwD/AAAAAAAAAQ8ACAIQAI8AAAAH AP8AAAAAAAABDwAIAhAAkAAAAAcA/wAAAAAAAAEPAAgCEACRAAAABwD/AAAAAAAAAQ8ACAIQAJIA AAAHAP8AAAAAAAABDwAIAhAAkwAAAAcA/wAAAAAAAAEPAAgCEACUAAAABwD/AAAAAAAAAQ8ACAIQ AJUAAAAHAP8AAAAAAAABDwAIAhAAlgAAAAcA/wAAAAAAAAEPAAgCEACXAAAABwD/AAAAAAAAAQ8A CAIQAJgAAAAHAA4BAAAAAAABDyAIAhAAmQAAAAcA/wAAAAAAAAEPAAgCEACaAAAABwD/AAAAAAAA AQ8ACAIQAJsAAAAHAP8AAAAAAAABDwAIAhAAnAAAAAcA/wAAAAAAAAEPAAgCEACdAAAABwD/AAAA AAAAAQ8ACAIQAJ4AAAAHAP8AAAAAAAABDwAIAhAAnwAAAAcA/wAAAAAAAAEPAL0AKgCAAAAAGgBA huJAIQCwTPRAIQAgQeVAIQAAJJRAIQAAADtAIQAAab9ABQD9AAoAgAAGACIAbgAAAL0AKgCBAAAA GgBAhuJAIQDA6PlAIQAglOxAIQAAnJ9AIQAAADhAIQAAMMVABQD9AAoAgQAGACIAbwAAAL0AKgCC AAAAGgBAhuJAIQCgzuVAIQCA6OBAIQAA1JJAIQAAACxAIQCAmMNABQD9AAoAggAGACIAEwAAAL0A KgCDAAAAGgBAhuJAIQCA2+NAIQCgU+FAIQAAPJRAIQAAADdAIQAAP7RABQD9AAoAgwAGACIAbwAA AL0AKgCEAAAAGgBAhuJAIQCgmudAIQBgp+FAIQAAuIZAIQAAAC5AIQAAzcdABQD9AAoAhAAGACIA cAAAAL0AKgCFAAAAGgBAhuJAIQBAtutAIQAAk+NAIQAAoItAIQAAADFAIQCARtBABQD9AAoAhQAG ACIAZQAAAL0AKgCGAAAAGgBAhuJAIQCABc9AIQCAFMBAIQAA4GVAIQAAAABAIQAA6JVABQD9AAoA hgAGACIAcQAAAL0AKgCHAAAAGgBAhuJAIQAAF8xAIQAASsJAIQAAwGJAIQAAACZAIQAAbJVABQD9 AAoAhwAGACIATQAAAL0AKgCIAAAAGgBAhuJAIQDARdNAIQAAj8pAIQAA8HJAIQAAABhAIQAAOqFA BQD9AAoAiAAGACIAcgAAAL0AGACJAAAAGgBAhuJAIQAAAChAIQAAAChAAgC+AAwAiQADACEAIQAh AAUA/QAKAIkABgAiAHMAAAC9ACoAigAAABoAQIbiQCEAYOTgQCEAABHTQCEAAEB2QCEAAAAQQCEA AGCrQAUA/QAKAIoABgAiAE8AAAC9ACoAiwAAABoAQIbiQCEA4LzlQCEAAMjZQCEAANCAQCEAAAAA QCEAAO6xQAUA/QAKAIsABgAiAHQAAAC9ACoAjAAAABoAQIbiQCEAep+0ACEAkgGOACEAYIn2QCEA AFB3QCEAkP7/QAUA/QAKAIwABgAiAAgAAAC9ACoAjQAAABoAQIbiQCEAgIQuQSEA0GUqQSEAgNrk QCEAAIiHQCEA4DbmQAUA/QAKAI0ABgAiAHUAAAC9ACoAjgAAABoAQIbiQCEAHPwWQSEAMCMQQSEA gOLVQCEAAKBkQCEAwMfhQAUA/QAKAI4ABgAiAHYAAAC9ACoAjwAAABoAQIbiQCEAQOYHQSEAgAQD QSEAQHzaQCEAAMBbQCEAAMLhQAUA/QAKAI8ABgAiAHYAAAC9ACoAkAAAABoAQIbiQCEAmF4KQSEA wHgGQSEAQF/hQCEAAGBlQCEAgB7eQAUA/QAKAJAABgAiAGIAAAC9ACoAkQAAABoAQIbiQCEAgIQu QSEAcAQoQSEA4MXkQCEAANB2QCEA4EfgQAUA/QAKAJEABgAiAFoAAAC9ACoAkgAAABoAQIbiQCEA gIQuQSEAoG0qQSEAYLTgQCEAANSiQCEA4FPwQAUA/QAKAJIABgAiADYAAAC9ACoAkwAAABoAQIbi QCEAgE8iQSEAvNoRQSEAAGm6QCEAAABOQCEAoG8SQQUA/QAKAJMABgAiAHcAAAC9ACoAlAAAABoA QIbiQCEAgIQeQSEAVMEZQSEAAG28QCEAAIBUQCEAsAzzQAUA/QAKAJQABgAiAHgAAAC9ACoAlQAA ABoAQIbiQCEAAGoIQSEAyJwDQSEAAGqpQCEAAABFQCEA4DTjQAUA/QAKAJUABgAiAGkAAAC9ACoA lgAAABoAQIbiQCEAgIQuQSEAWCwpQSEAgJPWQCEAAMiYQCEAoGAFQQUA/QAKAJYABgAiAHkAAAC9 ACoAlwAAABoAQIbiQCEAgIQuQSEAoG0qQSEAQLHhQCEAACCVQCEAoD3mQAUA/QAKAJcABgAiAHoA AAC9ACoAmAAAABoAQIbiQCUAjpi0ACUAOvaLACMA2A8AQSMAAAO6QCMAqNACQQUA/QAKAJgABgAm ACkAAAC9ACoAmQAAABoAYIbiQCgATM8WQSgAwDkMQSgAwDHZQCgAAOB5QCgA4EjwQAUA/QAKAJkA BgAqACQAAAC9ACoAmgAAABoAYIbiQCEAuNkHQSEAEE4DQSEAgBLfQCEAAMBmQCEA4GngQAUA/QAK AJoABgAiAHsAAAC9ACoAmwAAABoAYIbiQCEAkDwKQSEAQPsFQSEAgOjjQCEAAGBtQCEAYHrgQAUA /QAKAJsABgAiABEAAAC9ACoAnAAAABoAYIbiQCEAQCv9QCEAwIv6QCEAgK/ZQCEAAABaQCEAAPzE QAUA/QAKAJwABgAiAHwAAAC9ACoAnQAAABoAYIbiQCEAoDn3QCEAYGj1QCEAgO7VQCEAAEBiQCEA ABS9QAUA/QAKAJ0ABgAiAH0AAAC9ACoAngAAABoAYIbiQCEAANCYQCEAAEyWQCEAAMB7QCEAAAAI QCEAACBkQAUA/QAKAJ4ABgAiABEAAAC9ACoAnwAAABoAYIbiQCEAANCdQCEAABCaQCEAAJB9QCEA AAAgQCEAAABuQAUA/QAKAJ8ABgAiABEAAADXAEQA/gkAAGwCPAA8ADwAPAA8ADwAPAA8ADwAOgA8 ADwAPAA8ADwAPAA8ADwAPAA8ADwAPAA8ADwAPAA8ADwAPAA8ADwAPAAIAhAAoAAAAAcA/wAAAAAA AAEPAAgCEAChAAAABwD/AAAAAAAAAQ8ACAIQAKIAAAAHAP8AAAAAAAABDwAIAhAAowAAAAcA/wAA AAAAAAEPAAgCEACkAAAABwD/AAAAAAAAAQ8ACAIQAKUAAAAHAP8AAAAAAAABDwAIAhAApgAAAAcA /wAAAAAAAAEPAAgCEACnAAAABwD/AAAAAAAAAQ8ACAIQAKgAAAAHAP8AAAAAAAABDwAIAhAAqQAA AAcA/wAAAAAAAAEPAAgCEACqAAAABwAOAQAAAAAAAQ8gCAIQAKsAAAAHAP8AAAAAAAABDwAIAhAA rAAAAAcA/wAAAAAAAAEPAAgCEACtAAAABwD/AAAAAAAAAQ8ACAIQAK4AAAAHAP8AAAAAAAABDwAI AhAArwAAAAcA/wAAAAAAAAEPAAgCEACwAAAABwD/AAAAAAAAAQ8ACAIQALEAAAAHAP8AAAAAAAAB DwAIAhAAsgAAAAcA/wAAAAAAAAEPAAgCEACzAAAABwD/AAAAAAAAAQ8ACAIQALQAAAAHAP8AAAAA AAABDwAIAhAAtQAAAAcA/wAAAAAAAAEPAAgCEAC2AAAABwD/AAAAAAAAAQ8ACAIQALcAAAAHAP8A AAAAAAABDwAIAhAAuAAAAAcA/wAAAAAAAAEPAAgCEAC5AAAABwD/AAAAAAAAAQ8ACAIQALoAAAAH AA4BAAAAAAABDyAIAhAAuwAAAAcA/wAAAAAAAAEPAAgCEAC8AAAABwD/AAAAAAAAAQ8ACAIQAL0A AAAHAP8AAAAAAAABDwAIAhAAvgAAAAcA/wAAAAAAAAEPAAgCEAC/AAAABwD/AAAAAAAAAQ8AvQAq AKAAAAAaAGCG4kAhAACAWUAhAADAVEAhAAAAOUAhAAAAAAAhAAAAM0AFAP0ACgCgAAYAIgARAAAA vQAqAKEAAAAaAGCG4kAhAAC0rEAhAACupkAhAABIkUAhAAAA8D8hAAAYiEAFAP0ACgChAAYAIgB+ AAAAvQAqAKIAAAAaAGCG4kAhAICELkEhAA55OAAhAIBRy0AhAACga0AhANA/8kAFAP0ACgCiAAYA IgB/AAAAvQAqAKMAAAAaAGCG4kAhAICELkEhAKakOQAhAAAmvEAhAACgYkAhAOAi60AFAP0ACgCj AAYAIgBlAAAAvQAqAKQAAAAaAGCG4kAhAGDjRkEhAIhrO0EhACBw4UAhAADQikAhAGjMAEEFAP0A CgCkAAYAIgAIAAAAvQAqAKUAAAAaAGCG4kAhAGDjJkEhAFTxI0EhAED81EAhAAAgb0AhAGCQ90AF AP0ACgClAAYAIgBmAAAAvQAqAKYAAAAaAGCG4kAhAGDjJkEhAMZZKgAhAID6zUAhAADAWkAhAPAk 8EAFAP0ACgCmAAYAIgCAAAAAvQAqAKcAAAAaAGCG4kAhAMD3EEEhAPgfEEEhAAAvxUAhAAAAaUAh AIBA10AFAP0ACgCnAAYAIgB5AAAAvQAqAKgAAAAaAGCG4kAhAIBPMkEhAOCmLkEhAIDK0UAhAAAw f0AhAIDgB0EFAP0ACgCoAAYAIgA2AAAAvQAqAKkAAAAaAGCG4kAhAJDPOEEhAG7nUQAhACDN5EAh AADwf0AhANRWEUEFAP0ACgCpAAYAIgCBAAAAvQAqAKoAAAAaAGCG4kAlAMDTFkElAPRQE0ElAADq tUAlAABAXEAlAGAW7EAFAP0ACgCqAAYAJgA2AAAAvQAqAKsAAAAaAICG4kAoAACNFkEoAMiYC0Eo AMDB10AoAADAW0AoANCA8EAFAP0ACgCrAAYAKQBlAAAAvQAqAKwAAAAaAICG4kAhAKCrB0EhAMiq A0EhAEBY4EAhAADAUkAhAEB93EAFAP0ACgCsAAYAIgCCAAAAvQAqAK0AAAAaAICG4kAhAAD5CUEh AFDVBkEhACA55UAhAAAAXEAhAEAN2EAFAP0ACgCtAAYAIgCDAAAAvQAqAK4AAAAaAICG4kAhAEAr /UAhAMCL+kAhAOCZ4kAhAACgbEAhAAiIDEEFAP0ACgCuAAYAIgCEAAAAvQAqAK8AAAAaAICG4kAh AABA90AhAKBo9UAhAICW4EAhAADgb0AhAICZw0AFAP0ACgCvAAYAIgCEAAAAvQAqALAAAAAaAICG 4kAhAABAWUAhAACAVkAhAAAARUAhAAAA8D8hAAAAJkAFAP0ACgCwAAYAIgATAAAAvQAqALEAAAAa AICG4kAhAAConUAhAADIm0AhAACYgUAhAAAA8D8hAAAAXkAFAP0ACgCxAAYAIgBvAAAAvQAqALIA AAAaAICG4kAhAADAmEAhAACAl0AhAACgfUAhAAAAAEAhAAAAVEAFAP0ACgCyAAYAIgBvAAAAvQAq ALMAAAAaAICG4kAhAABirEAhAABgp0AhAABIkUAhAAAAAEAhAAAIhEAFAP0ACgCzAAYAIgBIAAAA vQAqALQAAAAaAICG4kAhAMBcNUEhAF6rTQAhAECa1kAhAAAgZkAhAFAc/0AFAP0ACgC0AAYAIgCF AAAAvQAqALUAAAAaAICG4kAhAODIIEEhAHQ5HEEhAABBu0AhAACARkAhADBh9UAFAP0ACgC1AAYA IgCGAAAAvQAqALYAAAAaAICG4kAhAFAtOUEhALaTUgAhAGAQ5EAhAAAEmUAhACgCEkEFAP0ACgC2 AAYAIgCHAAAAvQAqALcAAAAaAICG4kAhAABqGEEhAKjtEUEhAECX0UAhAADAdkAhAGDx+UAFAP0A CgC3AAYAIgBMAAAAvQAqALgAAAAaAICG4kAhAICELkEhAFR9KkEhAADuzEAhAABAVkAhALAcAEEF AP0ACgC4AAYAIgCGAAAAvQAqALkAAAAaAICG4kAhAICELkEhAO5BOgAhAAAAzEAhAADAYUAhAKA4 5kAFAP0ACgC5AAYAIgCIAAAAvQAqALoAAAAaAICG4kAlAABMLUElAAwVGUElAADRwkAlAADAb0Al ANyeIEEFAP0ACgC6AAYAJgBDAAAAvQAqALsAAAAaAKCG4kAoAICETkEoAJBMSUEoAABO8EAoAACA hEAoAMAm2UAFAP0ACgC7AAYAKQBjAAAAvQAqALwAAAAaAKCG4kAhAICEPkEhACwSMkEhACCX4kAh AABQdEAhAIjoDkEFAP0ACgC8AAYAIgCJAAAAvQAqAL0AAAAaAKCG4kAhAICEPkEhABrpTAAhAMCT 3kAhAACwfEAhAOAi7UAFAP0ACgC9AAYAIgCKAAAAvQAqAL4AAAAaAKCG4kAhAICEPkEhAHpEZAAh AIA75kAhAAAAfUAhABTLFEEFAP0ACgC+AAYAIgCLAAAAvQAqAL8AAAAaAKCG4kAhAICELkEhAGY8 NAAhAIC90EAhAADQfkAhADCZAUEFAP0ACgC/AAYAIgCMAAAA1wBEAAAKAABsAjwAPAA8ADwAPAA8 ADwAPAA8ADwAPAA8ADwAPAA8ADwAPAA8ADwAPAA8ADwAPAA8ADwAPAA8ADwAPAA8ADwACAIQAMAA AAAHAA4BAAAAAAABDyAIAhAAwQAAAAcA/wAAAAAAAAEPAAgCEADCAAAABwD/AAAAAAAAAQ8ACAIQ AMMAAAAHAP8AAAAAAAABDwAIAhAAxAAAAAcA/wAAAAAAAAEPAAgCEADFAAAABwD/AAAAAAAAAQ8A CAIQAMYAAAAHAP8AAAAAAAABDwAIAhAAxwAAAAcA/wAAAAAAAAEPAAgCEADIAAAABwD/AAAAAAAA AQ8ACAIQAMkAAAAHAP8AAAAAAAABDwAIAhAAygAAAAcA/wAAAAAAAAEPAAgCEADLAAAABwD/AAAA AAAAAQ8ACAIQAMwAAAAHAP8AAAAAAAABDwAIAhAAzQAAAAcA/wAAAAAAAAEPAAgCEADOAAAABwD/ AAAAAAAAAQ8ACAIQAM8AAAAHAP8AAAAAAAABDwAIAhAA0AAAAAgA/wAAAAAAAAEPAAgCEADRAAAA CAD/AAAAAAAAAQ8ACAIQANIAAAAIAP8AAAAAAAABDwAIAhAA0wAAAAgA/wAAAAAAQAEPAAgCEADU AAAACAD/AAAAAAAAAQ8ACAIQANUAAAAIAP8AAAAAAAABDwAIAhAA1gAAAAgA/wAAAAAAAAEPAAgC EADXAAAACAD/AAAAAAAAAQ8ACAIQANgAAAAIAP8AAAAAAAABDwAIAhAA2QAAAAgA/wAAAAAAAAEP AAgCEADaAAAACAD/AAAAAAAAAQ8ACAIQANsAAAAIAP8AAAAAAAABDwAIAhAA3AAAAAgA/wAAAAAA AAEPAAgCEADdAAAACAAOAQAAAAAAAQ8gCAIQAN4AAAAIAP8AAAAAAAABDwAIAhAA3wAAAAgA/wAA AAAAAAEPAL0AKgDAAAAAGgCghuJAJQCAhC5BLQA4ZypBLQAAzcxALQAAAF9ALQAgdQBBBQD9AAoA wAAGACYADgAAAL0AKgDBAAAAGgDAhuJAKACAhC5BKAAoMy1BKAAASr5AKAAAIGhAKACAFeVABQD9 AAoAwQAGACoADAAAAL0AKgDCAAAAGgDAhuJAIQCAit1AIQDAStBAIQAAUHxAIQAAABBAIQAAuKBA BQD9AAoAwgAGACsAbgAAAL0AKgDDAAAAGgDAhuJAIQDASuhAIQCAadlAIQAA4I1AIQAAABxAIQAA +bBABQD9AAoAwwAGACsAEwAAAL0AGADEAAAAGgDAhuJAIQAAAChAIQAAAChAAgC+AAwAxAADACEA IQAhAAUA/QAKAMQABgArAG8AAAC9ACoAxQAAABoAwIbiQCEAAEDfQCEAAFrTQCEAAMiCQCEAAAAQ QCEAAA6kQAUA/QAKAMUABgAiAAsAAAC9ABgAxgAAABoAwIbiQCEAAAAkQCEAAAAkQAIAvgAMAMYA AwAhACEAIQAFAP0ACgDGAAYAIgBDAAAAvQAqAMcAAAAaAMCG4kAhAICELkEhACxqKUEhAKBZ4EAh AAA8l0AhAFBpBEEFAP0ACgDHAAYAIgCNAAAAvQAqAMgAAAAaAMCG4kAhAICH3UAhAABE0EAhAADg d0AhAAAAIEAhAADWoEAFAP0ACgDIAAYAIgCOAAAAvQAqAMkAAAAaAMCG4kAhAEBq40AhAAD500Ah AAA4hEAhAAAAIkAhAAD+rEAFAP0ACgDJAAYAIgBIAAAAvQAYAMoAAAAaAMCG4kAhAAAAIkAhAAAA IkACAL4ADADKAAMAIQAhACEABQD9AAoAygAGACIAhAAAAL0AKgDLAAAAGgDAhuJAIQAASBZBIQBQ gg9BIQAA59tAIQAAAGRAIQDAZt5ABQD9AAoAywAGACIAZAAAAL0AKgDMAAAAGgDAhuJAIQAgTQdB IQBQkgNBIQAAZ+BAIQAAwFlAIQAATdpABQD9AAoAzAAGACIAFAAAAL0AKgDNAAAAGgDAhuJAIQCw qglBIQDg8QVBIQCgp+RAIQAAgF5AIQBAttxABQD9AAoAzQAGACIARgAAAL0AKgDOAAAAGgDAhuJA IQDA6PxAIQBw8/lAIQAAStdAIQAAgE9AIQCAqsdABQD9AAoAzgAGACIAYwAAAL0AKgDPAAAAGgDA huJAIQBQ+PZAIQAgifRAIQAAKNNAIQAAAExAIQCAecNABQD9AAoAzwAGACIAZQAAAL0AKgDQAAAA GgDAhuJAIQAAAFdAIQAAAFZAIQAAAD5AIQAAAAAAIQAAABBABQD9AAoA0AAGACIAZAAAAL0AKgDR AAAAGgDAhuJAIQAApJhAIQAA+JZAIQAA0HxAIQAAAPA/IQAAwFpABQD9AAoA0QAGACIAZAAAAL0A KgDSAAAAGgDAhuJAIQAAfJ1AIQAAeJpAIQAAIIBAIQAAAPA/IQAAIGZABQD9AAoA0gAGACIAZAAA AL0AKgDTAAAAGgDAhuJAIQAA4KtAIQAA7KVAIQAA+I1AIQAAAPA/IQAAoIZABQD9AAoA0wAGACIA CAAAAL0AKgDUAAAAGgDAhuJAIQDQElNBIQCQWEdBIQCADtZAIQAAMHJAIQBA+wNBBQD9AAoA1AAG ACIASQAAAL0AKgDVAAAAGgDAhuJAIQCqrXoAIQDutjYAIQDA+tBAIQAAMHVAIQDA+/VABQD9AAoA 1QAGACIAMAAAAL0AKgDWAAAAGgDAhuJAIQDqyHgAIQCuzEkAIQAQwvFAIQAALJJAIQBAONxABQD9 AAoA1gAGACIAjwAAAL0AKgDXAAAAGgDAhuJAIQCAhC5BIQDQgyVBIQBAo9hAIQAAQFRAIQCAtMFA BQD9AAoA1wAGACIALwAAAL0AKgDYAAAAGgDAhuJAIQCAhE5BIQCADT1BIQAgF+hAIQAA0IBAIQDQ HwdBBQD9AAoA2AAGACIAZwAAAL0AKgDZAAAAGgDAhuJAIQCwNTVBIQB0dzNBIQBAINlAIQAAoGFA IQDA4/tABQD9AAoA2QAGACIASwAAAL0AKgDaAAAAGgDAhuJAIQCwNTVBIQDql1EAIQCA7tVAIQAA QGpAIQDA9ulABQD9AAoA2gAGACIAigAAAL0AKgDbAAAAGgDAhuJAIQDQRy9BIQB2nDQAIQDAKdVA IQAAwGlAIQC45QNBBQD9AAoA2wAGACIAHQAAAL0AKgDcAAAAGgDAhuJAIQDQRy9BIQCg/SpBIQAA kNBAIQAAIGdAIQDAKAFBBQD9AAoA3AAGACIAkAAAAL0AKgDdAAAAGgDAhuJAJQCAhD5BJQDgMzRB JQAAYNVAJQAAMItAJQCgO/5ABQD9AAoA3QAGACYAkQAAAL0AKgDeAAAAGgDghuJAJwAAMhZBKABI ygpBKACAddRAKAAAoGVAKACQsfBABQD9AAoA3gAGACoAQAAAAP0ACgDeAAcADwCSAAAAvQAqAN8A AAAaAOCG4kAjAEAhB0EhAKikBEEhAIBr40AhAAAAZUAhAMBa0EAFAP0ACgDfAAYAKwBFAAAA1wBE AAgKAABsAjwAPAA8ADwAOgA8ADoAPAA8ADwAOgA8ADwAPAA8ADwAPAA8ADwAPAA8ADwAPAA8ADwA PAA8ADwAPAA8AEoACAIQAOAAAAAIAP8AAAAAAAABDwAIAhAA4QAAAAgA/wAAAAAAAAEPAAgCEADi AAAACAD/AAAAAAAAAQ8ACAIQAOMAAAAIAP8AAAAAAAABDwAIAhAA5AAAAAgA/wAAAAAAAAEPAAgC EADlAAAACAD/AAAAAAAAAQ8ACAIQAOYAAAAIAP8AAAAAAAABDwAIAhAA5wAAAAgA/wAAAAAAAAEP AAgCEADoAAAACAD/AAAAAAAAAQ8ACAIQAOkAAAAIAP8AAAAAAAABDwAIAhAA6gAAAAgA/wAAAAAA AAEPAAgCEADrAAAACAD/AAAAAAAAAQ8ACAIQAOwAAAAIAP8AAAAAAAABDwAIAhAA7QAAAAgA/wAA AAAAAAEPAAgCEADuAAAACAD/AAAAAAAAAQ8ACAIQAO8AAAAIAP8AAAAAAAABDwAIAhAA8AAAAAcA /wAAAAAAAAEPAAgCEADxAAAABwD/AAAAAAAAAQ8ACAIQAPIAAAAHAP8AAAAAAAABDwAIAhAA8wAA AAcA/wAAAAAAAAEPAAgCEAD0AAAABwD/AAAAAAAAAQ8ACAIQAPUAAAAHAP8AAAAAAAABDwAIAhAA 9gAAAAcA/wAAAAAAAAEPAAgCEAD3AAAABwD/AAAAAAAAAQ8ACAIQAPgAAAAHAP8AAAAAAAABDwAI AhAA+QAAAAcADgEAAAAAAAEPIAgCEAD6AAAABwD/AAAAAAAAAQ8ACAIQAPsAAAAHAP8AAAAAAAAB DwAIAhAA/AAAAAcA/wAAAAAAAAEPAAgCEAD9AAAABwD/AAAAAAAAAQ8ACAIQAP4AAAAHAP8AAAAA AAABDwAIAhAA/wAAAAcA/wAAAAAAAAEPAL0AKgDgAAAAGgDghuJAIwAUFxZBIQA4VgxBIQDAytpA IQAAQGRAIQAAXOpABQD9AAoA4AAGACsAcwAAAP0ACgDgAAcAMACTAAAAvQAqAOEAAAAaAOCG4kAh AAgOB0EhAChmBEEhAOB/4UAhAAAAYUAhAMCl0UAFAP0ACgDhAAYAKwCUAAAAvQAqAOIAAAAaAOCG 4kAhALhhCUEhALAZBkEhAMDp4kAhAAAgY0AhAAAw2UAFAP0ACgDiAAYAIgCUAAAAvQAqAOMAAAAa AOCG4kAhABBS/UAhAODd+0AhAEBL2EAhAACAREAhAADSrEAFAP0ACgDjAAYAIgCVAAAAvQAqAOQA AAAaAOCG4kAhAMDE9kAhAAA19kAhAECt1EAhAAAATkAhAAD4oUAFAP0ACgDkAAYAIgBzAAAAvQAq AOUAAAAaAOCG4kAhAAAAV0AhAAAAVUAhAAAAPUAhAAAAAAAhAAAAIEAFAP0ACgDlAAYAIgCWAAAA vQAqAOYAAAAaAOCG4kAhAAAwmEAhAABclkAhAAAweUAhAAAA8D8hAABAXUAFAP0ACgDmAAYAIgCW AAAAvQAqAOcAAAAaAOCG4kAhAADknEAhAACwmkAhAADgfUAhAAAAAEAhAABAX0AFAP0ACgDnAAYA IgCWAAAAvQAqAOgAAAAaAOCG4kAhAAAWq0AhAABOp0AhAABwj0AhAAAAEEAhAADge0AFAP0ACgDo AAYAIgCVAAAAvQAqAOkAAAAaAOCG4kAhAICELkEhAM7YOQAhAABUu0AhAACAQEAhAKCB6UAFAP0A CgDpAAYAIgCXAAAAvQAqAOoAAAAaAOCG4kAhAICELkEhAM7POQAhAMBn0UAhAAAAOEAhAKDJ6UAF AP0ACgDqAAYAIgCYAAAAvQAqAOsAAAAaAOCG4kAhAICELkEhAOCAHEEhAEDH20AhAABAcUAhAABb t0AFAP0ACgDrAAYAIgCZAAAAvQAqAOwAAAAaAOCG4kAhABLDCwEhAFq7kgAhAEDj6EAhAADhvEAh ANjdDkEFAP0ACgDsAAYAIgCJAAAAvQAqAO0AAAAaAOCG4kAhABQXFkEhAOj4C0EhAKAK4EAhAACA b0AhAGDR60AFAP0ACgDtAAYAIgAWAAAAvQAqAO4AAAAaAOCG4kAhAHDE/EAhALDX+0AhAABl3kAh AAAAWEAhAACYrUAFAP0ACgDuAAYAKwBRAAAAvQAqAO8AAAAaAOCG4kAhAAAX8UAhAADO20AhAACo i0AhAAAAPUAhAACvykAFAP0ACgDvAAYAIgCaAAAAvQAYAPAAAAAaAOCG4kAhAAAAJkAhAAAAJkAC AL4ADADwAAMAIQAhACEABQD9AAoA8AAGACIAGgAAAL0AKgDxAAAAGgDghuJAIQCAhD5BIQCABy5B IwDA3eRAIQAAgGhAIQAAhMlABQD9AAoA8QAGACIAPgAAAL0AKgDyAAAAGgDghuJAIQBI+gZBIQDQ oQNBIQCgL+ZAIQAAYGdAIQDAOddABQD9AAoA8gAGACIAmwAAAL0AKgDzAAAAGgDghuJAIwC42QlB IQBYPwdBIQCAQtpAIQAAYGJAIQAA09RABQD9AAoA8wAGACIAnAAAAL0AKgD0AAAAGgDghuJAIQCA hB5BIQCgjRlBIQAAxb1AIQAAAEdAIQBw2/NABQD9AAoA9AAGACIAnQAAAL0AKgD1AAAAGgDghuJA IQCAhB5BIQBIaxlBIQAA1b5AIQAAgENAIQDQYfRABQD9AAoA9QAGACIAnAAAAL0AKgD2AAAAGgDg huJAIQCATyJBIQBojR1BIQAAeMhAIQAAKIBAIQBwRfxABQD9AAoA9gAGACIAngAAAL0AKgD3AAAA GgDghuJAIQC4hgtBIQA4tQZBIQAAEK9AIQAAgE9AIQBAQuNABQD9AAoA9wAGACIAnwAAAL0AKgD4 AAAAGgDghuJAIQCAhB5BIQBMSx1BIQAAvcJAIQAAYGBAIQAA0MtABQD9AAoA+AAGACIAoAAAAL0A KgD5AAAAGgDghuJAIQCAhB5BIwC4YRdBIwAAWLFAIwAAgFZAIwAgi/xABQD9AAoA+QAGACIAoQAA AL0AKgD6AAAAGgAAh+JAKACAhC5BKADggBxBKACAZsZAKAAAQF9AKACwV/RABQD9AAoA+gAGACkA ogAAAL0AKgD7AAAAGgAAh+JAIQCU+xVBIQCYEAxBIQCAydlAIQAAYG5AIQDgk+pABQD9AAoA+wAG ACsAcAAAAL0AKgD8AAAAGgAAh+JAIQAA1AZBIQDQcAJBIQAA2ttAIQAAAFdAIQAAkN9ABQD9AAoA /AAGACsARgAAAL0AKgD9AAAAGgAAh+JAIQB4RglBIQCQbARBIQAgXuNAIQAAwFVAIQCA3+JABQD9 AAoA/QAGACsAFAAAAL0AKgD+AAAAGgAAh+JAIQBgkfxAIQCgnftAIQAADNZAIQAAAEtAIQAAeK5A BQD9AAoA/gAGACIAFAAAAL0AKgD/AAAAGgAAh+JAIQCgrPZAIQBQ3PVAIQAAm9JAIQAAgEVAIQAA CqpABQD9AAoA/wAGACIAZQAAANcARAAMCgAAbAJKADwAPAA8ADwAPAA8ADwAPAA8ADwAPAA8ADwA PAA8ADoAPAA8ADwAPAA8ADwAPAA8ADwAPAA8ADwAPAA8AAgCEAAAAQAABwD/AAAAAAAAAQ8ACAIQ AAEBAAAHAP8AAAAAAAABDwAIAhAAAgEAAAcA/wAAAAAAAAEPAAgCEAADAQAABwD/AAAAAAAAAQ8A CAIQAAQBAAAHAP8AAAAAAAABDwAIAhAABQEAAAcA/wAAAAAAAAEPAAgCEAAGAQAABwD/AAAAAAAA AQ8ACAIQAAcBAAAHAP8AAAAAAAABDwAIAhAACAEAAAcA/wAAAAAAAAEPAAgCEAAJAQAABwD/AAAA AAAAAQ8ACAIQAAoBAAAHAP8AAAAAAAABDwAIAhAACwEAAAcA/wAAAAAAAAEPAAgCEAAMAQAABwD/ AAAAAAAAAQ8ACAIQAA0BAAAHAP8AAAAAAAABDwAIAhAADgEAAAcA/wAAAAAAAAEPAAgCEAAPAQAA BwD/AAAAAAAAAQ8ACAIQABABAAAHAP8AAAAAAAABDwAIAhAAEQEAAAcA/wAAAAAAAAEPAAgCEAAS AQAABwD/AAAAAAAAAQ8ACAIQABMBAAAHAP8AAAAAAAABDwAIAhAAFAEAAAcA/wAAAAAAAAEPAAgC EAAVAQAABwD/AAAAAAAAAQ8ACAIQABYBAAAHAP8AAAAAAAABDwAIAhAAFwEAAAcA/wAAAAAAAAEP AAgCEAAYAQAABwD/AAAAAAAAAQ8ACAIQABkBAAAHAP8AAAAAAAABDwAIAhAAGgEAAAcADgEAAAAA AAEPIAgCEAAbAQAABwD/AAAAAAAAAQ8ACAIQABwBAAAHAP8AAAAAAAABDwAIAhAAHQEAAAcA/wAA AAAAAAEPAAgCEAAeAQAABwD/AAAAAAAAAQ8ACAIQAB8BAAAHAP8AAAAAAAABDwC9ACoAAAEAABoA AIfiQCEAAABXQCEAAABWQCEAAABBQCEAAAAAACEAAAAQQAUA/QAKAAABBgAiAKMAAAC9ACoAAQEA ABoAAIfiQCEAAPyXQCEAAMCWQCEAAPB5QCEAAAAAQCEAAMBTQAUA/QAKAAEBBgAiAEcAAAC9ACoA AgEAABoAAIfiQCEAADycQCEAAISaQCEAAHB/QCEAAAAAACEAAIBbQAUA/QAKAAIBBgAiAEcAAAC9 ACoAAwEAABoAAIfiQCEAAFKqQCEAAMSmQCEAAACPQCEAAADwPyEAAHB8QAUA/QAKAAMBBgAiAEgA AAC9ACoABAEAABoAAIfiQCEA2M8GQSEAAAIDQSEAIJ/gQCEAAABfQCEAQOXaQAUA/QAKAAQBBgAi AD4AAAC9ACoABQEAABoAAIfiQCEAVO0VQSEAcNkLQSEAwBvcQCEAAEB5QCEAgP7qQAUA/QAKAAUB BgAiAJoAAAC9ACoABgEAABoAAIfiQCEAgIQeQSEAPFcaQSEAAM/CQCEAAMBYQCEAYHDuQAUA/QAK AAYBBgAiABMAAAC9ACoABwEAABoAAIfiQCEAgIQuQSEAJPgeQSEAAPPZQCEAAPB4QCEAQF7QQAUA /QAKAAcBBgAiAKMAAAC9ACoACAEAABoAAIfiQCEAgIQeQSEA+J4UQSEAAJywQCEAAEBXQCEAEMsD QQUA/QAKAAgBBgAiAAwAAAC9ACoACQEAABoAAIfiQCEAfu4jACEAXGcdQSEAgOvFQCEAAPB0QCEA sMj3QAUA/QAKAAkBBgAiAIsAAAC9ACoACgEAABoAAIfiQCEAhBoZQSEAjF4WQSEAAPC8QCEAADBx QCEAwN/lQAUA/QAKAAoBBgAiAEwAAAC9ACoACwEAABoAAIfiQCEAAIjjQCEAwB/WQCEAAOCDQCEA AAAAACEAAHapQAUA/QAKAAsBBgAiAG8AAAC9ABgADAEAABoAAIfiQCEAAAAiQCEAAAAiQAIAvgAM AAwBAwAhACEAIQAFAP0ACgAMAQYAIgAUAAAAvQAqAA0BAAAaAACH4kAhALDqFUEhADATD0EhAEDX 3EAhAAAAh0AhAMAE3EAFAP0ACgANAQYAIgAhAAAAvQAqAA4BAAAaAACH4kAhAJhFCUEhAKggBEEh AICX4kAhAADAfEAhAKAL5EAFAP0ACgAOAQYAIgCkAAAAvQAqAA8BAAAaAACH4kAhAICELkEhAEAe FUEhAKCh4EAhAAAgY0AhAAB2vUAFAP0ACgAPAQYAIgA+AAAAvQAqABABAAAaAACH4kAhAF46rQAh AN60VgAhAFCW+EAhAADxvkAhAMA200AFAP0ACgAQAQYAIgCJAAAAvQAqABEBAAAaAACH4kAhAMBc FUEhAJjeCUEhAACYpUAhAAAAS0AhAMjGAEEFAP0ACgARAQYAIgAzAAAAvQAqABIBAAAaAACH4kAh AMBcFUEhAJgEFEEhAAB8o0AhAACAVEAhAMCt1EAFAP0ACgASAQYAIgA1AAAAvQAqABMBAAAaAACH 4kAhACDVMUEhAPScLUEhAMAH0kAhAACgb0AhAHC7B0EFAP0ACgATAQYAIgClAAAAvQAqABQBAAAa AACH4kAhAOAdLEEhAPYbLwAhAIA63EAhAACYhUAhAPg+AkEFAP0ACgAUAQYAIgBZAAAAvQAqABUB AAAaAACH4kAhAICETkEhAGABQkEhAMCo2UAhAADwgkAhAMiHBUEFAP0ACgAVAQYAIgCmAAAAvQAq ABYBAAAaAACH4kAhAD4WJQAhAKjjC0EhAAC7vUAhAAAQkEAhAABI3UAFAP0ACgAWAQYAIgCnAAAA vQAqABcBAAAaAACH4kAhAICELkEhAKDYHUEhAGBV4UAhAACwdkAhAAC1tkAFAP0ACgAXAQYAKwCo AAAAvQAqABgBAAAaAACH4kAhAICETkEhAIABP0EhAABp4kAhAABQdEAhADBjBkEFAP0ACgAYAQYA KwCRAAAAvQAqABkBAAAaAACH4kAhAHrqCAEhAP61mgAhAEBP3EAhAADQd0AhACArCEEFAP0ACgAZ AQYAKwAgAAAAvQAqABoBAAAaAACH4kAlAICETkElAIBJQ0ElAMC32kAlAADAWkAlAGAbBkEFAP0A CgAaAQYAMQAdAAAAvQAqABsBAAAaACCH4kAoAICELkEoAAiVGUEoAIC0zUAoAADQckAoAPy5IUEF AP0ACgAbAQYAKgASAAAAvQAqABwBAAAaACCH4kAhAICELkEhAD5XNwAhAIC6ykAhAABQcEAhABDH 9kAFAP0ACgAcAQYAKwCpAAAAvQAqAB0BAAAaACCH4kAuAACI80AuACCK7EAuAAAknkAuAAAAN0Au AADVv0AFAP0ACgAdAQYAIgCqAAAAvQAYAB4BAAAaACCH4kAhAAAAIkAuAAAAIkACAL4ADAAeAQMA LgAuAC4ABQD9AAoAHgEGACIAQQAAAL0AKgAfAQAAGgAgh+JAIQCAhB5BIQDs1xtBIQAAsbVAIQAA wHFAIQCgZOVABQD9AAoAHwEGACIACwAAANcARAD8CQAAbAI8ADwAPAA8ADwAPAA8ADwAPAA8ADwA PAA6ADwAPAA8ADwAPAA8ADwAPAA8ADwAPAA8ADwAPAA8ADwAPAA6AAgCEAAgAQAACAD/AAAAAAAA AQ8ACAIQACEBAAAIAP8AAAAAAAABDwAIAhAAIgEAAAgA/wAAAAAAAAEPAAgCEAAjAQAACAD/AAAA AAAAAQ8ACAIQACQBAAAIAP8AAAAAAAABDwAIAhAAJQEAAAgA/wAAAAAAAAEPAAgCEAAmAQAACAD/ AAAAAAAAAQ8ACAIQACcBAAAIAP8AAAAAAAABDwAIAhAAKAEAAAgA/wAAAAAAAAEPAAgCEAApAQAA CAD/AAAAAAAAAQ8ACAIQACoBAAAIAP8AAAAAAAABDwAIAhAAKwEAAAgA/wAAAAAAAAEPAAgCEAAs AQAACAD/AAAAAAAAAQ8ACAIQAC0BAAAIAP8AAAAAAAABDwAIAhAALgEAAAgA/wAAAAAAAAEPAAgC EAAvAQAACAD/AAAAAAAAAQ8ACAIQADABAAAHAP8AAAAAAAABDwAIAhAAMQEAAAcA/wAAAAAAAAEP AAgCEAAyAQAABwD/AAAAAAAAAQ8ACAIQADMBAAAHAP8AAAAAAAABDwAIAhAANAEAAAcADgEAAAAA AAEPIAgCEAA1AQAABwD/AAAAAAAAAQ8ACAIQADYBAAAHAP8AAAAAAAABDwAIAhAANwEAAAcA/wAA AAAAAAEPAAgCEAA4AQAABwD/AAAAAAAAAQ8ACAIQADkBAAAHAP8AAAAAAAABDwAIAhAAOgEAAAcA /wAAAAAAAAEPAAgCEAA7AQAABwD/AAAAAAAAAQ8ACAIQADwBAAAHAP8AAAAAAAABDwAIAhAAPQEA AAcA/wAAAAAAAAEPAAgCEAA+AQAABwD/AAAAAAAAAQ8ACAIQAD8BAAAHAP8AAAAAAAABDwC9ACoA IAEAABoAIIfiQCEAgIQeQSEANKgcQSEAgCzGQCEAAABxQCEAwMTdQAUA/QAKACABBgAiAI0AAAC9 ACoAIQEAABoAIIfiQCEACNoVQSEAAJULQSEAQLPdQCEAAMBiQCEAwHXrQAUA/QAKACEBBgAiAF8A AAC9ACoAIgEAABoAIIfiQCEAiKsGQSEAgH4DQSEA4KXkQCEAAABmQCEAwN7VQAUA/QAKACIBBgAi AKsAAAC9ACoAIwEAABoAIIfiQCEAgIQeQSEAYJkcQSEAgA3DQCEAAABTQCEAALLeQAUA/QAKACMB BgAiAEwAAAC9ACoAJAEAABoAIIfiQCEAgIQeQSEAIF8SQSEAQG/2QCEAACiDQCEAAIa8QAUA/QAK ACQBBgAiABEAAAC9ACoAJQEAABoAIIfiQCEAgIQOQSEAGFgLQSEAANKgQCEAAAA5QCEAQGPZQAUA /QAKACUBBgAiAE0AAAC9ACoAJgEAABoAIIfiQCEAgIQOQSEAmLYLQSEAAMisQCEAAIBQQCEAQG/W QAUA/QAKACYBBgAiAHMAAAC9ACoAJwEAABoAIIfiQCEAgIQeQSEAVDoaQSEAAMrLQCEAAOBnQCEA sCjxQAUA/QAKACcBBgAiAIUAAAC9ACoAKAEAABoAIIfiQCEAgIQeQSEASIcZQSEAACm/QCEAAAA5 QCEA4PTzQAUA/QAKACgBBgAiAEwAAAC9ACoAKQEAABoAIIfiQCEAgIQeQSEAIFkTQSEAgOrLQCEA ADB5QCEAAMSyQAUA/QAKACkBBgAiAKwAAAC9ACoAKgEAABoAIIfiQCEAgIQeQSEAwDIMQSEAgLjM QCEAADB7QCEAAPimQAUA/QAKACoBBgArAFYAAAC9ACoAKwEAABoAIIfiQCEAgIQeQSEAYEIMQSEA AKjMQCEAABCBQCEAADSYQAUA/QAKACsBBgArAE4AAAC9ACoALAEAABoAIIfiQCMAOIUbQSEA4DAS QSEAcJ71QCEAAPB9QCEAACG4QAUA/QAKACwBBgArAK0AAAB+AgoALAEHADAAgIQuQb0AKgAtAQAA GgAgh+JAIQAI2gVBIQDAxvtAIQCA4MxAIQAAgFlAIQCAVttABQD9AAoALQEGACIAHAAAAL0AKgAu AQAAGgAgh+JAIQAgqgZBIQAQlwNBIQDgJOJAIQAAYGFAIQBABdVABQD9AAoALgEGACIAdgAAAL0A KgAvAQAAGgAgh+JAIQDslxlBIQCY3Q5BIQAQIfNAIQAA8H1AIQAAiMFABQD9AAoALwEGACIALQAA AH4CCgAvAQcAMABAdytBvQAqADABAAAaACCH4kAhAAjaBUEhAOCx+0AhAADUyUAhAAAAWEAhAIBa 2kAFAP0ACgAwAQYAIgAYAAAAvQAqADEBAAAaACCH4kAhAIASCUEhAMBKBkEhAKBu40AhAABAZEAh AMAt1UAFAP0ACgAxAQYAIgB2AAAAvQAqADIBAAAaACCH4kAhAICEHkEhAAC9D0EhAEBG0UAhAABA aEAhAADOpkAFAP0ACgAyAQYAIgCuAAAAvQAqADMBAAAaACCH4kAhAICELkEhAFaJMgAhAIAJ00Ah AAAgYEAhAFj/BEEFAP0ACgAzAQYAIgCvAAAAvQAqADQBAAAaACCH4kAlACDWI0ElACyJIUElAIDF xkAlAACATkAlAKBn8kAFAP0ACgA0AQYAJgCwAAAAvQAqADUBAAAaAECH4kAwAICELkEwAO4AOQAw AIAU0kAwAADgakAwAOCl70AFAP0ACgA1AQYAKwBCAAAAvQAqADYBAAAaAECH4kAhAICELkEhAJBE LUEhAECG0kAhAAA4gkAhAAD/40AFAP0ACgA2AQYAKwBDAAAAvQAeADcBAAAaAECH4kAhAAADxkAh AAD+t0AhAACgbUADAAECBgA3AQQAIQB+AgoANwEFACEAAFSWQP0ACgA3AQYAKwANAAAAvQAeADgB AAAaAECH4kAhAAAJyUAhAAAkvEAhAABgZUADAAECBgA4AQQAIQB+AgoAOAEFACEAAGyeQP0ACgA4 AQYAIgARAAAAvQAeADkBAAAaAECH4kAhAACkz0AhAAB+xEAhAADgcEADAAECBgA5AQQAIQB+AgoA OQEFACEAADiZQP0ACgA5AQYAIgAbAAAAvQAeADoBAAAaAECH4kAhAADZw0AhAADwvkAhAACAb0AD AAECBgA6AQQAIQB+AgoAOgEFACEAAIShQP0ACgA6AQYAIgCxAAAAvQAeADsBAAAaAECH4kAhAADT v0AhAABfu0AhAADgaUADAAECBgA7AQQAIQB+AgoAOwEFACEAANyRQP0ACgA7AQYAIgCyAAAAvQAe ADwBAAAaAECH4kAhAACVxkAhAADGv0AhAABAWUADAAECBgA8AQQAIQB+AgoAPAEFACEAAMiqQP0A CgA8AQYAIgARAAAAvQAeAD0BAAAaAECH4kAhAAAfykAhAAC9v0AhAABAW0ADAAECBgA9AQQAIQB+ AgoAPQEFACEAANqqQP0ACgA9AQYAIgARAAAAvQAeAD4BAAAaAECH4kAhAAB2xkAhAAAuw0AhAABA X0ADAAECBgA+AQQAIQB+AgoAPgEFACEAAMSrQP0ACgA+AQYAIgARAAAAvQAeAD8BAAAaAECH4kAh AABizEAhAACexEAhAADAaUADAAECBgA/AQQAIQB+AgoAPwEFACEAABCvQP0ACgA/AQYAIgA3AAAA 1wBEAIgKAABsAjwAPAA8ADwAPAA8ADwAPAA8ADwAPAA8AEoAPAA8AEoAPAA8ADwAPAA8ADwAPABI AEgASABIAEgASABIAEgACAIQAEABAAAHAP8AAAAAAAABDwAIAhAAQQEAAAcA/wAAAAAAAAEPAAgC EABCAQAABwD/AAAAAAAAAQ8ACAIQAEMBAAAHAP8AAAAAAAABDwAIAhAARAEAAAcA/wAAAAAAAAEP AAgCEABFAQAABwD/AAAAAAAAAQ8ACAIQAEYBAAAHAP8AAAAAAAABDwAIAhAARwEAAAcA/wAAAAAA AAEPAAgCEABIAQAABwD/AAAAAAAAAQ8ACAIQAEkBAAAHAP8AAAAAAAABDwAIAhAASgEAAAcA/wAA AAAAAAEPAAgCEABLAQAABwD/AAAAAAAAAQ8ACAIQAEwBAAAHAP8AAAAAAAABDwAIAhAATQEAAAcA /wAAAAAAAAEPAAgCEABOAQAABwD/AAAAAAAAAQ8ACAIQAE8BAAAHAP8AAAAAAAABDwAIAhAAUAEA AAcA/wAAAAAAAAEPAAgCEABRAQAABwD/AAAAAAAAAQ8ACAIQAFIBAAAHAP8AAAAAAAABDwAIAhAA UwEAAAcA/wAAAAAAAAEPAAgCEABUAQAABwD/AAAAAAAAAQ8ACAIQAFUBAAAHAP8AAAAAAAABDwAI AhAAVgEAAAcA/wAAAAAAAAEPAAgCEABXAQAABwAOAQAAAAAAAQ8gCAIQAFgBAAAHAP8AAAAAAAAB DwAIAhAAWQEAAAcA/wAAAAAAAAEPAAgCEABaAQAABwD/AAAAAAAAAQ8ACAIQAFsBAAAHAP8AAAAA AAABDwAIAhAAXAEAAAcA/wAAAAAAAAEPAAgCEABdAQAABwD/AAAAAAAAAQ8ACAIQAF4BAAAHAP8A AAAAAAABDwAIAhAAXwEAAAcA/wAAAAAAAAEPAL0AKgBAAQAAGgBAh+JAIQCMuxVBIQAQ4A9BIQAA l9VAIQAAwGxAIQBAq9JABQD9AAoAQAEGACIAswAAAL0AKgBBAQAAGgBAh+JAIQBwiwZBIQBwIARB IQDA591AIQAAwF1AIQAAdM9ABQD9AAoAQQEGACIAHAAAAL0AKgBCAQAAGgBAh+JAIQCAhA5BIQDg IA1BIQAA5KhAIQAAAFFAIQAAOsZABQD9AAoAQgEGACIAlQAAAL0AKgBDAQAAGgBAh+JAIQCAhA5B IQCY0ApBIQCAYMVAIQAAwGVAIQBAn91ABQD9AAoAQwEGACIAFgAAAL0AKgBEAQAAGgBAh+JAIQCA hB5BIQA83hxBIQAAybVAIQAAwFBAIQBAZNpABQD9AAoARAEGACIAqwAAAL0AKgBFAQAAGgBAh+JA IQCAhB5BIQBAHxVBIQAAo81AIQAAQGJAIQCAygJBBQD9AAoARQEGACIACAAAAL0AHgBGAQAAGgBA h+JAIQAAtr9AIQAApbNAIQAAwF5AAwABAgYARgEEACEAfgIKAEYBBQAhAADYhUD9AAoARgEGACIA swAAAL0AHgBHAQAAGgBAh+JAIQAAe9JAIQCAfcdAIQAAIGpAAwABAgYARwEEACEAfgIKAEcBBQAh AACElUD9AAoARwEGACIAtAAAAL0AHgBIAQAAGgBAh+JAIQCAe9VAIQAAwM1AIQAAEHNAAwABAgYA SAEEACEAfgIKAEgBBQAhAAA8m0D9AAoASAEGACIAtAAAAL0AHgBJAQAAGgBAh+JAIQCAgMdAIQCA kcBAIQAAwG9AAwABAgYASQEEACEAfgIKAEkBBQAhAADqqED9AAoASQEGACIAXwAAAL0AHgBKAQAA GgBAh+JAIQCAUsVAIQCAOMNAIQAAQGZAAwABAgYASgEEACEAfgIKAEoBBQAhAAAAjED9AAoASgEG ACIAPQAAAL0AHgBLAQAAGgBAh+JAIQDAW9FAIQCAYMlAIQAAIGBAAwABAgYASwEEACEAfgIKAEsB BQAhAACosUD9AAoASwEGACIAVAAAAL0AHgBMAQAAGgBAh+JAIQAASdFAIQDAW9FAIQAAYGBAAwAB AgYATAEEACEAfgIKAEwBBQAhAACqskD9AAoATAEGACIAPQAAAL0AHgBNAQAAGgBAh+JAIQBAKNtA IQAAONZAIQAAoGZAAwABAgYATQEEACEAfgIKAE0BBQAhAADBs0D9AAoATQEGACIAPQAAAL0AHgBO AQAAGgBAh+JAIQAAUdBAIQCAcMxAIQAAAGZAAwABAgYATgEEACEAfgIKAE4BBQAhAACcn0D9AAoA TgEGACIAtQAAAL0AKgBPAQAAGgBAh+JAIQA4uhVBIQAoGgtBIQBAU9FAIQAAAEpAIQCgYuxABQD9 AAoATwEGACIAqAAAAL0AKgBQAQAAGgBAh+JAIQBI+ghBIQDAewVBIQBgwuBAIQAAAEBAIQAA5NpA BQD9AAoAUAEGACIAVwAAAL0AEgBRAQAAGgBAh+JAIQBY1yFBAQABAgYAUQECACEAvQASAFEBAwAh AABmvkAhAAB4hkAEAAECBgBRAQUAIQD9AAoAUQEGACIAggAAAL0AKgBSAQAAGgBAh+JAIQCATyJB IQDsGh5BIQAAgchAIQAAgGJAIQBQEPpABQD9AAoAUgEGACIAtgAAAL0AKgBTAQAAGgBAh+JAIQCA TyJBIQAwWh9BIQAAMsBAIQAAAGVAIQBAE/VABQD9AAoAUwEGACIASgAAAL0AKgBUAQAAGgBAh+JA IQCATyJBIQCQZShBIQBA9NFAIQAAIGZAIQAYnwZBBQD9AAoAVAEGACIAegAAAL0AKgBVAQAAGgBA h+JAIQCATyJBIQBAhx5BIQCAscFAIQAAwFtAIQAAX/hABQD9AAoAVQEGACIAtwAAAL0AKgBWAQAA GgBAh+JAIQBwyxRBIQCkdBFBIQAA9bRAIQAAQFpAIQBAtupABQD9AAoAVgEGACIASgAAAL0AKgBX AQAAGgBAh+JAJQBQABRBJQCgCwBBJQAAnKlAJQAAADFAJQAA9QdBBQD9AAoAVwEGACYAuAAAAL0A KgBYAQAAGgBgh+JAKACAhA5BKABQSAxBKAAAbKNAKAAAgFZAKACA4dFABQD9AAoAWAEGACkAYwAA AL0AKgBZAQAAGgBgh+JAIQCAhA5BIQCwBg1BIQAACLFAIQAAwGVAIQAA3cdABQD9AAoAWQEGACIA YwAAAL0AKgBaAQAAGgBgh+JAIQCAhC5BIQBkNx9BIQAA8LtAIQAAgEpAIQCc0R1BBQD9AAoAWgEG ACIACAAAAL0AKgBbAQAAGgBgh+JAIQCAhC5BIQBIoixBIQAA18xAIQAAgFdAIQCAI+5ABQD9AAoA WwEGACIAUwAAAL0AKgBcAQAAGgBgh+JAIQCAhC5BIQAMuyxBIQCA181AIQAAQFBAIQBAl+xABQD9 AAoAXAEGACIAVAAAAL0AKgBdAQAAGgBgh+JAIQCAhA5BIQA4mwxBIQAAtK9AIQAAgFdAIQCAlM5A BQD9AAoAXQEGACIATgAAAL0AKgBeAQAAGgBgh+JAIQCAhA5BIQBwaQBBIQAADLpAIQAAIHdAIQAg NvxABQD9AAoAXgEGACIAuQAAAL0AKgBfAQAAGgBgh+JAIQCATyJBIQBgxBdBIQAgXfRAIQAAoHdA IQCASsBABQD9AAoAXwEGACIADQAAANcARAB+CgAAbAI8ADwAPAA8ADwAPABIAEgASABIAEgASABI AEgASAA8ADwATgA8ADwAPAA8ADwAPAA8ADwAPAA8ADwAPAA8AAgCEABgAQAABwD/AAAAAAAAAQ8A CAIQAGEBAAAHAP8AAAAAAAABDwAIAhAAYgEAAAcA/wAAAAAAAAEPAAgCEABjAQAABwD/AAAAAAAA AQ8ACAIQAGQBAAAHAP8AAAAAAAABDwAIAhAAZQEAAAcADgEAAAAAAAEPIAgCEABmAQAABwD/AAAA AAAAAQ8ACAIQAGcBAAAHAP8AAAAAAAABDwAIAhAAaAEAAAcA/wAAAAAAAAEPAAgCEABpAQAABwD/ AAAAAAAAAQ8ACAIQAGoBAAAHAP8AAAAAAAABDwAIAhAAawEAAAcA/wAAAAAAAAEPAAgCEABsAQAA BwD/AAAAAAAAAQ8ACAIQAG0BAAAHAP8AAAAAAAABDwAIAhAAbgEAAAcA/wAAAAAAAAEPAAgCEABv AQAABwD/AAAAAAAAAQ8ACAIQAHABAAAHAP8AAAAAAAABDwAIAhAAcQEAAAcA/wAAAAAAAAEPAAgC EAByAQAABwAOAQAAAAAAAQ8gCAIQAHMBAAAHAP8AAAAAAAABDwAIAhAAdAEAAAcA/wAAAAAAAAEP AAgCEAB1AQAABwD/AAAAAAAAAQ8ACAIQAHYBAAAHAP8AAAAAAAABDwAIAhAAdwEAAAcA/wAAAAAA AAEPAAgCEAB4AQAABwD/AAAAAAAAAQ8ACAIQAHkBAAAHAP8AAAAAAAABDwAIAhAAegEAAAcA/wAA AAAAAAEPAAgCEAB7AQAABwD/AAAAAAAAAQ8ACAIQAHwBAAAHAP8AAAAAAAABDwAIAhAAfQEAAAcA /wAAAAAAAAEPAAgCEAB+AQAABwD/AAAAAAAAAQ8ACAIQAH8BAAAHAA4BAAAAAEABDwC9ACoAYAEA ABoAYIfiQCEAgIQuQSEA4KolQSEAwAHaQCEAAJiAQCEAAO27QAUA/QAKAGABBgAiAFMAAAC9ACoA YQEAABoAYIfiQCEAgIQuQSEA5gMvACEAgIvOQCEAAGiBQCEAIK4KQQUA/QAKAGEBBgAiALoAAAC9 ACoAYgEAABoAYIfiQCEAgIQuQSEAmLYpQSEAAM7PQCEAAEBfQCEAoDcDQQUA/QAKAGIBBgAiADcA AAC9ACoAYwEAABoAYIfiQCEAgIQeQSEAFFkZQSEAAOS9QCEAAKBiQCEAsK30QAUA/QAKAGMBBgAi AA0AAAC9ACoAZAEAABoAYIfiQCEAgIQuQSEAtOEoQSEAgOLKQCEAAABUQCEAMIsGQQUA/QAKAGQB BgAiABsAAAC9ACoAZQEAABoAYIfiQCUAgIQeQSUA/CkaQSUAAFG8QCUAAKBnQCUA8GnxQAUA/QAK AGUBBgAmABEAAAC9ACoAZgEAABoAgIfiQCgAgIQuQSgAIEcmQSgAAH7aQCgAALiDQCgAABy6QAUA /QAKAGYBBgApALsAAAC9ACoAZwEAABoAgIfiQCEA2nIAASEAFsugACEAwBTeQCEAAMBaQCEA4Fn3 QAUA/QAKAGcBBgAiALwAAAC9ACoAaAEAABoAgIfiQCEAvu+3ACEAZo5nACEAgBnzQCEAAFB2QCEA QIjbQAUA/QAKAGgBBgAiAIsAAAC9ACoAaQEAABoAgIfiQCEAbvepACEAll41ACEAgMDeQCEAAABi QCEAYNUBQQUA/QAKAGkBBgAiAIwAAAC9ACoAagEAABoAgIfiQCEAhpt0ACEAFpBlACEAAH3eQCEA AOBjQCEAEAkOQQUA/QAKAGoBBgAiAA0AAAC9ACoAawEAABoAgIfiQCEA8Nn1QCEA4AfoQCEAAACH QCEAAAAmQCEAAKzjQAUA/QAKAGsBBgAiAA0AAAC9ACoAbAEAABoAgIfiQDAAgIQ+QTAARl1vADAA ALPZQDAAAABxQDAAQK8CQQUA/QAKAGwBBgAiAA0AAAC9ACoAbQEAABoAgIfiQCEAgIQuQSEACJQp QSEAgNPFQCEAACBmQCEA4MEDQQUA/QAKAG0BBgAiABIAAAC9ACoAbgEAABoAgIfiQCEAgIQeQSEA qCUaQSEAALO9QCEAAABJQCEAMHvxQAUA/QAKAG4BBgAiAEAAAAC9ACoAbwEAABoAgIfiQCEAgIQu QSEA5OMpQSEAAITNQCEAAIBtQCEASCECQQUA/QAKAG8BBgAiABEAAAC9ACoAcAEAABoAgIfiQCEA gIQeQSEAeBoaQSEAAE63QCEAAABMQCEA8KfxQAUA/QAKAHABBgAiAEMAAAC9ACoAcQEAABoAgIfi QCEA4AkqQSEAzMwlQSEAAHzDQCEAAMBoQCEAUPQAQQUA/QAKAHEBBgAiAH8AAAC9ACoAcgEAABoA gIfiQCUAgOoBQSUAILT1QCUAAOqiQCUAACBgQCUAgPfrQAUA/QAKAHIBBgAmAI0AAAC9ACoAcwEA ABoAoIfiQCgAqHsIQSgAwCQDQSgAwG/ZQCgAAMBcQCgAoFvlQAUA/QAKAHMBBgAqAKkAAAC9ACoA dAEAABoAoIfiQCEA4A0RQSEAQM8NQSEAwPzSQCEAAABoQCEAADLhQAUA/QAKAHQBBgArAAsAAAC9 ACoAdQEAABoAoIfiQCEAABfxQCEAwELmQCEAANCHQCEAAAAiQCEAAJq8QAUA/QAKAHUBBgAiAKoA AAC9ABgAdgEAABoAoIfiQCEAAAAmQCEAAAAiQAIAvgAMAHYBAwAhACEAIQAFAP0ACgB2AQYAIgAS AAAAvQAqAHcBAAAaAKCH4kAhABA7/EAhAKDD+UAhAIBi10AhAABAYEAhAIC7w0AFAP0ACgB3AQYA IgC9AAAAvQAqAHgBAAAaAKCH4kAhAEwNEUEhAJgcC0EhAACK3UAhAACAikAhAAD460AFAP0ACgB4 AQYAIgBwAAAAvQAqAHkBAAAaAKCH4kAhAMAS9kAhABBB9UAhAAAk2EAhAABAbUAhAAA2qkAFAP0A CgB5AQYAIgCjAAAAvQAqAHoBAAAaAKCH4kAhAICELkEhACDcIkEhAECM3EAhAABAVUAhAAC2wEAF AP0ACgB6AQYAIgCqAAAAvQAqAHsBAAAaAKCH4kAhAICELkEhAMCxKkEhAMCk3UAhAABIi0AhAACW /kAFAP0ACgB7AQYAIgCNAAAAvQAqAHwBAAAaAKCH4kAhAJYsfwAhAHa1RgAhAADL5UAhAABAZkAh AAA3wkAFAP0ACgB8AQYAIgCrAAAAvQAqAH0BAAAaAKCH4kAhAJJf/wAhABrSnQAhACCN4kAhAACA XkAhAPBO80AFAP0ACgB9AQYAIgC+AAAAvQAqAH4BAAAaAKCH4kAhAN7N4wAhAHh1MEEhAACm5kAh AAAgckAhAIA5B0EFAP0ACgB+AQYAIgBEAAAAvQAqAH8BAAAaAKCH4kAhALj6JEEhAOjeHUEhAAD5 s0AhAACARUAhADhRB0EFAP0ACgB/AQYAIgAYAAAA1wBEAP4JAABsAjwAPAA8ADwAPAA8ADwAPAA8 ADwAPAA8ADwAPAA8ADwAPAA8ADwAPAA8ADwAOgA8ADwAPAA8ADwAPAA8ADwACAIQAIABAAAHAA4B AAAAAEABDwAIAhAAgQEAAAcADgEAAAAAQAEPAAgCEACCAQAABwD/AAAAAAAAAQ8ACAIQAIMBAAAH AP8AAAAAAAABDwAIAhAAhAEAAAcA/wAAAAAAAAEPAAgCEACFAQAABwD/AAAAAAAAAQ8ACAIQAIYB AAAHAA4BAAAAAAABDyAIAhAAhwEAAAcA/wAAAAAAAAEPAAgCEACIAQAABwD/AAAAAAAAAQ8ACAIQ AIkBAAAHAP8AAAAAAAABDwAIAhAAigEAAAcA/wAAAAAAAAEPAAgCEACLAQAABwD/AAAAAAAAAQ8A CAIQAIwBAAAHAP8AAAAAAAABDwAIAhAAjQEAAAcA/wAAAAAAAAEPAAgCEACOAQAABwD/AAAAAAAA AQ8ACAIQAI8BAAAHAP8AAAAAAAABDwAIAhAAkAEAAAgA/wAAAAAAAAEPAAgCEACRAQAACAD/AAAA AAAAAQ8ACAIQAJIBAAAIAP8AAAAAAAABDwAIAhAAkwEAAAgA/wAAAAAAAAEPAAgCEACUAQAACAD/ AAAAAAAAAQ8ACAIQAJUBAAAIAP8AAAAAAAABDwAIAhAAlgEAAAgA/wAAAAAAAAEPAAgCEACXAQAA CAD/AAAAAAAAAQ8ACAIQAJgBAAAIAP8AAAAAAAABDwAIAhAAmQEAAAgA/wAAAAAAAAEPAAgCEACa AQAACAD/AAAAAAAAAQ8ACAIQAJsBAAAIAP8AAAAAAAABDwAIAhAAnAEAAAgADgEAAAAAAAEPIAgC EACdAQAACAD/AAAAAAAAAQ8ACAIQAJ4BAAAIAP8AAAAAAAABDwAIAhAAnwEAAAgA/wAAAAAAAAEP AL0AKgCAAQAAGgCgh+JAIQC6DUkAIQB6EEQAIQAAxNFAIQAAAFlAIQDggfNABQD9AAoAgAEGACIA GQAAAL0AKgCBAQAAGgCgh+JAIQAWhDcAIQDUKypBIQAAocRAIQAAAEpAIQBgY+lABQD9AAoAgQEG ACIArQAAAL0AEgCCAQAAGgCgh+JAIQAEri1BAQABAgYAggECACEAvQASAIIBAwAhAMDG0UAhAAAQ gkAEAAECBgCCAQUAIQD9AAoAggEGACIAUwAAAL0AKgCDAQAAGgCgh+JAIQDW9lcAIQDmnUUAIQDA ZN1AIQAA4G1AIQBYOhJBBQD9AAoAgwEGACIAvwAAAL0AKgCEAQAAGgCgh+JAIQAuGyIAIQDgrBxB IQAAFLxAIQAAwFFAIQAwufVABQD9AAoAhAEGACIAngAAAL0AKgCFAQAAGgCgh+JAIQCATyJBIQA0 ih5BIQAA+LpAIQAAAFxAIQAwU/hABQD9AAoAhQEGACIAwAAAAL0AKgCGAQAAGgCgh+JAJQD4aSFB JQAcaB1BJQCAD8BAJQAA4GlAJQBQr/VABQD9AAoAhgEGACYAwQAAAL0AKgCHAQAAGgDAh+JAKABw 7fVAKADwo/VAKAAA3NNAKAAAgFRAKAAAYJJABQD9AAoAhwEGACoAwgAAAL0AKgCIAQAAGgDAh+JA IQDArQVBIQAofQJBIQBA1NtAIQAAgF5AIQBAhNlABQD9AAoAiAEGACsAwwAAAL0AKgCJAQAAGgDA h+JAIQBIrA5BIQAQewlBIQAAFNNAIQAAwHVAIQDgxORABQD9AAoAiQEGACsAxAAAAL0AKgCKAQAA GgDAh+JAIQAAauhAIQAAH+RAIQAAAINAIQAAAEBAIQAAF7tABQD9AAoAigEGADIAQwAAAL0AGACL AQAAGgDAh+JAIQAAACJAIQAAACJAAgC+AAwAiwEDACEAIQAhAAUA/QAKAIsBBgAyAEMAAAC9ACoA jAEAABoAwIfiQCEAgIQuQSEAHoM5ACEAwBzWQCEAAIB7QCEAIC/sQAUA/QAKAIwBBgAyAI4AAAC9 ACoAjQEAABoAwIfiQCEAcO31QCEAMD/1QCEAQNTVQCEAAAAAQCEAAMilQAUA/QAKAI0BBgAyAMUA AAC9ACoAjgEAABoAwIfiQCEAIAr8QCEAIDn7QCEAgArZQCEAAAA+QCEAACCqQAUA/QAKAI4BBgAy AIQAAAC9ACoAjwEAABoAwIfiQCEAyDIIQSEAMDQDQSEAQBPfQCEAAAAAQCEAYPrjQAUA/QAKAI8B BgAyAEMAAAC9ACoAkAEAABoAwIfiQCEAcJkkQSEAlukhACEAAEjEQCEAAABNQCEAMCX9QAUA/QAK AJABBgAyAE4AAAC9ACoAkQEAABoAwIfiQCEAcJkkQSEAPMojQSEAAOW6QCEAAABGQCEAgObZQAUA /QAKAJEBBgAyABcAAAC9ACoAkgEAABoAwIfiQCEAcJkkQSEATpohACEAACa1QCEAAAA+QCEAgBbW QAUA/QAKAJIBBgAyAMYAAAC9ACoAkwEAABoAwIfiQCEAcJkkQSEArqgnACEAALyzQCEAAABIQCEA QKPYQAUA/QAKAJMBBgAyAMYAAAC9ACoAlAEAABoAwIfiQCEAgIQeQSEAUFcSQSEAgA/GQCEAAGB4 QCEAANa/QAUA/QAKAJQBBgAyAGUAAAC9ACoAlQEAABoAwIfiQCEAgIQeQSEAsNAQQSEAgD3KQCEA AOCLQCEAABm5QAUA/QAKAJUBBgAyAHMAAAC9ACoAlgEAABoAwIfiQCMALMccQSEAhE0SQSEAML3x QCEAAHBxQCEAAMO0QAUA/QAKAJYBBgArAIIAAAB+AgoAlgEHADAAgIQuQb0AKgCXAQAAGgDAh+JA IQCoGRxBIQBQChJBIQCgyfBAIQAAYHJAIQAA+L9ABQD9AAoAlwEGACIAowAAAH4CCgCXAQcAMABA dytBvQAqAJgBAAAaAMCH4kAhAICELkEhAF6FLgAhAEBa1EAhAACQikAhAJirCEEFAP0ACgCYAQYA MgBoAAAAvQAqAJkBAAAaAMCH4kAhAN6yLQAhADaNJQAhAADX0kAhAACgbUAhAFBLAEEFAP0ACgCZ AQYAMgDHAAAAvQAqAJoBAAAaAMCH4kAhAEisDkEhAOC/CUEhAACopkAhAAAAOUAhAICx40AFAP0A CgCaAQYAMgCtAAAAvQAqAJsBAAAaAMCH4kAhAICELkEhAB71MgAhAIBfx0AhAADAW0AhAGgHBEEF AP0ACgCbAQYAMgBWAAAAvQAqAJwBAAAaAMCH4kAlAAC1E0ElAKTdEEElAAALs0AlAADAUEAlAOC6 5kAFAP0ACgCcAQYAMwBWAAAAvQAqAJ0BAAAaAOCH4kAoAICELkEoAP7NOQAoAAD1y0AoAACQeEAo AEDJ6UAFAP0ACgCdAQYANABCAAAAvQAqAJ4BAAAaAOCH4kAhALDL9UAhAIBe9EAhAIC100AhAADA U0AhAADTtkAFAP0ACgCeAQYAMgARAAAAvQAqAJ8BAAAaAOCH4kAhAPDa+0AhAGCp+kAhAIA22UAh AAAAWUAhAAAZs0AFAP0ACgCfAQYAMgARAAAA1wBEACwKAABsAjwAPABOADwAPAA8ADwAPAA8ADwA PAA6ADwAPAA8ADwAPAA8ADwAPAA8ADwASgBKADwAPAA8ADwAPAA8ADwACAIQAKABAAAHAP8AAAAA AAABDwAIAhAAoQEAAAcA/wAAAAAAAAEPAAgCEACiAQAABwD/AAAAAAAAAQ8ACAIQAKMBAAAHAP8A AAAAAAABDwAIAhAApAEAAAcA/wAAAAAAAAEPAAgCEAClAQAABwD/AAAAAAAAAQ8ACAIQAKYBAAAH AP8AAAAAAAABDwAIAhAApwEAAAcA/wAAAAAAAAEPAAgCEACoAQAABwD/AAAAAAAAAQ8ACAIQAKkB AAAHAP8AAAAAAAABDwAIAhAAqgEAAAcA/wAAAAAAAAEPAAgCEACrAQAABwD/AAAAAAAAAQ8ACAIQ AKwBAAAHAP8AAAAAAAABDwAIAhAArQEAAAcA/wAAAAAAAAEPAAgCEACuAQAABwD/AAAAAAAAAQ8A CAIQAK8BAAAHAP8AAAAAAAABDwAIAhAAsAEAAAcA/wAAAAAAAAEPAAgCEACxAQAABwD/AAAAAAAA AQ8ACAIQALIBAAAHAP8AAAAAAAABDwAIAhAAswEAAAcA/wAAAAAAAAEPAAgCEAC0AQAABwD/AAAA AAAAAQ8ACAIQALUBAAAHAP8AAAAAAAABDwAIAhAAtgEAAAcADgEAAAAAAAEPIAgCEAC3AQAABwD/ AAAAAAAAAQ8ACAIQALgBAAAHAP8AAAAAAAABDwAIAhAAuQEAAAcA/wAAAAAAAAEPAAgCEAC6AQAA BwD/AAAAAAAAAQ8ACAIQALsBAAAHAP8AAAAAAAABDwAIAhAAvAEAAAcA/wAAAAAAAAEPAAgCEAC9 AQAABwD/AAAAAAAAAQ8ACAIQAL4BAAAHAA4BAAAAAAABDyAIAhAAvwEAAAcA/wAAAAAAAAEPAL0A KgCgAQAAGgDgh+JAIQCEvBVBIQCIfwtBIQDAO9lAIQAAYHJAIQBg2upABQD9AAoAoAEGADIAEQAA AL0AKgChAQAAGgDgh+JAIQCwTAZBIQAI6QFBIQDAyt1AIQAAgF9AIQDAk99ABQD9AAoAoQEGADIA EQAAAL0AKgCiAQAAGgDgh+JAIQCEvBVBIQAwwwtBIQAAL9VAIQAAwGxAIQDAy+lABQD9AAoAogEG ADIARAAAAL0AKgCjAQAAGgDgh+JAIQDoTQZBIQDQBQJBIQCAONpAIQAAgFtAIQBAt95ABQD9AAoA owEGADIAyAAAAL0AKgCkAQAAGgDgh+JAIQDw2vtAIQBAqPpAIQAAuNNAIQAAAE9AIQAAK7NABQD9 AAoApAEGADIAyAAAAL0AKgClAQAAGgDgh+JAIQCUshVBIQDYKQlBIQAAbtlAIQAAAGNAIQDQ8PFA BQD9AAoApQEGADIANwAAAL0AKgCmAQAAGgDgh+JAIQBYSAZBIQCIlwJBIQBAfN9AIQAAAFpAIQAA +dlABQD9AAoApgEGADIAyQAAAL0AKgCnAQAAGgDgh+JAIQBYcAhBIQBg5QNBIQCA5N1AIQAAwFdA IQDAo+FABQD9AAoApwEGADIAjQAAAL0AKgCoAQAAGgDgh+JAIQAg2vtAIQAQjvpAIQBAO9hAIQAA gFFAIQAAwbRABQD9AAoAqAEGADIAyQAAAL0AKgCpAQAAGgDgh+JAIQAwy/VAIQAgTPRAIQCAHtNA IQAAgElAIQAA8bdABQD9AAoAqQEGADIANwAAAL0AKgCqAQAAGgDgh+JAIQAAAFdAIQAAgFVAIQAA AD9AIQAAAAAAIQAAABhABQD9AAoAqgEGADIAfwAAAL0AKgCrAQAAGgDgh+JAIQAA3JdAIQAAuJZA IQAAwHhAIQAAAAAAIQAAQFJABQD9AAoAqwEGADIAfwAAAL0AKgCsAQAAGgDgh+JAIQAAjJtAIQAA dJpAIQAAYHpAIQAAAPA/IQAAgFFABQD9AAoArAEGADIAfwAAAL0AKgCtAQAAGgDgh+JAIQAAuqlA IQAAXqhAIQAAmJFAIQAAAAhAIQAAwGVABQD9AAoArQEGADIACwAAAL0AKgCuAQAAGgDgh+JAIQD6 fEcAIQCueCgAIQAAV7hAIQAAAC5AIQBglh5BBQD9AAoArgEGADIAoQAAAL0AKgCvAQAAGgDgh+JA IQAEjRZBIQCccxRBIQAAMLBAIQAAACZAIQBAy+BABQD9AAoArwEGADIAmQAAAL0AKgCwAQAAGgDg h+JAIQBWRi4AIQAugyoAIQAAQb1AIQAAQFFAIQBAGe5ABQD9AAoAsAEGADIAxwAAAL0AKgCxAQAA GgDgh+JAIQAQvPtAIQCgCPlAIQAApNJAIQAAQFdAIQCAm8VABQD9AAoAsQEGADIAtQAAAL0AKgCy AQAAGgDgh+JAIQD8uRVBIQDQFwlBIQCAq9VAIQAA8HtAIQBgMvJABQD9AAoAsgEGADIAUwAAAL0A KgCzAQAAGgDgh+JAIQAATO1AIQBgo+pAIQAA9MJAIQAAgEtAIQAARbVABQD9AAoAswEGADIAUAAA AL0AKgC0AQAAGgDgh+JAIQAqaEwAIQBWfz4AIQDAONBAIQAAQGNAIQCo0QtBBQD9AAoAtAEGADIA VwAAAL0AKgC1AQAAGgDgh+JAIQAwliFBIQA46RtBIQAA7NBAIQAAYHZAIQCgDP1ABQD9AAoAtQEG ADIAeQAAAL0AEgC2AQAAGgDgh+JAJQCAhC5BAQABAgYAtgECACUAvQASALYBAwAlAAAtzEAlAADg a0AEAAECBgC2AQUAJQD9AAoAtgEGADMAiQAAAL0AKgC3AQAAGgAAiOJAKACAhC5BKAAocSlBKACA ItBAKAAAwHFAKABgTQRBBQD9AAoAtwEGADQAygAAAL0AKgC4AQAAGgAAiOJAIQBo8z1BIQB84DtB IQCAcNNAIQAAAFhAIQCgjABBBQD9AAoAuAEGADIAvgAAAL0AKgC5AQAAGgAAiOJAIQAAI+JAIQDA r+BAIQAAEIBAIQAAAAhAIQAANKdABQD9AAoAuQEGADIAjQAAAL0AKgC6AQAAGgAAiOJAIQCAhC5B IQB8ThhBIQAABbZAIQAAAEBAIQCGuiQABQD9AAoAugEGADIAEQAAAL0AKgC7AQAAGgAAiOJAIQCA hC5BIQBY4CZBIQDAbN1AIQAAqIJAIQCgkA5BBQD9AAoAuwEGADIADQAAAL0AKgC8AQAAGgAAiOJA IQCAhC5BIQBm1zAAIQAAduFAIQAAAHFAIQA4YwhBBQD9AAoAvAEGADIAOQAAAL0AKgC9AQAAGgAA iOJAIQCAhC5BIQBcPClBIQAAMsdAIQAAwF1AIQCQIAVBBQD9AAoAvQEGADIAEgAAAL0AKgC+AQAA GgAAiOJAJQCAhC5BJQCwGChBJQAAQMhAJQAAwGFAJQBArwlBBQD9AAoAvgEGADMAQQAAAL0AKgC/ AQAAGgAgiOJAKABgfftAKADAJvlAKAAA/NNAKAAAcIBAKAAAtcJABQD9AAoAvwEGADQADgAAANcA RAASCgAAbAI8ADwAPAA8ADwAPAA8ADwAPAA8ADwAPAA8ADwAPAA8ADwAPAA8ADwAPAA8AE4APAA8 ADwAPAA8ADwAPAA8AAgCEADAAQAABwD/AAAAAAAAAQ8ACAIQAMEBAAAHAP8AAAAAAAABDwAIAhAA wgEAAAcA/wAAAAAAAAEPAAgCEADDAQAABwD/AAAAAAAAAQ8ACAIQAMQBAAAHAP8AAAAAAAABDwAI