From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Feb 1 00:40:07 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA26272 for ; Sun, 1 Feb 2004 00:40:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AnAKZ-0008QR-U2 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 01 Feb 2004 00:39:40 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i115ddGC032383 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 1 Feb 2004 00:39:39 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AnAKZ-0008QE-P7 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 01 Feb 2004 00:39:39 -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 AAA26260 for ; Sun, 1 Feb 2004 00:39:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AnAKX-0001Kj-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 01 Feb 2004 00:39:37 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AnAJf-0001Ec-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 01 Feb 2004 00:38:44 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AnAJ8-00018E-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 01 Feb 2004 00:38:10 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AnAIz-0008HG-Nr; Sun, 01 Feb 2004 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 1AnAIV-00089i-NX for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 01 Feb 2004 00:37:31 -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 AAA26182 for ; Sun, 1 Feb 2004 00:37:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AnAIT-00016P-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 01 Feb 2004 00:37:29 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AnAHX-00011W-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 01 Feb 2004 00:36:32 -0500 Received: from turkey.mail.pas.earthlink.net ([207.217.120.126]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AnAH6-0000wU-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 01 Feb 2004 00:36:05 -0500 Received: from dialup-65.56.167.133.dial1.raleigh1.level3.net ([65.56.167.133] helo=earthlink.net) by turkey.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 1AnAH6-0005gS-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 31 Jan 2004 21:36:04 -0800 Message-ID: <401C903F.8080901@earthlink.net> From: Paul Tenny 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] Its all over for Challenge Response References: <20040201032213.6F6C5170F9@mail.nitros9.org> In-Reply-To: <20040201032213.6F6C5170F9@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, 01 Feb 2004 00:35:59 -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=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Alan DeKok wrote: > You've got it 100% backwards. Everyone knows (or should know) that > locks won't keep all criminals out. So the locks obviously aren't > there to keep the criminals out. They keep everyone out who doesn't have the ability to defeat them. For those who can, we have layered security (like firearms, dogs and electronic security systems). > The locks are there as a public statement by you that people have no > legal right to enter your home. When someone does, they get charged > with "break and enter", which is a serious crime. If you did not have > a lock, or left your door open, they would have been charged with > "trespass", which is a lesser crime. (obligatory IANAL) > > So the conclusion is that locks are a legal statement which permit > the justice system to file more serious charges than they could have > without the locks. In the same way, technological methods of fighting > spam should be not only used to stop the amateur spammer, they can be > used to leverage more serious charges against the professional > spammer. This is one of the most silly statements I've seen in my life. Locks exist to prevent access to something. There is no public statement because privacy and private access is something you're taught as a child. My car doesn't have locks to remind you of something you already know, it's to keep YOU out of someplace you do not belong. > Despite the recent phenomenal increase in spam, there is still > massive opposition to *doing* anything about the problem. I remain, > as always, amazed. There are plenty of people willing to do something about it but talking isn't doing, is it? This place can never solve or even stem the problem. It's a research group, research. Not design or implementation. If anyone cares to make a list for that I'm sure real progress can be made in short order. And this list has actually been partially successful; it's shown us all the ideas that won't work, at least. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Feb 1 04:44:25 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA03239 for ; Sun, 1 Feb 2004 04:44:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AnE8z-0005Lz-J6 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 01 Feb 2004 04:43:57 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i119hvqb020576 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 1 Feb 2004 04:43:57 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AnE8y-0005LT-Ce for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 01 Feb 2004 04:43:56 -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 EAA03231 for ; Sun, 1 Feb 2004 04:43:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AnE8v-0001AC-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 01 Feb 2004 04:43:53 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AnE83-00011t-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 01 Feb 2004 04:43:00 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AnE7J-0000tQ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 01 Feb 2004 04:42:13 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AnE79-0005AP-2T; Sun, 01 Feb 2004 04:42:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AnE6l-00059k-S3 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 01 Feb 2004 04:41:39 -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 EAA03103 for ; Sun, 1 Feb 2004 04:41:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AnE6i-0000sZ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 01 Feb 2004 04:41:37 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AnE5n-0000ni-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 01 Feb 2004 04:40:39 -0500 Received: from mail1.panix.com ([166.84.1.72]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AnE5X-0000ib-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 01 Feb 2004 04:40:23 -0500 Received: from panix5.panix.com (panix5.panix.com [166.84.1.5]) by mail1.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 504F648862 for ; Sun, 1 Feb 2004 04:40:19 -0500 (EST) Received: (from sethb@localhost) by panix5.panix.com (8.11.6p2-a/8.8.8/PanixN1.1) id i119eJP12273; Sun, 1 Feb 2004 04:40:19 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200402010940.i119eJP12273@panix5.panix.com> From: Seth Breidbart To: Asrg@ietf.org In-reply-to: <00a101c3e79f$72522bf0$6401a8c0@sohonotebook> (eric@purespeed.com) Subject: Re: [Asrg] Its all over for Challenge Response References: <00a101c3e79f$72522bf0$6401a8c0@sohonotebook> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2004 04:40:19 -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 "Eric Dean" top-posted: > Does anyone have any idea how much it costs to host a porn site? Not all that much; it depends on how much bandwidth is used. If you require some amount of Turing-passing per meg of picture served, you can send a lot of spam for relatively little bandwidth. If you steal the bandwidth from owned machines (the same way spam sending and some web hosting is stolen now), your costs are even less. Seth _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Feb 1 05:40:16 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA05567 for ; Sun, 1 Feb 2004 05:40:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AnF13-0000IQ-D0 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 01 Feb 2004 05:39:49 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i11AdnwS001132 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 1 Feb 2004 05:39:49 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AnF13-0000IB-7h for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 01 Feb 2004 05:39:49 -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 FAA05546 for ; Sun, 1 Feb 2004 05:39:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AnF0z-0007Fd-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 01 Feb 2004 05:39:45 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AnF04-00079X-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 01 Feb 2004 05:38:48 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AnEzO-00072k-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 01 Feb 2004 05:38:06 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AnEzK-00006B-Pl; Sun, 01 Feb 2004 05:38:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AnEzC-0008Vn-Av for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 01 Feb 2004 05:37:54 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA05467 for ; Sun, 1 Feb 2004 05:37:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AnEz8-00071U-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 01 Feb 2004 05:37:50 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AnEyJ-0006v7-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 01 Feb 2004 05:37:00 -0500 Received: from argon.connectinternetsolutions.com ([193.110.243.33] helo=argon.connect.org.uk) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AnExp-0006nz-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 01 Feb 2004 05:36:29 -0500 Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 1AnExq-0004BW-Mk for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 01 Feb 2004 10:36:30 +0000 In-Reply-To: <200402010940.i119eJP12273@panix5.panix.com> Subject: Re: [Asrg] Its all over for Challenge Response 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, 01 Feb 2004 10:36:30 +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 > "Eric Dean" top-posted: > > > > Does anyone have any idea how much it costs to host a porn site? > > Not all that much; it depends on how much bandwidth is used. If you > require some amount of Turing-passing per meg of picture served, you > can send a lot of spam for relatively little bandwidth. > > If you steal the bandwidth from owned machines (the same way spam > sending and some web hosting is stolen now), your costs are even less. > This is all getting silly. Numbers? Actual exploit? -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Feb 1 11:06:43 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA03375 for ; Sun, 1 Feb 2004 11:06:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AnK6y-0007Yf-7b for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 01 Feb 2004 11:06:16 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i11G6Gmc029045 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 1 Feb 2004 11:06:16 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AnK6y-0007Xx-1x for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 01 Feb 2004 11:06:16 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA02187 for ; Sun, 1 Feb 2004 10:54:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AnJQY-0007Q5-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 01 Feb 2004 10:22:27 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AnJ7g-00028a-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 01 Feb 2004 10:02:59 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AnIeI-0002aG-0E for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 01 Feb 2004 09:32:34 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AnIQ6-0002hy-Rp for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 01 Feb 2004 09:17:54 -0500 Date: Sun, 01 Feb 2004 09:17:54 -0500 Message-ID: <20040201141754.1364.62256.Mailman@www1.ietf.org> Subject: ietf.org mailing list memberships reminder From: mailman-owner@www1.ietf.org To: asrg-web-archive@ietf.org X-No-Archive: yes X-Ack: no Sender: mailman-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: mailman-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mailman@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,NO_REAL_NAME autolearn=no version=2.60 This is a reminder, sent out once a month, about your ietf.org mailing list memberships. It includes your subscription info and how to use it to change it or unsubscribe from a list. You can visit the URLs to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. In addition to the URL interfaces, you can also use email to make such changes. For more info, send a message to the '-request' address of the list (for example, asrg-request@ietf.org) containing just the word 'help' in the message body, and an email message will be sent to you with instructions. *************************************************************************** Note Well All statements related to the activities of the IETF and addressed to the IETF are subject to all provisions of Section 10 of RFC 2026, which grants to the IETF and its participants certain licenses and rights in such statements. Such statements include verbal statements in IETF meetings, as well as written and electronic communications made at any time or place, which are addressed to * the IETF plenary session, * any IETF working group or portion thereof, * the IESG, or any member thereof on behalf of the IESG, * the IAB or any member thereof on behalf of the IAB, * any IETF mailing list, including the IETF list itself, any working group or design team list, or any other list functioning under IETF auspices, * the RFC Editor or the Internet-Drafts function Statements made outside of an IETF meeting, mailing list or other function, that are clearly not intended to be input to an IETF activity, group or function, are not subject to these provisions. *************************************************************************** If you have questions, problems, comments, etc, send them to mailman-owner@www1.ietf.org. Thanks! Passwords for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org: List Password // URL ---- -------- asrg@ietf.org kgrfgf https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/options/asrg/asrg-web-archive%40ietf.org From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Feb 1 21:39:32 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA28625 for ; Sun, 1 Feb 2004 21:39:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AnTzO-0003mu-Dt for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 01 Feb 2004 21:39:06 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i122d6Xq014556 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 1 Feb 2004 21:39:06 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AnTzO-0003mh-74 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 01 Feb 2004 21:39:06 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA28448 for ; Sun, 1 Feb 2004 21:39:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AnTzL-0001ZM-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 01 Feb 2004 21:39:03 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AnTxp-0001Ek-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 01 Feb 2004 21:37:30 -0500 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AnTx8-00017B-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 01 Feb 2004 21:36:46 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by mx2.foretec.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1AnTn9-0003df-64 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 01 Feb 2004 21:26:28 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AnTmj-0002zs-21; Sun, 01 Feb 2004 21:26:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AnTlv-0002y1-NU for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 01 Feb 2004 21:25:11 -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 VAA28173 for ; Sun, 1 Feb 2004 21:25:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AnTlt-0000LF-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 01 Feb 2004 21:25:09 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AnTkw-0000Ff-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 01 Feb 2004 21:24:11 -0500 Received: from mail002.syd.optusnet.com.au ([211.29.132.32]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AnTk8-0007mn-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 01 Feb 2004 21:23:21 -0500 Received: from zen.fernhaven (c211-30-106-146.carlnfd1.nsw.optusnet.com.au [211.30.106.146]) by mail002.syd.optusnet.com.au (8.11.6p2/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i122MlV01970 for ; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 13:22:49 +1100 Received: from [172.16.0.129] (helo=fred.fernhaven) by zen.fernhaven with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1AnTjb-0006hT-00 for ; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 13:22:47 +1100 From: Brett Watson Organization: PhD Student, Macquarie University To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Its all over for Challenge 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: <200402021322.45284.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, 2 Feb 2004 13:22:45 +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 Seth Breidbart says: > If you steal the bandwidth from owned machines (the same way spam > sending and some web hosting is stolen now), your costs are even less. Jon Kyme responds: > This is all getting silly. > Numbers? > Actual exploit? I say: Does anyone still seriously doubt that spamming miscreants are using third party computers as their web, mail and DNS hosts? Jon? This is not a new phenomenon anymore. June 2003: ZDNet report on Sobig virus strain, which is a spam relay. http://reviews-zdnet.com.com/4520-7297_16-4208055.html July 2003: BBC report on "Superzonda" spamhaus, who compromised a British Airways computer (among others) to host their stuff. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3036092.stm New York Times (annoying registration required): Hackers Hijack PCs for Sex Sites. (I don't have a registration, so I haven't checked this one recently.) http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/11/technology/11HACK.html?ex=1058500800&en=dfe68a99bce4317d&ei=5062 July 2003: Analysis of "migmaf" malware, a reverse-proxy tool for third party hosting. http://www.lurhq.com/migmaf.html July 2003: The Register report on "webber" malware (more of the same). http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/56/31801.html September 2003: SecurityFocus forensics on a compromise in which machines are used as spam servers. http://www.securityfocus.com/guest/24043 January 2004: SecurityFocus analysis of legal issues associated with "the Trojan did it" cases (as reprinted in The Register). http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/56/34985.html I hope that this is sufficient evidence to persuade the sceptic that spammers and other miscreants are ROUTINELY using compromised third party computers to do their dirty work. Any anti-spam proposal (particularly those that propose a cost-burden to the sender) should take this fact into consideration. Regards, TFBW _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Feb 1 22:48:41 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA00696 for ; Sun, 1 Feb 2004 22:48:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AnV4I-0006wu-J7 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 01 Feb 2004 22:48:14 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i123mE4C026706 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 1 Feb 2004 22:48:14 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AnV4I-0006wf-F8 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 01 Feb 2004 22:48:14 -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 WAA00670 for ; Sun, 1 Feb 2004 22:48:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AnV4F-0007ed-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 01 Feb 2004 22:48:11 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AnV3K-0007aS-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 01 Feb 2004 22:47:14 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AnV3C-0007WJ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 01 Feb 2004 22:47:06 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AnV35-0006lf-Nf; Sun, 01 Feb 2004 22:46:59 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AnV2L-0006kv-Dz for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 01 Feb 2004 22:46:13 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA00588 for ; Sun, 1 Feb 2004 22:46:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AnV2H-0007Uj-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 01 Feb 2004 22:46:10 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AnV1M-0007QS-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 01 Feb 2004 22:45:13 -0500 Received: from jtel.ca ([64.7.158.10] helo=mail.worldline.ca) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AnV16-0007MS-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 01 Feb 2004 22:44:56 -0500 Received: from waltdnes.org ([38.112.103.100]) by mail.worldline.ca (8.12.8/8.12.8) with SMTP id i123sqaV007217 for ; Sun, 1 Feb 2004 22:54:53 -0500 Received: by waltdnes.org (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Sun, 1 Feb 2004 22:41:23 +4300 From: "Walter Dnes" To: ASRG list Subject: Re: [Asrg] Its all over for Challenge Response Message-ID: <20040202034123.GC6366@m450> References: <401C61B7.8010106@earthlink.net> <20040201032213.6F6C5170F9@mail.nitros9.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040201032213.6F6C5170F9@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: Sun, 1 Feb 2004 22:41:23 -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 On Sat, Jan 31, 2004 at 10:22:13PM -0500, Alan DeKok wrote > Despite the recent phenomenal increase in spam, there is still > massive opposition to *doing* anything about the problem. I remain, > as always, amazed. Even worse, is the reaction to those who are actually doing something about the problem. Deep pockets from dot-com IPO's sued MAPS into near uselessness. SPEWS stays anonymous to avoid the same fate. There are "legitimate" spammers who do not want to see spamming made totally illegal, because they want to get in on the act once the "bad spammers" are shut down. The main difference between them is that "bad spammers" break the law, while "legitimate spammers" buy politicians to re-write the law. This time around they bought opt-out legislation. If technical solutions do succeed in stopping spam, mark my word, you *WILL* see "must carry" legislation for "legitimate marketing email". -- Walter Dnes Email users are divided into two classes; 1) Those who have effective spam-blocking 2) Those who wish they did _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Feb 1 23:05:03 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA01480 for ; Sun, 1 Feb 2004 23:05:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AnVK8-0007Yx-UL for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 01 Feb 2004 23:04:37 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1244anr029068 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 1 Feb 2004 23:04:36 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AnVK8-0007Yl-PO for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 01 Feb 2004 23:04:36 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA01477 for ; Sun, 1 Feb 2004 23:04:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AnVK3-0001W4-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 01 Feb 2004 23:04:31 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AnVI4-0001L0-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 01 Feb 2004 23:02:28 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AnVHf-0001EZ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 01 Feb 2004 23:02:03 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AnVHe-0007MB-6q; Sun, 01 Feb 2004 23:02:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AnVGt-0007JU-85 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 01 Feb 2004 23:01:15 -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 XAA01265 for ; Sun, 1 Feb 2004 23:01:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AnVGp-0001BQ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 01 Feb 2004 23:01:11 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AnVFx-00014a-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 01 Feb 2004 23:00:17 -0500 Received: from pigeon.verisign.com ([65.205.251.71]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AnVFF-0000zX-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 01 Feb 2004 22:59:33 -0500 Received: from mou1wnexc02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.54]) by pigeon.verisign.com (8.12.10/) with ESMTP id i123xYYf005513; Sun, 1 Feb 2004 19:59:34 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Sun, 1 Feb 2004 19:59:33 -0800 Message-ID: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E011133F5@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Walter Dnes'" , ASRG list Subject: RE: [Asrg] Its all over for Challenge 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: Sun, 1 Feb 2004 19:59:29 -0800 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 > Even worse, is the reaction to those who are actually doing > something > about the problem. Deep pockets from dot-com IPO's sued MAPS > into near > uselessness. SPEWS stays anonymous to avoid the same fate. MAPS was undercapitalized for the role they wanted to play and they got cocky. They were finished once they started talking about 'collateral damage'. > If > technical solutions do succeed in stopping spam, mark my word, you > *WILL* see "must carry" legislation for "legitimate marketing email". So? If we have good domain based authentication much better for the MTA to accept any mail that is authenticated and allow the MUA to perform filtering on the basis of domain owner reputation. I don't want my ISP making arbitrary decisions about what mail I receive, I want to make those decisions myself, although I will probably use third party info to do so. I agree that the spam issue will change in character once the mafia spammers are eliminated. Actually that does not help some of the constituencies I work with, spam scams will probably become more effective with less competition. Who can believe that 20 nigerians each day are choosing them to transport cash out of the country? Who can believe that they screw up their paypal account 5 times a day? Unfortunately these scams will be more successful when the volume of attacks falls. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Feb 2 00:02:43 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA05044 for ; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 00:02:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AnWDv-0002ru-BY for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 00:02:15 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1252FhG011020 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 00:02:15 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AnWDv-0002rf-3a for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 00:02:15 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA05006 for ; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 00:02:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AnWDs-0000Gh-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 00:02:12 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AnWCv-0000BV-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 00:01:14 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AnWC0-00005Z-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 00:00:16 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AnWBo-0002fE-Rz; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 00:00:04 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AnWBI-0002eD-Eq for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 01 Feb 2004 23:59:32 -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 XAA04864 for ; Sun, 1 Feb 2004 23:59:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AnWBG-0007nA-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 01 Feb 2004 23:59:30 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AnWAW-0007dH-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 01 Feb 2004 23:58:44 -0500 Received: from snoopy.kiva.net ([216.9.137.16]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AnW9Q-0007PE-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 01 Feb 2004 23:57:36 -0500 Received: from [64.151.128.55] (dial-64-151-128-55.bton.kiva.net [64.151.128.55]) by snoopy.kiva.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBC713A6C for ; Sun, 1 Feb 2004 23:57:33 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v606) In-Reply-To: <20040201170006.1840.65741.Mailman@www1.ietf.org> References: <20040201170006.1840.65741.Mailman@www1.ietf.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <3DA674FB-1E1C-11B2-8944-0030658255CC@bloomington.in.us> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Jim Witte To: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.606) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] Getting SMTP "Bounce email" part of RFC changed... forget binary attachments Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 1 Jan 1970 03:50:53 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,DATE_IN_PAST_96_XX autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit from Vol 523 > Despite the recent phenomenal increase in spam, there is still > massive opposition to *doing* anything about the problem. I remain, > as always, amazed. [..] There are plenty of people willing to do > something about it but > talking isn't doing, is it? This place can never solve or even stem > the problem. It's a research group, research. Not design or Hi, I've been lurking on this list for a couple of days, trying to figure out of this is the best place to bring this idea up (someone recommended when I posted to the news.admin.net-abuse.email group). I have in the past gotten an awful lot of "Mail undeliverable" message from the daemon, with attached virus code in raw hex. I have been told that some of the worms will send out email that looks like such a mail daemon error. This could be, but I got the impression here that some worm had sent out copies of itself to a bunch of addresses, with my address in a spoofed From: header, and that for those addresses that had been cancelled, or did not exist (I've noticed that many worms/spammers appear to send junk to several "variants" of a particular address). Then the mail (ALL of it, including the attached worm code in raw hex) is bounced back to me (the spoofed sender). This would not be TOO annoying (any more than any other worm/spam is), except that the attachments are usually anywhere from 30-150KB in size, and I'm still on a dial-up line (to say nothing of the bandwidth these bounces use as they travel through the Internet). Furthermore, the attachments (even if they were legitimate attachments) are useless, since they are bounced by the daemon in raw hex format, and thus are not interpretable to most email readers. If a legitimate attachment got bounced, the original sender should logically have a copy of it still around. So why is the raw hex even left in the bounce message? To copy it there seems to me to server no purpose, other than to provide more incentive for people like me to get DSL (maybe a good thing, but that's another matter entirely), and clog the internet trunks (which is already happening, and may or may not matter, especially after the fiber glut of the late '90s) Does anyone else think this makes sense and that the RFC for mailer daemons should therefore be changed (or a new RFC proposed, or however the process goes, I'm new to this, as you can tell..) Thank you, Jim Witte jswitte@bloomington.in.us Indiana University Cog Sci/Comp Sci _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Feb 2 00:09:50 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA05403 for ; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 00:09:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AnWKo-0003d0-Fk for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 00:09:22 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1259MOP013934 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 00:09:22 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AnWKo-0003ca-5w for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 00:09:22 -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 AAA05394 for ; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 00:09:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AnWKl-0000st-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 00:09:19 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AnWJq-0000oF-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 00:08:22 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AnWJc-0000iI-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 00:08:08 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AnWJV-0003Ny-Kr; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 00:08:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AnWIp-00038p-A1 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 00:07:19 -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 AAA05329 for ; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 00:07:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AnWIn-0000hX-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 00:07:17 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AnWHq-0000cw-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 00:06:19 -0500 Received: from mail1.asianet.co.th ([203.144.222.229] helo=mail.asianet.co.th) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AnWHO-0000Xm-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 00:05:50 -0500 Received: from virscan2.asianet.co.th (HELO mail.asianet.co.th) ([203.144.222.198]) (envelope-sender ) by mail1.asianet.co.th (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 2 Feb 2004 12:05:17 +0700 Received: from ppp-210.86.179.217.revip.asianet.co.th (HELO localhost) ([210.86.179.217]) (envelope-sender ) by mx3.asianet.co.th (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 2 Feb 2004 12:05:17 +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] Getting SMTP "Bounce email" part of RFC changed... forget binary attachments 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: Mon, 02 Feb 2004 12:05:02 +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=TO_ADDRESS_EQ_REAL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Thu, 1 Jan 1970 03:50:53 -0500, Jim Witte wrote: > I've been lurking on this list for a couple of days, Apparently for more than 30 years from the date of your messge _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Feb 2 09:22:18 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA14382 for ; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 09:22:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AnexS-0004us-1L for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 09:21:51 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i12ELoDc018894 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 09:21:50 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AnexR-0004uf-Sj for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 09:21:49 -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 JAA14340 for ; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 09:21:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AnexQ-0005hH-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 09:21:48 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Anewa-0005at-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 09:20:56 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Anew1-0005TX-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 09:20:21 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Anevj-0004Wj-Ag; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 09:20:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AnepR-00044e-A9 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 09:13:33 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA13897 for ; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 09:13:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AnepP-0004q6-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 09:13:31 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AneoR-0004jC-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 09:12:31 -0500 Received: from mout.perfora.net ([217.160.230.40]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AnenR-0004Zx-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 09:11:29 -0500 Received: from [217.160.230.50] (helo=smtp.perfora.net) by mout.perfora.