AhAAxQEAAAcA/wAAAAAAAAEPAAgCEADGAQAABwD/AAAAAAAAAQ8ACAIQAMcBAAAHAA4BAAAAAAAB DyAIAhAAyAEAAAcADgEAAAAAQAEPAAgCEADJAQAABwAOAQAAAABAAQ8ACAIQAMoBAAAHAA4BAAAA AEABDwAIAhAAywEAAAcADgEAAAAAQAEPAAgCEADMAQAABwD/AAAAAAAAAQ8ACAIQAM0BAAAHAP8A AAAAAAABDwAIAhAAzgEAAAcA/wAAAAAAAAEPAAgCEADPAQAABwAOAQAAAAAAAQ8gCAIQANABAAAH AP8AAAAAAAABDwAIAhAA0QEAAAcA/wAAAAAAAAEPAAgCEADSAQAABwD/AAAAAAAAAQ8ACAIQANMB AAAHAP8AAAAAAAABDwAIAhAA1AEAAAcA/wAAAAAAAAEPAAgCEADVAQAABwD/AAAAAAAAAQ8ACAIQ ANYBAAAHAP8AAAAAAAABDwAIAhAA1wEAAAcA/wAAAAAAAAEPAAgCEADYAQAABwAOAQAAAAAAAQ8g CAIQANkBAAAHAP8AAAAAAAABDwAIAhAA2gEAAAcA/wAAAAAAAAEPAAgCEADbAQAABwD/AAAAAAAA AQ8ACAIQANwBAAAHAP8AAAAAAAABDwAIAhAA3QEAAAcA/wAAAAAAAAEPAAgCEADeAQAABwD/AAAA AAAAAQ8ACAIQAN8BAAAHAP8AAAAAAAABDwC9ACoAwAEAABoAIIjiQCEAUDwVQSEAiIANQSEA4Dvj QCEAAECaQCEAQKfdQAUA/QAKAMABBgAyAMsAAAC9ACoAwQEAABoAIIjiQCEAgIQuQSEA9jo2ACEA gOjSQCEAAFB5QCEAMKn9QAUA/QAKAMEBBgAyABEAAAC9ACoAwgEAABoAIIjiQCEAgOXYQCEAgK/U QCEAABCJQCEAAAAIQCEAANiwQAUA/QAKAMIBBgAyAKoAAAC9ACoAwwEAABoAIIjiQCEAqE0qQSEA Jj0gACEAADDGQCEAAIBOQCEADFwUQQUA/QAKAMMBBgAyAJgAAAC9ACoAxAEAABoAIIjiQCEAgIQ+ QSEA7hBbACEAAIjYQCEAAABjQCEAVJ0fQQUA/QAKAMQBBgAyAEAAAAC9ACoAxQEAABoAIIjiQCEA gIQuQSEAWLQpQSEAAHPIQCEAADBxQCEAoEADQQUA/QAKAMUBBgAyAJgAAAC9ACoAxgEAABoAIIji QCEAgIQuQSEARDopQSEAgIXHQCEAAABcQCEA8CgFQQUA/QAKAMYBBgAiALsAAAC9ACoAxwEAABoA IIjiQCUAbDU5QSUATDk0QSUAUEjxQCUAgCDDQCUAgPATQQUA/QAKAMcBBgAmACIAAAC9ACoAyAEA ABoAQIjiQCgAgIQ+QSgAtCQuQSgAQOPaQCgAABBwQCgATOQuQQUA/QAKAMgBBgA1AEAAAAC9ACoA yQEAABoAQIjiQCEAgIQuQSEA1jU3ACEAgHfMQCEAAABRQCEAsEz3QAUA/QAKAMkBBgAiAIsAAAC9 ACoAygEAABoAQIjiQCEAgIQuQSEADBgbQSEAAIy3QCEAAABEQCEARoghAAUA/QAKAMoBBgAiAI0A AAC9ABIAywEAABoAQIjiQCEAgBMcQQEAAQIGAMsBAgAhAL0AEgDLAQMAIQCgBvJAIQAAL7RABAAB AgYAywEFACEA/QAKAMsBBgAiACIAAAC9ACoAzAEAABoAQIjiQCEAgIQuQSEA8O8gQSEAAL3EQCEA AEBzQCEAAAAQQAUA/QAKAMwBBgAyAEAAAAC9ACoAzQEAABoAQIjiQCEAgIQ+QSEAOpNoACEAQPjc QCEAALiAQCEAyH4RQQUA/QAKAM0BBgAyAEAAAAC9ACoAzgEAABoAQIjiQCEAysFWACEArmJHACEA 4DvnQCEAALSlQCEAuKYOQQUA/QAKAM4BBgAyAJgAAAC9ACoAzwEAABoAQIjiQCUAHKghQSUAhEcc QSUAAKu6QCUAAEBYQCUA0CL8QAUA/QAKAM8BBgAzAEEAAAC9ACoA0AEAABoAYIjiQCgAlp0pACgA njsmACgAAOu0QCgAAIBCQCgAYKDnQAUA/QAKANABBgApAIwAAAC9ACoA0QEAABoAYIjiQCEAbGsT QSEAGGoLQSEAAJPBQCEAAABRQCEAgNn2QAUA/QAKANEBBgAiALwAAAC9ACoA0gEAABoAYIjiQCEA gIQuQSEA9sI0ACEAAOfMQCEAAEBUQCEAGIwAQQUA/QAKANIBBgAiAMwAAAC9ACoA0wEAABoAYIji QCEASsd2ACEAdmxrACEAgC/UQCEAAIBkQCEA6KoGQQUA/QAKANMBBgAiAIsAAAC9ACoA1AEAABoA YIjiQCEAwFXqQCEAAPToQCEAAMBzQCEAAADwPyEAABymQAUA/QAKANQBBgAiALwAAAC9ACoA1QEA ABoAYIjiQCEAgIQuQSEAoN4cQSEAAFnFQCEAAABxQCEAAAAwQAUA/QAKANUBBgAiAMsAAAC9ACoA 1gEAABoAYIjiQCEAgIQ+QSEAivBiACEAYPDqQCEAAFiFQCEAsDAWQQUA/QAKANYBBgAiAL4AAAC9 ACoA1wEAABoAYIjiQCEAgIQuQSEA2G4pQSEAAE3KQCEAAEBoQCEAoFYEQQUA/QAKANcBBgAiAMsA AAC9ACoA2AEAABoAYIjiQCUAgIQuQSUApBEqQSUAAK/PQCUAAKCPQCUAcMsBQQUA/QAKANgBBgAm AMwAAAC+ABAA2QEBADAAMAAwADAAMAAFAP0ACgDaAQAAGgDNAAAAfgIKANoBAQAwAGDjRkG+ABAA 2gECADAAMAAwADAAMAAGAP0ACgDbAQAAGgDNAAAA/QAKANsBAQAPAM4AAAD9AAoA3AEAABoAzQAA AP0ACgDdAQAAGgDNAAAAvgAQAN4BAQAwADAAMAAwADAABQC+ABAA3wEBADAAMAAwADAAMAAFANcA RAASCQAAbAI8ADwAPAA8ADwAPAA8ADwAPAA8ADwATgA8ADwAPAA8ADwAPAA8ADwAPAA8ADwAPAA8 ABQAMAAcAA4ADgAUAAgCEADgAQEABgD/AAAAAAAAAQ8ACAIQAOEBAQAGAP8AAAAAAAABDwAIAhAA 4gEBAAYA/wAAAAAAAAEPAAgCEADjAQEABgD/AAAAAAAAAQ8ACAIQAOQBAQAGAP8AAAAAAAABDwAI AhAA5QEBAAYA/wAAAAAAAAEPAAgCEADmAQEABgD/AAAAAAAAAQ8ACAIQAOcBAQAGAP8AAAAAAAAB DwAIAhAA6AEBAAYA/wAAAAAAAAEPAAgCEADpAQEABgD/AAAAAAAAAQ8ACAIQAOoBAQAGAP8AAAAA AAABDwAIAhAA6wEBAAYA/wAAAAAAAAEPAAgCEADsAQEABgD/AAAAAAAAAQ8AvgAQAOABAQAwADAA MAAwADAABQC+ABAA4QEBADAAMAAwADAAMAAFAL4AEADiAQEAMAAwADAAMAAwAAUAvgAQAOMBAQAw ADAAMAAwADAABQC+ABAA5AEBADAAMAAwADAAMAAFAL4AEADlAQEAMAAwADAAMAAwAAUAvgAQAOYB AQAwADAAMAAwADAABQC+ABAA5wEBADAAMAAwADAAMAAFAL4AEADoAQEAMAAwADAAMAAwAAUAvgAQ AOkBAQAwADAAMAAwADAABQC+ABAA6gEBADAAMAAwADAAMAAFAL4AEADrAQEAMAAwADAAMAAwAAUA vgAQAOwBAQAwADAAMAAwADAABQDXAB4ACAIAAPAAFAAUABQAFAAUABQAFAAUABQAFAAUABQAPgIS ALYGAAAAAEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAB0ADwADEgANAAAAAQASABIADQ3vAAYABwA3AAAACgAAAAkIEAAA BhAARhjNB8GAAAAGAgAACwIQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIC1AAANAAIAAQAMAAIAZAAPAAIAAQARAAIA AAAQAAgA/Knx0k1iUD9fAAIAAQAqAAIAAAArAAIAAACCAAIAAQCAAAgAAAAAAAAAAAAlAgQAAAD/ AIEAAgDBBBQAAAAVAAAAgwACAAAAhAACAAAAoQAiAAAA/wABAAEAAQAEAAANDQ0AAAAAAADgPwAA AAAAAOA/JQBVAAIACAAAAg4AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA+AhIAtgAAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHQAP AAMAAAAAAAABAAAAAAAAAO8ABgAHADcAAAAKAAAACQgQAAAGEABGGM0HwYAAAAYCAAALAhAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAh7YAAA0AAgABAAwAAgBkAA8AAgABABEAAgAAABAACAD8qfHSTWJQP18AAgABACoA AgAAACsAAgAAAIIAAgABAIAACAAAAAAAAAAAACUCBAAAAP8AgQACAMEEFAAAABUAAACDAAIAAACE AAIAAAChACIAAAD/AAEAAQABAAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAOA/AAAAAAAA4D8lAFUAAgAIAAACDgAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAD4CEgC2AAAAAABAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAdAA8AAwAAAAAAAAEAAAAAAAAA7wAGAAcA NwAAAAoAAAAJCBAAAAYQAEYYzQfBgAAABgIAAAsCEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACOtwAADQACAAEADAAC AGQADwACAAEAEQACAAAAEAAIAPyp8dJNYlA/XwACAAEAKgACAAAAKwACAAAAggACAAEAgAAIAAAA AAAAAAAAJQIEAAAA/wCBAAIAwQQUAAAAFQAAAIMAAgAAAIQAAgAAAKEAIgAAAP8AAQABAAEABAAA AAAAAAAAAAAA4D8AAAAAAADgPyUAVQACAAgAAAIOAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPgISALYAAAAAAEAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAB0ADwADAAAAAAAAAQAAAAAAAADvAAYABwA3AAAACgAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA/v8AAAUBAgAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQAAAOCFn/L5T2gQ q5EIACsns9kwAAAAqAAAAAcAAAABAAAAQAAAAAQAAABIAAAACAAAAFwAAAASAAAAcAAAAAwAAACI AAAADQAAAJQAAAATAAAAoAAAAAIAAADkBAAAHgAAAAoAAABFcmljIERlYW4AIAAeAAAACgAAAEVy aWMgRGVhbgAgAB4AAAAQAAAATWljcm9zb2Z0IEV4Y2VsAEAAAAAAAzLo6sjDAUAAAACAStMB68jD AQMAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAP7/AAAFAQIAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEAAAAC1c3VnC4bEJOXCAArLPmu MAAAAPQAAAAJAAAAAQAAAFAAAAAPAAAAWAAAABcAAABwAAAACwAAAHgAAAAQAAAAgAAAABMAAACI AAAAFgAAAJAAAAANAAAAmAAAAAwAAADOAAAAAgAAAOQEAAAeAAAADQAAAENyeXN0YWwgQmFsbABl bWIDAAAArQ0KAAsAAAAAAAAACwAAAAAAAAALAAAAAAAAAAsAAAAAAAAAHhAAAAQAAAAJAAAATm92 ZW1iZXIABwAAAFNoZWV0MQAHAAAAU2hlZXQyAAcAAABTaGVldDMADBAAAAIAAAAeAAAACwAAAFdv cmtzaGVldHMAAwAAAAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAABAAAAAgAAAAMAAAAEAAAABQAAAAYAAAAHAAAACAAAAAkAAAAKAAAACwAAAAwAAAANAAAA DgAAAA8AAAAQAAAAEQAAABIAAAATAAAAFAAAABUAAAAWAAAAFwAAABgAAAAZAAAAGgAAABsAAAAc AAAAHQAAAB4AAAAfAAAAIAAAACEAAAAiAAAAIwAAACQAAAAlAAAAJgAAACcAAAAoAAAAKQAAACoA AAArAAAALAAAAC0AAAAuAAAALwAAADAAAAAxAAAAMgAAADMAAAA0AAAANQAAADYAAAA3AAAAOAAA ADkAAAA6AAAAOwAAADwAAAA9AAAAPgAAAD8AAABAAAAAQQAAAEIAAABDAAAARAAAAEUAAABGAAAA RwAAAEgAAABJAAAASgAAAEsAAABMAAAATQAAAE4AAABPAAAAUAAAAFEAAABSAAAAUwAAAFQAAABV AAAAVgAAAFcAAABYAAAAWQAAAFoAAABbAAAA/v///10AAABeAAAAXwAAAGAAAABhAAAAYgAAAGMA AAD+////ZQAAAGYAAABnAAAAaAAAAGkAAABqAAAAawAAAP7////9/////v////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// /////1IAbwBvAHQAIABFAG4AdAByAHkAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWAAUB//////////8CAAAAIAgCAAAAAADAAAAAAAAARgAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAA/v///wAAAAAAAAAAVwBvAHIAawBiAG8AbwBrAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABIAAgH///////////////8AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA3bcAAAAAAAAFAFMAdQBtAG0AYQByAHkASQBuAGYAbwBy AG0AYQB0AGkAbwBuAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAKAACAQEAAAADAAAA/////wAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAFwAAAAAEAAAAAAAAAUARABvAGMAdQBt AGUAbgB0AFMAdQBtAG0AYQByAHkASQBuAGYAbwByAG0AYQB0AGkAbwBuAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA4AAIB ////////////////AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAZAAAAAAQAAAA AAAAUgBvAG8AdAAgAEUAbgB0AHIAeQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAABYABQH//////////wIAAAAgCAIAAAAAAMAAAAAAAABGAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYBYs p+vIwwFxAAAAwAIAAAAAAABXAG8AcgBrAGIAbwBvAGsAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEgACAf///////////////wAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADdtwAAAAAAAAUAUwB1AG0AbQBhAHIAeQBJAG4AZgBvAHIA bQBhAHQAaQBvAG4AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAoAAIBAQAAAAMAAAD/////AAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAXAAAAAAQAAAAAAAABQBEAG8AYwB1AG0A ZQBuAHQAUwB1AG0AbQBhAHIAeQBJAG4AZgBvAHIAbQBhAHQAaQBvAG4AAAAAAAAAAAAAADgAAgH/ //////////////8AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAwAIAAAAA AAABAAAAAgAAAAMAAAAEAAAABQAAAAYAAAAHAAAACAAAAAkAAAAKAAAACwAAAAwAAAANAAAADgAA AA8AAAAQAAAAEQAAABIAAAATAAAAFAAAABUAAAAWAAAAFwAAABgAAAAZAAAAGgAAABsAAAAcAAAA HQAAAB4AAAAfAAAAIAAAACEAAAAiAAAAIwAAACQAAAAlAAAAJgAAACcAAAAoAAAAKQAAACoAAAAr AAAALAAAAC0AAAAuAAAALwAAADAAAAAxAAAAMgAAADMAAAA0AAAANQAAADYAAAA3AAAAOAAAADkA AAA6AAAAOwAAADwAAAA9AAAAPgAAAD8AAABAAAAAQQAAAEIAAABDAAAARAAAAEUAAABGAAAARwAA AEgAAABJAAAASgAAAEsAAABMAAAATQAAAE4AAABPAAAAUAAAAFEAAABSAAAAUwAAAFQAAABVAAAA VgAAAFcAAABYAAAAWQAAAFoAAABbAAAA/v///10AAABeAAAAXwAAAGAAAABhAAAAYgAAAGMAAAD+ //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////7////9/////v///3IA AAD+//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// /wEAAAACAAAAAwAAAAQAAAAFAAAABgAAAAcAAAAIAAAACQAAAAoAAAD+//////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// /v8AAAUBAgAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAgAAAALVzdWcLhsQk5cIACss+a5EAAAABdXN1ZwuGxCT lwgAKyz5rjgBAAD0AAAACQAAAAEAAABQAAAADwAAAFgAAAAXAAAAcAAAAAsAAAB4AAAAEAAAAIAA AAATAAAAiAAAABYAAACQAAAADQAAAJgAAAAMAAAAzgAAAAIAAADkBAAAHgAAAA0AAABDcnlzdGFs IEJhbGwAZW1iAwAAAK0NCgALAAAAAAAAAAsAAAAAAAAACwAAAAAAAAALAAAAAAAAAB4QAAAEAAAA CQAAAE5vdmVtYmVyAAcAAABTaGVldDEABwAAAFNoZWV0MgAHAAAAU2hlZXQzAAwQAAACAAAAHgAA AAsAAABXb3Jrc2hlZXRzAAMAAAAEAAAAAAAAiAEAAAcAAAAAAAAAQAAAAAEAAAD0AAAAAAAAgPwA AAACAAAABAEAAAMAAAAMAQAABAAAADwBAAAFAAAAbAEAAAQAAAACAAAAFAAAAF8AQQBkAEgAbwBj AFIAZQB2AGkAZQB3AEMAeQBjAGwAZQBJAEQAAAADAAAADgAAAF8ARQBtAGEAaQBsAFMAdQBiAGoA ZQBjAHQAAAAEAAAADQAAAF8AQQB1AHQAaABvAHIARQBtAGEAaQBsAAAAAAAFAAAAGAAAAF8AQQB1 AHQAaABvAHIARQBtAGEAaQBsAEQAaQBzAHAAbABhAHkATgBhAG0AZQAAAAIAAACwBAAAEwAAAAkE AAADAAAAM9atBx8AAAAUAAAAWwAyAF0AIABTAHAAYQBtACAAUwB0AGEAdABpAHMAdABpAGMAcwAA AB8AAAATAAAAZQByAGkAYwBAAHAAdQByAGUAcwBwAGUAZQBkAC4AYwBvAG0AAAAAAB8AAAAKAAAA RQByAGkAYwAgAEQAZQBhAG4AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA== ------=_NextPart_000_00CB_01C3C8C1.BF767280-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 22 21:27:22 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA21782 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 21:27:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYcG6-0002l7-Qa for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 21:26:55 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBN2QsC3010601 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 21:26:54 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYcG6-0002ku-Lj for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 21:26:54 -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 VAA21734 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 21:26:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYcG4-0003EK-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 21:26:52 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AYcDB-00039y-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 21:23:54 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYcDB-00039v-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 21:23:53 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYcCL-0002Z5-8w; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 21:23:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYcC6-0002Xi-Kb for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 21:22:46 -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 VAA21568 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 21:22:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYcC3-00034m-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 21:22:44 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AYcBc-00034N-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 21:22:17 -0500 Received: from ns1.mvps.org ([158.64.60.224] helo=edge.zoo.securewave.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYcBc-00034K-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 21:22:16 -0500 Received: from laptop.mvps.org (unverified [142.59.217.86]) by edge.zoo.securewave.com (Rockliffe SMTPRA 4.5.6) with ESMTP id for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 03:22:15 +0100 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20031222190343.00b9db48@localhost> X-Sender: ttoews@localhost X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 To: asrg@ietf.org From: Tony Toews Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: [1] Why SPAM is worse in SMTP than in other protocols In-Reply-To: <20031223011801.2816.20826.Mailman@www1.ietf.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-5E1D834; boundary="=======2B8679C3=======" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 19:22:12 -0700 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 --=======2B8679C3======= Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-5E1D834; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit At 08:18 PM 2003/12/22 -0500, you wrote: > The LMAP discussion document (based on Hadmut's comments in RMX), >says that the single hop use of SMTP is a large part of the reason why >spam is so wide-spread. There are 100's of millions of senders, each >sending to only 100's of thousands of recipient MTA's. > > > How is this behavior helpful to stopping spam? > > If that imbalance in the network was addressed, spam would become >significantly more manageable. It wouldn't stop entirely, but having >a blacklist of 100K MTA's is signficantly easier than having >blacklists of millions of IP's. I have no particular expertise in mail servers or the Internet RFCs. My viewpoint is thus quite simplistic. I agree completely that the RFCs have to be changed, or some other mechanism, so that MTAs only take in email from other MTAs or authenticated clients of the MTA. Recipient MTAs only accept emails from MTAs in the name lookup portion of the DNS. Then we need some mechanism of ensuring that the recipient MTA is really receiving the email from the originating MTA. From my very simplistic view of the email systems it seems to me that the msgid id could be part of the verification mechanism. The originating MTA stamps the outgoing email with a unique message id. Once the header portion of the email is received then the recipient MTA does a name lookup on the originating MTA and verifies that the originating MTA sent that msgid. Once the receipient MTA finishes accepting the email the originating MTA then never uses that msgid again. And if all of this means updating the worlds email servers over the next year or two, well tough. I for one am getting real tired of getting a hundred bounces a day from spammers forging email address for my domains and 200 or 300 Swen virusses a day. And my domains and I are an insignificant portion or the worlds email traffic. Tony ----- Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP Microsoft Access Links, Hints, Tips & Accounting Systems at http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm --=======2B8679C3=======-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 22 23:59:16 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA25402 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 23:59:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYed7-0006dN-Ce for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 23:58:49 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBN4wnxo025495 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 23:58:49 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYed7-0006d8-5d for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 23:58:49 -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 XAA25385 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 23:58:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYed4-0007Dx-01 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 23:58:47 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AYeaC-0007Cx-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 23:55:49 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYeaC-0007Cu-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 23:55:48 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYeZR-0006TK-LG; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 23:55:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYeZK-0006Sa-Lg for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 23:54:55 -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 XAA25343 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 23:54:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYeZI-00079k-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 23:54:52 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AYeWC-00077j-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 23:51:40 -0500 Received: from xuxa.iecc.com ([208.31.42.42]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYeWB-00077g-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 23:51:39 -0500 Received: (qmail 20441 invoked by uid 100); 23 Dec 2003 04:51:39 -0000 Message-ID: <20031223045139.20440.qmail@xuxa.iecc.com> From: asrg@johnlevine.com (John R. Levine) To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: [1] Why SPAM is worse in SMTP than in other protocols Newsgroups: iecc.lists.asrg In-Reply-To: <200312230716.29709.asrg@troy.rollo.name> References: <20031222184415.F0B44170AC@mail.nitros9.org> 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: 23 Dec 2003 04:51:39 -0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 > Spam (not SPAM, the meat product) is worse in SMTP because it's the > protocol that allows the spammer to put the message in the face of > the target. Change the protocol without changing the very nature of > email, and spammers will still find ways to exploit it. It's not just that. NNTP puts messages in the face of the target just as much as SMTP does, but the spam problem on usenet, at least in the big 8 groups, is negligible. Why? I'm not entirely sure. The fact that every site sees all the traffic makes bulk-based cancelbots possible, but they're technically not all that hard to circumvent as hipcrime's occasional forays into nanae have shown. Does the possibility of UDPs make usenet nodes behave more responsibly? Is it just that there's so many more e-mail users that spammers don't bother with usenet any more? I don't use instant message or chat much, but it is my impression that other than virusbots like fizzer, IRC doesn't have much of a spam problem. Why not? I'd think that it wouldn't be hard to write spamware that sprinkled messages all over IRC? Why don't we see much instant message spam (at least relative to e-mail spam)? Is it that the popular IM systems are all closed with a central control point? Regards, John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY http://www.taugh.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 23 04:39:25 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA13633 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 04:39:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYj0D-0008I8-EQ for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 04:38:57 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBN9cuUn031831 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 04:38:56 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYj07-0008HC-Vt for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 04:38:52 -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 EAA13601 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 04:38:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYj05-0005o6-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 04:38:49 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AYixX-0005n2-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 04:36:11 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYixX-0005mz-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 04:36:11 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYiwR-0007to-DJ; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 04:35:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYiwH-0007sp-6X for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 04:34:53 -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 EAA13528 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 04:34:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYiwE-0005k1-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 04:34:50 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AYitR-0005iR-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 04:31:57 -0500 Received: from argon.connectinternetsolutions.com ([193.110.243.33] helo=argon.connect.org.uk) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYitR-0005iO-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 04:31:57 -0500 Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 1AYitS-00064u-9G for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 09:31:58 +0000 In-Reply-To: <20031223045139.20440.qmail@xuxa.iecc.com> Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: [1] Why SPAM is worse in SMTP than in other protocols To: "ASRG" From: "Jon Kyme" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.10.1] 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, 23 Dec 2003 09:31:58 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 >I don't use instant message or chat much, but it is my impression that >other than virusbots like fizzer, IRC doesn't have much of a spam >problem. Why not? I'd think that it wouldn't be hard to write >spamware that sprinkled messages all over IRC? Why don't we see much >instant message spam (at least relative to e-mail spam)? Is it that >the popular IM systems are all closed with a central control point? > I'd guess it's that IM is (nearly) synchronous and so pretty much automatically educates users in the art of sender (-ve/+ve) listing. Is it true that sender forgery isn't do-able in IM ? Anyway, here's why this thread is probably futile. It's not clear that we can *quickly* conclude that a channel (protocol) is relatively free of spam because of any identified characteristic of the *channel*. It may depend on a characteristic of the users (and the spammers). Or the whole complex. That said, we already know the key flaws in the current MTS. Weak "trust" model, lack of "authentication", lack of means for distributing and enforcing recipient policy. The very flexibility of the MTS, which has made it so valuable for the transmission of arbitrary content in all of the possible n-to-m modes, has made it valuable for abusers, as has the wide deployment / high take-up. This is all well understood. I'm sure that there are people in the group who could give us a new protocol which might enable a MTS with fewer of the failings and many of the strengths of the current system. It may be that this should be considered a separate project from the task of developing and evaluating "armour-plating" for the current MTS. Particularly given the very different timescales that will apply in these two areas. -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 23 04:50:04 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA13872 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 04:50:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYjAX-0000Am-6j for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 04:49:37 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBN9nb6I000662 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 04:49:37 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYjAW-0000Ab-Up for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 04:49:36 -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 EAA13825 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 04:49:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYjAO-0005s0-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 04:49:29 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AYj1G-0005rE-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 04:40:02 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYj1F-0005r6-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 04:40:01 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYj0I-0008JH-Aq; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 04:39:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYj06-0008Gq-Ib for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 04:38:50 -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 EAA13591 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 04:38:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYj03-0005o6-01 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 04:38:47 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AYizC-0005nw-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 04:37:54 -0500 Received: from argon.connectinternetsolutions.com ([193.110.243.33] helo=argon.connect.org.uk) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYizB-0005nt-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 04:37:53 -0500 Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 1AYizD-0006zp-4K; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 09:37:55 +0000 In-Reply-To: <20031223045139.20440.qmail@xuxa.iecc.com> Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: [1] Why SPAM is worse in SMTP than in other protocols To: "ASRG" From: "Jon Kyme" Cc: "John R. Levine" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.10.1] 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, 23 Dec 2003 09:37:55 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 > Why don't we see much >instant message spam (at least relative to e-mail spam)? Is it that >the popular IM systems are all closed with a central control point? > Nice little article by David McGuire here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A36039-2003Nov13 -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 23 10:07:26 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA22880 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 10:07:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYo7e-0002qc-JJ for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 10:06:59 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBNF6w3x010940 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 10:06:58 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYo7e-0002qN-FF for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 10:06:58 -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 KAA22820 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 10:06:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYo7c-0001F1-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 10:06:56 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AYo4N-0001BQ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 10:03:36 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYo4N-0001BN-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 10:03:35 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYo3p-0002cp-Rh; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 10:03:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYo3l-0002cI-UG for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 10:02:57 -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 KAA22403 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 10:02:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYo3j-000185-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 10:02:55 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AYo1B-00015B-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 10:00:18 -0500 Received: from fe04.axelero.hu ([195.228.240.92] helo=amitabha.axelero.hu) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYo1A-000157-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 10:00:17 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost-02 [127.0.2.1]) by amitabha.axelero.hu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with SMTP id hBNF0EjO072897; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 16:00:15 +0100 (CET) Received: from fe04.axelero.hu [127.0.2.1] via SMTP gateway by amitabha.axelero.hu [195.228.240.92]; id A01BDC1D67B at Tue, 23 Dec 2003 16:00:13 +0100 Received: from axelero.hu (187.14-182-adsl-pool.axelero.hu [81.182.14.187]) (authenticated bits=0) by fe04.axelero.hu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hBNF04uO072174; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 16:00:09 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3FE85873.50508@axelero.hu> From: "Za'mbori, Zolta'n" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; hu-HU; rv:1.6b) Gecko/20031210 X-Accept-Language: hu, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Yakov Shafranovich , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] [1] Why SPAM is worse in SMTP than in other protocols References: <20031221005349.GH79972@Space.Net> <20031221155455.8793116FCB@mail.nitros9.org> <20031221205938.GC15194@Space.Net> <3FE62859.3080507@solidmatrix.com> In-Reply-To: <3FE62859.3080507@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, 23 Dec 2003 16:00:03 +0100 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > So what comes out from this, is that SMTP operates on a hop-by-hop > basis, which in many cases is end-to-end since there is only a single > hop to be done. > > Now the question is, what can we, as a RG, learn from this? How is this > behavior helpful to stopping spam? What comparisons can we draw from > this behavior to other protocols? IMHO there is an email network built over the IP network. The email network is comparable to the IP network. Routers are hop-by-hop devices on the IP network while MTAs are hop-by-hop devices on the email network. IP numbers and mailbox addresses can not be owned they must licencing. IP numbers and mailbox addresses are (like) licence IDs. IP routers can enforce licencing (can stop IP spoofing) because the communication paths related to the forward licensing structure of the IP numbers. MTAs can not enforce licencing (email address forgery). A host do forward licencing of IP number(s) to its services. A TCP service do forward licencing of port access to clients during the handshake while UDP does not. The port number and the sequence number are (like) licence IDs. TCP can enforce the licencing because the sequence number is related to the sender and the licence number must be attached to each message. Additionaly sequence numbers are unpredictable by third parties. Back to Your question: > How is this behavior helpful to stopping spam? I dont know about spam-like traffic on the TCP network except port scanning, SYN flood and IP spoofing. They are comparable to dictionary attack, C/R attack and email address forgery on the email network. Port scanning can be handled by log analysis, SYN flood attacks can be handled by cookies, and IP spoofing can be handled by exchanging unpredictable sequence numbers during a handshake procedure. So organizing communication paths between MTAs closer to the forward licencing tree (as in the case on the IP network) and/or forward licencing mailbox resources to senders during handshake procedures will help enforcing sender licecing on the sender side and/or at the receiving side. IMHO enforcing licences may significantly decrase delivery of (today) spam. And back to the subject: Spam is exist in SMTP because the communication paths of the email network does not related to an enforcable forward licencing structure and because senders can reserving resource from the receiver without licence. z2 _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 23 10:55:28 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA25387 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 10:55:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYosA-00050k-GF for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 10:55:02 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBNFt26o019254 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 10:55:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYos9-00050E-Jy for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 10:55:01 -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 KAA25364 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 10:54:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYos7-0003EG-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 10:54:59 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AYooV-0003AG-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 10:51:16 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYooV-0003AD-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 10:51:15 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYooJ-0004qA-DQ; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 10:51:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYooD-0004p6-0Q for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 10:50:57 -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 KAA25208 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 10:50:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYooA-000377-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 10:50:54 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AYonI-00035y-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 10:50:01 -0500 Received: from xuxa.iecc.com ([208.31.42.42]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYonI-00035v-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 10:50:00 -0500 Received: (qmail 3418 invoked by uid 100); 23 Dec 2003 15:49:53 -0000 Message-ID: <20031223154953.3417.qmail@xuxa.iecc.com> From: asrg@johnlevine.com (John R. Levine) To: asrg@ietf.org Newsgroups: iecc.lists.asrg In-Reply-To: Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA Subject: [Asrg] Re: Why SPAM is worse in SMTP than in other protocols Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 23 Dec 2003 15:49:53 -0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 >That said, we already know the key flaws in the current MTS. Weak >"trust" model, lack of "authentication", lack of means for >distributing and enforcing recipient policy. ... The real reason there's e-mail spam is that e-mail by its nature the costs are mostly borne by the recipient. Everything else flows from that. There's no way to fix that without a top to bottom redesign and maybe not even then. (By fix I mean move the actual location of the costs, not layering on an e-postage scheme that's supposed to artificially compensate recipients and charge senders.) There aren't any large-scale communication system in which all of the participants are authenticated and I don't see that any of us know how to build one. Paper mail isn't authenticated at all, scribble any return address you want on an envelope, and they'll deliver it. The phone system is probably as close as we'll get, but even there the authentication is just sufficient to know who to bill for a call, not to identify the caller, and we all know that tracing the source of a phone call is not always easy. All of the scams we see in spam started in other places. "Make money fast" started in paper mail -- I once got an actual paper Dave Rhodes letter. The 419 scam was done by mail and fax before it moved to e-mail and in its original guise as the Spanish Prisoner, by quill pens and sealing wax. They moved to e-mail because it's cheap, not because it's unauthenticated. Even if you could build a gigantic authentication system for e-mail, it'd only work to the extent that people played by the rules. Look at the banking and credit card system, which process a vast number of daily transactions (but still a couple of orders of magnitude short of e-mail) in which all of the participants are supposed to be known. There's constant problems with bogus and bounced checks, invalid and stolen credit cards, and other fake transactions. Despite the enormous scale, transactions still cost about a dime apiece, way too expensive for e-mail. Any authentication scheme we build will be attacked in every way that the bad guys can invent, requiring whole new layers of rules and sanctions, and I don't see any reason to think that the problems from such a system would be less bad than the problems we have now. I'm not saying that solving the spam problem is hopeless, but I am saying that lack of authentication isn't the problem, too much mail to people who don't want it is the problem. Authentication can help track a lot of the mail so that non-technical sanctions can be applied to the senders, but it's only one tool in the toolbox. Regards, John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY http://www.taugh.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 23 12:15:30 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA27824 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 12:15:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYq7Y-00088N-4L for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 12:15:03 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBNHF0lo031260 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 12:15:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYq7Y-000885-10 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 12:15:00 -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 MAA27803 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 12:14:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYq7W-0005ov-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 12:14:58 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AYq3r-0005mR-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 12:11:12 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYq3r-0005mO-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 12:11:11 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYq3i-0007xf-UR; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 12:11:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYq3d-0007wg-7n for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 12:10:57 -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 MAA27711 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 12:10:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYq3b-0005id-02 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 12:10:55 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AYq1f-0005hF-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 12:08:55 -0500 Received: from newgiles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ([205.150.200.131] helo=mail.nitros9.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYq1f-0005h2-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 12:08:55 -0500 Received: from newgiles.nitros9.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.nitros9.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6346216FCB for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 12:09:44 -0500 (EST) From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: Why SPAM is worse in SMTP than in other protocols In-Reply-To: Your message of "23 Dec 2003 15:49:53 GMT." <20031223154953.3417.qmail@xuxa.iecc.com> Message-Id: <20031223170944.6346216FCB@mail.nitros9.org> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 12:09:44 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 asrg@johnlevine.com (John R. Levine) wrote: > The real reason there's e-mail spam is that e-mail by its nature the > costs are mostly borne by the recipient. Everything else flows from > that. There's no way to fix that without a top to bottom redesign and > maybe not even then. Greylisting moves some of the cost to the sender, by slowing down the rate at which messages are sent. > There aren't any large-scale communication system in which all of the > participants are authenticated and I don't see that any of us know how > to build one. I agree. And I'm not sure if we *want* such a system. Holding senders accountable is a good idea, but that doesn't mean they need to be individually authenticated. > All of the scams we see in spam started in other places. ... They > moved to e-mail because it's cheap, not because it's > unauthenticated. Cheap also means fast turn-around times. It takes time to set up scams with pen and paper, and you can't reach many people. The Internet is a god-send for scammers: reach millions of people with near-zero cost. Therefore, the obvious ways to attack scammers is to reduce the number of people they can reach, and to increase their costs. Authentication won't help here. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 23 13:02:34 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA29105 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 13:02:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYqrA-00010V-DW for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 13:02:08 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBNI28Tr003865 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 13:02:08 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYqrA-00010G-7W for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 13:02:08 -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 NAA29079 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 13:02:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYqr8-0007G2-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 13:02:06 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AYqoG-0007Dn-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 12:59:09 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYqoG-0007Dk-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 12:59:08 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYqo9-0000pu-CZ; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 12:59:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYqo7-0000pX-5I for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 12:58:59 -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 MAA28990 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 12:58:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYqo5-00079u-01 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 12:58:57 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AYqnH-00078Q-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 12:58:07 -0500 Received: from argon.connectinternetsolutions.com ([193.110.243.33] helo=argon.connect.org.uk) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYqnH-00078N-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 12:58:07 -0500 Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 1AYqnG-00006r-UG for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 17:58:06 +0000 In-Reply-To: <20031223154953.3417.qmail@xuxa.iecc.com> Subject: [Asrg] Re: Why SPAM is worse in SMTP than in other protocols To: "ASRG" From: "Jon Kyme" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.10.1] X-connectmail-Originating-IP: 81.134.57.216 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, 23 Dec 2003 17:58:06 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 >>That said, we already know the key flaws in the current MTS. Weak >>"trust" model, lack of "authentication", lack of means for >>distributing and enforcing recipient policy. ... > > >The real reason there's e-mail spam is that e-mail by its nature the >costs are mostly borne by the recipient. Everything else flows from >that. There's no way to fix that without a top to bottom redesign and >maybe not even then. (By fix I mean move the actual location of the >costs, not layering on an e-postage scheme that's supposed to >artificially compensate recipients and charge senders.) > is this ASRG policy now ? :-) -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 23 13:43:09 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA00305 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 13:43:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYrUP-0002gx-PN for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 13:42:41 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBNIgfLR010341 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 13:42:41 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYrUP-0002gi-KU for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 13:42:41 -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 NAA00288 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 13:42:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYrUN-0000wn-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 13:42:39 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AYrQn-0000nG-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 13:38:58 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYrN9-0000bL-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 13:35:11 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYrN0-00025v-H2; Tue, 23 Dec 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 1AYrMm-000258-P7 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 13:34:48 -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 NAA29994 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 13:34:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYrMk-0000XG-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 13:34:46 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AYrIx-0000Os-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 13:30:51 -0500 Received: from xuxa.iecc.com ([208.31.42.42]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYrFx-0000Gr-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 13:27:45 -0500 Received: (qmail 29672 invoked by uid 100); 23 Dec 2003 18:27:40 -0000 Message-ID: <20031223182740.29671.qmail@xuxa.iecc.com> From: asrg@johnlevine.com (John R. Levine) To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: Why SPAM is worse in SMTP than in other protocols Newsgroups: iecc.lists.asrg In-Reply-To: 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: 23 Dec 2003 18:27:40 -0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 >>The real reason there's e-mail spam is that e-mail by its nature the >>costs are mostly borne by the recipient. Everything else flows from >>that. There's no way to fix that without a top to bottom redesign >>and maybe not even then. (By fix I mean move the actual location of >>the costs, not layering on an e-postage scheme that's supposed to >>artificially compensate recipients and charge senders.) >is this ASRG policy now ? Sure, I suppose so. We're working on a new improved charter which isn't quite done, but I can promise that it doesn't contain the word "consent". For my take on e-postage, see my paper at http://www.taugh.com. It explains why even if we could technically implement an e-postage system, which we can't, it wouldn't work anyway. Regards, John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY http://www.taugh.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 23 13:59:02 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA01052 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 13:59:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYrjn-00036u-88 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 13:58:35 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBNIwZ5k011950 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 13:58:35 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYrjn-00036f-2t for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 13:58:35 -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 NAA00963 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 13:58:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYrjk-0001vb-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 13:58:32 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AYrfw-0001kf-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 13:54:36 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYrcZ-0001dE-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 13:51:07 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYrcT-0002sS-I8; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 13:51:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYrbZ-0002os-Pt for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 13:50:05 -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 NAA00582 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 13:50:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYrbX-0001L5-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 13:50:03 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AYraX-0001Bb-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 13:49:01 -0500 Received: from sccrmhc11.comcast.net ([204.127.202.55]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYrYG-00010N-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 13:46:40 -0500 Received: from fda.zemos.net ([68.38.12.170]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc11) with ESMTP id <2003122318460501100imoole>; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 18:46:05 +0000 Received: from zemos.net (phil [10.0.0.2]) by fda.zemos.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96710186A2; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 13:45:50 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3FE88D95.2030002@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: "John R. Levine" Cc: asrg@ietf.org, Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: Why SPAM is worse in SMTP than in other protocols References: <20031223182740.29671.qmail@xuxa.iecc.com> In-Reply-To: <20031223182740.29671.qmail@xuxa.iecc.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, 23 Dec 2003 13:46:45 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit John R. Levine wrote: > Sure, I suppose so. We're working on a new improved charter which > isn't quite done, but I can promise that it doesn't contain the word > "consent". What is this about, and why has none of it been mentioned on the list before? I'd imagine that a complete rewrite of the group's charter is probably something that should be a public process. Philip Miller _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 23 15:24:12 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA07222 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 15:24:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYt4C-00074h-0L for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 15:23:44 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBNKNhqv027192 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 15:23:43 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYt4B-00074V-Rq for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 15:23:43 -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 PAA07211 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 15:23:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYt4A-0001Km-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 15:23:42 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AYt2T-0001IM-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 15:21:58 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYt1y-0001EA-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 15:21:26 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYt1Z-0006vE-P9; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 15:21:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYsf5-000649-Dq for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 14:57:47 -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 OAA05063 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 14:57:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYsf2-0000RT-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 14:57:44 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AYsdL-0000NB-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 14:56:00 -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 1AYsbT-0000CI-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 14:54:03 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-389-495.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.235.141]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HQD007EV5O6U3@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 19:48:11 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich To: ASRG Message-id: <3FE89BFA.90402@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 5.0; 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 - Possible problems with IETF's servers Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 14:48:10 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT There were some problems yesterday with IETF's mail servers, and some messages bounced. You can find some more information here: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg23652.html Please let us or the IETF mail admin know if it happens again. Yakov ------- Yakov Shafranovich / asrg shaftek.org SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / research solidmatrix.com "I want to know G-d's thoughts... the rest are details" (Albert Einstein) ------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 23 15:32:24 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA07523 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 15:32:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYtC8-0007OG-Ke for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 15:31:56 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBNKVuX6028402 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 15:31:56 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYtC8-0007O1-GI for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 15:31:56 -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 PAA07508 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 15:31:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYtC7-0001iD-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 15:31:55 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AYtAK-0001dB-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 15:30:05 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYt9L-0001X2-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 15:29:03 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYt9J-0007Be-TE; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 15:29:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYt6A-000770-Kj for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 15:25:46 -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 PAA07296 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 15:25:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYt69-0001PA-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 15:25:45 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AYt4J-0001MT-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 15:23:51 -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 1AYt3x-0001Iu-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 15:23:29 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-389-495.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.235.141]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HQD001Y07A6GF@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 20:22:59 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich In-reply-to: To: Jon Kyme Cc: ASRG Message-id: <3FE8A423.1060706@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 5.0; 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 Subject: [Asrg] 1. Inventory of Problems - Email vs. IM Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 15:22:59 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT [Subject changed. Mod.] Jon Kyme wrote: >>I don't use instant message or chat much, but it is my impression that >>other than virusbots like fizzer, IRC doesn't have much of a spam >>problem. Why not? I'd think that it wouldn't be hard to write >>spamware that sprinkled messages all over IRC? Why don't we see much >>instant message spam (at least relative to e-mail spam)? Is it that >>the popular IM systems are all closed with a central control point? >> > > > I'd guess it's that IM is (nearly) synchronous and so pretty much > automatically educates users in the art of sender (-ve/+ve) listing. Is it > true that sender forgery isn't do-able in IM ? > With the current "big" centralized systems such as MSN, Yahoo, AIM and ICQ that is true. However, with XMPP (Jabber), IM becomes distributed among servers, just like email, with an ability for a malicious IM server or an "IM relay" to be introduced into the system which can forge IMs and inject spam IMs into the network. If you take a look at the current XMPP draft, it explictly talks about methods to detect malicious and forged servers. It recommends using SASL and TLS for inter-server communications, and a DNS method kind of like LMAP. There is also a "server callback" method, kind of like C/R for servers, which was used before and is present for backwards compatability. The draft is here: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-xmpp-core-20.txt It also includes the following interesting snippet, which basically says that any IM server can deny access to any other IM server: " Because service provisioning is a matter of policy, it is OPTIONAL for any given domain to communicate with other domains, and server-to-server communications MAY be disabled by the administrator of any given deployment. If a particular domain enables inter-domain communications, it SHOULD enable high security. " Yakov P.S. As an interesting historical footnote, the original SMTP document, RFC 821, defines a bunch of other commands in addition to MAIL FROM, such as SEND FROM, SOML FROM, and SAML, which send messages directly to the user's terminal, whichs sounds awfully like IM. Just imagine if SMTP was used for IM... ------- Yakov Shafranovich / asrg shaftek.org SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / research solidmatrix.com "Be liberal in what you accept, and conservative in what you send" (Jon Postel) ------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 23 16:09:44 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA10387 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 16:09:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYtmG-0001Eo-3y for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 16:09:16 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBNL9GdG004755 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 16:09:16 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYtmF-0001Ec-Vw for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 16:09:16 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA10331 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 16:09:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYtmE-00041E-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 16:09:14 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AYtjJ-0003Ty-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 16:06:14 -0500 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYtgn-000333-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 16:03:38 -0500 Received: from optimus22.ietf.org ([132.151.6.22] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by mx2.foretec.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1AYtgf-00020x-VI for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 16:03:34 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYtgC-0000lK-Kd; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 16:03:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYtHe-0008Hs-61 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 15:37:38 -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 PAA08365 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 15:37:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYtHZ-0001vl-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 15:37:33 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AYtFd-0001q0-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 15:35:33 -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 1AYtDi-0001kL-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 15:33:34 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-389-495.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.235.141]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HQD00CIR7QWUE@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 20:33:05 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich In-reply-to: <5.1.0.14.2.20031222190343.00b9db48@localhost> To: Tony Toews Cc: asrg@ietf.org Message-id: <3FE8A67B.4030205@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 5.0; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007 X-Enigmail-Version: 0.82.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime References: <5.1.0.14.2.20031222190343.00b9db48@localhost> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Subject: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - C/R and "callbacks" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 15:32:59 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT [Subject changed, was "Re: [Asrg] Re: [1] Why SPAM is worse in SMTP than in other protocols". Mod.] Tony Toews wrote: > At 08:18 PM 2003/12/22 -0500, you wrote: > >> The LMAP discussion document (based on Hadmut's comments in RMX), >> says that the single hop use of SMTP is a large part of the reason why >> spam is so wide-spread. There are 100's of millions of senders, each >> sending to only 100's of thousands of recipient MTA's. >> >> > How is this behavior helpful to stopping spam? >> >> If that imbalance in the network was addressed, spam would become >> significantly more manageable. It wouldn't stop entirely, but having >> a blacklist of 100K MTA's is signficantly easier than having >> blacklists of millions of IP's. > .. > From my very simplistic view of the email systems it seems to me that > the msgid id could be part of the verification mechanism. The > originating MTA stamps the outgoing email with a unique message id. > Once the header portion of the email is received then the recipient MTA > does a name lookup on the originating MTA and verifies that the > originating MTA sent that msgid. Once the receipient MTA finishes > accepting the email the originating MTA then never uses that msgid again. ... This approach is outlined by William Elan (he calls it "callback"): http://www.elan.net/~william/asrg-emailpathverification-presentation.pdf This is also mentioned in the CRI proposal (level 2): http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-irtf-asrg-cri-00.txt This basic argument against this is that it is very resource intensive, with a lot of extra costs such as more powerful servers that can handle callbacks, more bandwidth, and extra disk space to store IDs. There are also DOS issues: someone forging a domain can cause the forged domain to go under with too many callbacks. There are privacy issues as well, and possible replay attacks. However, the bottom line here, is that why go through the trouble of checking every single message. Granted that it increases costs, nevertheless if we can significantly reduce the problem through verification of MTAs as opposed to senders and messages, why go through the extra costs of message verification. This proposal is on the table, but we will pursue it only if a significant advantage vs. costs can be proven for this way of doing things, over others requiring less costs. Yakov ------- Yakov Shafranovich / asrg shaftek.org SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / research solidmatrix.com "Some lies are easier to believe than the truth" (Dune) ------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 23 16:18:53 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA12354 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 16:18:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYtv7-0001mk-Oi for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 16:18:26 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBNLIP4O006856 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 16:18:25 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYtv7-0001mU-Jj for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 16:18:25 -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 QAA12283 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 16:18:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYtv6-0005kE-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 16:18:24 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AYttM-0005R5-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 16:16:38 -0500 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYtqK-0004jw-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 16:13:28 -0500 Received: from optimus22.ietf.org ([132.151.6.22] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by mx2.foretec.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1AYtqA-0002F7-WE for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 16:13:22 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYtpt-0001H9-Ki; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 16:13:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYtmC-0001EX-PW for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 16:09:13 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA10311 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 16:09:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYtmB-00040g-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 16:09:11 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AYtjE-0003T1-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 16:06:08 -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 1AYtgk-000326-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 16:03:34 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-389-495.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.235.141]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HQD006BP92W8C@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 21:01:49 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich To: ASRG Cc: asrg-rmx@ntp.org Message-id: <3FE8AD3C.4090306@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 5.0; 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 - LMAP - Similarities in XMPP Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 16:01:48 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT While looking at the XMPP draft for IM, I came across a method described there about verification of servers via DNS, which sounds awfully like LMAP. The original draft can be found here: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-xmpp-core-20.txt In section 10.2, the following snippet: " There exists no server-to-server stream between the two domains: The sender's server (1) resolves the hostname of the foreign domain (as defined under Server-to-Server Communications (Section 14.3)) ... " Section 14.3 described the DNS lookups: " Inter-domain connections MUST NOT proceed until the DNS hostnames asserted by the servers have been resolved. Such resolutions MUST first attempt to resolve the hostname using an [SRV] Service of "xmpp-server" and Proto of "tcp", resulting in resource records such as "_xmpp-server._tcp.example.com. ... If the SRV lookup fails, the fallback is a normal IPv4/IPv6 address record resolution to determine the IP address, using the "xmpp-server" port of 5269 registered with the IANA. " Now from my reading of "until the DNS hostnames asserted by the servers" sounds like this must take place on both on outgoing AND incoming messages, which seems to tie in IP addresses to domains, exactly like LMAP. This also does not use TXT or RR records, but rather does this via SRV records. This is very similar to the method described in (http://www.irtf.org/asrg/draft-vixie-repudiating-mail-from.txt) which uses the same single RR, MX, for both incoming and outgoing mail. Of course the XMPP spec recommends TLS and SASL use as well, which has already defined for SMTP in RFCs 3207 and 2554. Yakov ------- Yakov Shafranovich / asrg shaftek.org SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / research solidmatrix.com "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" (Benjamin Franklin) ------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 23 16:54:23 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA15010 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 16:54:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYuTU-00039d-IR for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 16:53:56 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBNLruQg012125 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 16:53:56 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYuTU-00039U-Eh for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 16:53:56 -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 QAA15000 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 16:53:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYuTS-0000it-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 16:53:54 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AYuRi-0000eL-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 16:52:07 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYuQo-0000Z0-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 16:51:10 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYuQh-000306-Fq; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 16:51:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYuPM-0002xu-2i for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 16:49:40 -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 QAA14781 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 16:49:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYuPK-0000Ug-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 16:49:38 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AYuNW-0000OY-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 16:47:46 -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 1AYuLm-0000DP-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 16:45:58 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-389-495.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.235.141]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HQD00I5HB0RLI@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 21:43:45 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich In-reply-to: <20031223154953.3417.qmail@xuxa.iecc.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Message-id: <3FE8B70C.3060104@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 5.0; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007 X-Enigmail-Version: 0.82.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime References: <20031223154953.3417.qmail@xuxa.iecc.