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1AnenC-0004or-00; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 09:11:14 -0500 Received: from [68.29.245.55] (helo=solidmatrix.com) by smtp.perfora.net with asmtp (TLSv1:RC4-MD5:128) (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1AnenB-0005ic-00; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 09:11:14 -0500 Message-ID: <401E5A6B.1060304@solidmatrix.com> From: Yakov Shafranovich Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, he, ru MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jon Kyme CC: ASRG , mcm+ppl@w3.org References: In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 0.82.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] 2. C/R - 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: Mon, 02 Feb 2004 09:10:51 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit [Was "Re: [Asrg] Its all over for Challenge Response", subject changed as per posting guidelines. Mod.] Jon Kyme wrote: >>Jon Kyme responds: >> >>>This is all getting silly. >>>Numbers? >>>Actual exploit? >> >>I say: >>Does anyone still seriously doubt that spamming miscreants are using >>third >>party computers as their web, mail and DNS hosts? Jon? This is not a new >>phenomenon anymore. >> > > [many links snipped] > > The point was about paying for puzzle solving with porn views. > I'm still unaware of the existence of an exploit or a good discussion of > the economics. > > I'm not saying it's impossible, just currently in the realm of theory. > The original news article is here, you can probably contact the journalist and ask: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/03278/228349.stm Matt McCay of W3C who wrote the draft on Turing tests, might help as well: http://www.bestkungfu.com/archive/?id=257 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 Mon Feb 2 09:24:22 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA14564 for ; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 09:24:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AnezS-0005On-QX for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 09:23:54 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i12ENs7U020747 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 09:23:54 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AnezS-0005OY-E1 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 09:23:54 -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 JAA14549 for ; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 09:23:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AnezQ-0005y0-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 09:23:52 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AneyW-0005qa-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 09:22:57 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Anexf-0005il-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 09:22:03 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Anexe-0004xA-V7; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 09:22:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AnewQ-0004cJ-HR for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 09:20:46 -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 JAA14266 for ; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 09:20:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AnewO-0005Yr-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 09:20:44 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AnevZ-0005T6-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 09:19:53 -0500 Received: from mout.perfora.net ([217.160.230.40]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aneuw-0005NC-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 09:19:14 -0500 Received: from [217.160.230.50] (helo=smtp.perfora.net) by mout.perfora.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1Aneuv-00053S-00; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 09:19:13 -0500 Received: from [68.29.245.55] (helo=solidmatrix.com) by smtp.perfora.net with asmtp (TLSv1:RC4-MD5:128) (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1Aneuu-0005pm-00; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 09:19:13 -0500 Message-ID: <401E5C55.8080501@solidmatrix.com> From: Yakov Shafranovich Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, he, ru MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jim Witte CC: asrg@ietf.org References: <20040201170006.1840.65741.Mailman@www1.ietf.org> <3DA674FB-1E1C-11B2-8944-0030658255CC@bloomington.in.us> In-Reply-To: <3DA674FB-1E1C-11B2-8944-0030658255CC@bloomington.in.us> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.82.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] 0. General - Bounces and Attachments Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2004 09:19:01 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 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: [Asrg] Getting SMTP "Bounce email" part of RFC changed... forget binary attachments). Mod.] Jim Witte wrote: > > This would not be TOO annoying (any more than any other worm/spam is), > except that the attachments are usually anywhere from 30-150KB in size, > and I'm still on a dial-up line (to say nothing of the bandwidth these > bounces use as they travel through the Internet). > Many email clients have an option to download the first XXX Kbs of a message, before downloading the rest. > Furthermore, the attachments (even if they were legitimate > attachments) are useless, since they are bounced by the daemon in raw > hex format, and thus are not interpretable to most email readers. If a > legitimate attachment got bounced, the original sender should logically > have a copy of it still around. So why is the raw hex even left in the > bounce message? To copy it there seems to me to server no purpose, > other than to provide more incentive for people like me to get DSL > (maybe a good thing, but that's another matter entirely), and clog the > internet trunks (which is already happening, and may or may not matter, > especially after the fiber glut of the late '90s) > > Does anyone else think this makes sense and that the RFC for mailer > daemons should therefore be changed (or a new RFC proposed, or however > the process goes, I'm new to this, as you can tell..) > The SMTP protocol does not distinguish between attachements and non-attachements, since it usually does not parse the body of the message. 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 Feb 2 09:35:18 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA15044 for ; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 09:35:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AnfA2-0006Tj-KU for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 09:34:51 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i12EYoLN024897 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 09:34:50 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AnfA2-0006TU-Ga for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 09:34:50 -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 JAA15034 for ; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 09:34:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AnfA0-00072h-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 09:34:48 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Anf90-0006wV-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 09:33:47 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Anf8Y-0006ps-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 09:33:18 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Anf8H-0006GI-Ks; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 09:33:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Anf7z-0006F7-U2 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 09:32:43 -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 JAA14955 for ; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 09:32:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Anf7y-0006oX-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 09:32:42 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Anf76-0006jA-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 09:31:48 -0500 Received: from teal.hjp.at ([62.99.236.98]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Anf6a-0006cy-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 09:31:16 -0500 Received: (qmail 10639 invoked by uid 500); 2 Feb 2004 14:30:44 -0000 From: "Peter J. Holzer" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: 2a. Best Current Practices - Re: [Asrg] Getting SMTP "Bounce email" part of RFC changed... forget binary attachments Message-ID: <20040202143044.GC7135@teal.hjp.at> Mail-Followup-To: asrg@ietf.org References: <20040201170006.1840.65741.Mailman@www1.ietf.org> <3DA674FB-1E1C-11B2-8944-0030658255CC@bloomington.in.us> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="E13BgyNx05feLLmH" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3DA674FB-1E1C-11B2-8944-0030658255CC@bloomington.in.us> 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, 2 Feb 2004 15:30:44 +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 --E13BgyNx05feLLmH Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable [Changing the subject - btw, is there a list of the recommended subject prefixes somewhere? For those of us who post rather infrequently to this list it would be handy] On 1970-01-01 03:50:53 -0500, Jim Witte wrote: > I have in the past gotten an awful lot of "Mail undeliverable"=20 > message from the daemon, with attached virus code in raw hex. I have=20 > been told that some of the worms will send out email that looks like=20 > such a mail daemon error. This could be, but I got the impression here= =20 > that some worm had sent out copies of itself to a bunch of addresses,=20 > with my address in a spoofed From: header, and that for those addresses= =20 > that had been cancelled, or did not exist (I've noticed that many=20 > worms/spammers appear to send junk to several "variants" of a=20 > particular address). Then the mail (ALL of it, including the attached=20 > worm code in raw hex) is bounced back to me (the spoofed sender). Ignoring the question what "raw hex" might be and the fact that there are worms which disguise themselves as DSNs, yes, real bounced viruses and spam are annoying enough. > Does anyone else think this makes sense and that the RFC for mailer=20 > daemons should therefore be changed (or a new RFC proposed, or however=20 > the process goes, I'm new to this, as you can tell..) There is no need to change an RFC, since, AFAICS, no RFC says that the complete message must be included in the bounce message: RFC 2821: If an SMTP server has accepted the task of relaying the mail and later finds that the destination is incorrect or that the mail cannot be delivered for some other reason, then it MUST construct an "undeliverable mail" notification message and send it to the originator of the undeliverable mail (as indicated by the reverse- path). Formats specified for non-delivery reports by other standards (see, for example, [24, 25]) SHOULD be used if possible. RFC 3464: (d) If the original message or a portion of the message is to be returned to the sender, it appears as the third component of the multipart/report. So RFC 2821 only mandates that some non-delivery notification must be sent, but does not the information included in or the format. Even the totally useless bounce I got recently "The message sent from to could not be delivered" is conforming to RFC 2821. It does however strongly recommend the format in RFC 3464 (multipart/report), which includes *the original message or a portion* of it as an *optional* part.=20 So an MTA conforming to both RFCs could (and probably should) only return a part (maybe the first text/plain part) of the original message. However, RFC 3464 also says: (e) It must preserve enough information to allow the maintainer of a remote MTA to understand (and if possible, reproduce) the conditions that caused a delivery failure at that MTA. and the third part should be of type message/rfc822 (though the RFC doesn't explicitely say so), so some care must be taken when shortening messages. Your "raw hex" bounces almost certainly do not conform to RFC 3464, btw. =09 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 --E13BgyNx05feLLmH Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFAHl8UfZ+RkG8quy0RAs54AKCDB8uthVLTMNAVCbUwZsU/Gl7ACgCePXkA r6GMiV1MolaBJ8ztaItA2RI= =nYp0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --E13BgyNx05feLLmH-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Feb 2 10:23:11 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA18431 for ; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 10:23:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AnfuO-00080U-OC for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 10:22:44 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i12FMihg030771 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 10:22:44 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AnfuO-000809-IW for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 10:22:44 -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 KAA18419 for ; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 10:22:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AnfuM-0004cT-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 10:22:42 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AnftQ-0004XC-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 10:21:45 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Anfst-0004Rp-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 10:21:11 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Anfsj-0007HX-SJ; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 10:21:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AnfsN-0007Cr-SW for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 10:20:39 -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 KAA18271 for ; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 10:20:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AnfsL-0004Pv-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 10:20:37 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AnfrO-0004Jx-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 10:19:39 -0500 Received: from argon.connectinternetsolutions.com ([193.110.243.33] helo=argon.connect.org.uk) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AnfqS-0004EF-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 10:18:40 -0500 Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 1AnfqM-0003lA-6z; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 15:18:34 +0000 In-Reply-To: <401E5A6B.1060304@solidmatrix.com> Subject: Re: [Asrg] 2. C/R - Exploits To: "Yakov Shafranovich" 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, 02 Feb 2004 15:18:34 +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 original news article is here, you can probably contact the > journalist and ask: > > http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/03278/228349.stm > Thanks Yakov, I shall certainly do that. I'll let you know what I find out. -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Feb 2 11:45:14 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA22111 for ; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 11:45:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AnhBm-0006nJ-GQ for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 11:44:46 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i12GikVj026111 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 11:44:46 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AnhBm-0006n4-Bz for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 11:44:46 -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 LAA22102 for ; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 11:44:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AnhBl-00067i-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 11:44:45 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AnhAs-00062J-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 11:43:51 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AnhAG-0005vv-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 11:43:12 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AnhA4-0006WL-SK; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 11:43:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Anh9o-0006Vp-8a for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 11:42:44 -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 LAA22010 for ; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 11:42:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Anh9n-0005uN-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 11:42:43 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Anh8v-0005p9-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 11:41:50 -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 1Anh8L-0005jm-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 11:41:13 -0500 Received: from newgiles.nitros9.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.nitros9.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C59016CF4 for ; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 11:43:29 -0500 (EST) From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - Bounces and Attachments In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 02 Feb 2004 09:19:01 EST." <401E5C55.8080501@solidmatrix.com> Message-Id: <20040202164329.7C59016CF4@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, 02 Feb 2004 11:43:29 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > The SMTP protocol does not distinguish between attachements and > non-attachements, since it usually does not parse the body of the message. That is, there is nothing within SMTP to allow a recipient MTA to be informed as to: a) size of the body b) hints as to the content of the body Right now, the recipient has to accept the entire message to obtain this information. If SMTP required the originator to publish the size and number of messages they were trying to deliver, then that would provide significant information to the recipient, which would allow him to make better decisions about the messages. e.g. I don't know who you are, and you want to send me a 1M message? sorry, you get 10 kbps. e.g. You said you wanted to send me a 1k message, and you've just hit the 10k mark. I think I'll hang up now, and blacklist you. These sort of protocol additions have *zero* impact on trusted and honest users of SMTP. They can have large impact on the ability to deal with malicious unknown senders. But... SMTP is perfect as-is. Why would we want to change it? Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Feb 2 13:32:50 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA29283 for ; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 13:32:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Anirt-0000sh-No for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 13:32:22 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i12IWLIO003381 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 13:32:21 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Anirt-0000sS-ID for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 13:32:21 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA29237 for ; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 13:32:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Anirr-0006LQ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 13:32:19 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Aniqc-0006AL-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 13:31:03 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Anips-00061s-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 13:30:16 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Anipf-0000a1-2x; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 13:30:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Anioe-0000WY-If for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 13:29:00 -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 NAA29033 for ; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 13:28:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Anioc-0005oP-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 13:28:58 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Anine-0005gO-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 13:27:59 -0500 Received: from teal.hjp.at ([62.99.236.98]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Anims-0005Vg-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 13:27:10 -0500 Received: (qmail 13886 invoked by uid 500); 2 Feb 2004 18:26:39 -0000 From: "Peter J. Holzer" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - Bounces and Attachments Message-ID: <20040202182639.GP7135@teal.hjp.at> Mail-Followup-To: asrg@ietf.org References: <401E5C55.8080501@solidmatrix.com> <20040202164329.7C59016CF4@mail.nitros9.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="IpgPcFyQO6wM49Um" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040202164329.7C59016CF4@mail.nitros9.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: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 19:26:39 +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 --IpgPcFyQO6wM49Um Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 2004-02-02 11:43:29 -0500, Alan DeKok wrote: > Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > > The SMTP protocol does not distinguish between attachements and=20 > > non-attachements, since it usually does not parse the body of the messa= ge. >=20 > That is, there is nothing within SMTP to allow a recipient MTA to > be informed as to: >=20 > a) size of the body There is the SMTP SIZE extension (RFC 1870), which is in widespread use. > b) hints as to the content of the body Right. That would be nice. > Right now, the recipient has to accept the entire message to obtain > this information. >=20 > If SMTP required the originator to publish the size and number of > messages they were trying to deliver, then that would provide > significant information to the recipient, which would allow him to > make better decisions about the messages. >=20 > e.g. I don't know who you are, and you want to send me a 1M message? > sorry, you get 10 kbps. >=20 > e.g. You said you wanted to send me a 1k message, and you've just > hit the 10k mark. I think I'll hang up now, and blacklist you. The size extension (like all extensions) is optional. However, similar policies could currently be implemented:=20 You can throttle the speed to 10 kbps on all unknown senders which don't support the size extension (this won't hurt unknown senders which send small messages much). You can impose a small message size limit on unknown senders and either=20 hangup and blacklist them or reject the message after receiving it (and blacklist them). > These sort of protocol additions have *zero* impact on trusted and > honest users of SMTP. If the size extension is made mandatory for clients, many MTAs will have to be upgraded or replaced. This is not zero impact. We already have a voluntary mechanism for the client to disclose this information. 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 --IpgPcFyQO6wM49Um Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFAHpZffZ+RkG8quy0RAn3GAJ9tEwwEmT2cWiK4iZo1fCM+eKqYTACgjK4M +8pyUd6VLUW0pk+8rp0G/gI= =CoGL -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --IpgPcFyQO6wM49Um-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Feb 2 13:44:00 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA00322 for ; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 13:44:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Anj2i-0002TF-0Q for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 13:43:32 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i12IhVa9009491 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 13:43:31 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Anj2h-0002T0-Sy for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 13:43:31 -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 NAA00266 for ; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 13:43:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Anj2f-0000kr-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 13:43:29 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Anizo-0000A8-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 13:40:34 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Anixq-0007Vc-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 13:38:30 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AnixQ-0001mS-HV; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 13:38:04 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Anf1B-0005T5-GF for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 09:25:41 -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 JAA14684 for ; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 09:25:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Anf19-0006Au-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 09:25:39 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Anf0H-000656-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 09:24:45 -0500 Received: from mout.perfora.net ([217.160.230.40]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AnezV-0005yl-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 09:23:57 -0500 Received: from [217.160.230.50] (helo=smtp.perfora.net) by mout.perfora.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1AnezV-0006G8-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 09:23:57 -0500 Received: from [68.29.245.55] (helo=solidmatrix.com) by smtp.perfora.net with asmtp (TLSv1:RC4-MD5:128) (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1AnezU-0005tf-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 09:23:57 -0500 Message-ID: <401E5D6E.8080004@solidmatrix.com> From: Yakov Shafranovich Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, he, ru MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ASRG X-Enigmail-Version: 0.82.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] 0. General - Soliciting Volunteers for Subgroups Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2004 09:23:42 -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 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ASRG Members, We are forming subgroups in line with the new charter, and are seeking volunteers. Each subgroup has specific goals and targeted participants, which are described on the homepage of each subgroup. All subgroups currently being formed and active have a closed membership policy. To join, please contact the ASRG chairs, contact information can be found on the ASRG homepage: http://asrg.sp.am. We expect all of these to start this month depending on the feedback we receive and interest of the community. Feel free to forward this message along to interested parties. The list of the subgroups is as follows (http://asrg.sp.am/about/subgroups.shtml): --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- o Abuse Reporting Standards - researches standard formats and protocols for reporting email and network abuse Homepage: http://asrg.sp.am/subgroups/abuse_reports.shtml) o Analysis & Characterization (A&C) - applies empirical and quantitative methods to problems and issues surrounding spam Homepage: http://asrg.sp.am/subgroups/analysis.shtml o Best Current Practices (BCP) - researches and documents best practices for spam management Homepage: http://asrg.sp.am/subgroups/bcp.shtml o Filtering Standards (FILTERING) - researches filtering standards for dynamic updating and interaction with MTAs Homepage: http://asrg.sp.am/subgroups/filtering.shtml o Inventory of Problems - research problems with the current email architechture that facilitate spam http://asrg.sp.am/subgroups/problems.shtml o Message Verification (MSG-VERIFY) - researches solutions dealing with verification and authetication in the email messages and headers http://asrg.sp.am/subgroups/msg_verify.shtml o SMTP Session Verification (SMTP-VERIFY) - researches solutions dealing with authetication and verification of the SMTP session (will encompass the old LMAP and CRI subgroups) http://asrg.sp.am/subgroups/smtp_verify.shtml --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sincerely, Yakov Shafranovich Co-Chair, Anti-Spam Research Group (ASRG) of the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) ASRG Homepage: http://asrg.sp.am ------- 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 Mon Feb 2 14:01:23 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA02516 for ; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 14:01:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AnjJX-00052j-Ud for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 14:00:56 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i12J0sa8019360 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 14:00:54 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AnjJQ-000529-5N for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 14:00:48 -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 OAA02395 for ; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 14:00:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AnjJN-0004n0-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 14:00:45 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AnjHh-0004Mi-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 13:59:02 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AnjF7-0003gC-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 13:56:21 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AnjEn-00040p-T5; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 13:56:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AnjEA-0003wr-3N for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 13:55:22 -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 NAA01352 for ; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 13:55:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AnjE7-0003ON-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 13:55:19 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AnjAx-0002b5-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 13:52:04 -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 1Anj7k-0001rS-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 13:48:45 -0500 Received: from newgiles.nitros9.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.nitros9.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E296F16CCA for ; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 13:50:55 -0500 (EST) From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - Bounces and Attachments In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 02 Feb 2004 19:26:39 +0100." <20040202182639.GP7135@teal.hjp.at> Message-Id: <20040202185055.E296F16CCA@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, 02 Feb 2004 13:50:55 -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=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 "Peter J. Holzer" wrote: > > a) size of the body > > There is the SMTP SIZE extension (RFC 1870), which is in widespread use. Arg. That's what I get for not reading ~3,5k RFC's. > If the size extension is made mandatory for clients, many MTAs will have > to be upgraded or replaced. This is not zero impact. It's a one-time cost to upgrade their systems. They may get this feature for free, as part of their normal upgrade process. We already know that *any* changes to SMTP use, implementation, or deployment already have costs. So I'm less concerned about the deployment costs, as long as they're small. Unlike other solutions which require ongoing maintenance and user interaction (e.g. DK user key distribution), requiring publication of sender policy is a process which is transparent to all participants above the MTA level. And even the MTA administrators don't have to do more than set policy, and then maintain it. > We already have a voluntary mechanism for the client to disclose > this information. Which is currently unhelpful... because many "trusted" systems don't use it. So the information it provides is unreliable, in that it doesn't help distinguish bad systems from good ones. As a general principle, most systems could handle spam if they published a policy for accepting spam (# of messages, size, arrival rate, bandwidth, etc.), and then the spammers *followed* that policy. Right not, there's no way for the recipient to publish their policy, and there are few ways for the originator to publish what they intend to send. There's the following draft which is interesting: http://www.potaroo.net/ietf/ids/draft-shveidel-mediasize-04.txt It's part of the "lemonade" group, and would appear to be relevant. But the authors intention for it is to allow MTA's to better handle multi-media mail, not to deal with spam. Syntactical objections to it are at: https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/lemonade/current/msg00285.html Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Feb 2 16:27:47 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA13204 for ; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 16:27:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AnlbD-0001Ar-SL for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 16:27:20 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i12LRJj1004507 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 16:27:19 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AnlbD-0001Ac-NI for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 16:27:19 -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 QAA13102 for ; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 16:27:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AnlbB-00058d-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 16:27:17 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AnlZy-0004tD-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 16:26:03 -0500 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AnlYt-0004co-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 16:24:55 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by mx2.foretec.