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Subject: [Asrg] 1. Inventory of Problems - Costs of email Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 16:43:40 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT [Subject changed.] John R. Levine wrote: >>That said, we already know the key flaws in the current MTS. Weak >>"trust" model, lack of "authentication", lack of means for >>distributing and enforcing recipient policy. ... > > > The real reason there's e-mail spam is that e-mail by its nature the > costs are mostly borne by the recipient. Everything else flows from > that. There's no way to fix that without a top to bottom redesign and > maybe not even then. (By fix I mean move the actual location of the > costs, not layering on an e-postage scheme that's supposed to > artificially compensate recipients and charge senders.) > An important point to be kept in mind that many of the costs of e-mail are not tangible money costs like postage or e-postage. For example, a lot of email spam is being sent via other people's systems such as open relays and hacked computers. That means that those resources which have a certain monetary value are being exploited by spammers for free. Same goes for forged domains - if they use their own domains, domains costs money and increase their costs slightly. Even junk mail in the postal system costs more money aside from postage - it costs money to print, seal and deliver the envelopes at the post office. An additional point here is that a lot of the costs are computer resources - it costs money to run and buy filters (IETF's mail server just crashed recently because of additional processing power needed for SpamAssasin). It also costs money to administer anti-spam systems, and configure them, it costs money to use some RBLs and outsourcing the stuff to BrightMail and Postini costs money. On the other hand, the sender does not need to do anything at all - just connect on port 25 and pump the junk in. That's why proposals shifting some of the burdens on the sender such as C/R, Yahoo's DK, LMAP, callbacks, GreyListing, digital certificates, etc. are good, but each come with their own disadvantages and some increase costs for both the sender AND receiver (C/R for ex.). Yakov ------- Yakov Shafranovich / asrg shaftek.org SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / research solidmatrix.com "All that is gold does not glitter" (LOTR) ------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Dec 24 00:42:15 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA28897 for ; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 00:42:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AZ1mG-00017l-M4 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 00:41:48 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBO5fmqE004317 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 00:41:48 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AZ1mG-00017Y-IU for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 00:41:48 -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 AAA28884 for ; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 00:41:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AZ1mD-0007aA-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 00:41:46 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AZ1kR-0007Y2-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 00:39:55 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AZ1io-0007VM-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 00:38:14 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AZ1ib-0000sE-G1; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 00:38:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AZ1iR-0000pq-Ho for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 00:37:51 -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 AAA28803 for ; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 00:37:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AZ1iO-0007Sn-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 00:37:48 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AZ1gY-0007Qg-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 00:35:54 -0500 Received: from mail19b.dulles19-verio.com ([198.170.241.3]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AZ1fg-0007OM-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 00:35:00 -0500 Received: from www1911.dulles19-verio.com (161.58.134.165) by mail19b.dulles19-verio.com (RS ver 1.0.88vs) with SMTP id 0-0353264080; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 00:34:41 -0500 (EST) From: "Tom Bartel" To: "'Tom Bartel'" , Message-ID: <000001c3c9df$a4360700$6d02000a@MULDER> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 X-Loop-Detect: 1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] Exploits for identity Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 22:34:44 -0700 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit What does the group think about formmail (cgi script) exploits relative to new/modified technology to stem spam. I just worked with someone whose simple "contact us" web form was exploited in a slightly more advanced way than the classic formmail.pl exploit. Bottom line is, spammer had unfettered access, sending mail from a machine whose identity would have passed "authorization" or "identity" verification. I think the solutions that are evolving here have great merit, and progress is evident - but this event reminded me about the scourge of spammers out there and their willingness to misuse any system or available component. Is this type of misuse appropriate to consider in a technology change, or is it better left to legal enforcement under unauthorized use/access/etc. laws? Thx. Tom Bartel 303.642.4104 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.555 / Virus Database: 347 - Release Date: 12/23/2003 _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Dec 24 01:09:05 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA29816 for ; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 01:09:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AZ2CC-0002HP-QA for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 01:08:36 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBO68aH5008757 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 01:08:36 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AZ2CC-0002HA-MA for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 01:08:36 -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 BAA29685 for ; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 01:08:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AZ2C9-0001E0-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 01:08:33 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AZ2AE-0000tN-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 01:06:35 -0500 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AZ27m-0000gO-01 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 01:04:02 -0500 Received: from optimus22.ietf.org ([132.151.6.22] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by mx2.foretec.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1AZ228-0008Cz-SS for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 00:58:12 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AZ21x-0001b9-18; Wed, 24 Dec 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 1AZ1xp-0001RI-5x for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 00:53:45 -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 AAA29370 for ; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 00:53:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AZ1xm-0000Rr-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 00:53:42 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AZ1wE-0000QT-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 00:52:06 -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 1AZ1vQ-0000Lc-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 00:51:16 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-378-442.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.192.139]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HQD00JKOXJWEC@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 05:50:25 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich In-reply-to: <000001c3c9df$a4360700$6d02000a@MULDER> To: Tom Bartel Cc: asrg@ietf.org Message-id: <3FE92920.9000402@solidmatrix.com> Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, he, ru User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007 X-Enigmail-Version: 0.82.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime References: <000001c3c9df$a4360700$6d02000a@MULDER> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Subject: [Asrg] 2a. Analysis - Addressing Identity Exploits Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2003 00:50:24 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT [Subject changed as per posting guidelines, was "Exploits for identity". Mod.] Tom Bartel wrote: > What does the group think about formmail (cgi script) exploits relative > to new/modified technology to stem spam. > > I just worked with someone whose simple "contact us" web form was > exploited in a slightly more advanced way than the classic formmail.pl > exploit. > > Bottom line is, spammer had unfettered access, sending mail from a > machine whose identity would have passed "authorization" or "identity" > verification. > > I think the solutions that are evolving here have great merit, and > progress is evident - but this event reminded me about the scourge of > spammers out there and their willingness to misuse any system or > available component. > > Is this type of misuse appropriate to consider in a technology change, > or is it better left to legal enforcement under unauthorized > use/access/etc. laws? > > Thx. > > Tom Bartel > 303.642.4104 > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.555 / Virus Database: 347 - Release Date: 12/23/2003 > > > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > ------- 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 Wed Dec 24 06:17:29 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA04267 for ; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 06:17:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AZ70g-0006tf-C8 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 06:17:02 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBOBH2YD026507 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 06:17:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AZ70g-0006tS-49 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 06:17:02 -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 GAA04255 for ; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 06:16:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AZ70c-00033q-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 06:16:58 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AZ6yw-0002pw-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 06:15:15 -0500 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AZ6x2-0002bR-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 06:13:16 -0500 Received: from optimus22.ietf.org ([132.151.6.22] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by mx2.foretec.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1AZ6x3-0003sj-H2 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 06:13:18 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AZ6wn-0006SJ-0G; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 06:13:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AZ6w0-0006NS-Qc for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 06:12:12 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA03883 for ; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 06:12:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AZ6vx-0002XP-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 06:12:09 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AZ6uJ-0002Sb-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 06:10:28 -0500 Received: from fe02.axelero.hu ([195.228.240.90] helo=digpala.axelero.hu) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AZ6sw-0002M0-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 06:09:02 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost-02 [127.0.2.1]) by digpala.axelero.hu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with SMTP id hBOB93rE037804 for ; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 12:09:03 +0100 (CET) Received: from fe02.axelero.hu [127.0.2.1] via SMTP gateway by digpala [195.228.240.90]; id A093A93C039 at Wed, 24 Dec 2003 12:09:03 +0100 Received: from axelero.hu (4.93-182-adsl-pool.axelero.hu [81.182.93.4]) (authenticated bits=0) by fe02.axelero.hu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hBOB928g037776 for ; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 12:09:03 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3FE973CE.3080502@axelero.hu> From: "Za'mbori, Zolta'n" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; hu-HU; rv:1.6b) Gecko/20031210 X-Accept-Language: hu, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: [Asrg] 0. General - search of address hiding recommendations Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2003 12:09:02 +0100 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I mean some mailing list (web forum, etc) do some encoding before publishing the sender address. These are algorithmic encodings so somewhere in the future these addresses can be spammed. A possible solution may be deleting some characters from the sender email address. (Of course the domain must enable this operation somehow.) Is there any recommendation about future proof address hiding for mailing lists controlled by the sender domains? z2 _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Dec 24 12:42:26 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA17155 for ; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 12:42:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AZD1D-00047m-K8 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 12:41:59 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBOHfxud015850 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 12:41:59 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AZD1D-00047Z-GS for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 12:41:59 -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 MAA17149 for ; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 12:41:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AZD1B-0003As-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 12:41:57 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AZCzK-00039f-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 12:40:03 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AZCyb-00037v-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 12:39:17 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AZCyL-0003xs-JK; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 12:39:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AZCxR-0003wy-Ly for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 12:38:07 -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 MAA17062 for ; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 12:38:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AZCxQ-000365-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 12:38:04 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AZCvY-000323-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 12:36:08 -0500 Received: from rwcrmhc13.comcast.net ([204.127.198.39]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AZCtx-0002wL-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 12:34:29 -0500 Received: from fda.zemos.net ([68.38.12.170]) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc13) with ESMTP id <20031224173358015006af1ke>; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 17:33:58 +0000 Received: from zemos.net (phil [10.0.0.2]) by fda.zemos.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AEF0186A2; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 12:33:46 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3FE9CE28.9000105@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: Alan DeKok Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Forgery in SMTP (was [Asrg] [1] Why SPAM is worse in SMTP than in other protocols) References: <200312161921.hBGJLIb02260@newgiles.nitros9.org> In-Reply-To: <200312161921.hBGJLIb02260@newgiles.nitros9.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: Wed, 24 Dec 2003 12:34:32 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,MILLION_EMAIL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit There are two problems caused by the potential forgery that is possible in SMTP: 1. Filtering by sender's address is hard when someone could forge a friend's address. 2. One can't hold the victim of the forgery accountable for the junk transmitted. The first problem makes whitelisting slightly troublesome. However, it doesn't actually affect any other filtering, because a spammer with a million addresses on his list can't figure out who's on the whitelists of all of his recipients. Thus, the best the spammer can do is use addresses that are totally unknown. The one exception to this would be a stolen distribution list of an email newsletter, in which case that spammer could forge the publisher's address. As long as filters don't implicitly trust unknown addresses, this forgery doesn't get any more spam through. Accountability is a much thornier issue. Technical solutions are attractive, but they require widespread buy-in before one can start rejecting messages that don't have a sender to hold accountable. On the other hand, a legal approach could be more powerful than we think. If the owner of an IP address were held responsible for mail transmitted from that address, there would be specific motivation for everyone to do their part towards security. Businesses would have a quantifiable legal liability to compare to the cost of locking down their networks, and ISPs would have a reason to secure their customers' computers. My biggest misgiving is that this would be a strong push in the 'filter port 25' direction for ISPs. -- Philip Miller _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Dec 24 13:26:33 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA18220 for ; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 13:26:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AZDhu-0005QW-I0 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 13:26:06 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBOIQ6e5020854 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 13:26:06 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AZDhu-0005QH-EG for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 13:26:06 -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 NAA18213 for ; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 13:26:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AZDhs-0004MM-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 13:26:04 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AZDg4-0004KO-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 13:24:12 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AZDez-0004Ho-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 13:23:05 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AZDeu-0005Gb-QH; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 13:23:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AZDe7-0005Bn-95 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 13:22:11 -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 NAA18098 for ; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 13:22:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AZDe5-0004FS-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 13:22:09 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AZDcF-0004BX-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 13:20:16 -0500 Received: from out2.smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.26]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AZDal-00047m-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 13:18:43 -0500 X-Sasl-enc: noie2RbxQxB0HDmwyqkfyw 1072289922 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 6377F48B6ED; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 13:18:41 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3FE9D87F.4060308@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] 6. Proposals: LMAP - Forwarding Comment and Recommended Changes 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: Wed, 24 Dec 2003 10:18:39 -0800 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-8.0 required=5.0 tests=HABEAS_SWE autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Alan, any thoughts on the Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals: LMAP - Forwarding Comment and Recommended Changes thread? It does seem that some solution to the mail looping possibility that LMAP's current envelope rewriting creates is a must. It seems that when there's envelope rewriting, the return address must be encoded/stored somewhere, and used when there are bounces. ENVID or something like it seems like the right solution. There are umpteen ways the ENVID could be used to confidently ensure that the relay only relays back bounces of emails it has sent. (As a server would be dealing with its own ENVIDs, perhaps the way that this is done need be suggested but not required.) The usage for ENVID that we are considering would break rules specified in RFC 1891: (a) Any ENVID parameter included in the MAIL command when a message was received, MUST also appear on the MAIL command with which the message is relayed, with the same associated esmtp-value. If no ENVID parameter was included in the MAIL command when the message was received, the ENVID parameter MUST NOT be supplied when the message is relayed. Relays should be adding ENVID parameters, though they MUST NOT. In multihop forwards, we would be replacing, not preserving the ENVID. Careful consideration of the consequences is needed before we break these rules! On 12/17/2003 2:18 PM, Markus Stumpf sent forth electrons to convey: > ... > >[W]ithout tracking, return-path rewriting with routing >information may lead to the same problems we had with > user%destination@relay >addresses, with the diefference that it now has a form > user=destination%otheruser@relay > > What are these problems, and will they exist in an LMAP world? Let me guess: relay gets a bounce to user=destination%otheruser@relay that isn't really a bounce; it's spam to user@destination. Without tracking, the relay could still only allow bounces that looked like bounces (MDNs or from postmaster/mailer-daemon) but a spec allowing this would still effectively be saying it's OK to run an open bounce relay, which would be bad. Currently, I can send spam by sending 'from' the target address 'to' an invalid address on a machine that accepts and bounces such email to the target address. However, this is not possible with most machines, which refuse, instead of accept and bounce such email. This is best practice, and increasingly common. I would like to suggest two alternate solutions that resolve the mail looping possibility. 1)The sending system connects to relaying-lmap-mta and begins sending an email to an address that has forwarding set up to next-mta. relaying-lmap-mta receives the email up to the end-of-data marker, but does not reply immediately. Instead, it initiates relaying of the message to the destination. Only after next-mta accepts the message does relaying-lmap-mta accept the message from the sending system. This solution will not work in the rare situation where relaying-lmap-mta is not continuously connected to the 'net. However, it works in the vast majority of cases, and will reduce bounces. Perhaps this should be done, wherever possible, with ENVID as a fallback solution only when relaying-lmap-mta is not connected to the 'net. 2)A second alternate solution would be for the sending system to be told the forwarding address by relaying-lmap-mta (e.g. using EXPN) and send the message directly there iteself, but this would cause privacy and security problems; seems like a nonstarter. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Dec 24 14:04:30 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA18872 for ; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 14:04:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AZEIa-0006fS-6P for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 14:04:02 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBOJ40xx025627 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 14:04:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AZEIa-0006fG-1r for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 14:04:00 -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 OAA18869 for ; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 14:03:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AZEIX-000576-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 14:03:57 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AZEGj-00056C-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 14:02:06 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AZEFs-00054H-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 14:01:12 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AZEFi-0006Os-64; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 14:01:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AZEEs-0006Nx-9u for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 24 Dec 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 OAA18804 for ; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 14:00:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AZEEp-00052b-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 14:00:08 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AZECt-00050O-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 13:58:08 -0500 Received: from mail.crlf.net ([216.126.92.195]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AZECI-0004y4-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 13:57:30 -0500 Received: by mail.crlf.net (Postfix, from userid 100) id E8C051F001; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 14:01:07 -0500 (EST) From: David Maxwell To: "John R. Levine" Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: Why SPAM is worse in SMTP than in other protocols Message-ID: <20031224190107.GH17431@mail> References: <20031223154953.3417.qmail@xuxa.iecc.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20031223154953.3417.qmail@xuxa.iecc.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, 24 Dec 2003 14:01:07 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 On Tue, Dec 23, 2003 at 03:49:53PM -0000, John R. Levine wrote: > The real reason there's e-mail spam is that e-mail by its nature the > costs are mostly borne by the recipient. Everything else flows from > that. There's no way to fix that without a top to bottom redesign and > maybe not even then. (By fix I mean move the actual location of the > costs, not layering on an e-postage scheme that's supposed to > artificially compensate recipients and charge senders.) You're making the issue sound black and white (or black and black, with the "maybe not even then"). There are certainly technical solutions that would significantly improve some user's experience of Internet email with regard to receiving less spam. > I'm not saying that solving the spam problem is hopeless, but I am > saying that lack of authentication isn't the problem, too much mail to > people who don't want it is the problem. Authentication can help > track a lot of the mail so that non-technical sanctions can be applied > to the senders, but it's only one tool in the toolbox. Authentication can also allow one to apply technical sanctions. "Lack of authentication" may not be the problem, but that doesn't mean that "authentication" can't be part of the solution. -- David Maxwell, david@vex.net|david@maxwell.net --> Unless you have a solution when you tell them things like that, most people collapse into a gibbering, unthinking mass. This is the same reason why you probably don't tell your boss about everything you read on BugTraq! - Signal 11 _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Dec 24 14:06:28 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA18918 for ; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 14:06:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AZEKW-0006gZ-Ah for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 14:06:00 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBOJ60iM025693 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 14:06:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AZEKW-0006gK-6n for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 14:06:00 -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 OAA18908 for ; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 14:05:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AZEKT-00058r-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 14:05:57 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AZEIa-00057c-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 14:04:01 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AZEHb-00056Q-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 14:02:59 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AZEHd-0006Xa-1P; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 14:03:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AZEGk-0006Ww-U2 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 14:02:06 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA18851 for ; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 14:02:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AZEGi-00055u-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 14:02:04 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AZEEy-000541-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 14:00:16 -0500 Received: from mail.crlf.net ([216.126.92.195]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AZEE3-000515-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 13:59:19 -0500 Received: by mail.crlf.net (Postfix, from userid 100) id A00971F001; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 14:03:05 -0500 (EST) From: David Maxwell To: "John R. Levine" Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: Why SPAM is worse in SMTP than in other protocols Message-ID: <20031224190305.GI17431@mail> References: <20031223182740.29671.qmail@xuxa.iecc.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20031223182740.29671.qmail@xuxa.iecc.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, 24 Dec 2003 14:03:05 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 On Tue, Dec 23, 2003 at 06:27:40PM -0000, John R. Levine wrote: > >>The real reason there's e-mail spam is that e-mail by its nature the > >>costs are mostly borne by the recipient. Everything else flows from > >>that. There's no way to fix that without a top to bottom redesign > >>and maybe not even then. (By fix I mean move the actual location of > >>the costs, not layering on an e-postage scheme that's supposed to > >>artificially compensate recipients and charge senders.) > > >is this ASRG policy now ? > > Sure, I suppose so. We're working on a new improved charter which > isn't quite done, but I can promise that it doesn't contain the word > "consent". Does that mean that the equivalent intent will be shown, without using the "C" word - or that the intent of the research group will change? I found Consent to be a very useful concept in the analysis of spam. What are the reasons for it dissapearing from the charter? -- 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 Wed Dec 24 15:40:28 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA22137 for ; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 15:40:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AZFnU-0001vR-7d for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 15:40:00 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBOKe0jo007397 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 15:40:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AZFnU-0001vE-2O for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 15:40:00 -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 PAA22134 for ; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 15:39:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AZFnS-0007Rd-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 15:39:58 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AZFlc-0007QX-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 15:38:05 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AZFky-0007P6-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 15:37:24 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AZFkb-0001Su-6h; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 15:37:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AZFjh-0001Rk-81 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 15:36:05 -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 PAA22097 for ; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 15:36:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AZFjf-0007Nv-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 15:36:03 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AZFhn-0007MF-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 15:34:07 -0500 Received: from newgiles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ([205.150.200.131] helo=mail.nitros9.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AZFhc-0007KH-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 15:33:56 -0500 Received: from newgiles.nitros9.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.nitros9.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54F6D170A5 for ; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 15:34:56 -0500 (EST) From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: Forgery in SMTP (was [Asrg] [1] Why SPAM is worse in SMTP than in other protocols) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 24 Dec 2003 12:34:32 EST." <3FE9CE28.9000105@zemos.net> Message-Id: <20031224203456.54F6D170A5@mail.nitros9.org> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2003 15:34:56 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Philip Miller wrote: > There are two problems caused by the potential forgery that is possible in SMTP: > 1. Filtering by sender's address is hard when someone could forge a friend's > address. Which is where accountability comes in. > 2. One can't hold the victim of the forgery accountable for the junk > transmitted. Why not? If they haven't done anything to prevent the (ab)use of their name, how can the recipient tell if a message is real, or abusive? If they have made public statements about accountability, then they can prevent forgery by allowing the recipient to verify that accountability. e.g. You can't rent a car unless you show identification. It's not a government conspiracy, it's so that the rental agency can make you pay, if you wrap the car around a tree. > Accountability is a much thornier issue. Technical solutions are attractive, > but they require widespread buy-in before one can start rejecting messages > that don't have a sender to hold accountable. Exactly. The single largest problem with LMAP is the sheer number of people who won't be using it. > If the owner of an IP address were held responsible for mail > transmitted from that address, there would be specific motivation > for everyone to do their part towards security. In many jurisdictions, communications providers are indemnified for any illegal activities by their customers. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Dec 24 22:32:42 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA02737 for ; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 22:32:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AZMER-0006PQ-LA for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 22:32:15 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBP3WFeX024630 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 22:32:15 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AZMER-0006PB-HZ for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 22:32:15 -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 WAA02730 for ; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 22:32:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AZMEO-0002JI-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 22:32:12 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AZMCZ-0002H6-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 22:30:20 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AZMBe-0002Dy-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 22:29:22 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AZMBJ-0006Aq-Ik; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 22:29:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AZMAj-00069D-8b for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 22:28:25 -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 WAA02607 for ; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 22:28:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AZMAf-0002Cj-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 22:28:22 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AZM8r-00028j-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 22:26:29 -0500 Received: from dci.doncaster.on.ca ([66.11.168.194] helo=smtp.istop.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AZM7r-000244-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 22:25:27 -0500 Received: from waltdnes.org (ip101-165.tor.istop.com [66.11.165.101]) by smtp.istop.com (Postfix) with SMTP id E8BE237382 for ; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 22:25:27 -0500 (EST) Received: by waltdnes.org (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 24 Dec 2003 22:25:24 +4300 From: Walter Dnes To: ASRG list Subject: Re: Forgery in SMTP (was [Asrg] [1] Why SPAM is worse in SMTP than in other protocols) Message-ID: <20031225032524.GA2580@m433> References: <3FE9CE28.9000105@zemos.net> <20031224203456.54F6D170A5@mail.nitros9.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20031224203456.54F6D170A5@mail.nitros9.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2003 22:25:24 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 On Wed, Dec 24, 2003 at 03:34:56PM -0500, Alan DeKok wrote > Philip Miller wrote: > > There are two problems caused by the potential forgery that is possible in SMTP: > > 1. Filtering by sender's address is hard when someone could forge a friend's > > address. > > Which is where accountability comes in. > > > 2. One can't hold the victim of the forgery accountable for the junk > > transmitted. > > Why not? If they haven't done anything to prevent the (ab)use of > their name, how can the recipient tell if a message is real, or > abusive? A spammer sends out a viagra spam "From: "Alan DeKok" <*****@ox.org>". How are the 20 million strangers it's addressed to going to *REJECT* it? At these volumes, merely accepting the email and storing it in recipients' "spam folders" will cause smaller ISPs to run out of mailspool space. What actions can *YOU* take that would allow verification/authentication of the "From:" during the SMTP transaction ? > In many jurisdictions, communications providers are indemnified for > any illegal activities by their customers. Maybe the responsibility should be placed on the person/company nominally in control of the sending machine. I.e. the owner of a compromised home machine that is spewing out this garbage, or the renter of compromised colo machine who has put a copy of "Matt's Monstrosity" in his CGI directory. -- Walter Dnes Email users are divided into two classes; 1) Those who have effective spam-blocking 2) Those who wish they did _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Dec 25 05:45:04 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA24392 for ; Thu, 25 Dec 2003 05:45:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AZSyr-0005yX-GF for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 25 Dec 2003 05:44:37 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBPAibEa022963 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 25 Dec 2003 05:44:37 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AZSyr-0005yI-CX for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 25 Dec 2003 05:44:37 -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 FAA24367 for ; Thu, 25 Dec 2003 05:44:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AZSyn-00057f-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Dec 2003 05:44:34 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AZSx2-00052N-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Dec 2003 05:42:45 -0500 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AZSvo-0004wD-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Dec 2003 05:41:28 -0500 Received: from optimus22.ietf.org ([132.151.6.22] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by mx2.foretec.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1AZSvq-0002Mb-RC for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Dec 2003 05:41:30 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AZSvN-0005lE-LL; Thu, 25 Dec 2003 05:41:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AZSvB-0005kF-Li for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 25 Dec 2003 05:40:49 -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 FAA24174 for ; Thu, 25 Dec 2003 05:40:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AZSv8-0004uW-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Dec 2003 05:40:46 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AZSti-0004mt-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Dec 2003 05:39:19 -0500 Received: from argon.connectinternetsolutions.com ([193.110.243.33] helo=argon.connect.org.uk) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AZSrv-0004aD-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Dec 2003 05:37:27 -0500 Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 1AZSrw-0001f0-P8 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Dec 2003 10:37:28 +0000 In-Reply-To: <3FE9D87F.4060308@elvey.com> Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals: LMAP - Forwarding Comment and Recommended Changes To: "ASRG" From: "Jon Kyme" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.10.1] 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, 25 Dec 2003 10:37:28 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 > > The usage for ENVID that we are considering would break rules specified > in RFC 1891: > > (a) Any ENVID parameter included in the MAIL command when a message was > received, MUST also appear on the MAIL command with which the > message is relayed, with the same associated esmtp-value. If no > ENVID parameter was included in the MAIL command when the message > was received, the ENVID parameter MUST NOT be supplied when the > message is relayed. > > Relays should be adding ENVID parameters, though they MUST NOT. > In multihop forwards, we would be replacing, not preserving the ENVID. > Careful consideration of the consequences is needed before we break > these rules! > > If the message has a new envelope then it's a new message. Even if it has the same *body* as another message. So we're not really relaying when we do this kind of forwarding - we're injecting a *new* message into the MTS. So why not create an ENVID? Consider mail forwarding for some hosting clients. Their MXs point to one of our machines which just has a bunch of aliases to shove the mail on to whatever their "real email" is. So mail to info@client.example.com comes to us. Then, in the aliasing, a *new* message for localpart@clients.isp.example.net is generated. That is to say, mail to info@client.example.com is addressed to an entity which is responsible for generating new messages actually to the client - it's not relaying as such, because the envelope is new. -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Dec 25 19:06:55 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA13075 for ; Thu, 25 Dec 2003 19:06:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AZfUs-0004E1-3Q for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 25 Dec 2003 19:06:30 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBQ06Uqg016237 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 25 Dec 2003 19:06:30 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AZfUr-0004Do-WF for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 25 Dec 2003 19:06:30 -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 TAA13069 for ; Thu, 25 Dec 2003 19:06:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AZfUo-0002yQ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Dec 2003 19:06:26 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AZfSu-0002w5-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Dec 2003 19:04:29 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AZfS4-0002uK-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Dec 2003 19:03:36 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AZfRU-00043W-Nl; Thu, 25 Dec 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 1AZfR9-00043I-WA for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 25 Dec 2003 19:02:40 -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 TAA13041 for ; Thu, 25 Dec 2003 19:02:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AZfR6-0002tC-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Dec 2003 19:02:36 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AZfPG-0002pW-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Dec 2003 19:00:43 -0500 Received: from out2.smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.26]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AZfOm-0002ll-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Dec 2003 19:00:13 -0500 X-Sasl-enc: HJh+yJOnnWiToEIm/zQoyA 1072396811 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 6FC9548CF65; Thu, 25 Dec 2003 19:00:10 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3FEB7A0A.7040106@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 References: <3FE9CE28.9000105@zemos.net> <20031224203456.54F6D170A5@mail.nitros9.org> <20031225032524.GA2580@m433> In-Reply-To: <20031225032524.GA2580@m433> 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: 03.1 Re: Forgery in SMTP (applying flame retardent) Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2003 16:00:10 -0800 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-8.0 required=5.0 tests=HABEAS_SWE autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 12/24/2003 7:25 PM, Walter Dnes sent forth electrons to convey: >On Wed, Dec 24, 2003 at 03:34:56PM -0500, Alan DeKok wrote > > >>Philip Miller wrote: >> >> >>>There are two problems caused by the potential forgery that is possible in SMTP: >>>1. Filtering by sender's address is hard when someone could forge a friend's >>>address. >>> >>> >> Which is where accountability comes in. >> >> Walt: I think Alan is implicitly referring to the LMAP technology, which WILL allow the victim to prevent abuse of their name. Of course, it doesn't work IRL yet, and I can see how you wouldn't realise he was referring to it. Flamewar quenched, I hope. Chill, guys. >> >> >>>2. One can't hold the victim of the forgery accountable for the junk >>>transmitted. >>> >>> >> Why not? If they haven't done anything to prevent the (ab)use of >>their name, how can the recipient tell if a message is real, or >>abusive? >> >> > > A spammer sends out a viagra spam "From: "Alan DeKok" <*****@ox.org>". >How are the 20 million strangers it's addressed to going to *REJECT* it? >At these volumes, merely accepting the email and storing it in >recipients' "spam folders" will cause smaller ISPs to run out of >mailspool space. What actions can *YOU* take that would allow >verification/authentication of the "From:" during the SMTP transaction ? > > > >> In many jurisdictions, communications providers are indemnified for >>any illegal activities by their customers. >> >> > > Maybe the responsibility should be placed on the person/company >nominally in control of the sending machine. I.e. the owner of a >compromised home machine that is spewing out this garbage, or the renter >of compromised colo machine who has put a copy of "Matt's Monstrosity" >in his CGI directory. > > Most blacklists and complaints to abuse desks tend to cause the ISPs in control to accept responsibility, but they're far from perfect. Laws sometimes do require them to accept responsibility. IIRC, AOL successfully sued a spammers ISP where the ISP itself really was a front for the spammer, but I'm getting OT. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Dec 26 12:23:22 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA29039 for ; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 12:23:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AZvfr-0008Eg-D7 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 12:22:55 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBQHMtCU031654 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 12:22:55 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AZvfp-0008ET-Pm for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 12:22:55 -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 MAA29031 for ; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 12:22:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AZvfo-0001UZ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 12:22:52 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AZvdy-0001QO-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 12:20:58 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AZvcO-0001MS-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 12:19:20 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AZvc5-00082c-5l; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 12:19:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AZvc1-00082R-Nk for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 12:18:59 -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 MAA28939 for ; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 12:18:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AZvc0-0001LD-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 12:18:56 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AZvaC-0001HK-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 12:17:05 -0500 Received: from sccrmhc12.comcast.net ([204.127.202.56]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AZvZn-0001D9-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 12:16:39 -0500 Received: from somewhere.comcast.net (c-24-6-1-182.client.comcast.net[24.6.1.182]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc12) with SMTP id <2003122617160601200rmo6ce> (Authid: s.schear); Fri, 26 Dec 2003 17:16:09 +0000 Message-Id: <6.0.1.1.0.20031226091431.05aac280@mail.comcast.net> X-Sender: s.schear@mail.comcast.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.1.1 To: ASRG From: Steve Schear Cc: Adam Back Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: [Asrg] Microsoft publicly announces Penny Black PoW postage project Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2003 09:14:53 -0800 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3324883.stm Adam Back is part of this team, I think. Similar approach to Camram/hahscash. Memory-based approaches have been discussed. Why hasn't Camram explored them? steve BTW, Penny Black stamp was only used briefly. It was the Penny Red which was used for decades. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Dec 26 12:43:19 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA29389 for ; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 12:43:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AZvzA-0000Xx-FW for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 12:42:52 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBQHgq5s002095 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 12:42:52 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AZvzA-0000Xi-B5 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 12:42:52 -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 MAA29385 for ; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 12:42:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AZvz8-0002AT-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 12:42:50 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AZvxH-00027E-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 12:40:56 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AZvvX-00023n-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 12:39:07 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AZvvR-0000Mw-7h; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 12:39:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AZvvH-0000MI-NW for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 12:38:51 -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 MAA29315 for ; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 12:38:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AZvvG-00022N-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 12:38:50 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AZvtM-0001yY-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 12:36:53 -0500 Received: from sccrmhc12.comcast.net ([204.127.202.56]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AZvrz-0001uz-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 12:35:27 -0500 Received: from art.lextek.com (c-67-161-220-214.client.comcast.net[67.161.220.214]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc12) with SMTP id <2003122617345701200r5e22e>; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 17:34:57 +0000 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20031226102750.0646aec8@mail.1s.com> X-Sender: PollardA@mail.1s.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 To: Steve Schear , Asrg@ietf.org From: Art Pollard Subject: Re: [Asrg] Microsoft publicly announces Penny Black PoW postage project In-Reply-To: <6.0.1.1.0.20031226091431.05aac280@mail.comcast.net> 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, 26 Dec 2003 10:34:52 -0700 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 At 10:14 AM 12/26/2003, you wrote: >http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3324883.stm The concern that I would have is whether Microsoft has any patents currently in existence or any submarine patents that Microsoft will finalize in 5-10 years and demand a lock on e-mail if it is adopted. I wouldn't worry about such techniques from most other companies since most try to be on the up-and up but Microsoft has a history of pulling stunts such as this. (Such as when they programmed early versions of Windows to crash when DRDOS was running which killed DRDOS. Novell won the suit but Microsoft still had the permanent lock on the market at that point.) What would be nice though is if someone could set the amount of time it takes to have messages pass through. For example, the president of IBM would have a higher "cost" for his time than the average home user. -Art -- Art Pollard http://www.lextek.com/ Suppliers of High Performance Text Retrieval Engines. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Dec 26 13:49:37 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA00664 for ; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 13:49:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AZx1I-0002D3-Us for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 13:49:09 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBQIn8IM008487 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 13:49:08 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AZx1I-0002Co-Qc for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 13:49:08 -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 NAA00654 for ; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 13:49:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AZx1B-0004LF-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 13:49:01 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AZwxC-0004Jc-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 13:44:55 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AZwvU-0004HO-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 13:43:08 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AZwvN-00023c-9Q; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 13:43:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AZwvK-000239-Tg for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 13:42:58 -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 NAA00584 for ; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 13:42:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AZwvI-0004G5-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 13:42:56 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AZwtP-0004D5-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 13:41:00 -0500 Received: from ns1.mvps.org ([158.64.60.224] helo=edge.zoo.securewave.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AZwsC-0004AA-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 13:39:44 -0500 Received: from laptop.mvps.org (unverified [142.59.217.86]) by edge.zoo.securewave.com (Rockliffe SMTPRA 4.5.6) with ESMTP id for ; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 19:39:43 +0100 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20031226110817.00b9e780@localhost> X-Sender: ttoews@localhost X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 To: asrg@ietf.org From: Tony Toews In-Reply-To: <20031224170005.8026.71206.Mailman@www1.ietf.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-706670D1; boundary="=======E3318AC=======" Subject: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - C/R and "callbacks" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2003 11:39:39 -0700 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,NO_COST autolearn=no version=2.60 --=======E3318AC======= Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-706670D1; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit At 12:00 PM 2003/12/24 -0500, you wrote: > > From my very simplistic view of the email systems it seems to me that > > the msgid id could be part of the verification mechanism. The > > originating MTA stamps the outgoing email with a unique message id. > > Once the header portion of the email is received then the recipient MTA > > does a name lookup on the originating MTA and verifies that the > > originating MTA sent that msgid. Once the receipient MTA finishes > > accepting the email the originating MTA then never uses that msgid again. >... > >This approach is outlined by William Elan (he calls it "callback"): >http://www.elan.net/~william/asrg-emailpathverification-presentation.pdf >This is also mentioned in the CRI proposal (level 2): >http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-irtf-asrg-cri-00.txt Thanks for the URLs. I'll review those >This basic argument against this is that it is very resource intensive, >with a lot of extra costs such as more powerful servers that can handle >callbacks, more bandwidth, and extra disk space to store IDs. More powerful servers? Well sure but what are we doing now to handle spam with word and Bayesian etc filtering along with RBL lookups? In addition the msgid would only be verified by the receiving MTA when the sending MTA is actually sending the email header info. So the msgid is already in RAM thus no cost to do a disk I/O to retrieve information. More bandwidth? If this kind of thing cuts spam by a significant margin that's a good tradeoff. Also the network traffic is only as many bytes as the msgid plus some overhead along with the ack by the transmitting MTA. Along with retrieving the IP address of the sending MTA from the domain name in the email header. Disk space? Every email currently has, or should have, a unique msgid. >There are >also DOS issues: someone forging a domain can cause the forged domain to >go under with too many callbacks. DOS could happen today with someone sending lots of emails to a given receiving MTA. >There are privacy issues as well, and >possible replay attacks. I don't see the privacy issues here. Replay attack? Same as a DOS. >However, the bottom line here, is that why go through the trouble of >checking every single message. Granted that it increases costs, >nevertheless if we can significantly reduce the problem through >verification of MTAs as opposed to senders and messages, why go through >the extra costs of message verification. This proposal is on the table, >but we will pursue it only if a significant advantage vs. costs can be >proven for this way of doing things, over others requiring less costs. Ok, this makes sense. But if I understand the proposals the public key will be retained by the DNS servers. Thus increasing the load on those servers. Mind you they would be cached by your "closest" DNS server so that wouldn't be too bad. Tony ----- Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP Microsoft Access Links, Hints, Tips & Accounting Systems at http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm --=======E3318AC=======-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Dec 26 14:35:22 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA01801 for ; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 14:35:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AZxjb-0003Zi-1S for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 14:34:55 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBQJYt8K013742 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 14:34:55 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AZxja-0003ZZ-Sd for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 14:34:54 -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 OAA01744 for ; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 14:34:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AZxjY-0005mb-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 14:34:52 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AZxhh-0005k3-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 14:32:58 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AZxfv-0005hQ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 14:31:07 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AZxfq-0003Fp-PK; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 14:31:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AZxfg-0003F1-Fk for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 14:30:52 -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 OAA01635 for ; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 14:30:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AZxfd-0005eo-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 14:30:49 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AZxdq-0005d2-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 14:28:59 -0500 Received: from sccrmhc13.comcast.net ([204.127.202.64]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AZxco-0005aq-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 14:27:54 -0500 Received: from art.lextek.com (c-67-161-220-214.client.comcast.net[67.161.220.214]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc13) with SMTP id <2003122619272301600rknaje>; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 19:27:23 +0000 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20031226122103.06d41d28@mail.1s.com> X-Sender: PollardA@mail.1s.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 To: Art Pollard , Asrg@ietf.org From: Art Pollard Subject: Re: [Asrg] Microsoft publicly announces Penny Black PoW postage project In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20031226102750.0646aec8@mail.1s.com> References: <6.0.1.1.0.20031226091431.05aac280@mail.comcast.net> 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, 26 Dec 2003 12:27:18 -0700 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 One problem I see with Microsoft's approach is that spammers could build server farms to combat it. In fact, the fact that it uses RAM access speeds as a speed determining factor rather than CPU speeds has in fact just as serious a problem as the CPU speed issue. Spammers could build server farms with cheap inexpensive computers and 10 computers would allow them to send out 10 times the amount of spam. By basing the algorithm on disk access times rather than CPU times, it would mean that spammers could then use cheap inexpensive computers to solve the puzzle. For example, how expensive would it be to buy Pentium 100's, 486's or even 386's (if you can find them) and build a server farm? These used systems could be had for less than $100 and perhaps far less. It might help slow down the "home" spammer but surely those that send out the bulk of the spam can afford additional computers to divide up the CPU processing load (and the power to power them.) -Art -- Art Pollard http://www.lextek.com/ Suppliers of High Performance Text Retrieval Engines. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Dec 26 14:37:35 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA01915 for ; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 14:37:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AZxlj-0003cm-Im for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 14:37:07 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBQJb7HD013926 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 14:37:07 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AZxli-0003cU-8y for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 14:37:06 -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 OAA01907 for ; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 14:37:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AZxlf-0005rm-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 14:37:03 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AZxjk-0005os-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 14:35:05 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AZxih-0005l1-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 14:33:59 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AZxii-0003P5-J5; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 14:34:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AZx5F-0002F2-LS for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 13:53:19 -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 NAA00726 for ; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 13:53:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AZx56-0004OY-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 13:53:04 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AZx1X-0004MP-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 13:49:24 -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 1AZwzQ-0004KD-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 13:47:12 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (p67-39.acedsl.com [66.114.67.39]) by dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HQI00ERCMSDMF@dedicated60-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for Asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 18:45:51 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich In-reply-to: <5.1.0.14.2.20031226102750.0646aec8@mail.1s.com> To: Art Pollard Cc: Steve Schear , Asrg@ietf.org Message-id: <3FEC81DD.9060603@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 5.0; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007 X-Enigmail-Version: 0.82.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime References: <5.1.0.14.2.20031226102750.0646aec8@mail.1s.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Subject: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Computational - MSFT's "Penny Black" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2003 13:45:49 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT [Subject changed as per posting guidelines, was "Re: [Asrg] Microsoft publicly announces Penny Black PoW postage project". Mod.] Art Pollard wrote: > At 10:14 AM 12/26/2003, you wrote: > >> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3324883.stm > Some interesting quotes: > The idea was originally formulated to use CPU memory cycles by team > member Cynthia Dwork in 1992. But they soon realised it was better to > use memory latency - the time it takes for the computer's processor > to get information from its memory chip - than CPU power. They are addressing one of the problems with HashCash - spammers with faster computers can do it faster, and also mobile users will have problems as well. > That way, it does not matter how old or new a computer is because the > system does not rely on processor chip speeds, which can improve at > rapid rates. > > A cryptographic puzzle that is simple enough not to bog down the > processor too much, but that requires information to be accessed from > memory, levels the difference between older and newer computers. One problem that I see with this that nothing prevents spammers from building specialized chips to do the computation. I remember sometime ago that a specialized computer or chip was build to crack DES. But then again, I am not a big cryptography expert and a lot of the details here are murky. > > The concern that I would have is whether Microsoft has any patents > currently in existence or any submarine patents that Microsoft will > finalize in 5-10 years and demand a lock on e-mail if it is adopted. > This brings us to another interest quote in the article: > "Microsoft's idea is to shift this cost burden from the recipient to > the sender, which in itself seems like a reasonable sentiment." But, > he said, for such a scheme to be all-encompassing, there would have > to be some provision for open standards, so that it is not > proprietary to Microsoft. I wouldn't be suprised if they came here asking for standards on their technology, but if that does happen, they are required to disclose their IPR ahead of time. What is also strange to me, is that they are releasing this by themselves, not as part of their "big gorilla" alliance with AOL and Yahoo. Taking into account that Yahoo released their proposal by themselves as well, it raises questions about their alliance. 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 Fri Dec 26 16:13:18 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA05206 for ; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 16:13:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AZzGM-0006GH-W2 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 16:12:51 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBQLCopJ024065 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 16:12:50 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AZzGM-0006G4-P1 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 16:12:50 -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 QAA05188 for ; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 16:12:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AZzGL-00016C-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 16:12:49 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AZzER-00014X-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 16:10:52 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AZzCr-00013H-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 16:09:13 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AZzCe-00064B-RP; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 16:09:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AZzCR-00063l-S4 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 16:08:47 -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 QAA05141 for ; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 16:08:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AZzCQ-00011Y-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 16:08:46 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AZzAV-0000zW-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 16:06:48 -0500 Received: from sccrmhc11.comcast.net ([204.127.202.55]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AZz8d-0000w3-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 16:04:51 -0500 Received: from fda.zemos.net ([68.38.12.170]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc11) with ESMTP id <2003122621042101100klgcee>; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 21:04:21 +0000 Received: from zemos.net (phil [10.0.0.2]) by fda.zemos.