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1AnlUj-0006Kl-PJ for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 16:20:37 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AnlUC-0000bE-LZ; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 16:20:04 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AnlTC-0000Y3-7m for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 16:19:02 -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 QAA11936 for ; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 16:18:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AnlTA-0003T5-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 16:19:00 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AnlRS-00031g-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 16:17:15 -0500 Received: from teal.hjp.at ([62.99.236.98]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AnlPQ-0002Ni-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 16:15:09 -0500 Received: (qmail 15633 invoked by uid 500); 2 Feb 2004 21:14:27 -0000 From: "Peter J. Holzer" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - Bounces and Attachments Message-ID: <20040202211427.GS7135@teal.hjp.at> Mail-Followup-To: asrg@ietf.org References: <20040202182639.GP7135@teal.hjp.at> <20040202185055.E296F16CCA@mail.nitros9.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="gMqNd2jlyJQcupG/" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040202185055.E296F16CCA@mail.nitros9.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: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 22:14:27 +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 --gMqNd2jlyJQcupG/ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 2004-02-02 13:50:55 -0500, Alan DeKok wrote: > "Peter J. Holzer" wrote: > > > a) size of the body > >=20 > > There is the SMTP SIZE extension (RFC 1870), which is in widespread use. >=20 > Arg. That's what I get for not reading ~3,5k RFC's. :-) > > If the size extension is made mandatory for clients, many MTAs will have > > to be upgraded or replaced. This is not zero impact. >=20 > It's a one-time cost to upgrade their systems. They may get this > feature for free, as part of their normal upgrade process. We already > know that *any* changes to SMTP use, implementation, or deployment > already have costs. So I'm less concerned about the deployment costs, > as long as they're small. No disagreement here. I was only objecting to "zero impact". There will be costs, not only in money and labour to upgrade the software, but also in rejected legitimate mails, when some MTAs start to reject messages without a size estimate while others still haven't implemented it.=20 I cannot estimate how large that would be: SIZE is already widely, but not universally deployed. > > We already have a voluntary mechanism for the client to disclose > > this information. >=20 > Which is currently unhelpful... because many "trusted" systems don't > use it. So the information it provides is unreliable, in that it > doesn't help distinguish bad systems from good ones. =20 >=20 > As a general principle, most systems could handle spam if they > published a policy for accepting spam (# of messages, size, arrival > rate, bandwidth, etc.), and then the spammers *followed* that policy. I don't think that's very realistic. Firstly, people want zero spam, and unlimited "interesting" mails. My users complain if they get a single 1k spam message per day and they complain if they don't get those 67 40MB powerpoint presentations that someone sent them in an hour. There just isn't a correlation between # messages, arrival rate, bandwidth, etc. and "spam". Secondly, spammers don't admit they send spam, and a single spammer often masquerades as many senders. > Right not, there's no way for the recipient to publish their policy, > and there are few ways for the originator to publish what they intend > to send. >=20 > There's the following draft which is interesting: >=20 > http://www.potaroo.net/ietf/ids/draft-shveidel-mediasize-04.txt Indeed. That may make some impact on worms, etc. (However, MTAs MUST check the real content-types to make it effective: An executable masquerading as a 4 second audio-File would otherwise slip through almost everywhere). It won't have much impact on UCE, which is almost exclusively text (plain or html). 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 --gMqNd2jlyJQcupG/ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFAHr2zfZ+RkG8quy0RAsSWAKCGsOYx9n3027B3jrjB2+gw+gIhdgCeIzV7 sLnsHPQKgh4XxZv8k9XmIWk= =WiJZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --gMqNd2jlyJQcupG/-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Feb 2 16:29:35 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA13492 for ; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 16:29:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Anlcv-0001IG-AB for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 16:29:08 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i12LT5u6004966 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 16:29:05 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Anlcv-0001I1-6E for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 16:29:05 -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 QAA13437 for ; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 16:29:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Anlct-0005TL-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 16:29:03 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Anlc6-0005LI-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 16:28:15 -0500 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AnlbA-00058T-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 16:27:17 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by mx2.foretec.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1Anlb0-0007D6-7j for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 16:27:06 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Anlav-00012Y-Dn; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 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 1AnlZ5-0000y7-Qe for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 16:25:10 -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 QAA12913 for ; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 16:25:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AnlZ4-0004ju-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 16:25:06 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AnlY7-0004ZU-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 16:24:08 -0500 Received: from mout.perfora.net ([217.160.230.40]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AnlXG-0004OC-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 16:23:14 -0500 Received: from [217.160.230.50] (helo=smtp.perfora.net) by mout.perfora.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1AnlXE-0002uL-00; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 16:23:12 -0500 Received: from [68.29.242.48] (helo=solidmatrix.com) by smtp.perfora.net with asmtp (TLSv1:RC4-MD5:128) (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1AnlXB-0005BW-00; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 16:23:12 -0500 Message-ID: <401EBFB4.8030702@solidmatrix.com> From: Yakov Shafranovich Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, he, ru MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alan DeKok CC: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - Bounces and Attachments References: <20040202185055.E296F16CCA@mail.nitros9.org> In-Reply-To: <20040202185055.E296F16CCA@mail.nitros9.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.82.2.0 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: Mon, 02 Feb 2004 16:23:00 -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: > "Peter J. Holzer" wrote: > >>We already have a voluntary mechanism for the client to disclose >>this information. > > Which is currently unhelpful... because many "trusted" systems don't > use it. So the information it provides is unreliable, in that it > doesn't help distinguish bad systems from good ones. > > As a general principle, most systems could handle spam if they > published a policy for accepting spam (# of messages, size, arrival > rate, bandwidth, etc.), and then the spammers *followed* that policy. > Right not, there's no way for the recipient to publish their policy, > and there are few ways for the originator to publish what they intend > to send. > There has been some talk about a generic policy expression mechanisms for MTAs. The question is how do you enforce it? 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 Feb 2 21:30:36 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA01106 for ; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 21:30:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AnqKE-0002q1-Re for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 21:30:09 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i132U6J0010903 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 21:30:06 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AnqKE-0002pm-Lh for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 21:30:06 -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 VAA01101 for ; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 21:30:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AnqKC-00025B-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 21:30:04 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AnqJH-0001yj-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 21:29:07 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AnqIf-0001tE-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 21:28:29 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AnqID-0002dm-Nr; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 21:28:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AnqIB-0002dY-Fa for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 21:27:59 -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 VAA00995 for ; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 21:27:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AnqI8-0001r7-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 21:27:56 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AnqHA-0001lh-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 21:26:57 -0500 Received: from xuxa.iecc.com ([208.31.42.42]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AnqGF-0001cX-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 21:25:59 -0500 Received: (qmail 13708 invoked by uid 100); 3 Feb 2004 02:25:54 -0000 Message-ID: <20040203022554.13707.qmail@xuxa.iecc.com> From: John Levine To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - Bounces and Attachments In-Reply-To: <20040202185055.E296F16CCA@mail.nitros9.org> Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA Cc: aland@ox.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: 3 Feb 2004 02:25:54 -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 > As a general principle, most systems could handle spam if they >published a policy for accepting spam (# of messages, size, arrival >rate, bandwidth, etc.), and then the spammers *followed* that policy. Given that spammers have made it pretty clear that they will stoop to anything to try to shove their junk into our MTAs, I don't see how publishing a policy could be of any use unless it was soemthing like my old NO UCE banner with lawsuits to back it up. Anything more complex than a single bit for spam/no spam is overimplemented. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://iecc.com/johnl, Sewer Commissioner "More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Feb 2 21:50:33 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA01903 for ; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 21:50:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AnqdZ-0005FC-El for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 21:50:06 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i132o5RT020152 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 21:50:05 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AnqdZ-0005Eu-8i for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 21:50:05 -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 VAA01897 for ; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 21:50:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AnqdW-0004Ik-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 21:50:02 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AnqcY-00049d-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 21:49:02 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Anqbd-00041R-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 21:48:05 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AnqbZ-0004av-Lc; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 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 1Anqae-0004XT-2V for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 21:47:04 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA01842 for ; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 21:47:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Anqab-0003r2-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 21:47:01 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AnqZk-0003lw-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 21:46:08 -0500 Received: from mail010.syd.optusnet.com.au ([211.29.132.56]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AnqZ6-0003dO-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 21:45:28 -0500 Received: from zen.fernhaven (c211-30-106-146.carlnfd1.nsw.optusnet.com.au [211.30.106.146]) by mail010.syd.optusnet.com.au (8.11.6p2/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i132iul03344 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 13:44:56 +1100 Received: from [172.16.0.129] (helo=fred.fernhaven) by zen.fernhaven with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1AnqYZ-0001VO-00 for ; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 13:44:55 +1100 From: Brett Watson Organization: PhD Student, Macquarie University To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: [Asrg] 0. General - Pointer to resource for studying existing standards 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: <200402031344.53754.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, 3 Feb 2004 13:44:53 +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 Alan DeKok wrote: > Arg. That's what I get for not reading ~3,5k RFC's. It's difficult to keep abreast of existing standards and proposals, but if Internet mail standards happen to be your specific interest, then the Internet Mail Consortium's website may prove useful. http://www.imc.org/ The following page has a list of mail-related RFCs, neatly categorised and marked according to their status (as informative, BCP, proposed standard, etc). http://www.imc.org/rfcs.html I encourage readers of this list to have a brief look around it, and bookmark those pages which appear useful. It is also the home of the "mail-ng" mailing list which Yakov mentioned recently. Regards, TFBW _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Feb 3 04:34:43 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA29624 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 04:34:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Anwwh-0004se-3L for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 04:34:15 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i139YEdq018754 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 04:34:14 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Anwwg-0004sP-Go for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 04:34:14 -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 EAA29581 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 04:34:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Anwwd-00073W-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 04:34:11 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Anwve-0006xO-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 04:33:10 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Anwui-0006ss-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 04:32:12 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AnwuX-0004iF-8W; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 04:32:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Anwtn-0004gp-Jb for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 04:31:15 -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 EAA29538 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 04:31:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Anwtk-0006oN-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 04:31:12 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Anwsm-0006jx-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 04:30:13 -0500 Received: from argon.connectinternetsolutions.com ([193.110.243.33] helo=argon.connect.org.uk) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AnwsV-0006fd-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 04:29:55 -0500 Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 1AnwsQ-0004ot-UX for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 09:29:50 +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 - Challenges? Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2004 09:29:50 +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 Is anyone else getting challenges back for / from nedelcho.stanev@atlanticsky.com ? If so, can the owner do something about it or can that address be knocked off the list please? -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Feb 3 05:34:52 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA00959 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 05:34:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Anxsv-0003zB-9o for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 05:34:25 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i13AYPIm015315 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 05:34:25 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Anxsv-0003yu-0Q for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 05:34:25 -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 FAA00954 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 05:34:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Anxsr-0004UA-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 05:34:21 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Anxrt-0004OK-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 05:33:21 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Anxrf-0004Ix-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 05:33:07 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AnxrZ-0003ox-LC; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 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 1Anxqr-0003nM-Qq for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 05:32:17 -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 FAA00910 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 05:32:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Anxqo-0004Hj-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 05:32:14 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Anxpu-0004CM-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 05:31:18 -0500 Received: from teal.hjp.at ([62.99.236.98]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AnxpF-00042n-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 05:30:37 -0500 Received: (qmail 24293 invoked by uid 500); 3 Feb 2004 10:30:07 -0000 From: "Peter J. Holzer" To: ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - Challenges? Message-ID: <20040203103007.GE23133@teal.hjp.at> Mail-Followup-To: ASRG References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="0IvGJv3f9h+YhkrH" 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, 3 Feb 2004 11:30:07 +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 --0IvGJv3f9h+YhkrH Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 2004-02-03 09:29:50 +0000, Jon Kyme wrote: > Is anyone else getting challenges back=20 > for / from > nedelcho.stanev@atlanticsky.com ? Yes. 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 --0IvGJv3f9h+YhkrH Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFAH3gvfZ+RkG8quy0RAnHbAJ4h9PaSIKtMxhicYPYInojq/OBWGwCaAwtP 0Xx2FL/D+6LXu/8/QKzgYL0= =T13h -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --0IvGJv3f9h+YhkrH-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Feb 3 08:52:02 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA08701 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 08:52:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ao0xh-0006BI-EP for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 08:51:33 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i13DpX4J023754 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 08:51:33 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ao0xh-0006B3-9u for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 08:51:33 -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 IAA08696 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 08:51:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ao0xf-0002o9-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 08:51:32 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Ao0wf-0002jD-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 08:50:30 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ao0wP-0002dn-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 08:50:13 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ao0wF-0005tz-4s; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 08:50:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ao0op-00051h-0Q for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 08:42:23 -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 IAA08410 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 08:42:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ao0on-0001yH-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 08:42:21 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Ao0nw-0001th-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 08:41:29 -0500 Received: from mout.perfora.net ([217.160.230.40]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ao0nO-0001of-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 08:40:54 -0500 Received: from [217.160.230.51] (helo=smtp.perfora.net) by mout.perfora.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1Ao0nL-0008UR-00; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 08:40:51 -0500 Received: from [68.29.141.227] (helo=solidmatrix.com) by smtp.perfora.net with asmtp (TLSv1:RC4-MD5:128) (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1Ao0nK-0000kR-00; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 08:40:51 -0500 Message-ID: <401FA4D6.504@solidmatrix.com> From: Yakov Shafranovich Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, he, ru MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Peter J. Holzer" CC: ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - Challenges? References: <20040203103007.GE23133@teal.hjp.at> In-Reply-To: <20040203103007.GE23133@teal.hjp.at> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.82.2.0 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: Tue, 03 Feb 2004 08:40:38 -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 Peter J. Holzer wrote: > On 2004-02-03 09:29:50 +0000, Jon Kyme wrote: > >>Is anyone else getting challenges back >>for / from >>nedelcho.stanev@atlanticsky.com ? > > > Yes. > I am getting these also. I disabled list delivery to that address until the owner can sort out his C/R system. 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 Feb 3 10:46:57 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA15030 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 10:46:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ao2ku-0001hb-7h for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 10:46:30 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i13FkSD3006537 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 10:46:28 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ao2kt-0001hM-Uq for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 10:46:27 -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 KAA14998 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 10:46:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ao2kr-0000F5-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 10:46:25 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Ao2ju-00006h-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 10:45:27 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ao2j1-0007lW-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 10:44:31 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ao2iX-00019j-Pu; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 10:44:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ao2i0-00013W-KZ for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 10:43:29 -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 KAA14853 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 10:43:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ao2hy-0007ZL-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 10:43:26 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Ao2h4-0007RH-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 10:42:31 -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 1Ao2g8-0007HE-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 10:41:32 -0500 Received: from newgiles.nitros9.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.nitros9.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51A1316FD6 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 10:43:48 -0500 (EST) From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - Bounces and Attachments In-Reply-To: Your message of "03 Feb 2004 02:25:54 GMT." <20040203022554.13707.qmail@xuxa.iecc.com> Message-Id: <20040203154348.51A1316FD6@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, 03 Feb 2004 10:43:48 -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 John Levine wrote: > Given that spammers have made it pretty clear that they will stoop to > anything to try to shove their junk into our MTAs, I don't see how > publishing a policy could be of any use unless it was soemthing like > my old NO UCE banner with lawsuits to back it up. Anything more > complex than a single bit for spam/no spam is overimplemented. This comes back to the question of why doors have locks, when the locks don't prevent criminals from entering. Publishing a policy as to number, size, bandwidth, etc. for incoming mail allows a recipient to better interact with any cooperating originator to better manage network resources. e.g. Rather than bouncing mail when the disk is full, tell the originator "try again in a day" More information means better decisions. Much of this kind of information is currently *implicit* in SMTP. It means that in order to cooperate with the recipient, the originator must jump through all sorts of hoops to try to discover the recipients policy. That work is unnecessary, and is wasteful of resources. So how does this apply to spammers? As you said, they are non-cooperating originators. Once the recipient publishes a policy, and an originator doesn't cooperate, then the recipient has reasonable grounds for changing the way he deals with that originator. Getting such information in the mail envelope stage is *much* preferable to getting it post-facto, after applying a content filter which may or may not work. In other words, the spammers are non-cooperative in the SMTP conversation, completely independent of the message body. That fact alone means that SMTP envelope methods to address spam will ALWAYS be more effective than content-based filtering. And we are seeing this now. Many spammers are sending messages like: --- Here's the URL you requested: http.... -- There is so little content to that message that in order to prevent similar non-spam messages from being caught in a filter, the filter must err on the side of false negatives... and let spam through. This solution is unacceptable in many ways. Now you might say that recipients are already publishing such policies. But they're not, really. They may be *enforcing* such policies, but there is no standard way to publish them. This lack of a standard also means that it's more difficult for the local administrator to decide what the policies are. The decisions usually end up being: - MTA software says turn on feature FOO to gith spam Ok... we turn it on. Question: What's the local site policy? Answer: The administrator doesn't know. So having a method to publish those policies means that the administrators will create them, rather than just using magic stuff that other people told them works. Magic wands are nice for wizards, but they're inappropriate in a technical environment. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Feb 3 11:12:10 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA15975 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 11:12:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ao39L-0003mm-FR for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 11:11:43 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i13GBhat014546 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 11:11:43 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ao39L-0003mX-9o for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 11:11:43 -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 LAA15967 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 11:11:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ao39I-0002tQ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 11:11:40 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Ao38L-0002mn-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 11:10:42 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ao381-0002gK-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 11:10:21 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ao37h-0003Jj-UZ; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 11:10:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ao379-0003GJ-LA for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 11:09:27 -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 LAA15869 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 11:09:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ao377-0002ch-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 11:09:25 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Ao369-0002W5-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 11:08:25 -0500 Received: from smtp.everyone.net ([216.200.145.17] helo=rmta03.mta.everyone.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ao35E-0002QN-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 11:07:28 -0500 Received: from sohonotebook (ip68-100-37-118.dc.dc.cox.net [68.100.37.118]) by rmta03.mta.everyone.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA48E3C134 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 08:07:27 -0800 (PST) From: "Eric Dean" To: Subject: RE: [Asrg] 2. C/R - Exploits Message-ID: <006201c3ea6f$d25b15c0$6401a8c0@sohonotebook> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 11:07:27 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I'd be mildly interested to better understand the CRI exploits: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-irtf-asrg-cri-00.txt This document expires next month...there has been little to no discussion nor interest of this draft (nor any others which I have seen). We are a research group that is to produce research for the IETF rather than merely exchange ideas. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Feb 3 12:06:56 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA18635 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 12:06:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ao40K-0000Ni-S7 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 12:06:28 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i13H6Sv8001460 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 12:06:28 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ao40K-0000NT-Le for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 12:06:28 -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 MAA18565 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 12:06:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ao40J-0000qP-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 12:06:27 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Ao3zO-0000i2-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 12:05:30 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ao3yR-0000Y7-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 12:04:31 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ao3wz-0008NX-4G; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 12:03:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ao3wf-0008Kg-9a for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 12:02:41 -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 MAA18250 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 12:02:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ao3we-0000Jr-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 12:02:40 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Ao3ve-0000E0-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 12:01:39 -0500 Received: from argon.connectinternetsolutions.com ([193.110.243.33] helo=argon.connect.org.uk) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ao3vN-00008G-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 12:01:21 -0500 Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 1Ao3vH-00017l-SY for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 17:01:15 +0000 In-Reply-To: <006201c3ea6f$d25b15c0$6401a8c0@sohonotebook> Subject: Re: RE: [Asrg] 2. C/R - Exploits 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, 03 Feb 2004 17:01:15 +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=AWL,HTML_MESSAGE autolearn=no version=2.60 > > I'd be mildly interested to better understand the CRI exploits: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-irtf-asrg-cri-00.txt > > > This document expires next month...there has been little to no > discussion nor interest of this draft (nor any others which I have > seen). We are a research group that is to produce research for the IETF > rather than merely exchange ideas. Not specifically C/R - but following on from a previous thread, I'm trying to track down the "porn-pay" CAPTCHA exploit. I had a prompt and helpful response from Byron Spice, I'm hoping to hear back from Luis von Ahn at CMU. Greg Mori of UC Berkeley Computer Vision Group has some pages oulining a method used to break Gimpy, the CAPTCHA used at Yahoo! http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~mori/ I would guess the CRI draft needs some revision, consent at least :-) -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Feb 3 18:00:20 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA10968 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 18:00:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ao9WL-0001X2-8I for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 17:59:53 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i13MxreU005884 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 17:59:53 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ao9WL-0001Wp-2R for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 17:59:53 -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 RAA10940 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 17:59:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ao9WI-0004fP-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 17:59:50 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Ao9VF-0004Zb-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 17:58:46 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ao9Up-0004UI-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 17:58:19 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ao9UX-0001Cj-Ji; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 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 1Ao9RK-00013l-2u for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 17:54:42 -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 RAA10814 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 17:54:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ao9RH-0004DO-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 17:54:39 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Ao9QM-000492-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 17:53:43 -0500 Received: from mout.perfora.net ([217.160.230.41]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ao9Q6-00044M-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 17:53:26 -0500 Received: from [217.160.230.50] (helo=smtp.perfora.net) by mout.perfora.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1Ao9Q6-0006b9-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 17:53:26 -0500 Received: from [68.29.244.176] (helo=solidmatrix.com) by smtp.perfora.net with asmtp (TLSv1:RC4-MD5:128) (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1Ao9Q5-000478-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 17:53:26 -0500 Message-ID: <4020265C.5080107@solidmatrix.com> From: Yakov Shafranovich Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, he, ru MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ASRG X-Enigmail-Version: 0.82.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] 1. Analysis - Subgroup is suspended Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2004 17:53:16 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The analysis subgroup has been suspended due to lack of interest by participants, relevant message is here: http://asrg.kavi.com/apps/group_public/email/analysis//msg00096.html Comments and suggestions on the future of analysis work are welcome. 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 Tue Feb 3 20:28:18 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA16175 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 20:28:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoBpV-0007xR-PV for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 20:27:49 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i141RnV5030589 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 20:27:49 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoBpV-0007xI-L6 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 20:27:49 -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 UAA16169 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 20:27:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoBpT-0003Aq-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 20:27:47 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AoBoe-00035w-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 20:26:57 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoBny-0002zp-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 20:26:14 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoBnm-0007mF-1p; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 20:26:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoBnW-0007i6-HD for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 20:25:46 -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 UAA16086 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 20:25:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoBnU-0002xp-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 20:25:44 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AoBmd-0002so-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 20:24:51 -0500 Received: from jtel.ca ([64.7.158.10] helo=mail.worldline.ca) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoBlr-0002nz-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 20:24:03 -0500 Received: from waltdnes.org ([64.7.158.150]) by mail.worldline.ca (8.12.8/8.12.8) with SMTP id i141YTaV026257 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 20:34:30 -0500 Received: by waltdnes.org (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 3 Feb 2004 20:19:45 +4300 From: "Walter Dnes" To: ASRG list Subject: Re: [Asrg] Its all over for Challenge Response Message-ID: <20040204011945.GA7996@m450> References: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E011133F5@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E011133F5@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 20:19:45 -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 Sun, Feb 01, 2004 at 07:59:29PM -0800, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote > MAPS was undercapitalized for the role they wanted to play and they > got cocky. They were finished once they started talking about > 'collateral damage'. Let's be grateful that it was a multi-billion dollar giant like AOL that Sanford Wallace chose to sue, and establish favourable case-law for the anti-spam side. > > If technical solutions do succeed in stopping spam, mark my word, you > > *WILL* see "must carry" legislation for "legitimate marketing email". > > So? If we have good domain based authentication much better for the MTA > to accept any mail that is authenticated and allow the MUA to perform > filtering on the basis of domain owner reputation. What use is a MUA-based filter when your 10-megabyte inbox is rejecting inbound email because you're over quota ? > I don't want my ISP making arbitrary decisions about what mail I > receive, I want to make those decisions myself, although I will > probably use third party info to do so. But what about the 95% of end-users who don't understand CIDRs, how to invoke DNSbls in their filters, and end up begging their ISPs to do whatever is necessary to stop the flow of spam to their inboxes ? Why shouln't they be allowed the *CHOICE* of outsourcing their spam-blocking? -- Walter Dnes Email users are divided into two classes; 1) Those who have effective spam-blocking 2) Those who wish they did _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Feb 3 20:37:15 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA16449 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 20:37:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoByB-00005d-2e for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 20:36:47 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i141alCp000339 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 20:36:47 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoByA-00005O-V0 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 20:36:46 -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 UAA16442 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 20:36:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoBy8-0003wS-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 20:36:44 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AoBxD-0003ru-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 20:35:48 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoBwY-0003n2-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 20:35:06 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoBwV-0008Nd-36; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 20:35:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoBwP-0008N8-OT for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 20:34:57 -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 UAA16331 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 20:34:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoBwN-0003mW-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 20:34:55 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AoBvP-0003hZ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 20:33:55 -0500 Received: from pigeon.verisign.com ([65.205.251.71]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoBv1-0003cZ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 20:33:31 -0500 Received: from mou1wnexc01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.53]) by pigeon.verisign.com (8.12.10/) with ESMTP id i141XUut024803; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 17:33:30 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 17:33:30 -0800 Message-ID: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0356EF7A@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Walter Dnes'" , ASRG list Subject: RE: [Asrg] Its all over for Challenge 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, 3 Feb 2004 17:33:29 -0800 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 > Let's be grateful that it was a multi-billion dollar giant like AOL > that Sanford Wallace chose to sue, and establish favourable > case-law for the anti-spam side. Yes, and it is also a good thing that they did not sue some clown like the SPEWS guy. It was a really bad thing when we ended up with Emanuel goldstein of 2600 as the front guy on the DeCSS thing. > > So? If we have good domain based authentication much better > for the MTA > > to accept any mail that is authenticated and allow the MUA > to perform > > filtering on the basis of domain owner reputation. > > What use is a MUA-based filter when your 10-megabyte inbox is > rejecting inbound email because you're over quota ? If I can tell my ISP what criteria to apply then that is OK for me. > > I don't want my ISP making arbitrary decisions about what mail I > > receive, I want to make those decisions myself, although I will > > probably use third party info to do so. > > But what about the 95% of end-users who don't understand > CIDRs, how to > invoke DNSbls in their filters, and end up begging their ISPs to do > whatever is necessary to stop the flow of spam to their inboxes ? Why > shouln't they be allowed the *CHOICE* of outsourcing their > spam-blocking? I am not going to argue on that one, clearly I have the right as an end user to outsource spam blocking, but that should be my choice not the ISP. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Feb 3 22:12:23 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA19460 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 22:12:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoDSF-0005gV-Ui for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 22:11:56 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i143Btnm021848 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 22:11:55 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoDSF-0005gJ-O6 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 22:11:55 -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 WAA19454 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 22:11:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoDSC-0006Ny-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 22:11:52 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AoDRH-0006Iy-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 22:10:56 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoDQj-0006DM-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 22:10:21 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoDQQ-0005Wd-PP; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 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 1AoDQD-0005VG-PV for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 22:09:49 -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 WAA19411 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 22:09:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoDQA-0006CE-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 22:09:46 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AoDPC-00066l-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 22:08:47 -0500 Received: from bsdsgr04.sagres.com.br ([200.140.134.134]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoDOL-0005xN-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 22:07:53 -0500 Received: from ntsgr07.sagres.com.br (NTsgr07.sagres.com.br [10.0.17.7]) by BSDsgr04.sagres.com.br (8.12.8p1/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i143AGBQ007244 for ; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 03:10:18 GMT (envelope-from saurwein@uniwares.com) Received: from leonone.uniwares.com ([200.140.11.224]) by ntsgr07.sagres.com.br (Lotus Domino Release 5.0.12) with ESMTP id 2004020401151262:7527 ; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 01:15:12 -0200 Message-Id: <6.0.1.1.0.20040204005208.01b0e4c8@mail.uniwares.com> X-Sender: saurwein.uniwares@mail.uniwares.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.1.1 To: asrg@ietf.org From: Andreas Saurwein Subject: RE: [Asrg] Its all over for Challenge Response In-Reply-To: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E011133F5@mou1wnexm02.vcorp .ad.vrsn.com> References: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E011133F5@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on ntsgr07/SAGRES(Release 5.0.12 |February 13, 2003) at 02/04/2004 01:15:12 AM, Serialize by Router on ntsgr07/SAGRES(Release 5.0.12 |February 13, 2003) at 02/04/2004 01:15:15 AM, Serialize complete at 02/04/2004 01:15:15 AM Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 01:03:26 -0200 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 At 2/2/2004 01:59 Monday, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: >I don't want my ISP making arbitrary decisions about what mail I receive, >I want to make those decisions myself, although I will probably use >third party info to do so. Phill, I think that you are making the almost usual mistake here in this group that you assume that everybody on the internet has an idea what they are doing. These days are over. Since about 10 years people using the internet have not a single idea about the technical side of it. 99.9% of all mail users would be more than happy when their ISP would do anything to suppress their spam. If this costs some legitimate mails occasionally, ok, so be it. People are used to it. They are loosing so much data because of viruses, spam and other malware that they are accustomed. Not that I would ever say that this is an acceptable situation, but its the everyday truth of the average computer user. All discussion on this list focuses on details which make a difference for 10% of all technology savy internet users, instead of focusing on solving the problems of the remaining 99.5% of the internet users. If a solution to spam takes your freedom to choose if you want to use this or that, ok, so what? We, as developers (me included), administrators, etc. tend to loose completely the focus on whats practicable and useful for Joe Average. Sorry for ranting, but this group starts to be grotesque. Andreas _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Feb 3 22:22:19 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA19672 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 22:22:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoDbs-00067b-By for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 22:21:52 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i143Lq35023525 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 22:21:52 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoDbs-00067M-80 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 22:21:52 -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 WAA19652 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 22:21:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoDbp-0007GE-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 22:21:49 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AoDau-0007Aq-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 22:20:52 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoDa8-00075a-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 22:20:04 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoDa7-0005xJ-MI; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 22:20:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoDZx-0005wX-U7 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 22:19:53 -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 WAA19619 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 22:19:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoDZu-000750-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 22:19:50 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AoDYy-0006zz-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 22:18:53 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com ([65.205.251.73]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoDYV-0006ut-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 22:18:23 -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 i143IMew000252; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 19:18:23 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc03.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <121MLYKF>; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 19:18:22 -0800 Message-ID: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0356EF80@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Andreas Saurwein'" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Its all over for Challenge 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, 3 Feb 2004 19:18:16 -0800 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 > At 2/2/2004 01:59 Monday, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > >I don't want my ISP making arbitrary decisions about what > mail I receive, > >I want to make those decisions myself, although I will probably use > >third party info to do so. > > Phill, I think that you are making the almost usual mistake > here in this > group that you assume that everybody on the internet has an > idea what they > are doing. Actually this is ny main complaint about the IETF establishment. They still think they have a right to control the future of the net but they simply don't care about the ordinary user. > These days are over. Since about 10 years people using the > internet have not a single idea about the technical side of it. > 99.9% of all mail users would be more than happy when their > ISP would do anything to suppress their spam. All I think is necessary here is for the ISP to * Tell the end user what they are doing * Give the user an opportunity to opt out or select different settings I think that it would be OK to require ISPs to get consent from the end user. What I want to avoid here is a situation where a Rupert Murdoch could decide to only allow political groups that agree with Fox News to send mail to customers. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Feb 3 22:31:19 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA19915 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 22:31:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoDkZ-0006sW-SV for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 22:30:52 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i143UpG9026434 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 22:30:51 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoDkZ-0006sH-Ni for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 22:30:51 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA19897 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 22:30:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoDkW-0000IB-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 22:30:48 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AoDjc-0000DH-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 22:29:52 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoDip-00008A-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 22:29:03 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoDin-0006a8-Rv; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 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 1AoDij-0006Zi-Ht for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 22:28:57 -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 WAA19840 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 22:28:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoDig-00007B-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 22:28:54 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AoDhk-00001e-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 22:27:57 -0500 Received: from mail3.panix.com ([166.84.1.74]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoDh1-0007ji-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 22:27:11 -0500 Received: from panix5.panix.com (panix5.panix.com [166.84.1.5]) by mail3.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 381DE98506 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 22:27:06 -0500 (EST) Received: (from sethb@localhost) by panix5.panix.com (8.11.6p2-a/8.8.8/PanixN1.1) id i143R6216657; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 22:27:06 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200402040327.i143R6216657@panix5.panix.com> From: Seth Breidbart To: asrg@ietf.org In-reply-to: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0356EF80@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> (pbaker@verisign.com) Subject: Re: [Asrg] Its all over for Challenge Response References: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0356EF80@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 22:27:06 -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 "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" wrote: > All I think is necessary here is for the ISP to > > * Tell the end user what they are doing > * Give the user an opportunity to opt out or select different > settings That can always be done by selecting a different ISP. Therefore, any problem is self-limiting. > What I want to avoid here is a situation where a Rupert Murdoch could > decide to only allow political groups that agree with Fox News to > send mail to customers. Would you also want to limit the ability of a church that provides email accounts for its members to limit the ability of opposing religions to send mail to its members? Would you also want to limit the ability of a company to limit the ability of headhunters to solicit its employees? Seth _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Feb 3 22:31:20 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA19932 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 22:31:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoDkb-0006so-2e for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 22:30:53 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i143UrjK026452 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 22:30:53 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoDka-0006sZ-V9 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 22:30:52 -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 WAA19906 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 22:30:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoDkX-0000IL-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 22:30:49 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AoDjd-0000DR-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 22:29:53 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoDip-00008B-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 22:29:03 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoDin-0006Zu-3T; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 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 1AoDib-0006ZE-SV for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 22:28:49 -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 WAA19822 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 22:28:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoDiY-00006E-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 22:28:46 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AoDha-0007nm-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 22:27:46 -0500 Received: from mail.chariot.net.au ([203.87.95.38]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoDgd-0007ho-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 22:26:48 -0500 Received: from localhost (avs1.sa.chariot.net.au [203.87.94.5]) by mail.chariot.net.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4677A60009 for ; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 13:56:45 +1030 (CST) Received: from mail.chariot.net.au ([203.87.95.38]) by localhost (avs1.sa.chariot.net.au [203.87.94.5]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 28340-04-9 for ; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 13:56:44 +1030 (CST) Received: from rebel (ppp-121.cust203-87-126.ghr.chariot.net.au [203.87.126.121]) by mail.chariot.net.au (Postfix) with SMTP id 884E85FFB8 for ; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 13:56:43 +1030 (CST) From: "Chris" To: Subject: RE: [Asrg] Its all over for Challenge Response Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0356EF80@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at chariot.net.au Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 13:55:31 +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 > > These days are over. Since about 10 years people using the > > internet have not a single idea about the technical side of it. > > 99.9% of all mail users would be more than happy when their > > ISP would do anything to suppress their spam. > > All I think is necessary here is for the ISP to > > * Tell the end user what they are doing > * Give the user an opportunity to opt out or select different > settings > > I think that it would be OK to require ISPs to get consent from > the end user. > > What I want to avoid here is a situation where a Rupert Murdoch could > decide to only allow political groups that agree with Fox News to > send mail to customers. > > Phill I agree wholeheartedly with Phill we must not let a precious few decide whats good or not good for us mere punters. I have run into some of the self appointed web based DemiGods and they are rather unlikeable chaps. who firmly believe they know best. unfortunately they usually get elected to government ;) it is also a major mistake to believe what the majority will accept(mostly through ignorance), is good enough for everybody. Regards Chris Rebel@rebel.com.au > -----Original Message----- > From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of > Hallam-Baker, Phillip > Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2004 1:48 PM > To: 'Andreas Saurwein'; asrg@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [Asrg] Its all over for Challenge Response > > > > > At 2/2/2004 01:59 Monday, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > > >I don't want my ISP making arbitrary decisions about what > > mail I receive, > > >I want to make those decisions myself, although I will probably use > > >third party info to do so. > > > > Phill, I think that you are making the almost usual mistake > > here in this > > group that you assume that everybody on the internet has an > > idea what they > > are doing. > > Actually this is ny main complaint about the IETF establishment. > They still think they have a right to control the future of the net > but they simply don't care about the ordinary user. > > > > These days are over. Since about 10 years people using the > > internet have not a single idea about the technical side of it. > > 99.9% of all mail users would be more than happy when their > > ISP would do anything to suppress their spam. > > All I think is necessary here is for the ISP to > > * Tell the end user what they are doing > * Give the user an opportunity to opt out or select different > settings > > I think that it would be OK to require ISPs to get consent from > the end user. > > What I want to avoid here is a situation where a Rupert Murdoch could > decide to only allow political groups that agree with Fox News to > send mail to customers. > > Phill > > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Feb 3 22:38:20 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA20125 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 22:38:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoDrN-0007Mk-CM for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 22:37:53 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i143brg8028300 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 22:37:53 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoDrM-0007MN-QD for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 22:37:52 -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 WAA20121 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 22:37:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoDrJ-0000xA-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 22:37:49 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AoDqP-0000sQ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 22:36:53 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoDpd-0000nQ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 22:36:05 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoDpa-0006zz-Cv; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 22:36:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoDpX-0006zU-KY for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 22:35:59 -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 WAA20097 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 22:35:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoDpU-0000mi-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 22:35:56 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AoDob-0000h5-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 22:35:02 -0500 Received: from sccrmhc13.comcast.net ([204.127.202.64]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoDoD-0000aV-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 22:34:37 -0500 Received: from fda.zemos.net ([68.38.12.170]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc13) with ESMTP id <2004020403340801600116tke>; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 03:34:08 +0000 Received: from zemos.net (phil [10.0.0.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by fda.zemos.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CB4F186A3; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 22:34:07 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <4020682F.4050207@zemos.net> From: Philip Miller User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040122 Debian/1.6-1 X-Accept-Language: en, en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Seth Breidbart Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Its all over for Challenge Response References: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0356EF80@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <200402040327.i143R6216657@panix5.panix.com> In-Reply-To: <200402040327.i143R6216657@panix5.panix.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, 03 Feb 2004 22:34:07 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Seth Breidbart wrote: > "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" wrote: >>All I think is necessary here is for the ISP to >> * Tell the end user what they are doing >> * Give the user an opportunity to opt out or select different >>settings > > That can always be done by selecting a different ISP. Therefore, any > problem is self-limiting. One can only accept that different ISP if one knows what the current ISP is doing. If an ISP started silently dropping mail some random admin didn't like, it could be quite a while before customers realize what's going on. A great deal of legitimate (even critical) mail could be irretrievably lost in that time. >>What I want to avoid here is a situation where a Rupert Murdoch could >>decide to only allow political groups that agree with Fox News to >>send mail to customers. > > Would you also want to limit the ability of a church that provides > email accounts for its members to limit the ability of opposing > religions to send mail to its members? > > Would you also want to limit the ability of a company to limit the > ability of headhunters to solicit its employees? There would be no limit on those abilities. The only thing important here is that the customers/users be actively told what limits are in place. -- Philip Miller _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Feb 3 22:41:17 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA20184 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 22:41:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoDuF-0007e8-23 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 22:40:51 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i143epgK029392 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 22:40:51 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoDuE-0007dz-Un for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 22:40:50 -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 WAA20177 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 22:40:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoDuB-0001Dk-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 22:40:47 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AoDtF-00017h-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 22:39:49 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoDsZ-000138-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 22:39:07 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoDsT-0007Sh-O6; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 22:39:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoDsI-0007SM-Ar for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 22:38:50 -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 WAA20143 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 22:38:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoDsE-000121-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 22:38:47 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AoDrG-0000wm-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 22:37:47 -0500 Received: from bsdsgr04.sagres.com.br ([200.140.134.134]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoDqG-0000nT-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 22:36:44 -0500 Received: from ntsgr07.sagres.com.br (NTsgr07.sagres.com.br [10.0.17.7]) by BSDsgr04.sagres.com.br (8.12.8p1/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i143dFBQ007515; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 03:39:15 GMT (envelope-from saurwein@uniwares.com) Received: from leonone.uniwares.com ([200.140.11.224]) by ntsgr07.sagres.com.br (Lotus Domino Release 5.0.12) with ESMTP id 2004020401441168:7594 ; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 01:44:11 -0200 Message-Id: <6.0.1.1.0.20040204012036.01c25ec0@mail.uniwares.com> X-Sender: saurwein.uniwares@mail.uniwares.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.1.1 To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" , asrg@ietf.org From: Andreas Saurwein Subject: RE: [Asrg] Its all over for Challenge Response In-Reply-To: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0356EF80@mou1wnexm02.vcorp .ad.vrsn.com> References: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0356EF80@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on ntsgr07/SAGRES(Release 5.0.12 |February 13, 2003) at 02/04/2004 01:44:11 AM, Serialize by Router on ntsgr07/SAGRES(Release 5.0.12 |February 13, 2003) at 02/04/2004 01:44:12 AM, Serialize complete at 02/04/2004 01:44:12 AM Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 01:32:50 -0200 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 autolearn=no version=2.60 At 4/2/2004 01:18 Wednesday, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > > Phill, I think that you are making the almost usual mistake > > here in this > > group that you assume that everybody on the internet has an > > idea what they > > are doing. > >Actually this is ny main complaint about the IETF establishment. >They still think they have a right to control the future of the net >but they simply don't care about the ordinary user. Suppose that is the price we pay with education - we expect others to have the same level of knowledge and that they understand us and our reasoning. > > These days are over. Since about 10 years people using the > > internet have not a single idea about the technical side of it. > > 99.9% of all mail users would be more than happy when their > > ISP would do anything to suppress their spam. > >All I think is necessary here is for the ISP to > > * Tell the end user what they are doing > * Give the user an opportunity to opt out or select different >settings > >I think that it would be OK to require ISPs to get consent from >the end user. Why? Would you ask your ISP to get consent when they limit bandwidth usage? Did anybody ever do it? So why expect it for mail? Most users wouldnt even know what to answer when confronted with the problem. Sure, as "experienced" user we expect to have a choice, to have the freedom to use what we like/prefer/used to use. But most cases we just accept it - either because we have no way to complain or make a difference as a single entity, or because it just happens and we dont realize it immediately. In any other area we accept that there are rules, standards, changes, laws which govern it. We are used to it. In software everything goes, everybody does what seems fit. That is a point to start a change. >What I want to avoid here is a situation where a Rupert Murdoch could >decide to only allow political groups that agree with Fox News to >send mail to customers. The same happens everyday, everywhere. Take for example SMS messages between different operators. Its often not even possible to send a SMS from operator A to someone using operator B. Why? Surely not because of technical reasons. The whole GSM mobile market is a good example of how a few rule millions. What is there that these millions can do for/against it? Andreas _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Feb 3 22:44:19 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA20278 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 22:44:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoDxA-0007rP-Kc for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 22:43:52 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i143hqut030209 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 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 1AoDxA-0007rA-H7 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 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 WAA20262 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 22:43:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoDx7-0001WL-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 22:43:49 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AoDwG-0001R8-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 22:42:57 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoDvP-0001LW-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 22:42:03 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoDvN-0007gQ-KA; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 22:42:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoDvE-0007gA-VS for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 22:41:52 -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 WAA20202 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 22:41:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoDvB-0001Ji-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 22:41:49 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AoDuF-0001EK-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 22:40:52 -0500 Received: from bsdsgr04.sagres.com.br ([200.140.134.134]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoDtL-00013E-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 22:39:55 -0500 Received: from ntsgr07.sagres.com.br (NTsgr07.sagres.com.br [10.0.17.7]) by BSDsgr04.sagres.com.br (8.12.8p1/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i143gQBQ007558 for ; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 03:42:26 GMT (envelope-from saurwein@uniwares.com) Received: from leonone.uniwares.com ([200.140.11.224]) by ntsgr07.sagres.com.br (Lotus Domino Release 5.0.12) with ESMTP id 2004020401472209:7606 ; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 01:47:22 -0200 Message-Id: <6.0.1.1.0.20040204013312.01c05ec0@mail.uniwares.com> X-Sender: saurwein.uniwares@mail.uniwares.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.1.1 To: asrg@ietf.org From: Andreas Saurwein Subject: Re: [Asrg] Its all over for Challenge Response In-Reply-To: <200402040327.i143R6216657@panix5.panix.com> References: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0356EF80@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <200402040327.i143R6216657@panix5.panix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on ntsgr07/SAGRES(Release 5.0.12 |February 13, 2003) at 02/04/2004 01:47:22 AM, Serialize by Router on ntsgr07/SAGRES(Release 5.0.12 |February 13, 2003) at 02/04/2004 01:47:23 AM, Serialize complete at 02/04/2004 01:47:23 AM Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 01:36:00 -0200 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 autolearn=no version=2.60 At 4/2/2004 01:27 Wednesday, Seth wrote: >"Hallam-Baker, Phillip" wrote: > > All I think is necessary here is for the ISP to > > > > * Tell the end user what they are doing > > * Give the user an opportunity to opt out or select different > > settings > >That can always be done by selecting a different ISP. Therefore, any >problem is self-limiting. Not always you have to choice of ISP. There are still lots of places where you have to be thankful that you HAVE internet access. >Would you also want to limit the ability of a church that provides >email accounts for its members to limit the ability of opposing >religions to send mail to its members? Yes >Would you also want to limit the ability of a company to limit the >ability of headhunters to solicit its employees? Again Yes. Thats what we call "policy". As a member or employee you accept the policy or you go somewhere else. Andreas _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Feb 3 22:48:34 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA20420 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 22:48:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoE1H-00086G-Gd for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 22:48:07 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i143m7Br031130 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 22:48:07 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoE1H-000861-Ch for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 22:48:07 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA20408 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 22:48:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoE1E-0001vZ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 22:48:04 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AoE0C-0001pc-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 22:47:00 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoDzF-0001jC-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 22:46:01 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoDzF-0007ub-93; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 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 1AoDz4-0007te-K4 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 22:45:50 -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 WAA20314 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 22:45:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoDz1-0001hA-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 22:45:47 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AoDy2-0001bM-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 22:44:47 -0500 Received: from pigeon.verisign.com ([65.205.251.71]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoDx4-0001Tf-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 22:43:46 -0500 Received: from mou1wnexc01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.53]) by pigeon.verisign.com (8.12.10/) with ESMTP id i143hj2K028855; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 19:43:45 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 19:43:45 -0800 Message-ID: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0356EF81@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Andreas Saurwein'" , "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Its all over for Challenge 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, 3 Feb 2004 19:43:44 -0800 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 > Suppose that is the price we pay with education - we expect > others to have > the same level of knowledge and that they understand us and > our reasoning. No, the users know far more about the Internet. They use it more aggressively than the establishment for a start. The divide is much closer to the old divide between the mainframe MIS types and the people like me who grew up with micros. The MIS types thought they knew everything because they used the most powerful machines of the day. But they simply could not see why technologies like MVS and COBOL were doomed for the dustbin. They had grown up with the faults and could no longer see them. > >What I want to avoid here is a situation where a Rupert Murdoch could > >decide to only allow political groups that agree with Fox News to > >send mail to customers. > > The same happens everyday, everywhere. Take for example SMS messages > between different operators. Its often not even possible to > send a SMS from > operator A to someone using operator B. Why? Surely not because of > technical reasons. The whole GSM mobile market is a good > example of how a > few rule millions. What is there that these millions can do > for/against it? That is something that will be solved sooner rather than later. The millions usually win. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Feb 3 23:07:30 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA20809 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 23:07:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoEJb-0000Sa-R2 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 23:07:03 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i144733J001762 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 23:07:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoEJb-0000SD-5y for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 23:07:03 -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 XAA20803 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 23:06:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoEJU-0003XP-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 23:06:56 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AoEHq-0003O3-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 23:05:16 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoEGj-0003Iy-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 23:04:05 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoEGf-0000Gj-Ae; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 23:04:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoEGX-0000GU-Lr for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 23:03:53 -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 XAA20765 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 23:03:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoEGS-0003IN-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 23:03:49 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AoEFX-0003Dp-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 23:02:53 -0500 Received: from bsdsgr04.sagres.com.br ([200.140.134.134]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoEFA-00038j-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 23:02:28 -0500 Received: from ntsgr07.sagres.com.br (NTsgr07.sagres.com.br [10.0.17.7]) by BSDsgr04.sagres.com.br (8.12.8p1/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i14450BQ007781; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 04:05:00 GMT (envelope-from saurwein@uniwares.com) Received: from leonone.uniwares.com ([200.140.11.224]) by ntsgr07.sagres.com.br (Lotus Domino Release 5.0.12) with ESMTP id 2004020402095607:7656 ; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 02:09:56 -0200 Message-Id: <6.0.1.1.0.20040204014836.01c9d280@mail.uniwares.com> X-Sender: saurwein.uniwares@mail.uniwares.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.1.1 To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" , "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" , asrg@ietf.org From: Andreas Saurwein Subject: RE: [Asrg] Its all over for Challenge Response In-Reply-To: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0356EF81@mou1wnexm02.vcorp .ad.vrsn.com> References: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0356EF81@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on ntsgr07/SAGRES(Release 5.0.12 |February 13, 2003) at 02/04/2004 02:09:56 AM, Serialize by Router on ntsgr07/SAGRES(Release 5.0.12 |February 13, 2003) at 02/04/2004 02:09:57 AM, Serialize complete at 02/04/2004 02:09:57 AM Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 01:58:31 -0200 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=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 At 4/2/2004 01:43 Wednesday, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > > Suppose that is the price we pay with education - we expect > > others to have > > the same level of knowledge and that they understand us and > > our reasoning. > >No, the users know far more about the Internet. They use it >more aggressively than the establishment for a start. Sorry, I was more referring to the situation between "The IETF" and the rest of the world. Its like geologist and adventurer - both know the world but they have two different views of it. >The divide is much closer to the old divide between the >mainframe MIS types and the people like me who grew up with >micros. The MIS types thought they knew everything because >they used the most powerful machines of the day. But they >simply could not see why technologies like MVS and COBOL >were doomed for the dustbin. They had grown up with the faults >and could no longer see them. Sounds familiar ;) > > >What I want to avoid here is a situation where a Rupert Murdoch could > > >decide to only allow political groups that agree with Fox News to > > >send mail to customers. > > > > The same happens everyday, everywhere. Take for example SMS messages > > between different operators. Its often not even possible to > > send a SMS from > > operator A to someone using operator B. Why? Surely not because of > > technical reasons. The whole GSM mobile market is a good > > example of how a > > few rule millions. What is there that these millions can do > > for/against it? > >That is something that will be solved sooner rather than later. >The millions usually win. Depends on the pace of advance. What we see here is such a quick advance that the changes faster than anybody can keep track of what is really going on. Only insiders and technically interested have any clue. If the internet would be operated like telephone networks in general, we'd have a new mail protocol every 2-3 years and it would be completely incompatible to the others and nobody would ask any questions. Why is it that software always has to be compatible? Nobody would ever expect hardware (not computers) be compatible to its previous models. Andreas _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Feb 3 23:13:36 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA21542 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 23:13:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoEPU-0001KY-6P for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 23:13:08 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i144D8wk005104 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 23:13:08 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoEPP-0001K9-HR for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 23:13:03 -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 XAA21522 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 23:13:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoEPN-0004hV-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 23:13:01 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AoEOU-0004ZK-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 23:12:06 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoENZ-0004OT-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 23:11:09 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoENR-000125-NH; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 23:11:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoEMb-0000xc-Bv for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 23:10:09 -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 XAA21252 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 23:10:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoEMX-0004F6-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 23:10:05 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AoELg-00042l-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 23:09:13 -0500 Received: from black.infobro.com ([63.71.25.39] helo=infobro.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoEKP-0003hf-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 23:07:54 -0500 Received: from red (unverified [207.199.136.153]) by infobro.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 23:06:09 -0500 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 23:06:24 -0500 Message-ID: <01C3EAAA.588C1060.eric@infobro.com> From: "Eric D. Williams" To: "'Paul Tenny'" , "asrg@ietf.org" Subject: RE: [Asrg] Its all over for Challenge Response Organization: Information Brokers, Inc. X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 23:06:15 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,RATWARE_EMWAC autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The existence of the lock and it's circumvention prove (or tends to prove mens re - intent, to violate the laws governing legal entry in this case). So, in the example given (and IANAL either) it is a matter of whether the trespasser can be proven to have intent to violate the codes for entry, e.g. invitation ("come on in"), solicitation (i.e. a welcome mat), free access (an open door), etc.; under 'reasonable' circumstances. Where reasonable is usually subjective OR defined by legislation (for a particular jurisdiction) in the eyes of a judge or jury. On Sunday, February 01, 2004 12:36 AM, Paul Tenny [SMTP:pwtenny@earthlink.net] wrote: > Alan DeKok wrote: > > You've got it 100% backwards. Everyone knows (or should know) that > > locks won't keep all criminals out. So the locks obviously aren't > > there to keep the criminals out. Correct. > They keep everyone out who doesn't have the ability to defeat them. > For those who can, we have layered security (like firearms, dogs and > electronic security systems). No. No lock or counter-measure system (access control) is 100% full-proof, additional access controls only prove additional diligence for maintaining access control. It raises the bar it does not eliminate the risk associated with more lethal threats. Think about internal threats, e.g. the insider. What you are proving when you mention "For those who can...", I think, is the point of the previous statement. > > The locks are there as a public statement by you that people have no > > legal right to enter your home. When someone does, they get charged > > with "break and enter", which is a serious crime. If you did not have > > a lock, or left your door open, they would have been charged with > > "trespass", which is a lesser crime. (obligatory IANAL) Yes. > > So the conclusion is that locks are a legal statement which permit > > the justice system to file more serious charges than they could have > > without the locks. In the same way, technological methods of fighting > > spam should be not only used to stop the amateur spammer, they can be > > used to leverage more serious charges against the professional > > spammer. I agree. > This is one of the most silly statements I've seen in my life. Locks > exist to prevent access to something. There is no public statement > because privacy and private access is something you're taught as a > child. My car doesn't have locks to remind you of something you > already know, it's to keep YOU out of someplace you do not belong. No it is to control access to the 'someplace'. Violation of that 'legal' access control is breaking the law. Being taught as a child does not make it the law. You may have been taught 'always knock before entering a door', I may have been taught 'always call before visiting', still another may have been taught (or learned) 'if there is a door it's ok to walk inside'. Each of these is something we are taught or learn but neither prepares you for a locked door. The 'public' statement, in the example, is one that demonstrates a desire by the 'owner' to maintain access control. Locks are access controls as you indicate, however they also serve the purpose of 'proving' due diligence by the owner to limit access. Thus, a lock proves such diligence and typically aids in the proof of a violators mens re (intent) to violate that control and have his way. You may knock, I may say go away, if you break down the door that's violating typical jurisprudence concerning entering a domicile; if you open the door and walk inside that's trespass (you may not have heard my admonition. I may call, if I get no answer I may visit anyway and walk into the place unexpectedly, that's trespass I did not have permission but nothing stopped me from walking in (its the same type of scenario with the last example). But if there is a locked door and I pick the lock or break down the door, it is a violation of an obvious access control. My 'intent' was to enter no matter what and can likely be proven as such. This is at least the same as a banner for a telnet prompt. One saying 'Welcome Login:' is a tenuous invitation to attempt entry, one saying 'Unauthorized access or attempts will be monitored and violators prosecuted Login:' is not. I hope this clarifies, what I think was the example. -e _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Feb 3 23:17:22 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA21635 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 23:17:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoET7-0001Yv-Uq for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 23:16:54 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i144Grc2005999 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 23:16:53 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoET7-0001Yg-L8 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 23:16:53 -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 XAA21620 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 23:16:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoET5-00052a-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 23:16:51 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AoES8-0004xX-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 23:15:52 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoERR-0004sZ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 23:15:09 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoERJ-0001Ox-UH; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 23:15:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoERA-0001OW-0h for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 23:14:52 -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 XAA21587 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 23:14:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoER8-0004rR-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 23:14:50 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AoEQC-0004ma-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 23:13:52 -0500 Received: from bsdsgr04.sagres.com.br ([200.140.134.134]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoEPa-0004by-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 23:13:15 -0500 Received: from ntsgr07.sagres.com.br (NTsgr07.sagres.com.br [10.0.17.7]) by BSDsgr04.sagres.com.br (8.12.8p1/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i144FjBQ007904 for ; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 04:15:45 GMT (envelope-from saurwein@uniwares.com) Received: from leonone.uniwares.com ([200.140.11.224]) by ntsgr07.sagres.com.br (Lotus Domino Release 5.0.12) with ESMTP id 2004020402204161:7683 ; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 02:20:41 -0200 Message-Id: <6.0.1.1.0.20040204020803.01ca8508@mail.uniwares.com> X-Sender: saurwein.uniwares@mail.uniwares.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.1.1 To: asrg@ietf.org From: Andreas Saurwein Mime-Version: 1.0 X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on ntsgr07/SAGRES(Release 5.0.12 |February 13, 2003) at 02/04/2004 02:20:41 AM, Serialize by Router on ntsgr07/SAGRES(Release 5.0.12 |February 13, 2003) at 02/04/2004 02:20:43 AM, Serialize complete at 02/04/2004 02:20:43 AM Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: [Asrg] 0.General - News Articles Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 02:09:19 -0200 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=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 EC draws line in spam sand http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/55/35320.html Worldwide Help Needed to Stop Spam http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,114587,00.asp Thats more the kind of spirit we need now. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Feb 3 23:21:19 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA21725 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 23:21:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoEWw-0001lp-UT for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 23:20:51 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i144KoNX006799 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 23:20:50 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoEWw-0001la-On for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 23:20:50 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA21719 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 23:20:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoEWu-0005OJ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 23:20:49 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AoEW0-0005JT-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 23:19:53 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoEVD-0005EY-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 23:19:04 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoEVC-0001c1-08; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 23:19:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoEV3-0001bn-07 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 23:18:53 -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 XAA21697 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 23:18:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoEV1-0005DQ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 23:18:51 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AoEU6-00058Y-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 23:17:55 -0500 Received: from mail3.panix.com ([166.84.1.74]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoETk-00053R-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 23:17:32 -0500 Received: from panix5.panix.com (panix5.panix.com [166.84.1.5]) by mail3.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9350986A9 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 23:17:33 -0500 (EST) Received: (from sethb@localhost) by panix5.panix.com (8.11.6p2-a/8.8.8/PanixN1.1) id i144HXJ21625; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 23:17:33 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200402040417.i144HXJ21625@panix5.panix.com> From: Seth Breidbart To: asrg@ietf.org In-reply-to: <6.0.1.1.0.20040204014836.01c9d280@mail.uniwares.com> (message from Andreas Saurwein on Wed, 04 Feb 2004 01:58:31 -0200) Subject: Re: [Asrg] Its all over for Challenge Response References: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0356EF81@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <6.0.1.1.0.20040204014836.01c9d280@mail.uniwares.com> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 23:17:33 -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 > If the internet would be operated like telephone networks in general, we'd > have a new mail protocol every 2-3 years and it would be completely > incompatible to the others and nobody would ask any questions. > Why is it that software always has to be compatible? Nobody would ever > expect hardware (not computers) be compatible to its previous models. Really? The POTS phone I used back in 1978 still works just fine. Seth _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Feb 3 23:32:20 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA21971 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 23:32:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoEhc-00025h-84 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 23:31:52 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i144VqhT008031 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 23:31:52 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoEhc-00025S-4L for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 23:31:52 -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 XAA21950 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 23:31:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoEha-0006KP-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 23:31:50 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AoEgk-0006FT-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 23:30:59 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoEfw-0006AV-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 23:30:08 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoEfp-0001vO-Gy; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 23:30:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoEfe-0001ub-HX for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 23:29:50 -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 XAA21893 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 23:29:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoEfc-00069S-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 23:29:48 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AoEef-00064q-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 23:28:50 -0500 Received: from bsdsgr04.sagres.com.br ([200.140.134.134]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoEdt-0005v5-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2004 23:28:01 -0500 Received: from ntsgr07.sagres.com.br (NTsgr07.sagres.com.br [10.0.17.7]) by BSDsgr04.sagres.com.br (8.12.8p1/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i144UWBQ008034; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 04:30:32 GMT (envelope-from saurwein@uniwares.com) Received: from leonone.uniwares.com ([200.140.11.224]) by ntsgr07.sagres.com.br (Lotus Domino Release 5.0.12) with ESMTP id 2004020402352904:7712 ; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 02:35:29 -0200 Message-Id: <6.0.1.1.0.20040204021942.01c6a3c0@mail.uniwares.com> X-Sender: saurwein.uniwares@mail.uniwares.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.1.1 To: Seth Breidbart , asrg@ietf.org From: Andreas Saurwein Subject: Re: [Asrg] Its all over for Challenge Response In-Reply-To: <200402040417.i144HXJ21625@panix5.panix.com> References: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0356EF81@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <6.0.1.1.0.20040204014836.01c9d280@mail.uniwares.com> <200402040417.i144HXJ21625@panix5.panix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on ntsgr07/SAGRES(Release 5.0.12 |February 13, 2003) at 02/04/2004 02:35:29 AM, Serialize by Router on ntsgr07/SAGRES(Release 5.0.12 |February 13, 2003) at 02/04/2004 02:35:30 AM, Serialize complete at 02/04/2004 02:35:30 AM Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 02:24:08 -0200 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=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 At 4/2/2004 02:17 Wednesday, you wrote: > > If the internet would be operated like telephone networks in general, we'd > > have a new mail protocol every 2-3 years and it would be completely > > incompatible to the others and nobody would ask any questions. > > Why is it that software always has to be compatible? Nobody would ever > > expect hardware (not computers) be compatible to its previous models. > >Really? The POTS phone I used back in 1978 still works just fine. Well, a POTS phone is not something what I would call a mobile phone, right? So lets then keep a keen eye on GSM, CDMA, TDMA and what else on abbreviations are vogue this year. Besides, America is definitely not known for advances in telephone technology. ;) Andreas _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Feb 4 00:32:25 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA23245 for ; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 00:32:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoFdl-0005yo-HH for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 00:31:57 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i145VvX8022986 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 00:31:57 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoFdl-0005yf-AX for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 00:31:57 -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 AAA23235 for ; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 00:31:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoFdi-0003g7-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 00:31:54 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AoFcs-0003aJ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 00:31:03 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoFc7-0003UQ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 00:30:15 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoFbt-0005nZ-Lu; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 00:30:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoFb0-0005mX-Lr for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 00:29:06 -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 AAA23133 for ; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 00:29:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoFay-0003MR-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 00:29:04 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AoFa9-0003Fs-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 00:28:14 -0500 Received: from sj-iport-5.cisco.com ([171.68.10.87]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoFZL-00035x-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 00:27:23 -0500 Received: from sj-core-4.cisco.com (171.68.223.138) by sj-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 03 Feb 2004 21:26:54 -0800 Received: from mbaugher-w2k07.cisco.com (sjc-vpn4-241.cisco.com [10.21.80.241]) by sj-core-4.cisco.com (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id i145Qo09000343; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 21:26:51 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <6.0.0.22.2.20040203212445.03fe7d00@mira-sjc5-6.cisco.com> X-Sender: mbaugher@mira-sjc5-6.cisco.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.0.22 To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" From: Mark Baugher Subject: RE: [Asrg] Its all over for Challenge Response Cc: "'Andreas Saurwein'" , asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0356EF80@mou1wnexm02.vcorp .ad.vrsn.com> References: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0356EF80@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2004 21:26:49 -0800 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 At 07:18 PM 2/3/2004, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > > At 2/2/2004 01:59 Monday, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > > >I don't want my ISP making arbitrary decisions about what > > mail I receive, > > >I want to make those decisions myself, although I will probably use > > >third party info to do so. > > > > Phill, I think that you are making the almost usual mistake > > here in this > > group that you assume that everybody on the internet has an > > idea what they > > are doing. > >Actually this is ny main complaint about the IETF establishment. >They still think they have a right to control the future of the net >but they simply don't care about the ordinary user. I don't think this point is the least bit relevant to this mailing list. Mark > > These days are over. Since about 10 years people using the > > internet have not a single idea about the technical side of it. > > 99.9% of all mail users would be more than happy when their > > ISP would do anything to suppress their spam. > >All I think is necessary here is for the ISP to > > * Tell the end user what they are doing > * Give the user an opportunity to opt out or select different >settings > >I think that it would be OK to require ISPs to get consent from >the end user. > >What I want to avoid here is a situation where a Rupert Murdoch could >decide to only allow political groups that agree with Fox News to >send mail to customers. > > Phill > > >_______________________________________________ >Asrg mailing list >Asrg@ietf.org >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Feb 4 01:02:33 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA23994 for ; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 01:02:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoG6t-0007yZ-QZ for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 01:02:04 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i14623rn030656 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 01:02:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoG6t-0007yN-MK for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 01:02:03 -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 BAA23989 for ; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 01:02:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoG6q-0006UT-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 01:02:01 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AoG5u-0006Ov-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 01:01:03 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoG5C-0006Iw-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 01:00:18 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoG4y-0007iJ-Hb; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 01:00:04 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoG3z-0007bo-5G for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 00:59:03 -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 AAA23892 for ; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 00:58:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoG3w-0006Ai-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 00:59:00 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AoG2y-00064y-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 00:58:01 -0500 Received: from mail.chariot.net.au ([203.87.95.38]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoG2a-0005zT-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 00:57:37 -0500 Received: from localhost (avs1.sa.chariot.net.au [203.87.94.5]) by mail.chariot.net.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0212663F38; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 16:27:35 +1030 (CST) Received: from mail.chariot.net.au ([203.87.95.38]) by localhost (avs1.sa.chariot.net.au [203.87.94.5]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 10104-01-2; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 16:27:34 +1030 (CST) Received: from rebel (ppp-102.cust203-87-113.ghr.chariot.net.au [203.87.113.102]) by mail.chariot.net.au (Postfix) with SMTP id 9E8B26057E; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 16:27:33 +1030 (CST) From: "Chris" To: "Andreas Saurwein" , "Seth Breidbart" , Subject: RE: [Asrg] Its all over for Challenge Response Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <6.0.1.1.0.20040204021942.01c6a3c0@mail.uniwares.com> X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at chariot.net.au Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 16:26:21 +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 > At 4/2/2004 02:17 Wednesday, you wrote: > > > If the internet would be operated like telephone networks in > general, we'd > > > have a new mail protocol every 2-3 years and it would be completely > > > incompatible to the others and nobody would ask any questions. > > > Why is it that software always has to be compatible? Nobody would ever > > > expect hardware (not computers) be compatible to its previous models. > > > >Really? The POTS phone I used back in 1978 still works just fine. > > Well, a POTS phone is not something what I would call a mobile > phone, right? > So lets then keep a keen eye on GSM, CDMA, TDMA and what else on > abbreviations are vogue this year. > Besides, America is definitely not known for advances in telephone > technology. ;) > > > > Andreas My Ericson (70's) works just fine, and I am in Aus. Are you saying we should rework the entire Internet every few years because someone has come up with a brilliant new idea? I am afraid all itinerent oops I mean internet users would go and find something else to do, most can't handle keeping their current software up to date, hence the huge number of spammed mail coming from less than secure machines. although some would like the Internet to go back to pre 1990's. for the rest of us we'd be out of a job. Now Replace the Internet and you are talking a different turkey. But the old one will continue on just like POTS and there is no end in sight for that. especially after all you mobile users succumb to brain tumours (from the HF) Regards Chris _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Feb 4 09:27:42 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA07213 for ; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 09:27:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoNzm-0008W8-37 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 09:27:14 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i14ERENJ032740 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 09:27:14 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoNzl-0008Vz-Se for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 09:27:13 -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 JAA07197 for ; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 09:27:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoNzk-0001sT-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 09:27:12 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AoNyo-0001nt-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 09:26:15 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoNy4-0001it-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 09:25:28 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoNxd-0008L6-7q; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 09:25:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoNwo-0008KC-VY for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 09:24:10 -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 JAA07123 for ; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 09:24:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoNwn-0001be-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 09:24:09 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AoNvp-0001Vj-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 09:23:10 -0500 Received: from sccrmhc13.comcast.net ([204.127.202.64]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoNur-0001LA-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 09:22:09 -0500 Received: from cb (c-67-166-198-61.client.comcast.net[67.166.198.61]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc13) with SMTP id <200402041421380160014j72e>; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 14:21:39 +0000 From: "Christopher Bird" To: Message-ID: <001701c3eb2a$34950100$3601a8c0@cb> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] Spooked mail addresses Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 08:21:39 -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 I am not sure where this belongs in our musings, but I do think that it is rather important. The most recent Mydoom attacks used, as have many before, spoofed email addresses. So far so obvious. I am working at a large company at the moment, and I noticed that when a Mydoom variant email came to me at work, it appeared to come from someone inside the corporation. Not a surprise you say. In fact what had happened was that it had come through from the outside with a spoofed address, but that wasn't obvious. My knee jerk reaction was "duh" all we have to do is a reverse lookup on the sending IP address, compare with the domain name in the from and the return fields and truncate if there was no match. Piece of cake. Well further investigation makes that strategy rather tricky. Computerworld and The Wall Street Journal both have the ability to email articles to friends. A handy service indeed. The glitch is that when the email arrives in my inbox, the from address is the address of the person sending it, not the publication itself. Those guys have spoofed my email address if I am the sender. Clearly the mail needs to be identified as being sent at my request, but I am definitely not the sender. They are. So my scheme to block spoofed mail is torpedoed by the need to receive these publications. I suspect that since they probably all use one of a few software packaged products, there are many others who behave this way What does this group think should be the correct way for the magazines to behave? What does the group think is the likelihood that they will even take any notice? Regards Chris _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Feb 4 09:51:42 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA07941 for ; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 09:51:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoON0-0001Rb-LT for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 09:51:15 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i14EpEns005549 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 09:51:14 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoON0-0001RQ-EB for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 09:51:14 -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 JAA07924 for ; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 09:51:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoOMy-0004KB-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 09:51:12 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AoOM1-0004E5-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 09:50:13 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoOLC-000479-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 09:49:22 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoOKr-00018E-3z; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 09:49:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoOKF-00016r-17 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 09:48:24 -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 JAA07775 for ; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 09:48:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoOKC-0003ys-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 09:48:21 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AoOJD-0003sP-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 09:47:20 -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 1AoOIR-0003mW-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 09:46:32 -0500 Received: from newgiles.nitros9.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.nitros9.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C199517031 for ; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 09:48:48 -0500 (EST) From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spooked mail addresses In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 04 Feb 2004 08:21:39 CST." <001701c3eb2a$34950100$3601a8c0@cb> Message-Id: <20040204144848.C199517031@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, 04 Feb 2004 09:48:48 -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 "Christopher Bird" wrote: > My knee jerk reaction was "duh" all we have to do is a reverse lookup on > the sending IP address, compare with the domain name in the from and the > return fields and truncate if there was no match. Piece of cake. The SMTP RFC's suggest that's a bad idea. See the LMAP discussion document for further comments on this topic. > The glitch is that when the email arrives in my inbox, the from address > is the address of the person sending it, not the publication itself. Such messages are forged spam. Nothing else. Is it really that difficult for your local browser to copy the web page, and send it? Or, to send a URL? Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Feb 4 09:51:50 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA07959 for ; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 09:51:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoON5-0001SR-2Y for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 09:51:22 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i14EpJcr005597 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 09:51:19 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoON4-0001SC-Ut for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 09:51:18 -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 JAA07937 for ; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 09:51:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoON3-0004Kq-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 09:51:17 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AoOMA-0004Fb-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 09:50:23 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoOLr-00049W-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 09:50:03 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoOLp-0001Dy-La; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 09:50:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoOLA-0001Av-On for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 09:49:21 -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 JAA07816 for ; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 09:49:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoOL8-00046Z-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 09:49:18 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AoOKE-0003zA-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 09:48:23 -0500 Received: from bsdsgr04.sagres.com.br ([200.140.134.134]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoOJH-0003mb-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 09:47:23 -0500 Received: from ntsgr07.sagres.com.br (NTsgr07.sagres.com.br [10.0.17.7]) by BSDsgr04.sagres.com.br (8.12.8p1/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i14EnkBQ022171; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 14:49:47 GMT (envelope-from saurwein@uniwares.com) Received: from leonone.uniwares.com ([200.140.11.224]) by ntsgr07.sagres.com.br (Lotus Domino Release 5.0.12) with ESMTP id 2004020412543867:11797 ; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 12:54:38 -0200 Message-Id: <6.0.1.1.0.20040204123233.01d4eec0@mail.uniwares.com> X-Sender: saurwein.uniwares@mail.uniwares.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.1.1 To: "Chris" , From: Andreas Saurwein Subject: RE: [Asrg] Its all over for Challenge Response In-Reply-To: References: <6.0.1.1.0.20040204021942.01c6a3c0@mail.uniwares.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on ntsgr07/SAGRES(Release 5.0.12 |February 13, 2003) at 02/04/2004 12:54:39 PM, Serialize by Router on ntsgr07/SAGRES(Release 5.0.12 |February 13, 2003) at 02/04/2004 12:54:41 PM, Serialize complete at 02/04/2004 12:54:41 PM Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 12:42:48 -0200 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=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 At 4/2/2004 03:56 Wednesday, Chris wrote: >Are you saying we should rework the entire Internet every few years because >someone has come up with a brilliant new idea? No, I am saying that the very same is happening in other technology areas and people live with it. While here (ASRG, IETF, and some other groups) we have it happening that a few people fight over minor technical opinions/likes/dislikes which prevents any advance. >... most can't handle keeping their current software up to >date, hence the huge number of spammed mail coming from less than secure >machines. Thats again more a point of badly designed software than anything else. Until there is a quality requirement for software, this wont change. >Now Replace the Internet and you are talking a different turkey. Thats whats happening with IPv6 and IPv4 - a different internet. Practically all relevant software has to be replaced. Often with quick hacks, likely to contain many bugs, just to support IPv6 "somehow". Until Joe Average can use IPv6 and IPv4 transparently side-by-side, we have two different networks, two sets of software. But, as already mentioned somewhere else, this does not really belong to this group and is only an expression of my personal frustration. Andreas _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Feb 4 10:06:45 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA08923 for ; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 10:06:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoObZ-0005Lj-9R for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 10:06:17 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i14F6HdC020557 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 10:06:17 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoObZ-0005LP-1M for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 10:06:17 -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 KAA08844 for ; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 10:06:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoObW-0005qn-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 10:06:15 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AoOad-0005kf-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 10:05:20 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoOZx-0005fR-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 10:04:37 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoOZO-0004Lz-3C; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 10:04:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoOYm-00049k-SX for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 10:03:24 -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 KAA08549 for ; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 10:03:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoOYk-0005YT-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 10:03:22 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AoOXm-0005SU-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 10:02:22 -0500 Received: from hawk.mail.pas.earthlink.net ([207.217.120.22]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoOXC-0005Mb-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 10:01:47 -0500 Received: from dialup-65.56.208.159.dial1.raleigh1.level3.net ([65.56.208.159] helo=earthlink.net) by hawk.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 1AoOX8-0001rn-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 07:01:43 -0800 Message-ID: <40210952.9030206@earthlink.net> From: Paul Tenny 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] Its all over for Challenge Response References: <01C3EAAA.588C1060.eric@infobro.com> In-Reply-To: <01C3EAAA.588C1060.eric@infobro.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 10:01:38 -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 Eric D. Williams wrote: > I hope this clarifies, what I think was the example. You missed the point of it by about 500 miles. Intent? Law? Violation? Did you even read what I said originally? I wrote; > It becomes exceptionally difficult when you rely on the law as part > of the solution to a problem. > I think our legal system has shown over and over it doesn't matter > how much you punish or threaten someone, the only way to stop them > is to put up a better defense against *them*, not their methods. I can't think of a reason someone would take something so wildly out of context for any reason unless they simply missed the point, so there it is. It doesn't have anything to do with what you think, or what he thinks, or what I think. Trying to punish people after they've done something wrong is not a solution, it's a fix. We don't need fixes, we need solutions. The answer's out there, trust me. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Feb 4 10:56:48 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA12159 for ; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 10:56:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoPO1-0004Z7-9X for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 10:56:21 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i14FuLh4017545 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 10:56:21 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoPO1-0004Yu-4t for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 10:56:21 -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 KAA12144 for ; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 10:56:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoPNy-0003YK-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 10:56:18 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AoPN7-0003Sc-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 10:55:25 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoPMG-0003MX-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 10:54:32 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoPLl-0004DS-Bb; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 10:54:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoPL3-0004A5-6v for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 10:53:17 -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 KAA11942 for ; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 10:53:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoPL0-0003Az-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 10:53:14 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AoPK5-00031Y-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 10:52:17 -0500 Received: from wbar3.sjo1-4-11-009-147.sjo1.dsl-verizon.net ([4.11.9.147] helo=candle.brasslantern.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoPJ7-0002p3-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 10:51:17 -0500 Received: (from schaefer@localhost) by candle.brasslantern.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id i14Fp5m09452 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 07:51:05 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: candle.brasslantern.com: schaefer set sender to schaefer@closedmail.com using -f From: Bart Schaefer Message-Id: <1040204155105.ZM9451@candle.brasslantern.com> In-Reply-To: <20040204144848.C199517031@mail.nitros9.org> Comments: In reply to "Alan DeKok" "Re: [Asrg] Spooked mail addresses" (Feb 4, 9:48am) References: <20040204144848.C199517031@mail.nitros9.org> X-Mailer: Z-Mail (5.0.0 30July97) To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: 1a Inventory of Problems - Re: [Asrg] Spooked mail addresses 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, 4 Feb 2004 15:51:05 +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 On Feb 4, 9:48am, Alan DeKok wrote: } } > The glitch is that when the email arrives in my inbox, the from address } > is the address of the person sending it, not the publication itself. } } Such messages are forged spam. Nothing else. Is it really that } difficult for your local browser to copy the web page, and send it? } Or, to send a URL? This wanders into the area of copyrights and subscription-only web services. It may not be possible for the subscriber to create a URL that will allow a third party to access the subscription service; it may be against the service's policy to permit articles to be copied by the browser for redistribution, though that's harder to prevent. So the publisher is in a predicament: If it sends the article from it's own "identity" the recipient may not recognize the source and will treat it as spam. If it sends the article from the identity of the subscriber, the message appears to be forged. If it uses client-side browser scripts to cause the local browser to send the article it falls afoul of various restrictions designed to protect the user from exploits. Perhaps forging the sender has been the most likely of these to get the message seen by the recipient, which is theoretically what both the publication and the forwarding subscriber want? Of course spam and the techniques used by spammers are the reason that the technically correct approach (sending as the publisher) fails. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Feb 4 10:56:51 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA12176 for ; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 10:56:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoPO4-0004Zc-81 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 10:56:25 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i14FuOP8017574 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 10:56:24 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoPO4-0004ZN-4T for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 10:56:24 -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 KAA12155 for ; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 10:56:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoPO1-0003Yh-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 10:56:21 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AoPNA-0003TI-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 10:55:29 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoPMk-0003Mf-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 10:55:02 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoPMk-0004KV-QG; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 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 1AoPMC-0004Fa-VI for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 10:54:29 -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 KAA12049 for ; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 10:54:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoPMA-0003Ly-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 10:54:26 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AoPLS-0003Ex-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 10:53:42 -0500 Received: from grou.ch ([193.201.200.130] helo=linuxufo.com ident=mail) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoPKl-00036R-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 10:52:59 -0500 Received: from sheriff by linuxufo.com with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1AoPKk-0000Pz-00 for ; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 15:52:58 +0000 From: Peter Sergeant To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spooked mail addresses Message-ID: <20040204155258.GA31706@linuxufo.com> References: <001701c3eb2a$34950100$3601a8c0@cb> <20040204144848.C199517031@mail.nitros9.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040204144848.C199517031@mail.nitros9.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i X-Habeas-SWE-1: winter into spring X-Habeas-SWE-2: brightly anticipated X-Habeas-SWE-3: like Habeas SWE (tm) X-Habeas-SWE-4: Copyright 2002 Habeas (tm) X-Habeas-SWE-5: Sender Warranted Email (SWE) (tm). The sender of this X-Habeas-SWE-6: email in exchange for a license for this Habeas X-Habeas-SWE-7: warrant mark warrants that this is a Habeas Compliant X-Habeas-SWE-8: Message (HCM) and not spam. Please report use of this X-Habeas-SWE-9: mark in spam to . Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 15:52:58 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-8.0 required=5.0 tests=HABEAS_SWE autolearn=no version=2.60 On Wed, Feb 04, 2004 at 09:48:48AM -0500, Alan DeKok wrote: > Such messages are forged spam. Nothing else. Is it really that > difficult for your local browser to copy the web page, and send it? > Or, to send a URL? I realise people have wildly differing ideas of what constitutes spam, but what definition fits an email that you have specifically requested be sent to someone you know, on your behalf, most likely for non-commerical reasons? I don't really see how this is philosophically different from going to a web-based email account, typing in a friend's email address, and sending them a message - it's just that in the case of emailing someone an article, someone else wrote the original content. Please enlighten us with your reasoning. +Pete _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Feb 4 11:18:43 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA12805 for ; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 11:18:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoPjB-0006xm-9v for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 11:18:15 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i14GIDWK026765 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 11:18:13 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoPjB-0006xc-0h for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 11:18:13 -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 LAA12761 for ; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 11:18:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoPjA-0005TG-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 11:18:12 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AoPiD-0005M7-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 11:17:14 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoPhG-0005FR-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 11:16:14 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoPh3-0006j8-UK; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 11:16:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoPgV-0006eK-6i for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 11:15:29 -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 LAA12661 for ; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 11:15:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoPgU-0005AB-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 11:15:26 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AoPfM-000551-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 11:14:17 -0500 Received: from mail.crlf.net ([216.126.92.195]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoPej-00050E-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 11:13:37 -0500 Received: by mail.crlf.net (Postfix, from userid 100) id 965121F001; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 11:17:31 -0500 (EST) From: David Maxwell To: Peter Sergeant Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spooked mail addresses Message-ID: <20040204161731.GA13741@mail> References: <001701c3eb2a$34950100$3601a8c0@cb> <20040204144848.C199517031@mail.nitros9.org> <20040204155258.GA31706@linuxufo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040204155258.GA31706@linuxufo.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 11:17:31 -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, Feb 04, 2004 at 03:52:58PM +0000, Peter Sergeant wrote: > On Wed, Feb 04, 2004 at 09:48:48AM -0500, Alan DeKok wrote: > > Such messages are forged spam. Nothing else. Is it really that > > difficult for your local browser to copy the web page, and send it? > > Or, to send a URL? > > I realise people have wildly differing ideas of what constitutes spam, > but what definition fits an email that you have specifically requested > be sent to someone you know, on your behalf, most likely for > non-commerical reasons? > > I don't really see how this is philosophically different from going to a > web-based email account, typing in a friend's email address, and sending > them a message - it's just that in the case of emailing someone an > article, someone else wrote the original content. The difference is that the web-based email is not claiming that the mail is _from_ an identity/entity which it has no claim to. It says 'From: abc@hotmail.com' The site offering 'send a friend this link' allows you to type in any From address, and forges a message from you. Since there is no technical way for the recipient to verify that you authorized that message, there is no technical difference between it, and simple forged spam. Either the web site should produce an email that's easy for the end-user to send, or the source address should belong to the source of the email - the website. -- 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 Feb 4 11:28:59 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA13136 for ; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 11:28:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoPt9-0007bM-W4 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 11:28:31 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i14GSVGX029214 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 11:28:31 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoPt9-0007b7-S3 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 11:28:31 -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 LAA13129 for ; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 11:28:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoPt9-0006ig-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 11:28:31 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AoPs5-0006b6-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 11:27:26 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoPr5-0006Vn-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 11:26:23 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoPqj-0007QW-US; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 11:26:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoPq1-0007Or-1O for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 11:25:17 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA13069 for ; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 11:25:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoPq0-0006OI-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 11:25:16 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AoPpD-0006Hz-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 11:24:28 -0500 Received: from grou.ch ([193.201.200.130] helo=linuxufo.com ident=mail) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoPoQ-000691-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 11:23:38 -0500 Received: from sheriff by linuxufo.com with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1AoPoQ-0000a6-00 for ; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 16:23:38 +0000 From: Peter Sergeant To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spooked mail addresses Message-ID: <20040204162338.GB31706@linuxufo.com> References: <001701c3eb2a$34950100$3601a8c0@cb> <20040204144848.C199517031@mail.nitros9.org> <20040204155258.GA31706@linuxufo.com> <20040204161731.GA13741@mail> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040204161731.GA13741@mail> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i X-Habeas-SWE-1: winter into spring X-Habeas-SWE-2: brightly anticipated X-Habeas-SWE-3: like Habeas SWE (tm) X-Habeas-SWE-4: Copyright 2002 Habeas (tm) X-Habeas-SWE-5: Sender Warranted Email (SWE) (tm). The sender of this X-Habeas-SWE-6: email in exchange for a license for this Habeas X-Habeas-SWE-7: warrant mark warrants that this is a Habeas Compliant X-Habeas-SWE-8: Message (HCM) and not spam. Please report use of this X-Habeas-SWE-9: mark in spam to . Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 16:23:38 +0000 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 You make assumptions that weren't in the original posts. On Wed, Feb 04, 2004 at 11:17:31AM -0500, David Maxwell wrote: > The difference is that the web-based email is not claiming that the mail > is _from_ an identity/entity which it has no claim to. It says 'From: > abc@hotmail.com' Assuming that I'm using a web-based email system that ties me inextricably to their email address. I happen to access my email via a web-system when travelling, where normally I access it through an MUA on my machine - in this case, and in the case where I ask a third party to send an invite or an article in my name, the software sitting on the web-server is acting as an MUA. I do not see where the distinction between 'normal' and web-based MUA lies that makes email originating from one spam, and not the other. > The site offering 'send a friend this link' allows you to type in any > >From address, and forges a message from you. You say 'forges', but isn't this exactly what any MUA does? I can configure 'mutt' to send email from you - this doesn't mean that legitimate mail I send from 'mutt' is also by definition spam. > Since there is no technical way for the recipient to verify that you > authorized that message, there is no technical difference between it, > and simple forged spam. Where does this assumption come from? Many online content providers these days require you to log in. > Either the web site should produce an email that's easy for the end-user > to send, or the source address should belong to the source of the email > - the website. I believe this conclusion is based on flawed logic. +Pete -- No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money. -- Samuel Johnson _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Feb 4 11:38:43 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA13776 for ; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 11:38:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoQ2Z-0000ZA-GR for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 11:38:15 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i14GcFGs002169 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 11:38:15 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoQ2Z-0000Ym-1l for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 11:38:15 -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 LAA13736 for ; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 11:38:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoQ2Y-00007K-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 11:38:14 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AoQ1Y-00000e-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 11:37:13 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoQ0b-0007hm-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 11:36:13 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoQ0R-0008Tj-0G; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 11:36:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoPzm-0008Qi-Lc for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 11:35:22 -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 LAA13654 for ; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 11:35:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoPzl-0007cV-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 11:35:21 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AoPyz-0007X3-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 11:34:34 -0500 Received: from grou.ch ([193.201.200.130] helo=linuxufo.com ident=mail) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoPyV-0007QA-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 11:34:03 -0500 Received: from sheriff by linuxufo.com with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1AoPyV-0000d7-00 for ; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 16:34:03 +0000 From: Peter Sergeant To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spooked mail addresses Message-ID: <20040204163403.GC31706@linuxufo.com> References: <001701c3eb2a$34950100$3601a8c0@cb> <20040204144848.C199517031@mail.nitros9.org> <20040204155258.GA31706@linuxufo.com> <20040204161731.GA13741@mail> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040204161731.GA13741@mail> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i X-Habeas-SWE-1: winter into spring X-Habeas-SWE-2: brightly anticipated X-Habeas-SWE-3: like Habeas SWE (tm) X-Habeas-SWE-4: Copyright 2002 Habeas (tm) X-Habeas-SWE-5: Sender Warranted Email (SWE) (tm). The sender of this X-Habeas-SWE-6: email in exchange for a license for this Habeas X-Habeas-SWE-7: warrant mark warrants that this is a Habeas Compliant X-Habeas-SWE-8: Message (HCM) and not spam. Please report use of this X-Habeas-SWE-9: mark in spam to . Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 16:34:03 +0000 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 I made a mistake in my last email On Wed, Feb 04, 2004 at 11:17:31AM -0500, David Maxwell wrote: > Since there is no technical way for the recipient to verify that you > authorized that message, there is no technical difference between it, > and simple forged spam. and mis-read this comment. It's true that there's no technical way for the *recipient* to verify that you authorized a message. However, I'd say your logic doesn't hold - by the line of reasoning that says any non-source-verifiable email is technically equivalent to spam, most of the messages on this list are also technically equivalent to spam. This does not make them spam. +Pete _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Feb 4 12:06:50 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA14905 for ; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 12:06:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoQTm-0002nn-40 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 12:06:22 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i14H6MiG010765 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 12:06:22 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoQTl-0002nR-SV for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 12:06:21 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA14880 for ; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 12:06:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoQTk-00033o-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 12:06:20 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AoQSv-0002yC-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 12:05:30 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoQSQ-0002rr-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 12:04:58 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoQQX-0002F1-1h; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 12:03:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoQPs-0002BJ-H4 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 12:02:20 -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 MAA14688 for ; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 12:02:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoQPr-0002cl-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 12:02:19 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AoQOv-0002XX-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 12:01:21 -0500 Received: from argon.connectinternetsolutions.com ([193.110.243.33] helo=argon.connect.org.uk) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoQOk-0002SH-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 12:01:10 -0500 Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 1AoQOj-0004WI-6w for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 17:01:09 +0000 In-Reply-To: <001701c3eb2a$34950100$3601a8c0@cb> Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spooked mail addresses 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, 04 Feb 2004 17:01:09 +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=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 > What does this group think should be the correct way for the magazines > to behave? What does the group think is the likelihood that they will > even take any notice? > correct? hmm? maybe something like: mailto:?subject=great%20article&body=read%20it%20here -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Feb 4 12:14:53 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA15212 for ; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 12:14:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoQbZ-0003jY-LD for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 12:14:25 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i14HEPGL014346 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 12:14:25 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoQbZ-0003jJ-G2 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 12:14:25 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA15197 for ; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 12:14:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoQbY-0003pp-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 12:14:24 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AoQaZ-0003jy-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 12:13:24 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoQZy-0003eP-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 12:12:46 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoQZF-0003SU-UR; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 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 1AoQYZ-0003Rg-Bv for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 12:11:19 -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 MAA15120 for ; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 12:11:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoQYY-0003Xk-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 12:11:18 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AoQXd-0003ST-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 12:10:22 -0500 Received: from mail.crlf.net ([216.126.92.195]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoQWq-0003N2-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 12:09:32 -0500 Received: by mail.crlf.net (Postfix, from userid 100) id A82E81F001; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 12:13:30 -0500 (EST) From: David Maxwell To: Peter Sergeant Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spooked mail addresses Message-ID: <20040204171330.GD13741@mail> References: <001701c3eb2a$34950100$3601a8c0@cb> <20040204144848.C199517031@mail.nitros9.org> <20040204155258.GA31706@linuxufo.com> <20040204161731.GA13741@mail> <20040204162338.GB31706@linuxufo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040204162338.GB31706@linuxufo.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 12:13:30 -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 Wed, Feb 04, 2004 at 04:23:38PM +0000, Peter Sergeant wrote: > You make assumptions that weren't in the original posts. For a reason. See below. > On Wed, Feb 04, 2004 at 11:17:31AM -0500, David Maxwell wrote: > > The difference is that the web-based email is not claiming that the mail > > is _from_ an identity/entity which it has no claim to. It says 'From: > > abc@hotmail.com' > > Assuming that I'm using a web-based email system that ties me > inextricably to their email address. I happen to access my email via a > web-system when travelling, where normally I access it through an MUA on Likewise, sending email from your domain from anywhere on the net is indistinguishable from spammer behaviour. You could rectify this by sending mail which is authenticated in some way - cryptographically, or delivered by a host in the sending domain, for example. The latter could be accomplished by tunneling to your home network, or using an authenticated protocol to relay through your home MTA. If you're unwilling to accept that additional complexity, then you would appear to support the continued use of a network infrastructure which can never minimize spam. If you can prove that there's an authentication-less way to allow this sort of roaming, while preventing spam, I'll be shocked and impressed ;-) > my machine - in this case, and in the case where I ask a third party to > send an invite or an article in my name, the software sitting on the > web-server is acting as an MUA. I do not see where the distinction > between 'normal' and web-based MUA lies that makes email originating > from one spam, and not the other. There isn't, if your MUA does not 'belong' to your domain, in some way. That is also functionally equivalent to spammer behaviour, and the reason I chose the hotmail example. > > The site offering 'send a friend this link' allows you to type in any > > >From address, and forges a message from you. > > You say 'forges', but isn't this exactly what any MUA does? I can > configure 'mutt' to send email from you - this doesn't mean that > legitimate mail I send from 'mutt' is also by definition spam. It doesn't mean it's spam, but if there's no way to tell it apart from spam, then it may as well be spam. Any loophole that permits your message through will eventually be abused by spammers and become useless, unless there's some form of authentication involved, which the spammers cannot forge. > > Since there is no technical way for the recipient to verify that you > > authorized that message, there is no technical difference between it, > > and simple forged spam. > > Where does this assumption come from? Many online content providers > these days require you to log in. That isn't a respone to my statement. What is the technical method by which my MTA can tell that mail 'From: Peter Sergeant', originating at host 'remailer.nytimes.com' is actually from you? > I made a mistake in my last email > On Wed, Feb 04, 2004 at 11:17:31AM -0500, David Maxwell wrote: > > Since there is no technical way for the recipient to verify that you > > authorized that message, there is no technical difference between it, > > and simple forged spam. > and mis-read this comment. > It's true that there's no technical way for the *recipient* to verify > that you authorized a message. However, I'd say your logic doesn't hold > - by the line of reasoning that says any non-source-verifiable email is > technically equivalent to spam, most of the messages on this list are > also technically equivalent to spam. This does not make them spam. It makes them as problematic to the receiver as spam. -- 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 Feb 4 12:17:05 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA15376 for ; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 12:17:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoQdi-0003s4-3N for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 12:16:38 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i14HGc4d014874 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 12:16:38 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoQdh-0003rp-Vx for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 12:16:38 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA15333 for ; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 12:16:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoQdg-00043b-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 12:16:36 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AoQcp-0003xq-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 12:15:43 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoQc0-0003rY-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 12:14:52 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoQbA-0003co-OC; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 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 1AoQaR-0003br-5e for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 12:13:15 -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 MAA15158 for ; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 12:13:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoQaP-0003iN-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 12:13:13 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AoQZS-0003cp-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 12:12:15 -0500 Received: from ip-66-80-117-3.nyc.megapath.net ([66.80.117.3] helo=longsword.omniti.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoQYW-0003XX-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 12:11:16 -0500 Received: from ip-66-80-117-2.nyc.megapath.net ([66.80.117.2] helo=[10.80.116.129]) by longsword.omniti.com with asmtp (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.14) id 1AoQYW-0000s9-Rj for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 12:11:16 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v612) In-Reply-To: <20040204170108.GC78368@riddler.foster.cc> References: <001701c3eb2a$34950100$3601a8c0@cb> <20040204144848.C199517031@mail.nitros9.org> <20040204155258.GA31706@linuxufo.com> <20040204161731.GA13741@mail> <20040204163403.GC31706@linuxufo.com> <20040204170108.GC78368@riddler.foster.cc> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <4B003044-5735-11D8-A22A-000393B2B3C0@omniti.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: asrg@ietf.org From: George Schlossnagle Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spooked mail addresses X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.612) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 12:12:21 -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 On Feb 4, 2004, at 12:01 PM, Mark Foster wrote: > On Wed, Feb 04, 2004 at 04:34:03PM +0000, Peter Sergeant wrote: >> It's true that there's no technical way for the *recipient* to verify >> that you authorized a message. However, I'd say your logic doesn't >> hold > > No, it is not true. Header analysis can reveal whether the relaying > hosts > sequence & pattern in the Received: headers is consistent with previous > (bonafide) messages received from the sender. Except for the last hop, this is all trivially forgeable. SPF works to tackle this issue in a pretty sound way. I'm surprised that it hasn't been brought up in this conversation. George _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Feb 4 12:27:59 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA15776 for ; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 12:27:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoQoG-0004fe-6M for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 12:27:32 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i14HRWoG017948 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 12:27:32 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoQoG-0004fP-1X for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 12:27:32 -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 MAA15742 for ; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 12:27:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoQoE-00059q-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 12:27:30 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AoQnJ-00051a-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 12:26:34 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoQme-0004uE-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 12:25:52 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoQlr-0004An-LX; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 12:25:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoQlA-00048b-55 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 12:24:20 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA15531 for ; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 12:24:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoQl8-0004l5-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 12:24:18 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AoQkD-0004fz-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 12:23:21 -0500 Received: from ms1.quadtelecom.com ([66.45.116.138] helo=ms3.quadtelecom.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoQjw-0004at-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 12:23:05 -0500 Received: (qmail 81754 invoked from network); 4 Feb 2004 17:23:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO quadtelecom.com) (192.168.1.250) by ms3.quadtelecom.com with SMTP; 4 Feb 2004 17:23:04 -0000 Message-ID: <40212A67.1050507@quadtelecom.com> From: Harry Tabak Organization: Quad Telecom, Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spooked mail addresses References: <001701c3eb2a$34950100$3601a8c0@cb> <20040204144848.C199517031@mail.nitros9.org> <20040204155258.GA31706@linuxufo.com> <20040204161731.GA13741@mail> <20040204163403.GC31706@linuxufo.com> <20040204170108.GC78368@riddler.foster.cc> In-Reply-To: <20040204170108.GC78368@riddler.foster.cc> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 12:22:47 -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 Mark Foster wrote: > > > No, it is not true. Header analysis can reveal whether the relaying hosts > sequence & pattern in the Received: headers is consistent with previous > (bonafide) messages received from the sender. > > Most people uses just one (or a few at most) SMTP servers for sending > their mail. > Alas this too is easily forgible. The header can only be trusted to the extent you trust the last client SMTP host's IP address. Harry Tabak _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Feb 4 12:31:08 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA16140 for ; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 12:31:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoQrJ-0005JC-LW for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 12:30:41 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i14HUf0I020400 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 12:30:41 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoQrJ-0005Ix-Hs for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 12:30:41 -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 MAA16071 for ; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 12:30:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoQrI-0005fO-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 12:30:40 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AoQqL-0005VF-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 12:29:41 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoQpP-0005Lj-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 12:28:43 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoQok-0004ic-JP; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 12:28:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoQo4-0004el-65 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 12:27:20 -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 MAA15701 for ; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 12:27:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoQo2-00057x-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 12:27:18 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AoQn3-0004z6-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 12:26:18 -0500 Received: from grou.ch ([193.201.200.130] helo=linuxufo.com ident=mail) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoQmB-0004nC-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 12:25:23 -0500 Received: from sheriff by linuxufo.com with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1AoQm0-0000t6-00 for ; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 17:25:12 +0000 From: Peter Sergeant To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spooked mail addresses Message-ID: <20040204172512.GA2793@linuxufo.com> References: <001701c3eb2a$34950100$3601a8c0@cb> <20040204144848.C199517031@mail.nitros9.org> <20040204155258.GA31706@linuxufo.com> <20040204161731.GA13741@mail> <20040204162338.GB31706@linuxufo.com> <20040204171330.GD13741@mail> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040204171330.GD13741@mail> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i X-Habeas-SWE-1: winter into spring X-Habeas-SWE-2: brightly anticipated X-Habeas-SWE-3: like Habeas SWE (tm) X-Habeas-SWE-4: Copyright 2002 Habeas (tm) X-Habeas-SWE-5: Sender Warranted Email (SWE) (tm). The sender of this X-Habeas-SWE-6: email in exchange for a license for this Habeas X-Habeas-SWE-7: warrant mark warrants that this is a Habeas Compliant X-Habeas-SWE-8: Message (HCM) and not spam. Please report use of this X-Habeas-SWE-9: mark in spam to . Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 17:25:12 +0000 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 On Wed, Feb 04, 2004 at 12:13:30PM -0500, David Maxwell wrote: > > Assuming that I'm using a web-based email system that ties me > > inextricably to their email address. I happen to access my email via a > > web-system when travelling, where normally I access it through an MUA on > Likewise, sending email from your domain from anywhere on the net is > indistinguishable from spammer behaviour. Only to a computer. Alan was saying email like that which sparked the discussion was spam. I am asking what definition he is using to define that email as spam. > It doesn't mean it's spam, but if there's no way to tell it apart from > spam, then it may as well be spam. That's absurd. Most anti-spam technology uses a whole multitude of techniques to test for spam. I pity your users if you're marking as spam all email from domains that do not have SPF or equivalent records. I can't for a second imagine that they will remain your users for very much longer. +Pete -- If you're a horse, and someone gets on you, and falls off, and then gets right back on you, I think you should buck him off right away. -- Jack Handey _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Feb 4 12:51:59 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA14900 for ; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 12:06:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoQTl-0002nE-Be for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 12:06:21 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i14H6LbN010730 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 12:06:21 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoQTl-0002mw-61 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 12:06:21 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA14876 for ; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 12:06:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoQTj-00033j-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 12:06:20 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AoQSu-0002y4-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 12:05:29 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoQSP-0002rq-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 12:04:58 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoQQX-0002F9-IG; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 12:03:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoQPt-0002BO-8k for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 12:02:21 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA14691 for ; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 12:02:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoQPr-0002cq-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 12:02:20 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AoQOw-0002Xf-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 12:01:22 -0500 Received: from c-24-17-77-4.client.comcast.net ([24.17.77.4] helo=riddler.dyndns.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoQOk-0002SI-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 12:01:10 -0500 Received: from mdf by riddler.dyndns.org with local (Exim 4.30 #2) id 1AoQOj-000KdO-1I for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 09:01:09 -0800 From: Mark Foster To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spooked mail addresses Message-ID: <20040204170108.GC78368@riddler.foster.cc> References: <001701c3eb2a$34950100$3601a8c0@cb> <20040204144848.C199517031@mail.nitros9.org> <20040204155258.GA31706@linuxufo.com> <20040204161731.GA13741@mail> <20040204163403.GC31706@linuxufo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In-Reply-To: <20040204163403.GC31706@linuxufo.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 09:01:08 -0800 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Feb 04, 2004 at 04:34:03PM +0000, Peter Sergeant wrote: > It's true that there's no technical way for the *recipient* to verify > that you authorized a message. However, I'd say your logic doesn't hold No, it is not true. Header analysis can reveal whether the relaying hosts= =20 sequence & pattern in the Received: headers is consistent with previous (bonafide) messages received from the sender.=20 Most people uses just one (or a few at most) SMTP servers for sending=20 their mail.=20 I wonder whether any existing bayesian filters look at this sort of thing. --=20 Some days it's just not worth chewing through the restraints... Mark Foster http://mark.foster.cc/ _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Feb 4 13:47:47 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA19930 for ; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 13:47:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoS3T-0002Ox-0z for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 13:47:19 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i14IlIOg009225 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 13:47:18 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoS3S-0002Oi-Rs for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 13:47:18 -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 NAA19919 for ; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 13:47:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoS3Q-0006R5-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 13:47:16 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AoS2S-0006MO-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 13:46:17 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoS1V-0006Hd-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 13:45:17 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoS1H-0002Ck-5H; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 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 1AoS0f-0002Bc-9a for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 13:44:25 -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 NAA19867 for ; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 13:44:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoS0d-0006Ct-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 13:44:23 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AoRzk-00067K-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 13:43:29 -0500 Received: from fe05.axelero.hu ([195.228.240.93]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoRzF-00061b-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 13:42:57 -0500 Received: from fe05 (localhost-02 [127.0.2.1]) by fe05.axelero.hu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with SMTP id i14Igui7060132 for ; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 19:42:56 +0100 (CET) Received: from fe05.axelero.hu [127.0.2.1] via SMTP gateway by fe05 [195.228.240.93]; id A0EADB605F0 at Wed, 04 Feb 2004 19:42:56 +0100 Received: from axelero.hu (32.14-182-adsl-pool.axelero.hu [81.182.14.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by fe05.axelero.hu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i14Igncf059737 for ; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 19:42:54 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <40213D27.7090601@axelero.hu> From: "Za'mbori, Zolta'n" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113 X-Accept-Language: hu, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spooked mail addresses References: <001701c3eb2a$34950100$3601a8c0@cb> <20040204144848.C199517031@mail.nitros9.org> <20040204155258.GA31706@linuxufo.com> <20040204161731.GA13741@mail> <20040204162338.GB31706@linuxufo.com> <20040204171330.GD13741@mail> In-Reply-To: <20040204171330.GD13741@mail> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 19:42:47 +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 David Maxwell wrote: > That isn't a respone to my statement. What is the technical method by > which my MTA can tell that mail 'From: Peter Sergeant', originating at > host 'remailer.nytimes.com' is actually from you? IMHO one possible method can be based on the recipient address. z2 _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Feb 4 14:00:53 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA20332 for ; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 14:00:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoSG8-00037x-TV for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 14:00:25 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i14J0Ogl012015 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 14:00:24 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoSG8-00037i-MD for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 14:00:24 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA20288 for ; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 14:00:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoSG6-0007Wi-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 14:00:22 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AoSF8-0007Rj-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 13:59:23 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoSEw-0007Mw-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 13:59:10 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoSEn-0002vp-Iu; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 13:59:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoSEA-0002v1-4T for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 13:58:22 -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 NAA20218 for ; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 13:58:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoSE7-0007M4-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 13:58:19 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AoSDD-0007Hg-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 13:57:24 -0500 Received: from mail.crlf.net ([216.126.92.195]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoSCx-0007Cy-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 13:57:07 -0500 Received: by mail.crlf.net (Postfix, from userid 100) id 929141F001; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 14:00:56 -0500 (EST) From: David Maxwell To: Peter Sergeant Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spooked mail addresses Message-ID: <20040204190056.GE13741@mail> References: <001701c3eb2a$34950100$3601a8c0@cb> <20040204144848.C199517031@mail.nitros9.org> <20040204155258.GA31706@linuxufo.com> <20040204161731.GA13741@mail> <20040204162338.GB31706@linuxufo.com> <20040204171330.GD13741@mail> <20040204172512.GA2793@linuxufo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040204172512.GA2793@linuxufo.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 14:00:56 -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=none autolearn=no version=2.60 On Wed, Feb 04, 2004 at 05:25:12PM +0000, Peter Sergeant wrote: > On Wed, Feb 04, 2004 at 12:13:30PM -0500, David Maxwell wrote: > > Likewise, sending email from your domain from anywhere on the net is > > indistinguishable from spammer behaviour. > > Only to a computer. Anything other than what a computer can identify is irrelevant to discussions of spam, unless you have some magical resource of infinite numbers of monkeys to do your spam sorting for you. Any solution that can't be performed by a computer, doesn't scale at the rate that the spammers can scale their transmission (via computer). > Alan was saying email like that which sparked the > discussion was spam. I am asking what definition he is using to define > that email as spam. His definition is the same as mine "It may as well be spam, because I can't guarantee that it isn't." > > It doesn't mean it's spam, but if there's no way to tell it apart from > > spam, then it may as well be spam. > > That's absurd. Most anti-spam technology uses a whole multitude of > techniques to test for spam. Most partially successful technologies, which make probabalistic guesses. Note, that you said 'test for spam', rather than 'identify spam', since there is no perfect 'test' for spam, short of authenticated methods. > I pity your users if you're marking as spam > all email from domains that do not have SPF or equivalent records. I > can't for a second imagine that they will remain your users for very > much longer. You seem to be confusing discussions about solutions to spam, architecturally, with current implementation of anti-spam systems. This is a research group - I'm not talking about what "I do for my users today" - I'm talking about "what needs to be solved in the Internet mail systems". -- 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 Feb 4 14:34:48 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA21684 for ; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 14:34:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoSmy-0005y5-Vj for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 14:34:21 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i14JYKMw022933 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 14:34:20 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoSmy-0005xo-Kz for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 14:34:20 -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 OAA21669 for ; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 14:34:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoSmw-0003CZ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 14:34:18 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AoSly-00036w-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 14:33:18 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoSkz-00030l-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 14:32:17 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoSkm-0005Wv-12; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 14:32:04 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoSfV-0004wK-Hi for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 14:26:37 -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 OAA21422 for ; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 14:26:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoSfT-0002Uf-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 14:26:35 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AoSeb-0002OJ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 14:25:41 -0500 Received: from mout.perfora.net ([217.160.230.40]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoSe6-0002HB-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 14:25:10 -0500 Received: from [217.160.230.50] (helo=smtp.perfora.net) by mout.perfora.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1AoSe6-0004Bk-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 14:25:10 -0500 Received: from [68.29.151.169] (helo=solidmatrix.com) by smtp.perfora.net with asmtp (TLSv1:RC4-MD5:128) (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1AoSe5-0006Eh-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 14:25:10 -0500 Message-ID: <40214709.1090109@solidmatrix.com> From: Yakov Shafranovich Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, he, ru MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org References: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0356EF81@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> In-Reply-To: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0356EF81@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.82.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] 3a. Requirements - User Needs Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 14:24:57 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 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: [Asrg] Its all over for Challenge Response". Mod.] Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > >>Suppose that is the price we pay with education - we expect >>others to have >>the same level of knowledge and that they understand us and >>our reasoning. > > No, the users know far more about the Internet. They use it > more aggressively than the establishment for a start. > Comments on why people want or do not want to do certain things will not help, and can be expressed elsewhere. However, many of you are correct in stating that the needs of Internet users is what determines change. The question is who are the users? Is it the ISPs, or perhaps the backbone operators? Or is it the end-users? Why should we care about the end users and ISPs, if they do not care about the rest of the Internet? A lot of spam is being sent by hijacked machines. MyDoom spread like wildfire around the Internet, not because of some security hole in MS Windows, but because ignorant users clicked on the attachements. ISPs refuse to cooperate on abuse reporting and other anti-spam measures. Governments refuse to allocate money to law enforcement to go after spammers using existing laws. Countries do not want to help by tracking down spammers and those who help them. The answer is because we must - if we are going to recommend and implement changes for the entire Internet, we have an inherent responsibility to answer to the user base of the Internet. However, you must determine who you care about. Any change will be painful, especially here. Anything that is proposed,or implemended will affect some proportion of users somewhere. Do we care about the majority of the users who will gain benefit, or the minority who will lose out? When does the minority become strong enough so we care about them? Do we care about ISPs, more than end users? Or perhaps about end users rather than ISPs? Do we care about software companies and large corporations more, or perhaps about governments? Do we want to help political dissidents while that will also help terrorists? All of these have no easy answers. The major problem with all of these debates is that every person participating in it has a different answer to the questions above. There is also an inherent presence of certain preconceived notions such as "Company XXXX or organization YYYY is evil". My question to all of you is: how can we get something useful going out of all of these, instead of engaging in debates? Is there anything useful that we can do as a group to solve the problem? 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 Feb 4 15:14:51 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA23941 for ; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 15:14:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoTPi-0000ma-EW for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 15:14:22 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i14KEMko003002 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 15:14:22 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoTPi-0000mJ-8F for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 15:14:22 -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 PAA23893 for ; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 15:14:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoTPh-0006sw-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 15:14:21 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AoTOi-0006nc-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 15:13:20 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoTNo-0006iy-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 15:12:24 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoTNP-0008UC-Ll; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 15:11:59 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoTMy-0008Aj-T9 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 15:11:32 -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 PAA23555 for ; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 15:11:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoTMv-0006eH-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 15:11:29 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AoTM9-0006Yq-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 15:10:42 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com ([65.205.251.73]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoTLb-0006Su-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 15:10:07 -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 i14KA76v024153; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 12:10:07 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc03.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <121MP403>; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 12:10:07 -0800 Message-ID: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0356EF94@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Yakov Shafranovich'" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] 3a. Requirements - User Needs MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 12:10:02 -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=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 > However, many of you are correct in stating that the needs of Internet > users is what determines change. The question is who are the users? Is > it the ISPs, or perhaps the backbone operators? Or is it the > end-users? The end users are the ones I care about. I have not heard the ISPs asking for a solution to their problems, they have been asking for a solution to their end-user's problems. > Why should we care about the end users and ISPs, if they do not care > about the rest of the Internet? A lot of spam is being sent by > hijacked machines. MyDoom spread like wildfire around the Internet, not > because of some security hole in MS Windows, but because ignorant users > clicked on the attachements. The customer is always right, even when they are wrong. I have an inbox full of MyDoom spam sent by McAfee, Symantec and the rest. All taking the opportunity to advertise their product just because my email address has been impersonated by MyDoom. The MyDoom virus itself had no effect on me, it was all trapped in my virus filters. I am getting 100 spams from filter companies each day. Before we try educating the consumer, lets try to educate the virus companies. > ISPs refuse to cooperate on abuse reporting > and other anti-spam measures. You might have more sympathy there if the 'leaders' of this group was not responsible for keeping me out of those discussions. > However, you must determine who you care about. Any change will be > painful, especially here. Anything that is proposed,or > implemended will > affect some proportion of users somewhere. Do we care about > the majority > of the users who will gain benefit, or the minority who will > lose out? That depends who the minority is. When the minority is a small user base of geeks who want to use some arcane loophole in legacy specs I don't much care. If it is a group like visually impared folk who have a real issue that won't go away that is a different matter. If there is a major deployment constraint that is a show stopper for a party that supports a large part of the industry that is something we should listen to. If the problem is some hobyist's code writen ten years ago and has not been maintained since then that can go. > There is also an inherent presence of certain > preconceived notions such as "Company XXXX or organization > YYYY is evil". You don't say? > My question to all of you is: how can we get something useful > going out > of all of these, instead of engaging in debates? Is there anything > useful that we can do as a group to solve the problem? We could start by taking a serious look at SPF and write down a list of what we think is right and what we think is wrong with it. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Feb 4 15:19:51 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA24427 for ; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 15:19:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoTUY-00028A-G7 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 15:19:22 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i14KJMRG008184 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 15:19:22 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoTUY-00027v-98 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 15:19:22 -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 PAA24402 for ; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 15:19:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoTUX-0007IY-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 15:19:21 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AoTTc-0007ER-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 15:18:25 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoTTM-00079v-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 15:18:08 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoTTG-0001hJ-73; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 15:18:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoTSh-0001Z6-BA for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 15:17:27 -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 PAA24199 for ; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 15:17:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoTSg-00079N-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 15:17:26 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AoTRl-00074Z-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 15:16:29 -0500 Received: from mail1.panix.com ([166.84.1.72]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoTRX-0006zO-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 15:16:15 -0500 Received: from panix5.panix.com (panix5.panix.com [166.84.1.5]) by mail1.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CEC8489F9 for ; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 15:16:11 -0500 (EST) Received: (from sethb@localhost) by panix5.panix.com (8.11.6p2-a/8.8.8/PanixN1.1) id i14KGAB18578; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 15:16:10 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200402042016.i14KGAB18578@panix5.panix.com> From: Seth Breidbart To: asrg@ietf.org In-reply-to: <20040204144848.C199517031@mail.nitros9.org> (aland@ox.org) Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spooked mail addresses References: <20040204144848.C199517031@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, 4 Feb 2004 15:16:10 -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 >> The glitch is that when the email arrives in my inbox, the from address >> is the address of the person sending it, not the publication itself. > > Such messages are forged spam. False. There's no forgery if my email address is used at my request. Nor is it spam if I send a single message to my brother. However, the "Sender: " header is appropriate in that situation. > Is it really that difficult for your local browser to copy the web > page, and send it? Difficult? No. Copyright violation? Yes. > Or, to send a URL? Which won't work for someone else who doesn't have an account there. Seth _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Feb 4 15:30:55 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA24782 for ; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 15:30:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoTfF-0003WL-V6 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 15:30:26 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i14KUPO2013533 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 15:30:25 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoTfF-0003W8-Nv for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 15:30:25 -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 PAA24771 for ; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 15:30:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoTfE-0000Sn-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 15:30:24 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AoTeN-0000OM-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 15:29:32 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoTe7-0000Iu-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 15:29:15 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoTds-0003DR-AZ; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 15:29:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoTOm-0000ax-37 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 15:13:24 -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 PAA23736 for ; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 15:13:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoTOk-0006nv-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 15:13:22 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AoTNu-0006jK-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 15:12:30 -0500 Received: from mout.perfora.net ([217.160.230.40]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoTNT-0006ee-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 15:12:03 -0500 Received: from [217.160.230.50] (helo=smtp.perfora.net) by mout.perfora.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1AoTNR-0008Bv-00; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 15:12:01 -0500 Received: from [68.29.151.169] (helo=solidmatrix.com) by smtp.perfora.net with asmtp (TLSv1:RC4-MD5:128) (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1AoTNP-00077i-00; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 15:12:01 -0500 Message-ID: <40215205.6030707@solidmatrix.com> From: Yakov Shafranovich Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, he, ru MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andreas Saurwein CC: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0.General - News Articles References: <6.0.1.1.0.20040204020803.01ca8508@mail.uniwares.com> In-Reply-To: <6.0.1.1.0.20040204020803.01ca8508@mail.uniwares.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.82.2.0 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: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 15:11:49 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Andreas Saurwein wrote: > EC draws line in spam sand > http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/55/35320.html > > Worldwide Help Needed to Stop Spam > http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,114587,00.asp > > > Thats more the kind of spirit we need now. > What always amazes me is how much the politicians are willing to talk about the problem, but not too many are willing to give cold hard cash to law enforcement agencies. The FTC in the US estimates that over 70% of spam is fraudulent and can be enforced under existing laws. Yes, Congress has not given extra money to do so. 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 Feb 4 17:40:07 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA05257 for ; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 17:40:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoVgK-0006Eg-G9 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 17:39:40 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i14MdetY023964 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 17:39:40 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoVgK-0006ER-Bj for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 17:39:40 -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 RAA05248 for ; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 17:39:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoVgH-0002WI-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 17:39:38 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AoVfT-0002QK-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 17:38:48 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoVf2-0002Kn-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 17:38:20 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoVek-0005wL-1T; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 17:38:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoVRc-00054J-RR for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 17:24:28 -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 RAA04711 for ; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 17:24:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoVRa-00015U-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 17:24:26 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AoVQc-0000yV-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 17:23:26 -0500 Received: from mout.perfora.net ([217.160.230.41]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoVPm-0000q9-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 17:22:34 -0500 Received: from [217.160.230.50] (helo=smtp.perfora.net) by mout.perfora.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1AoVPm-0005Ey-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 17:22:34 -0500 Received: from [68.29.151.169] (helo=solidmatrix.com) by smtp.perfora.net with asmtp (TLSv1:RC4-MD5:128) (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1AoVPl-0001Ly-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 17:22:34 -0500 Message-ID: <402170A3.70502@solidmatrix.com> From: Yakov Shafranovich Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, he, ru MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 3a. Requirements - User Needs References: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0356EF94@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> In-Reply-To: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0356EF94@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.82.2.0 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: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 17:22:27 -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 Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: >>However, you must determine who you care about. Any change will be >>painful, especially here. Anything that is proposed,or >>implemended will >>affect some proportion of users somewhere. Do we care about >>the majority >>of the users who will gain benefit, or the minority who will >>lose out? > > That depends who the minority is. When the minority is a small > user base of geeks who want to use some arcane loophole in > legacy specs I don't much care. If it is a group like visually > impared folk who have a real issue that won't go away that is > a different matter. > Various "Turing test" schemes are in use today for signups, C/R, and WHOIS lookups. The W3C draft pointed out some of the problems inherent with these schemes for disabled users. Has there been a response from the industry? Does anyone really care unless the end-user constituency is large enough to make a commercial or public difference? > If there is a major deployment constraint that is a show stopper > for a party that supports a large part of the industry that is > something we should listen to. > Well what's defined as "party" and the "industry"? So far some of the problem raised with LMAP proposals like greeting cards, forwarding, etc. affect a significant number of companies out there. We need clear solutions and guidelines on how such companies can adjust. We also need to think about all of the non-commercial users as well. 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 Feb 4 18:02:21 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA06073 for ; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 18:02:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoW1r-0008Ua-5U for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 18:01:55 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i14N1tRD032636 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 18:01:55 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoW1r-0008UH-1i for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 18:01:55 -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 SAA06065 for ; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 18:01:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoW1o-0004Zz-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 18:01:52 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AoW0n-0004SJ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 18:00:49 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoW0L-0004LD-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 18:00:21 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoW05-0007GS-EH; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 18:00:05 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoVzr-0007FK-J4 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 17:59:51 -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 RAA05883 for ; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 17:59:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoVzo-0004KC-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 17:59:48 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AoVyz-0004D1-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 17:58:58 -0500 Received: from ms1.quadtelecom.com ([66.45.116.138] helo=ms3.quadtelecom.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoVyL-00044i-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 17:58:17 -0500 Received: (qmail 84767 invoked from network); 4 Feb 2004 22:58:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO quadtelecom.com) (192.168.1.250) by ms3.quadtelecom.com with SMTP; 4 Feb 2004 22:58:17 -0000 Message-ID: <402178F7.7080709@quadtelecom.com> From: Harry Tabak Organization: Quad Telecom, Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0.General - News Articles References: <6.0.1.1.0.20040204020803.01ca8508@mail.uniwares.com> <40215205.6030707@solidmatrix.com> In-Reply-To: <40215205.6030707@solidmatrix.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 17:57:59 -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=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > > What always amazes me is how much the politicians are willing to talk > about the problem, but not too many are willing to give cold hard cash > to law enforcement agencies. The FTC in the US estimates that over 70% > of spam is fraudulent and can be enforced under existing laws. Yes, > Congress has not given extra money to do so. > Unfortunately, as has been frequently discussed, evil spammers seem to dominate bulk commercial email. They hide behind zombie proxies and use underground networks to spew their garbage. Therefore zombies are a mechanism that needs to be curtail first and this is an enforcement issue, not a government policy issye. The need is for someone (who?) to track zombies and then get ISP's to block. This is a difficult chore. My own personal experiences and data collected at my SMTP server, confirm the severity of the zombie issue. While, I recognize my experiences are not necessarily universal, more general data is hard to find. This is what I've found at my site. 1. Installing a homebrewed simple greylist filter dropped my spam rate from about 65/day to 7-8/day and gave me the ability to gather some stats. I'll accept mail from anyone who will retry with the same IP address after two minutes of rejection. 2. In the last fourteen days I was visited by 4312 grey listed hosts. 3864 made just one attempt at delivery and when rejected, they never came back (using that IP address). Apparently, retries where attempted, but new IP addresses were used. The 3864 unique attempts came in 818 batches (tries in less than one minute) with an average of 4.7 attempts per each batch. 3. The cost, to spammers, of a failed delivery must be cheaper than the cost of pruning a mailing list. The stats remained relatively stable even after 40 days of graylisting. Harry Tabak Quad Telecom, Inc. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Feb 4 20:34:12 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA12588 for ; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 20:34:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoYOl-0006ee-PC for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 20:33:44 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i151Xhm1025576 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 20:33:43 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoYOl-0006eR-KX for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 20:33:43 -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 UAA12585 for ; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 20:33:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoYOj-00043k-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 20:33:41 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AoYNp-0003xp-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 20:32:45 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoYNU-0003rU-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 20:32:24 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoYN7-0006Rv-3y; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 20:32:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoYMk-0006RH-3E for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 20:31:38 -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 UAA12469 for ; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 20:31:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoYMh-0003qM-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 20:31:36 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AoYLk-0003lF-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 20:30:37 -0500 Received: from [131.107.8.12] (helo=exchange.microsoft.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoYLT-0003gE-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 20:30:19 -0500 Received: from DF-VRS-01.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.4.14]) by exchange.microsoft.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1069); Wed, 4 Feb 2004 17:29:42 -0800 Received: from 10.197.0.83 by DF-VRS-01.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (InterScan E-Mail VirusWall NT); Wed, 04 Feb 2004 17:29:48 -0800 Received: from DF-CHOPPER.platinum.corp.microsoft.com ([10.197.0.82]) by DF-BEG.platinum.corp.microsoft.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Wed, 4 Feb 2004 17:29:46 -0800 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7165.0 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] Its all over for Challenge Response Message-ID: <27C4E14288DB344FBA10705D57A9BB04016984BF@DF-CHOPPER.platinum.corp.microsoft.com> Thread-Topic: [Asrg] Its all over for Challenge Response Thread-Index: AcPqzxqyETNHaocuQ6GD/3jGX/NBTQAt7FCg From: "Bob Atkinson" To: "Seth Breidbart" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Feb 2004 01:29:46.0159 (UTC) FILETIME=[89CDE3F0:01C3EB87] Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 17:29:47 -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 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Seth > Breidbart > "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" wrote: >=20 > > All I think is necessary here is for the ISP to > > > > * Tell the end user what they are doing > > * Give the user an opportunity to opt out or select different > > settings >=20 > That can always be done by selecting a different ISP. Therefore, any > problem is self-limiting. This is to me a short sighted perspective. Not only are there significant logistical costs to switching ISPs (economists would say there is significant friction in the transaction) in many many areas it is the case that just one ISP has a monopoly, and there simply isn't another choice. Indeed, that is the situation for me personally: I'm stuck with my cable provider, whether I like them or not, and that's unlikely to change for decades (my property boundary is a telco central office boundary, so DSL will never come). ISPs have considerable power over users. If we're going to intrinsically give them more power, we ought to have a *very* good reason for it, some important benefit that cannot reasonably obtained by some other means, or we best not do it at all. Bob _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Feb 4 21:58:04 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA15131 for ; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 21:58:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoZhw-0004JC-8L for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 21:57:37 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i152vZXk016532 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 21:57:35 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoZhv-0004IZ-Ko for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 21:57:35 -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 VAA15125 for ; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 21:57:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoZhs-0004BD-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 21:57