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6E01186A2; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 16:04:32 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3FECA27D.3020106@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: Tony Toews Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - C/R and "callbacks" References: <5.1.0.14.2.20031226110817.00b9e780@localhost> In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20031226110817.00b9e780@localhost> 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, 26 Dec 2003 16:05:01 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,NO_COST autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Tony Toews wrote: > [snip] >> This basic argument against this is that it is very resource intensive, >> with a lot of extra costs such as more powerful servers that can handle >> callbacks, more bandwidth, and extra disk space to store IDs. > > More powerful servers? Well sure but what are we doing now to handle > spam with word and Bayesian etc filtering along with RBL lookups? In > addition the msgid would only be verified by the receiving MTA when the > sending MTA is actually sending the email header info. So the msgid is > already in RAM thus no cost to do a disk I/O to retrieve information. In terms of total computation necessary, sure, Bayesian is more expensive than just about anything else. However, keep in mind relative costs: bayesian filtering is often happening on the users' desktops, or on a private mailserver where the load doesn't affect any public services. Have you heard of any large corporations or ISPs setting up individual Bayesian filters for each user and rejecting mail at the MX using those filters? I certainly haven't. > More bandwidth? If this kind of thing cuts spam by a significant margin > that's a good tradeoff. Also the network traffic is only as many bytes > as the msgid plus some overhead along with the ack by the transmitting > MTA. Along with retrieving the IP address of the sending MTA from the > domain name in the email header. > > Disk space? Every email currently has, or should have, a unique msgid. Yes, the bandwidth savings would probably be excellent. Keep in mind that computation is currently cheaper than storage or anything else. So people are willing to expend a lot of computation. If we could come up with a way to increase the bandwidth costs of sending spam without increasing the recipients' costs as well, that'd be really cool. Of course, that disregards the loads of spam sent from systems that don't cost spammers a thing: hijacked systems, virus/worm infected systems, virtualmda systems, etc. >> There are also DOS issues: someone forging a domain can cause the >> forged domain to go under with too many callbacks. > > DOS could happen today with someone sending lots of emails to a given > receiving MTA. Yes, but a callback DoS would mean an extra level of indirection to track down the attacker. Look at what happened to grc.com a while back, with what its owner, Steve Gibson, called a "Distributed Reflection Denial of Service". A whole lot of machines started forging TCP SYN packets to central internet routers' BGP ports, and they flooded him. Hopefully, there would be some logging on the intermediate reflection MTAs in an attack like this, but it wouldn't mean much. >> There are privacy issues as well, and possible replay attacks. > > I don't see the privacy issues here. Replay attack? Same as a DOS. Privacy issues are not likely if this is done with any sort of care at all. We just need to make sure that numbers used can only be related to message parameters by the server that generated the numbers. Replay attack prevention would take some more effort. We'd need to ensure that a spammer can't hack a legitimate mailing list server and send spam with the same ID numbers as messages sent to the list initially. >> However, the bottom line here, is that why go through the trouble of >> checking every single message. Granted that it increases costs, >> nevertheless if we can significantly reduce the problem through >> verification of MTAs as opposed to senders and messages, why go through >> the extra costs of message verification. This proposal is on the table, >> but we will pursue it only if a significant advantage vs. costs can be >> proven for this way of doing things, over others requiring less costs. > > Ok, this makes sense. But if I understand the proposals the public key > will be retained by the DNS servers. Thus increasing the load on those > servers. Mind you they would be cached by your "closest" DNS server so > that wouldn't be too bad. Generally, DNS load arguments haven't really held up, except if DNS servers are expected to perform any sort of computations. So the proposal is fine on that front. Philip Miller _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Dec 26 16:35:26 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA05650 for ; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 16:35:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AZzbm-0006hK-7K for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 16:34:58 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBQLYw42025740 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 16:34:58 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AZzbm-0006h5-0w for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 16:34:58 -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 QAA05577 for ; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 16:34:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AZzbk-0001fT-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 16:34:56 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AZzZy-0001ce-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 16:33:07 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AZzZ5-0001Ys-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 16:32:11 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AZzYv-0006W0-EI; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 16:32:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AZzY2-0006UR-3V for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 16:31:06 -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 QAA05449 for ; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 16:31:03 -0500 (EST) From: gep2@terabites.com Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AZzY0-0001XU-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 16:31:04 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AZzW8-0001U1-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 16:29:09 -0500 Received: from h008.c000.snv.cp.net ([209.228.32.72] helo=c000.snv.cp.net) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AZzVO-0001QB-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 16:28:22 -0500 Received: (cpmta 4004 invoked from network); 26 Dec 2003 13:28:21 -0800 Received: from 24.0.183.151 (HELO WinProxy.anywhere) by smtp.terabites.com (209.228.32.72) with SMTP; 26 Dec 2003 13:28:21 -0800 X-Sent: 26 Dec 2003 21:28:21 GMT Received: from 192.168.0.30 by 192.168.0.1 (WinProxy); Fri, 26 Dec 2003 15:28:21 -0600 Received: from 192.168.0.240 (unverified [192.168.0.240]) by nts1.terabites.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 16:14:04 -0600 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <20031226170007.27970.47584.Mailman@www1.ietf.org> X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] Re: 03.1 Re: Forgery in SMTP Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2003 16:14:04 -0600 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,NO_REAL_NAME, PENIS_ENLARGE2,RATWARE_EMWAC autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >>>>>There are two problems caused by the potential forgery that is possible in SMTP: >>>>1. Filtering by sender's address is hard when someone could forge a friend's >>>>address. >>> Which is where accountability comes in. >Walt: I think Alan is implicitly referring to the LMAP technology, which >WILL allow the victim to prevent abuse of their name. >Of course, it doesn't work IRL yet, and I can see how you wouldn't >realise he was referring to it. >Flamewar quenched, I hope. Chill, guys. To begin with, spam volumes become far less of a problem (inboxes overflowing, byte volumes, spool space, bandwidth, etc etc) when the spams are simply smaller. I've previously suggested as a BEGINNING to the solution that recipients be able to whitelist "authorized" senders to send them "special" type posts. By default, an unrecognized or unauthorized person would be able to send the recipient a "simple", small post... no attachments, no HTML-burdened content (including NO embedded images, no scripting, etc)!, maybe with an upper-bound size of 10K or 50K or something. Note that this no-images, no-attachments, no-HTML-burdened rule immediately squashes the GREAT majority of tricks that spammers employ to obscure their message or hide their content from filters and keyword scanners and the like. It also virtually eliminates in one fell swoop the great majority of viruses and worms. This approach is simple, straightforward, easily implemented at the recipients end (or their ISP) and immediately effective. It doesn't require any great global redesign of the Internet. While it is POSSIBLE to get past it (if for example the virus gets lucky and manages to forge a From address which just happens to be authorized to send attachments (and moreover, EXECUTABLE attachments) to the recipient, the numbers are still WAY smaller than they are now... perhaps small enough that the resulting success rate will be too small for the virus or worm to end up being viable. Now, I have lately been getting "junk" spam messages which contain NO visible purpose whatsoever... they don't point at any Web site, they don't have any apparent return receipt requested, they just contain a bunch of random words. Perhaps these are ONLY being sent to see if they bounce back as undeliverable... hard to say! Perhaps their "real" content is in an HTML-burdened alternative version (which gets stripped out of all E-mail upon arrival here). I don't know that much of any spam filter is likely to end up blocking mail like this (but then again, it's not clear what other benefit there would be for spammers to send it, either). Certainly if this were to get widespread, it would be almost as annoying as the familiar commercial-type spam shilling for porn sites or hawking herbal penis enlargement. >>>>2. One can't hold the victim of the forgery accountable for the junk >>>>transmitted. >>> Why not? If they haven't done anything to prevent the (ab)use of >>>their name, how can the recipient tell if a message is real, or >>>abusive? >> A spammer sends out a viagra spam "From: "Alan DeKok" <*****@ox.org>". >>How are the 20 million strangers it's addressed to going to *REJECT* it? >>At these volumes, merely accepting the email and storing it in >>recipients' "spam folders" will cause smaller ISPs to run out of >>mailspool space. That's pretty much an oxymoron... if they're getting 20 million copies of it, then they're probably not a "smaller" ISP. Certainly it WOULD be possible to "mailbomb" a given target (maybe smaller) ISP (e.g. a virus or worm which would commandeer victim computers and cause them to each send thousands and thousands of E-mail messages to target ISPs or users) but that's going to be possible anyhow, and is really pretty much outside the topic that WE are tasked with dealing with. That's really more of a Denial of Service attack. >>What actions can *YOU* take that would allow >>verification/authentication of the "From:" during the SMTP transaction ? I'm not convinced that it's necessarily practical and maybe not even desirable to even try. First of all, there are many legitimate reasons for people to send E-mails through relays, foreign ISPs, or other services not usually associated with their From: address. They might be travelling (perhaps even internationally) at an Internet cafe, airport waiting lounge E-mail kiosk, cruise ship Internet access lounge, in-airplane E-mail service, public library, or post office. In each of these cases, they clearly want the replies to come to their own (perhaps "vanity") domain, and maybe they never will ever again even be at the point where the prior E-mail message was actually sent from. What's more, consider the case of mailing lists (Yahoogroups is a good example) as "anonymizers" of sorts of messages. They forward messages (as individual messages or perhaps as digests) and these sorts of mailing lists are terribly important to large classes of internet users. Sometimes these messages bear the original sender's From address, sometimes they bear the list's From address. Gordon Peterson http://personal.terabites.com/ 1977-2002 Twenty-fifth anniversary year of Local Area Networking! Support the Anti-SPAM Amendment! Join at http://www.cauce.org/ 12/19/98: Partisan Republicans scornfully ignore the voters they "represent". 12/09/00: the date the Republican Party took down democracy in America. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Dec 26 18:19:23 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA09185 for ; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 18:19:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aa1EO-0001Rz-JB for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 18:18:56 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBQNIua2005572 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 18:18:56 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aa1EO-0001Rn-0z for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 18:18:56 -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 SAA09150 for ; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 18:18:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aa1EK-0004tP-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 18:18:53 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Aa1CS-0004q8-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 18:16:57 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aa1Al-0004nt-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 18:15:11 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aa1Ac-0001Id-T9; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 18:15:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aa1AQ-0001Hr-Sn for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 18:14:51 -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 SAA08827 for ; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 18:14:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aa1AO-0004lI-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 18:14:48 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Aa18U-0004iE-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 18:12:50 -0500 Received: from sccrmhc11.comcast.net ([204.127.202.55]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aa16c-0004e6-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 18:10:55 -0500 Received: from DCMSX411 (c-24-15-182-233.client.comcast.net[24.15.182.233]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc11) with SMTP id <2003122623102501100klrd8e>; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 23:10:25 +0000 Message-ID: <002401c3cc05$73f5d7a0$e9b60f18@DCMSX411> From: "Vinny" To: "Art Pollard" , References: <6.0.1.1.0.20031226091431.05aac280@mail.comcast.net> <5.1.0.14.2.20031226122103.06d41d28@mail.1s.com> Subject: Re: [Asrg] Microsoft publicly announces Penny Black PoW postage project 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, 26 Dec 2003 17:10:28 -0600 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.9 required=5.0 tests=FROM_ENDS_IN_NUMS autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit For example, how expensive would it be to buy Pentium > 100's, 486's or even 386's (if you can find them) and build a server > farm? These used systems could be had for less than $100 and perhaps far less. Much cheaper, in fact. Try retrobox.com, or this url: http://www.retrobox.com/rbwww/home/search_results_pc_computers.asp?bin_id=world&page=1&Manufacturer_ID=&CPU_ID=&CPU_Speed_ID=&RAM_ID=&HD_Size_ID=&CD_ROM_Flag=&Price=&order_by=price%5Fcurrent%5Fselling%5Fprice+asc At this web page, at the time I looked at it, they were offering a Pentium 2, 133 mhz, 64 mb ram for $11.00, but you'd have to pay $30 or so for shipping. > It might help slow down the "home" spammer but surely those that send out > the bulk of the spam can afford additional computers to divide up the CPU > processing load (and the power to power them.) But every little decrease in spam helps. There was a slashdot article a while back about a Bible thumping grandma spammer, (I would provide the url, but /.'s search function is not coming up and Google's not helping) and we really need to get those spammers out of the way. How much spam do they account for? We'll never know until we try. And if we make spamming more costly, more technical knowledge required, then we can start cutting into the biggest spammers profit margins. -Vinny _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Dec 26 19:03:20 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA10286 for ; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 19:03:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aa1ux-0002Zo-6D for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 19:02:55 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBR02tCl009898 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 19:02:55 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aa1ux-0002ZZ-0Y for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 19:02:55 -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 TAA10238 for ; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 19:02:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aa1ut-0006Di-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 19:02:51 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Aa1t6-00069G-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 19:01:01 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aa1rI-000661-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 18:59:08 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aa1rB-0002Ol-8K; Fri, 26 Dec 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 1Aa1r7-0002Nf-1z for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 18:58:57 -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 SAA10133 for ; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 18:58:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aa1r3-00063M-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 18:58:53 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Aa1pE-000612-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 18:57:01 -0500 Received: from vienna1-242-050.biz.dsl.gtei.net ([4.3.242.50] helo=localhost.dsl.gtei.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aa1nW-0005yj-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 18:55:15 -0500 Received: from tgharold.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost.dsl.gtei.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.2600.1106); Fri, 26 Dec 2003 18:55:00 -0500 Message-ID: <3FECCA51.10502@tgharold.com> From: Thomas Harold User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6b) Gecko/20031205 Thunderbird/0.4 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Computational - MSFT's "Penny Black" References: <6.0.1.1.0.20031226091431.05aac280@mail.comcast.net> <5.1.0.14.2.20031226122103.06d41d28@mail.1s.com> <002401c3cc05$73f5d7a0$e9b60f18@DCMSX411> In-Reply-To: <002401c3cc05$73f5d7a0$e9b60f18@DCMSX411> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.82.5.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Dec 2003 23:55:00.0127 (UTC) FILETIME=[AC2442F0:01C3CC0B] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2003 18:54:57 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Vinny wrote: > For example, how expensive would it be to buy Pentium > >>100's, 486's or even 386's (if you can find them) and build a server >>farm? These used systems could be had for less than $100 and perhaps far > > less. > > Much cheaper, in fact. Try retrobox.com, or this url: > > http://www.retrobox.com/rbwww/home/search_results_pc_computers.asp?bin_id=world&page=1&Manufacturer_ID=&CPU_ID=&CPU_Speed_ID=&RAM_ID=&HD_Size_ID=&CD_ROM_Flag=&Price=&order_by=price%5Fcurrent%5Fselling%5Fprice+asc > > At this web page, at the time I looked at it, they were offering a Pentium > 2, 133 mhz, 64 mb ram for $11.00, but you'd have to pay $30 or so for > shipping. > > >>It might help slow down the "home" spammer but surely those that send out >>the bulk of the spam can afford additional computers to divide up the CPU >>processing load (and the power to power them.) > > But every little decrease in spam helps. There was a slashdot article a > while back about a Bible thumping grandma spammer, (I would provide the url, > but /.'s search function is not coming up and Google's not helping) and we > really need to get those spammers out of the way. How much spam do they > account for? We'll never know until we try. And if we make spamming more > costly, more technical knowledge required, then we can start cutting into > the biggest spammers profit margins. > > -Vinny > (slashdot link) http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/12/14/198202 The Life of a Spammer Posted by timothy on Sunday December 14, @02:28PM from the neighbor-v-neighbor dept. An anonymous reader writes "The Atlanta Journal-Constitution ran an interesting article today about the life of a "small time" spammer. It is interesting to note that even a religiously zealous grandmother can mire our inboxes with junk." That's Flo Fox, of Slidell, LA. (my comments) HashCash / Penny Black proposals suffer from one flaw that I see... they assume that there is no legitimate reason for a low-budget organization to send high volumes of e-mail. Driving up the costs for spammers also drives up the costs for things like public mailing list servers. Unfortunately, I'll bet spammers have deeper pockets or else they'll just hijack additional machines to meet their quotas (something the legitimate low-budget organization can't/won't do). It's still an interesting idea, but I'm not sure that it's practical in the real-world. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Dec 26 19:17:38 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA10686 for ; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 19:17:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aa28l-0003FZ-2z for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 19:17:11 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBR0HBEI012487 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 19:17:11 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aa28k-0003FK-VW for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 19:17:11 -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 TAA10680 for ; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 19:17:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aa28j-0006qA-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 19:17:09 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Aa274-0006lp-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 19:15:27 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aa25y-0006el-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 19:14:18 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aa25h-00034x-AE; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 19:14:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aa253-00033I-9R for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 19:13:21 -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 TAA10526 for ; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 19:13:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aa251-0006dr-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 19:13:19 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Aa239-0006YJ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 19:11:24 -0500 Received: from jtel.ca ([64.7.158.10] helo=mail.worldline.ca) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aa22P-0006Sh-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 19:10:37 -0500 Received: from waltdnes.org ([38.112.103.17]) by mail.worldline.ca (8.12.8/8.12.8) with SMTP id hBR1JBR3019349 for ; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 20:19:12 -0500 Received: by waltdnes.org (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Fri, 26 Dec 2003 19:10:30 +4300 From: Walter Dnes To: ASRG list Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 03.1 Re: Forgery in SMTP (applying flame retardent) Message-ID: <20031227001030.GA4708@m433> References: <3FE9CE28.9000105@zemos.net> <20031224203456.54F6D170A5@mail.nitros9.org> <20031225032524.GA2580@m433> <3FEB7A0A.7040106@elvey.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3FEB7A0A.7040106@elvey.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, 26 Dec 2003 19:10:30 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 On Thu, Dec 25, 2003 at 04:00:10PM -0800, Matthew Elvey wrote > Walt: I think Alan is implicitly referring to the LMAP technology, which > WILL allow the victim to prevent abuse of their name. > Of course, it doesn't work IRL yet, and I can see how you wouldn't > realise he was referring to it. > Flamewar quenched, I hope. Chill, guys. I apologize if I came on too strong. I was trying to say that Alan should not be held responsible for the misdeeds of others. The ultimate responsibility lies with the spammer, and contributory negligence may be attributed to owners of compromised machines. The point I was trying to make was that SMTP allows almost any text (excepting .\n\n) in the raw DATA: body. The DATA: body includes the "From:" header. Most MUAs don't know about envelope-sender, and many ISPs omit envelope-sender in the email as delivered to the end-user's POP account. The only thing that the recipient can know for certain (assuming they can parse headers) is the final external IP address that handed the email to their ISP. -- 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 Dec 26 19:41:24 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA11251 for ; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 19:41:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aa2Vl-00044l-IE for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 19:40:57 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBR0evT9015661 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 19:40:57 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aa2Vk-00044W-T1 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 19:40:57 -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 TAA11199 for ; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 19:40:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aa2Vj-0007Xo-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 19:40:55 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Aa2Ts-0007Tu-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 19:39:01 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aa2S7-0007Qf-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 19:37:11 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aa2Rx-0003d1-Hb; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 19:37:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aa2Ru-0003cW-69 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 19:36:58 -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 TAA11036 for ; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 19:36:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aa2Rs-0007OI-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 19:36:56 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Aa2Px-0007JR-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 19:34:58 -0500 Received: from sccrmhc12.comcast.net ([204.127.202.56]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aa2Ok-0007H5-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 19:33:42 -0500 Received: from DCMSX411 (c-24-15-182-233.client.comcast.net[24.15.182.233]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc12) with SMTP id <2003122700331201200rc11pe>; Sat, 27 Dec 2003 00:33:12 +0000 Message-ID: <001a01c3cc11$04ba62a0$e9b60f18@DCMSX411> From: "Vinny" To: "Thomas Harold" , References: <6.0.1.1.0.20031226091431.05aac280@mail.comcast.net> <5.1.0.14.2.20031226122103.06d41d28@mail.1s.com> <002401c3cc05$73f5d7a0$e9b60f18@DCMSX411> <3FECCA51.10502@tgharold.com> Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Computational - MSFT's "Penny Black" 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, 26 Dec 2003 18:33:15 -0600 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,FROM_ENDS_IN_NUMS autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > (slashdot link) > > http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/12/14/198202 > (stuff deleted) > HashCash / Penny Black proposals suffer from one flaw that I see... they > assume that there is no legitimate reason for a low-budget organization > to send high volumes of e-mail. Driving up the costs for spammers also > drives up the costs for things like public mailing list servers. > Unfortunately, I'll bet spammers have deeper pockets or else they'll > just hijack additional machines to meet their quotas (something the > legitimate low-budget organization can't/won't do). > > It's still an interesting idea, but I'm not sure that it's practical in > the real-world. Thanks, that was the article I referred to. And, yes, I think you're absolutely right. There are legitimate reasons for small businesses/organizations to send out large quantities of email. (like this mailing list) The problem is, they can't possibly waste that much time sending each email, which is why I think the SPF spec is such a good idea. But, just for the sake of argument, can't we use MS's plan, then for those email sources that can't waste the time, just whitelist on an individual basis? I actively ferreted out this list, actively sent an email to subscribe. The ASRG mailing list people didn't send me an email out of the blue, asking me "Do you want to join this anti spam list?". I can't think of any non spam situation that wouldn't be covered by the MS plan/Hashcash + individual whitelisting. People I don't know that really want to contact me (e.g. an old high school friend) can still contact me out of the blue, and for the legitimate mass emailers, I can whitelist. Of course, there are smarter people than me on this list. Anyone want to point out deficiencies in my argument? -Vinny _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Dec 26 23:29:43 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA16613 for ; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 23:29:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aa64h-0001Gk-56 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 23:29:15 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBR4TF6W004879 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 23:29:15 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aa64f-0001Gc-Q5 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 23:29:13 -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 XAA16610 for ; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 23:29:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aa64d-0006PG-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 23:29:11 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Aa62u-0006LM-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 23:27:25 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aa62E-0006F7-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 23:26:42 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aa61b-00016A-Bs; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 23:26:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aa60t-00014I-B1 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 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 XAA16400 for ; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 23:25:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aa60r-0006AH-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 23:25:17 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Aa5z0-0005ul-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 23:23:23 -0500 Received: from vienna1-242-050.biz.dsl.gtei.net ([4.3.242.50] helo=localhost.dsl.gtei.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aa5wy-0005a9-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 23:21:17 -0500 Received: from tgharold.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost.dsl.gtei.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.2600.1106); Fri, 26 Dec 2003 23:21:10 -0500 Message-ID: <3FED08B5.4040304@tgharold.com> From: Thomas Harold User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6b) Gecko/20031205 Thunderbird/0.4 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Computational - MSFT's "Penny Black" References: <002401c3cc05$73f5d7a0$e9b60f18@DCMSX411> <6.0.1.1.0.20031226091431.05aac280@mail.comcast.net> <5.1.0.14.2.20031226122103.06d41d28@mail.1s.com> <002401c3cc05$73f5d7a0$e9b60f18@DCMSX411> <5.1.0.14.2.20031226202057.04979db8@mail.1s.com> In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20031226202057.04979db8@mail.1s.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.82.5.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Dec 2003 04:21:10.0240 (UTC) FILETIME=[DB121E00:01C3CC30] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2003 23:21:09 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Art Pollard wrote: > >> HashCash / Penny Black proposals suffer from one flaw that I see... they >> assume that there is no legitimate reason for a low-budget organization >> to send high volumes of e-mail. Driving up the costs for spammers also >> drives up the costs for things like public mailing list servers. >> >> It's still an interesting idea, but I'm not sure that it's practical in >> the real-world. > > > Well, it could be combined with a whitelist. Basically, the first > message (the subscribe message) could be HashCash/Penny Blacked. Then > the subscriber would add them to a whitelist. If the user failed to do > so after a couple of days, a warning message could be sent out and if > the person again didn't whitelist the mailing list, the mailing list > could unsubscribe them. > > Not too bad really. > > -Art That thought also crossed my mind, where only untrusted domains would be required to Hash Cash / Penny Black (either through a whitelist or domains that don't have reverse-MX information). Which makes it a bit more like the real-world concept of "friends are always welcome, strangers have to show multiple forms of ID before they get past the front door". A targeted system would make it more palatable as you're only requiring strangers to do the calculation (or any system that doesn't seem quite on the up-and-up). However, it's difficult to currently identify "friends", so any sort of targeted Hash Cash / Penny Black solution requires other things to be in place first. (Reverse MX systems, mail servers that sign outbound mail with a private key that matches the public key in the DNS, etc.) Seems a shame to waste all those CPU cycles though... pity they couldn't be turned into encryption cycles of the actual message content. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Dec 26 23:45:36 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA17120 for ; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 23:45:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aa6K4-00021a-62 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 23:45:08 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBR4j8XG007778 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 23:45:08 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aa6K3-00021F-Kw for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 23:45:07 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA17085 for ; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 23:45:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aa6K0-0006xg-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 23:45:04 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Aa6IS-0006rO-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 23:43:29 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aa6Gb-0006kI-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 23:41:33 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aa6G5-0001mO-R9; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 23:41:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aa6G1-0001lz-8W for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 23:40:57 -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 XAA16814 for ; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 23:40:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aa6Fx-0006hV-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 23:40:53 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Aa6E1-0006dx-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 23:38:54 -0500 Received: from ms-smtp-01.rdc-kc.rr.com ([24.94.166.115]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aa6C4-0006aM-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 23:36:52 -0500 Received: from CPE-65-26-15-30.kc.rr.com (CPE-65-26-15-30.kc.rr.com [65.26.15.30]) by ms-smtp-01.rdc-kc.rr.com (8.12.10/8.12.7) with ESMTP id hBR4acbQ006191; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 22:36:40 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: [Asrg] Microsoft publicly announces Penny Black PoW postage project From: david nicol To: Steve Schear Cc: anti-spam research group In-Reply-To: <6.0.1.1.0.20031226091431.05aac280@mail.comcast.net> References: <6.0.1.1.0.20031226091431.05aac280@mail.comcast.net> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1072499797.1317.208.camel@plaza.davidnicol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.4 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: 26 Dec 2003 22:36:38 -0600 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Fri, 2003-12-26 at 11:14, Steve Schear wrote: > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3324883.stm Where does microsoft get off, taking credit for the idea of cost shifting? -- david nicol Late to bed and late to rise makes it difficult to quote Poor Richard. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Dec 26 23:55:32 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA17384 for ; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 23:55:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aa6Tg-0002Nq-5F for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 23:55:04 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBR4t32Y009157 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 23:55:04 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aa6Td-0002Nc-Mx for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 23:55:01 -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 XAA17341 for ; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 23:54:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aa6Ta-0007EA-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 23:54:58 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Aa6SG-0007An-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 23:53:37 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aa6OY-00074t-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 23:49:46 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aa6Np-00027H-Fp; Fri, 26 Dec 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 1Aa6Nd-000276-OB for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 23:48:49 -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 XAA17203 for ; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 23:48:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aa6NW-00073W-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 23:48:42 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Aa6K1-0006xm-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 23:45:06 -0500 Received: from ms-smtp-02.rdc-kc.rr.com ([24.94.166.122]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aa6IZ-0006rU-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 23:43:35 -0500 Received: from CPE-65-26-15-30.kc.rr.com (CPE-65-26-15-30.kc.rr.com [65.26.15.30]) by ms-smtp-02.rdc-kc.rr.com (8.12.10/8.12.7) with ESMTP id hBR4hXH6011306; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 22:43:33 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Computational - MSFT's "Penny Black" From: david nicol To: Thomas Harold Cc: anti-spam research group In-Reply-To: <3FED08B5.4040304@tgharold.com> References: <002401c3cc05$73f5d7a0$e9b60f18@DCMSX411> <6.0.1.1.0.20031226091431.05aac280@mail.comcast.net> <5.1.0.14.2.20031226122103.06d41d28@mail.1s.com> <002401c3cc05$73f5d7a0$e9b60f18@DCMSX411> <5.1.0.14.2.20031226202057.04979db8@mail.1s.com> <3FED08B5.4040304@tgharold.com> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1072500212.955.213.camel@plaza.davidnicol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.4 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: 26 Dec 2003 22:43:33 -0600 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Fri, 2003-12-26 at 22:21, Thomas Harold wrote: > Seems a shame to waste all those CPU cycles though... pity they couldn't > be turned into encryption cycles of the actual message content. They can and they are. Those bold individuals who only accept incoming mail with valid GPG signatures -- do they receive much spam? Although you only need to sign your spam once before you distribute it like so many blowing cottonwood seeds blowing in the midsummer winds so never mind carpe diem! carpe diem! -- david nicol Late to bed and late to rise makes it difficult to quote Poor Richard. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Dec 27 02:01:31 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA22354 for ; Sat, 27 Dec 2003 02:01:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aa8Ra-0006aK-MP for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 27 Dec 2003 02:01:02 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBR712Zo025302 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 27 Dec 2003 02:01:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aa8RZ-0006Zi-4U for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 27 Dec 2003 02:01:01 -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 CAA21768 for ; Sat, 27 Dec 2003 02:00:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aa8RV-0003dV-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 27 Dec 2003 02:00:57 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Aa8Pd-0003bu-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 27 Dec 2003 01:59:02 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aa8Nx-0003aL-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 27 Dec 2003 01:57:17 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aa8Nh-0006Nz-8r; Sat, 27 Dec 2003 01:57:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aa8Nf-0006No-NR for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 27 Dec 2003 01:56:59 -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 BAA20726 for ; Sat, 27 Dec 2003 01:56:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aa8Nc-0003Y9-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 27 Dec 2003 01:56:56 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Aa8Lh-0003Vz-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 27 Dec 2003 01:54:58 -0500 Received: from sccrmhc12.comcast.net ([204.127.202.56]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aa8Jw-0003Sn-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 27 Dec 2003 01:53:08 -0500 Received: from fda.zemos.net ([68.38.12.170]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc12) with ESMTP id <2003122706521401200fshmoe>; Sat, 27 Dec 2003 06:52:14 +0000 Received: from zemos.net (phil [10.0.0.2]) by fda.zemos.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE29E186A2; Sat, 27 Dec 2003 01:52:28 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3FED2C46.2020005@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: gep2@terabites.com Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 03.1 Re: Forgery in SMTP References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 01:52:54 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit gep2@terabites.com wrote: > [snip] >>>What actions can *YOU* take that would allow >>>verification/authentication of the "From:" during the SMTP transaction ? > > I'm not convinced that it's necessarily practical and maybe not even desirable > to even try. > > First of all, there are many legitimate reasons for people to send E-mails > through relays, foreign ISPs, or other services not usually associated with > their From: address. They might be travelling (perhaps even internationally) at > an Internet cafe, airport waiting lounge E-mail kiosk, cruise ship Internet > access lounge, in-airplane E-mail service, public library, or post office. In > each of these cases, they clearly want the replies to come to their own (perhaps > "vanity") domain, and maybe they never will ever again even be at the point > where the prior E-mail message was actually sent from. We're talking about different 'From' addresses. None of the proposals we're working on deal with the 'From:' header as it appears in the message body. From what I've seen, it's possible that Yahoo's "Domain Keys" proposal might, but we don't know. All of the LMAP implementation proposals deal with the envelope from address, also know as the return path. That's the parameter to the MAIL command in SMTP. If travelling people want to set up their domain so that any source can use it in a MAIL FROM, they're welcome to, just as all recipients are welcome to block mail claiming to be from that domain. > What's more, consider the case of mailing lists (Yahoogroups is a good example) > as "anonymizers" of sorts of messages. They forward messages (as individual > messages or perhaps as digests) and these sorts of mailing lists are terribly > important to large classes of internet users. Sometimes these messages bear the > original sender's From address, sometimes they bear the list's From address. Mailing lists are a different case. Most mailing lists rewrite the return path so that bounces are delivered to the mailing list server or administrator rather than random posters on the list. Any modern mailer that doesn't do this better have pretty damn good reasons not to. Philip Miller _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Dec 27 13:02:39 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA18612 for ; Sat, 27 Dec 2003 13:02:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AaIlQ-0000rV-Ex for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 27 Dec 2003 13:02:12 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBRI2CLR003307 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 27 Dec 2003 13:02:12 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AaIlQ-0000rF-AN for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 27 Dec 2003 13:02:12 -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 NAA18314 for ; Sat, 27 Dec 2003 13:02:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AaIlO-0001MK-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 27 Dec 2003 13:02:10 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AaIfz-0000Kk-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 27 Dec 2003 12:56:35 -0500 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AaIe8-00000A-04 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 27 Dec 2003 12:54:40 -0500 Received: from optimus22.ietf.org ([132.151.6.22] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by mx2.foretec.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1AaIQJ-0002Gu-9H for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 27 Dec 2003 12:40:23 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AaIPy-0000An-VO; Sat, 27 Dec 2003 12:40:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AaIPV-00009n-Fa for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 27 Dec 2003 12:39:33 -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 MAA17522 for ; Sat, 27 Dec 2003 12:39:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AaIPT-0007Yt-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 27 Dec 2003 12:39:32 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AaIOi-0007Rr-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 27 Dec 2003 12:38:45 -0500 Received: from vienna1-242-050.biz.dsl.gtei.net ([4.3.242.50] helo=localhost.dsl.gtei.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AaIMh-00077b-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 27 Dec 2003 12:36:39 -0500 Received: from tgharold.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost.dsl.gtei.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.2600.1106); Sat, 27 Dec 2003 12:36:33 -0500 Message-ID: <3FEDC321.4080608@tgharold.com> From: Thomas Harold User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6b) Gecko/20031205 Thunderbird/0.4 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Computational - MSFT's "Penny Black" References: <002401c3cc05$73f5d7a0$e9b60f18@DCMSX411> <6.0.1.1.0.20031226091431.05aac280@mail.comcast.net> <5.1.0.14.2.20031226122103.06d41d28@mail.1s.com> <002401c3cc05$73f5d7a0$e9b60f18@DCMSX411> <5.1.0.14.2.20031226202057.04979db8@mail.1s.com> <3FED08B5.4040304@tgharold.com> <1072500212.955.213.camel@plaza.davidnicol.com> In-Reply-To: <1072500212.955.213.camel@plaza.davidnicol.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.82.5.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Dec 2003 17:36:33.0419 (UTC) FILETIME=[F84D55B0:01C3CC9F] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 27 Dec 2003 12:36:33 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit david nicol wrote: > On Fri, 2003-12-26 at 22:21, Thomas Harold wrote: > > >>Seems a shame to waste all those CPU cycles though... pity they couldn't >>be turned into encryption cycles of the actual message content. > > > They can and they are. Those bold individuals who only accept > incoming mail with valid GPG signatures -- do they receive much spam? > Although you only need to sign your spam once before you distribute > it like so many blowing cottonwood seeds blowing in the midsummer winds > so never mind > That is true if you're talking about signed e-mail... I was thinking more along the lines of using those CPU cycles to encrypt each message using the recipient's public key. (Not that this has much to do with the CPU-payment models, just a sigh of pity that the CPU cycles are essentially being wasted... which wastes energy.) _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Dec 27 13:23:20 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA19919 for ; Sat, 27 Dec 2003 13:23:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AaJ5S-0001nP-1N for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 27 Dec 2003 13:22:54 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBRIMsSx006897 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 27 Dec 2003 13:22:54 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AaJ5R-0001nA-U2 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 27 Dec 2003 13:22:53 -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 NAA19829 for ; Sat, 27 Dec 2003 13:22:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AaJ5Q-00037l-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 27 Dec 2003 13:22:52 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AaJ2O-0002cI-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 27 Dec 2003 13:19:45 -0500 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AaJ0H-0002Sr-01 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 27 Dec 2003 13:17:33 -0500 Received: from optimus22.ietf.org ([132.151.6.22] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by mx2.foretec.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1AaIyx-0002yB-6M for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 27 Dec 2003 13:16:12 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AaIyn-0001Sn-Ft; Sat, 27 Dec 2003 13:16:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AaIy7-0001Rz-KG for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 27 Dec 2003 13:15:19 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA19678 for ; Sat, 27 Dec 2003 13:15:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AaIy5-0002MT-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 27 Dec 2003 13:15:17 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AaIwH-0002KZ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 27 Dec 2003 13:13:26 -0500 Received: from poolf7-003.wwa.com ([207.241.62.132] helo=mail.klw.ms) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AaIvl-0002Hs-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 27 Dec 2003 13:12:54 -0500 Received: from [207.241.62.130] by mailserver (ArGoSoft Mail Server Pro for WinNT/2000/XP, Version 1.8 (1.8.2.3)); Sat, 27 Dec 2003 12:13:33 -0600 Reply-To: From: "Frank McCoy" To: Cc: 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) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] Caching an authentication value Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-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, 27 Dec 2003 12:12:44 -0600 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From the discussion thread surrounding the William Elan proposal for a message-by-message authentication process: Subject: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - C/R and "callbacks" >However, the bottom line here, is that why go through the trouble of >checking every single message. Granted that it increases costs, >nevertheless if we can significantly reduce the problem through >verification of MTAs as opposed to senders and messages, why go through >the extra costs of message verification. This proposal is on the table, >but we will pursue it only if a significant advantage vs. costs can be >proven for this way of doing things, over others requiring less costs. A simple overhead reduction enhancement would be to include an "interval during which it was valid" value in the reply from the authentication process. Why generate a unique authenticator for every message sent? Instead, use the same authenticator for all messages sent by an individual for a period determined by the sending mail administrator, perhaps a few hours. This permits caching of the authenticator value at the recipient mail server to reduce repeat authentications where users are emailing each other back and forth, yet would frustrate spammers since it wouldn't be possible to accumulate a list of forged authenticator values fast enough to build a decent spam list. Finally, such a system would allow the recipient or recipient ISP to decide whether to forward/open the mail. If you want to receive mail with unverifiable headers and dubious origin, you can. Thus no issues of free speech, etc. Basically, no one is prohibited from sending but recipients would be informed as to the validity of the originator informtion. Most would simply automatically delete such mails, thus eliminating the effectiveness of spam as a reach medium. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Dec 28 18:38:16 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA24484 for ; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 18:38:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AakTj-0002nO-Ok for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 18:37:50 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBSNblvR010723 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 18:37:47 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AakTi-0002ms-Kq for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 18:37:46 -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 SAA24481 for ; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 18:37:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AakTf-0005uz-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 18:37:43 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AakRq-0005tJ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 18:35:50 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AakQk-0005r7-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 18:34:43 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AakQ5-0002Lm-IG; Sun, 28 Dec 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 1AakPk-0002KF-QH for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 18:33:41 -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 SAA24405 for ; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 18:33:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AakPh-0005p4-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 18:33:37 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AakNn-0005mE-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 18:31:40 -0500 Received: from newgiles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ([205.150.200.131] helo=mail.nitros9.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AakLy-0005kY-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 18:29:46 -0500 Received: from newgiles.nitros9.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.nitros9.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4228F170A5 for ; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 18:30:46 -0500 (EST) From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 03.1 Re: Forgery in SMTP (applying flame retardent) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 26 Dec 2003 19:10:30 EST." <20031227001030.GA4708@m433> Message-Id: <20031228233046.4228F170A5@mail.nitros9.org> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 18:30:46 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Walter Dnes wrote: > I was trying to say that Alan should not be held responsible for the > misdeeds of others. When someone steals my credit card information, I'm held responsible until I can demonstrate it wasn't me. If a particular store has a large number of fraudulent transactions, then the credit card company can impose additional restrictions on them, or take away their card access entirely. No such system of accountability exists in SMTP. Any such system we create will be forever limited due to the large numbers of people who refuse to accept such accountability. > The point I was trying to make was that SMTP allows almost any text > (excepting .\n\n) in the raw DATA: body. The DATA: body includes the > "From:" header. Most MUAs don't know about envelope-sender, and many > ISPs omit envelope-sender in the email as delivered to the end-user's > POP account. The only thing that the recipient can know for certain > (assuming they can parse headers) is the final external IP address that > handed the email to their ISP. Which is why some of the proposals involve audit trails. Hop by hop authentication/accountability of SMTP messages is very problematic. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Dec 28 19:26:07 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA25591 for ; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 19:26:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AalE4-0003pO-7Y for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 19:25:40 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBT0PeqC014708 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 19:25:40 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AalE4-0003p9-3h for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 19:25:40 -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 TAA25578 for ; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 19:25:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AalE2-0007CN-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 19:25:38 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AalCF-0007Ag-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 19:23:48 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AalAe-00078I-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 19:22:08 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AalAW-0003fs-UL; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 19:22:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AalAF-0003fX-4R for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 19:21:43 -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 TAA25519 for ; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 19:21:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AalAD-00076M-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 19:21:41 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Aal8I-00074h-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 19:19:42 -0500 Received: from ms-smtp-03.rdc-kc.rr.com ([24.94.166.129]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aal70-000730-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 19:18:22 -0500 Received: from CPE-65-26-15-253.kc.rr.com (CPE-65-26-15-253.kc.rr.com [65.26.15.253]) by ms-smtp-03.rdc-kc.rr.com (8.12.10/8.12.7) with ESMTP id hBT0IC5Z008796; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 18:18:15 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: [Asrg] Caching an authentication value From: david nicol To: fmccoy2@ams.fm Cc: anti-spam research group In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1072657090.1025.24.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: 28 Dec 2003 18:18:11 -0600 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit verifying the RAPNAP (Return Address, Peer Network Address Pair) that is in use instead of every individual message would work as well, and only allows spam from respectable ISPs. > >However, the bottom line here, is that why go through the trouble of > >checking every single message. Granted that it increases costs, > >nevertheless if we can significantly reduce the problem through > >verification of MTAs as opposed to senders and messages, why go through > >the extra costs of message verification. This proposal is on the table, > >but we will pursue it only if a significant advantage vs. costs can be > >proven for this way of doing things, over others requiring less costs. > > A simple overhead reduction enhancement would be to include an "interval > during which it was valid" value in the reply from the authentication > process. Why generate a unique authenticator for every message sent? > Instead, use the same authenticator for all messages sent by an individual > for a period determined by the sending mail administrator, perhaps a few > hours. -- david nicol Late to bed and late to rise makes it difficult to quote Poor Richard. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Dec 28 21:22:14 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA28519 for ; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 21:22:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aan2Q-0006lN-GG for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 21:21:46 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBT2LkNj025994 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 21:21:46 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aan2O-0006l3-8X for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 21:21:46 -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 VAA28511 for ; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 21:21:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aan2L-0002mE-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 21:21:41 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Aan0V-0002kJ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 21:19:48 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aamyy-0002i1-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 21:18:12 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aamyn-0006Zx-B9; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 21:18:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aamyc-0006ZU-76 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 21:17:50 -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 VAA28433 for ; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 21:17:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AamyZ-0002gX-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 21:17:47 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Aamwk-0002eE-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 21:15:55 -0500 Received: from ms-smtp-01.rdc-kc.rr.com ([24.94.166.115]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aamw2-0002bJ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 21:15:10 -0500 Received: from CPE-65-26-15-253.kc.rr.com (CPE-65-26-15-253.kc.rr.com [65.26.15.253]) by ms-smtp-01.rdc-kc.rr.com (8.12.10/8.12.7) with ESMTP id hBT2F8bQ000996; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 20:15:11 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - DNS-Based - RMX -- After reading the archive From: david nicol To: Alan DeKok Cc: anti-spam research group In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1072664107.1023.72.camel@plaza.davidnicol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.4 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: 28 Dec 2003 20:15:08 -0600 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mr DeKok: I hope your wife has recovered fully since the beginning of November. On Mon, 2003-11-03 at 12:44, Alan DeKok wrote: > david nicol wrote: > > > 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 was suggesting that proposals need not specify their mechanism for listing hosts: I think the specification of listing mechanisms needlessly clutters the discussion of what should be listed. It would be nice to compare all proposals on the meaning of what is to be listed without regard to mechanism for listing. And also nice to compare all mechanisms for listing without regard to discussion of what is to be listed. The proposals all appear(ed, two months ago) to all contain both what-is-listed-description and listing-mechanism. This entertwinement of solutions to two orthogonal problems makes apples-to-apples comparisons impossible. In case anyone reading this wishes to undertake such a comparison, I have built you a tool: Please feel free to use, or to refer others to, for use, the feature matrix editor I have implemented at http://www.tipjar.com/rcgi/featurematrix/matrix It is designed to help lay out product v. feature matrices in HTML. At your service, David Nicol -- david nicol Late to bed and late to rise makes it difficult to quote Poor Richard. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 29 15:08:39 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA10700 for ; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 15:08:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ab3gS-0007Ef-3R for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 15:08:12 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBTK8CuW027809 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 15:08:12 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ab3gR-0007ES-WB for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 15:08:12 -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 PAA10606 for ; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 15:08:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ab3gP-0002rz-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 15:08:09 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Ab3eS-0002hi-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 15:06:09 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ab3cb-0002Wh-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 15:04:13 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ab3cP-0006i9-91; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 15:04:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ab3c0-0006hO-Fq for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 15:03:36 -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 PAA09988 for ; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 15:03:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ab3bw-0002VJ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 15:03:32 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Ab3Y5-0002LG-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 14:59:34 -0500 Received: from out2.smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.26]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ab3VA-0002DD-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 14:56:32 -0500 X-Sasl-enc: fTCnb9l5YiHhGvV+C4A9vw 1072727669 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 D631B48C389; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 14:54:26 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3FF08673.4040404@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] 6. Proposals - Bayesian filtering and Yahoo (Was Re: C/R) References: <5.1.0.14.2.20031226110817.00b9e780@localhost> <3FECA27D.3020106@zemos.net> <3FF085F1.3090002@elvey.com> In-Reply-To: <3FF085F1.3090002@elvey.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: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 11:54:27 -0800 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-8.0 required=5.0 tests=HABEAS_SWE autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 12/26/2003 1:05 PM, Philip Miller sent forth electrons to convey: > In terms of total computation necessary, sure, Bayesian is more > expensive than just about anything else. However, keep in mind > relative costs: bayesian filtering is often happening on the users' > desktops, or on a private mailserver where the load doesn't affect any > public services. Have you heard of any large corporations or ISPs > setting up individual Bayesian filters for each user and rejecting > mail at the MX using those filters? I certainly haven't. Data point: Yahoo is trying and failing. To PAYING customers of MailPlus ( http://mailplus.mail.yahoo.com/ , it includes SBC DSL and dial-up customers) they claim you can "Train your personal spam filters to recognize what /you/ consider spam" using the SpamGuard feature. Except it doesn't work: when I try to train it on more than a handful of spam at a time, it just times out. Yahoo Level 2 support worked on it for a few weeks and claimed it was fixed, but it is still broken (it fails to process/delete/train on the spam); they're supposed to be working on it again. I did so and I still get about a dozen spam a day to my yahoo account. After training on > 1000 spam, I still get about a dozen spam a day to my yahoo account inbox. Caveat: nothing I've read specifically states that spamguard is Bayesian, so it could be something else. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 29 15:12:36 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA11293 for ; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 15:12:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ab3kF-0007SH-Iu for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 15:12:07 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBTKC7sV028650 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 15:12:07 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ab3kF-0007S1-ER for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 15:12:07 -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 PAA11238 for ; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 15:12:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ab3kE-0003BI-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 15:12:06 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Ab3im-00036f-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 15:10:37 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ab3hE-0002zh-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 15:09:00 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ab3hF-0007GU-PF; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 15:09:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ab3et-0006tj-QM for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 15:06:36 -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 PAA10366 for ; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 15:06:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ab3eq-0002lu-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 15:06:32 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Ab3dx-0002bY-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 15:05:38 -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 1Ab3bC-0002Oy-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 15:02:46 -0500 Received: from solidmatrix.com (000-388-115.area3.spcsdns.net [68.29.230.46]) by dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HQO006P9AAY8S@dedicated59-bos.wh.sprintip.net> for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 20:01:51 +0000 (GMT) From: Yakov Shafranovich In-reply-to: <20031225032524.GA2580@m433> To: Walter Dnes Cc: ASRG list Message-id: <3FF08829.7030501@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 5.0; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007 X-Enigmail-Version: 0.82.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime References: <3FE9CE28.9000105@zemos.net> <20031224203456.54F6D170A5@mail.nitros9.org> <20031225032524.GA2580@m433> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Subject: [Asrg] 6, Proposals - SMTP Envelope Verification vs. Message 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: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 15:01:45 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT [Subject changed as per posting guidelines, was "Re: Forgery in SMTP (was [Asrg] [1] Why SPAM is worse in SMTP than in other protocols)". Mod.] Walter Dnes wrote: > On Wed, Dec 24, 2003 at 03:34:56PM -0500, Alan DeKok wrote > > A spammer sends out a viagra spam "From: "Alan DeKok" <*****@ox.org>". > How are the 20 million strangers it's addressed to going to *REJECT* it? > At these volumes, merely accepting the email and storing it in > recipients' "spam folders" will cause smaller ISPs to run out of > mailspool space. What actions can *YOU* take that would allow > verification/authentication of the "From:" during the SMTP transaction ? > This is where something like DK comes in. As it is now, we have two sets of proposals - one addressing the SMTP envelope (LMAP), and the second, like DK and various PKI schemes (Lumos, TEOS, etc.) address the actual body of the message. Both can be complementary to each other. 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 Mon Dec 29 17:21:13 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA15240 for ; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 17:21:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ab5kj-0003Td-Bf for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 17:20:46 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBTMKj8P013358 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 17:20:45 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ab5kj-0003TN-59 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 17:20:45 -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 RAA15231 for ; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 17:20:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ab5kg-0000H5-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 17:20:43 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Ab5jM-0000Ad-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 17:19:20 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ab5hn-00001X-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 17:17:43 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ab5h6-0003Fx-4I; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 17:17:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ab5gD-0003EW-5z for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 17:16:05 -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 RAA15028 for ; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 17:16:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ab5gA-0007mW-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 17:16:03 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Ab5eO-0007jz-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 17:14:13 -0500 Received: from newgiles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ([205.150.200.131] helo=mail.nitros9.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ab5d2-0007gq-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 17:12:49 -0500 Received: from newgiles.nitros9.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.nitros9.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB07216FCB for ; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 17:13:48 -0500 (EST) From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Bayesian filtering and Yahoo (Was Re: C/R) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 29 Dec 2003 11:54:27 PST." <3FF08673.4040404@elvey.com> Message-Id: <20031229221348.AB07216FCB@mail.nitros9.org> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 17:13:48 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Matthew Elvey wrote: > Data point: Yahoo is trying and failing. To PAYING customers of > MailPlus ( http://mailplus.mail.yahoo.com/ , it includes SBC DSL and > dial-up customers) they claim you can "Train your personal spam filters > to recognize what /you/ consider spam" using the SpamGuard feature. Finland has a large mail redirection system set up, similar to pobox. I forget what it's called (ikki?), but it's fairly large. Last I heard, they're using SpamAssassin, which is (mostly) keeping up with the load. They split the mail into filtered & unfiltered streams, with the filtered streams going to dedicated machines. After filtering, the messages are sent back into the main queue, and forwarded to the final destination. CPU time is relatively cheap, so this works. Sendmail can handle large amounts of traffic, with careful design. But Bayesian filtering takes large amounts of disk space per use. I've heard numbers from 1M to 10M, with much of the database touched during active filtering. For a system forwarding messages for 10's of 1000's of users, that's expensive. The disk space isn't the problem, it's the simultaneous access of 1000's of accounts to reading and writing 10M databases. When coupled with many people using the forwarding service to subscribe to mailing lists, it's nearly impossible to partition that load in a way which doesn't increase it. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 29 21:22:49 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA24145 for ; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 21:22:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ab9WX-0002LI-R2 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 21:22:22 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBU2MLuM009000 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 21:22:21 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ab9WX-0002L5-LN for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 21:22:21 -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 VAA24134 for ; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 21:22:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ab9WV-0003A2-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 21:22:19 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Ab9Uf-00036O-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 21:20:26 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ab9Tb-000327-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 21:19:19 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ab9TI-0002An-NR; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 21:19:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ab9SS-0002A0-E8 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 21:18:08 -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 VAA24023 for ; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 21:18:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ab9SP-0002zP-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 21:18:05 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Ab9Qd-0002xL-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 21:16:16 -0500 Received: from law12-f60.law12.hotmail.com ([64.4.19.60] helo=hotmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ab9PD-0002tX-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 21:14:47 -0500 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 18:14:17 -0800 Received: from 67.164.196.75 by lw12fd.law12.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 02:14:17 GMT X-Originating-IP: [67.164.196.75] X-Originating-Email: [pontifier@hotmail.com] X-Sender: pontifier@hotmail.com From: "John Fenley" To: asrg@ietf.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Dec 2003 02:14:17.0821 (UTC) FILETIME=[A0F468D0:01C3CE7A] Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by ietf.org id VAA24024 Subject: [Asrg] 0. General- useful ideas from other areas of research. Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 19:14:17 -0700 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In science news vol. 164 #25&26 the main article entitled =93Bookish Math= =94 is=20 about modern techniques for analyzing text, collectively called stylometr= y.=20 Using stylometry on various anonymously written or disputed texts has giv= en=20 new data that has helped to resolve the true author. This may have impact= on=20 future content based filters. The full text of the article =93Bookish Math=94 may be found at the scien= ce news=20 website http://www.sciencenews.org of particular interest to me are support-vector machines. from the article: =93As does PCA[another technique mentioned], the new technique plots each= =20 chunk of text as a point in a high-dimensional space. It then searches fo= r=20 the best-fitting surface that divides the points belonging to one author=20 from those of the other author.=94 I mentioned this idea before, but did not know this actually existed for=20 text classification. http://article.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.asrg/6093 John Fenley _________________________________________________________________ Make your home warm and cozy this winter with tips from MSN House & Home.= =20 http://special.msn.com/home/warmhome.armx _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 29 23:34:56 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA27405 for ; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 23:34:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AbBaO-0006Kp-2J for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 23:34:28 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBU4YSeT024348 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 23:34:28 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AbBaN-0006Ka-Sa for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 23:34:27 -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 XAA27401 for ; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 23:34:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AbBaH-0007ak-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 23:34:21 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AbBYJ-0007We-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 23:32:20 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AbBXF-0007TC-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 23:31:13 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AbBX5-0006Bh-0K; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 23:31:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AbBWP-0006Ak-Ca for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 23:30:21 -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 XAA27334 for ; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 23:30:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AbBWI-0007R9-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 23:30:14 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AbBUT-0007Ns-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 23:28:21 -0500 Received: from sccrmhc11.comcast.net ([204.127.202.55]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AbBTK-0007KH-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 23:27:10 -0500 Received: from art.lextek.com (c-67-161-220-214.client.comcast.net[67.161.220.214]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc11) with SMTP id <20031230042640011006g0k8e>; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 04:26:41 +0000 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20031229212232.046b6360@mail.1s.com> X-Sender: PollardA@mail.1s.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 To: "John Fenley" , Asrg@ietf.org From: Art Pollard Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General- useful ideas from other areas of research. In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 21:26:31 -0700 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,EXCUSE_15,THIS_AINT_SPAM autolearn=no version=2.60 >The full text of the article "Bookish Math" may be found at the science >news website >http://www.sciencenews.org > >of particular interest to me are support-vector machines. >from the article .... The problem with Support Vector Machines (SVM's) is that they can take an incredibly long period of time to train. Bayesian takes comparatively no time to train. SVM's can take from minutes to hours to days to train depending on the number of features you train it on. (A feature is a item that you classify on such as the phrase "Make Money Fast" or "this is not spam.") The more features and examples, the longer it takes to train SVMs as you might expect. The problem is that when the time increases, it doesn't increase in a nice linear fashion as one might hope. SVMs are great at classification. The only thing is that you need to have the horsepower and/or time to train them. -Art -- Art Pollard http://www.lextek.com/ Suppliers of High Performance Text Retrieval Engines. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 30 02:40:42 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA14239 for ; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 02:40:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AbEUA-0004mB-7G for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 02:40:14 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBU7eEuP018359 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 02:40:14 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AbEU9-0004m2-SE for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 02:40:13 -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 CAA14202 for ; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 02:40:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AbEU5-000472-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 02:40:09 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AbESG-000463-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 02:38:17 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AbERn-000448-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 02:37:47 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AbER5-0004J5-4v; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 02:37:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AbEQT-0004HV-6z for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 02:36:25 -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 CAA14101 for ; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 02:36:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AbEQP-00042p-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 02:36:21 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AbEOW-0003zf-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 02:34:25 -0500 Received: from out2.smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.26]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AbEMv-0003wh-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 02:32:45 -0500 X-Sasl-enc: G46Yk1PgFjPoFH+qOhxNXg 1072769566 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 9579148F47B; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 02:32:44 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3FF12A1A.9080600@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 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 Subject: [Asrg] Re: Forgery in SMTP Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 23:32:42 -0800 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-8.0 required=5.0 tests=HABEAS_SWE autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 12/26/2003 2:14 PM, gep2@terabites.com sent forth electrons to convey: >...By default, an unrecognized or unauthorized person would be able to send the >recipient a "simple", small post... no attachments, no HTML-burdened content >(including NO embedded images, no scripting, etc)!, maybe with an upper-bound >size of 10K or 50K or something.... > > > Not a bad idea, though I don't see it spreading like wildfire. But the spam making it though my current filters would mostly make it through this filter too. >Now, I have lately been getting "junk" spam messages which contain NO visible >purpose whatsoever... ... Perhaps their "real" content is in an HTML-burdened alternative >version (which gets stripped out of all E-mail upon arrival here). > This is so for spam I've received recently. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 30 12:06:51 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA28915 for ; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 12:06:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AbNK0-0003xj-Vy for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 12:06:23 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBUH6Kos015225 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 12:06:20 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AbNK0-0003xU-Im for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 12:06:20 -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 MAA28788 for ; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 12:06:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AbNJz-0005T2-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 12:06:19 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AbNI6-0005Nj-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 12:04:23 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AbNGS-0005It-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 12:02:40 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AbNFp-0003PB-NN; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 12:02:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AbEh0-00056Y-0k for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 02:53:35 -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 CAA14382 for ; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 02:53:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AbEgp-0004HG-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 02:53:19 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AbEdj-0004F0-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 02:50:07 -0500 Received: from jaguar.icir.org ([192.150.187.74]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AbEc0-0004CS-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 02:48:20 -0500 Received: from jaguar.icir.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by jaguar.icir.org (8.12.9p1/8.12.3) with ESMTP id hBU7loBZ098149; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 23:47:50 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from vern@jaguar.icir.org) Message-Id: <200312300747.hBU7loBZ098149@jaguar.icir.org> From: irtf-chair@ietf.org To: Philip Miller Cc: "John R. Levine" , asrg@ietf.org, Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: Why SPAM is worse in SMTP than in other protocols In-reply-to: Your message of Tue, 23 Dec 2003 13:46:45 EST. Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 23:47:50 -0800 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.3 required=5.0 tests=NO_REAL_NAME autolearn=no version=2.60 > What is this about, and why has none of it been mentioned on the list > before? I'd imagine that a complete rewrite of the group's charter is > probably something that should be a public process. My interpretation of RFC 2014 is that chartering and rechartering are ultimately done at the IRTF chair's discretion, with the IAB's consent. It is in fact generally not a public process. Vern _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 30 22:01:03 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA25322 for ; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 22:01:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AbWb5-0000i4-Es for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 22:00:35 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBV30ZYA002727 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 22:00:35 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AbWb5-0000hu-Ap for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 22:00:35 -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 WAA25307 for ; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 22:00:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AbWb2-0005Ot-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 22:00:32 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AbWZD-0005Me-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 21:58:40 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AbWY1-0005K9-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 21:57:25 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AbWXc-0000Yl-UK; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 21:57:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AbWXK-0000Y5-Rq for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 21:56:42 -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 VAA25205 for ; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 21:56:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AbWXH-0005Io-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 21:56:39 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AbWVa-0005Fu-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 21:54:55 -0500 Received: from rwcrmhc12.comcast.net ([216.148.227.85]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AbWUQ-0005Bu-00; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 21:53:42 -0500 Received: from fda.zemos.net ([68.38.12.170]) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc12) with ESMTP id <20031231025306014006aue3e>; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 02:53:07 +0000 Received: from zemos.net (phil [10.0.0.2]) by fda.zemos.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBC54186A2; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 12:01:02 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3FF23A3C.4050703@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: irtf-chair@ietf.org Cc: "John R. Levine" , asrg@ietf.org, Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: Why SPAM is worse in SMTP than in other protocols References: <200312300747.hBU7loBZ098149@jaguar.icir.org> In-Reply-To: <200312300747.hBU7loBZ098149@jaguar.icir.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: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 21:53:48 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit irtf-chair@ietf.org wrote: >>What is this about, and why has none of it been mentioned on the list >>before? I'd imagine that a complete rewrite of the group's charter is >>probably something that should be a public process. > > My interpretation of RFC 2014 is that chartering and rechartering are > ultimately done at the IRTF chair's discretion, with the IAB's consent. > It is in fact generally not a public process. The relevant text from RFC 2014 is from section 2.2, "Charter": > A charter is a contract between a Research Group and the IRTF to conduct > research in the designated area. Charters may be renegotiated > periodically to reflect changes to the current status, organization or > goals of the Research Group. This may just be a point of operational protocol that I'm not aware of, but that sounds like the the group as a whole, or the members in that group, are involved in the process, and not just the chair and hierarchical superiors. Is this just operating procedure that I'm not familiar with? Regards and Happy New Year, Philip Miller _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Dec 31 03:17:11 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA00245 for ; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 03:17:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AbbWz-0003nM-0V for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 03:16:41 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBV8GeNH014587 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 03:16:40 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AbbWu-0003n2-E2 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 03:16:40 -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 DAA00219 for ; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 03:16:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AbbWs-0006bT-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 03:16:34 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AbbUz-0006Z3-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 03:14:38 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AbbTn-0006X2-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 03:13:23 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AbbTP-0003be-2C; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 03:12:59 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AbbT1-0003b6-Uw for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 03:12:36 -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 DAA00107 for ; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 03:12:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AbbSz-0006VR-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 03:12:33 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AbbR8-0006U7-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 03:10:38 -0500 Received: from wyvern.icir.org ([192.150.187.14]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AbbPg-0006SR-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 03:09:08 -0500 Received: from jaguar.icir.org (jaguar.icir.org [192.150.187.74]) by wyvern.icir.org (8.12.9p1/8.12.3) with ESMTP id hBV898CY088880; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 00:09:08 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from vern@jaguar.icir.org) Received: from jaguar.icir.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by jaguar.icir.org (8.12.9p1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hBV895nm022387; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 00:09:08 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from vern@jaguar.icir.org) Message-Id: <200312310809.hBV895nm022387@jaguar.icir.org> To: Philip Miller Cc: "John R. Levine" , asrg@ietf.org, Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: Why SPAM is worse in SMTP than in other protocols In-reply-to: Your message of Tue, 30 Dec 2003 21:53:48 EST. From: Vern Paxson Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 00:09:05 -0800 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 > The relevant text from RFC 2014 is from section 2.2, "Charter": The next paragraph reads: The formation of a Research Group requires a charter which is initially negotiated between a prospective Research Group Chair and the IRTF Chair. When the prospective Chair and the IRTF Chair are satisfied with the charter form and content, it becomes the basis for forming a Research Group. - Vern _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Dec 31 06:03:15 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA08833 for ; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 06:03:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Abe7k-0003jt-5B for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 06:02:48 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBVB2mXP014372 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 06:02:48 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Abe7j-0003jj-Ub for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 06:02:47 -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 GAA08824 for ; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 06:02:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Abe7g-0000la-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 06:02:44 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Abe5k-0000ib-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 06:00:44 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Abe4I-0000ga-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 05:59:14 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Abe45-0003Ym-7s; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 05:59:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Abe3p-0003YP-UK for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 05:58:45 -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 FAA08766 for ; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 05:58:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Abe3m-0000eK-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 05:58:42 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Abe1z-0000by-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 05:56:51 -0500 Received: from argon.connectinternetsolutions.com ([193.110.243.33] helo=argon.connect.org.uk) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Abe0Y-0000Z4-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 05:55:23 -0500 Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 1Abe0Z-0002GS-Ul for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 10:55:23 +0000 In-Reply-To: <200312310809.hBV895nm022387@jaguar.icir.org> Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: Why SPAM is worse in SMTP than in other protocols To: "ASRG" From: "Jon Kyme" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.10.1] 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, 31 Dec 2003 10:55:23 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 >> The relevant text from RFC 2014 is from section 2.2, "Charter": > > This is the fascinating "self-amendment" question - interested readers should see here: http://www.nomic.net/ Best wishes (for what many will be calling the New Year) to you all, JK -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Dec 31 11:35:17 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA17291 for ; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 11:35:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AbjJ3-0004AG-Az for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 11:34:49 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBVGYnOm016004 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 11:34:49 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AbjJ3-0004A3-3h for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 11:34:49 -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 LAA17282 for ; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 11:34:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AbjJ2-0003B9-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 11:34:48 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AbjHR-00037T-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 11:33:10 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AbjGd-000336-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 11:32:19 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AbjGK-0003xs-EJ; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 11:32:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AbjFW-0003xN-1R for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 11:31:10 -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 LAA17157 for ; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 11:31:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AbjFU-00030S-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 11:31:08 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AbjDz-0002uA-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 11:29:35 -0500 Received: from argon.connectinternetsolutions.com ([193.110.243.33] helo=argon.connect.org.uk) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AbjD5-0002lu-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 11:28:40 -0500 Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 1AbjD5-0001xk-FY; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 16:28:39 +0000 In-Reply-To: <200312310809.hBV895nm022387@jaguar.icir.org> Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: Why SPAM is worse in SMTP than in other protocols To: "Vern Paxson" From: "Jon Kyme" Cc: "ASRG" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.10.1] 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, 31 Dec 2003 16:28:39 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 >> The relevant text from RFC 2014 is from section 2.2, "Charter": > > >The next paragraph reads: > > The formation of a Research Group requires a charter which is > initially negotiated between a prospective Research Group Chair and > the IRTF Chair. When the prospective Chair and the IRTF Chair are > satisfied with the charter form and content, it becomes the basis for > forming a Research Group. > >- Vern > Quite, but this refers to group formation. Not rechartering of an existing group. Clearly, group members can't be consulted before the group is formed. The question is: SHOULD they be consulted when rechartering? -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg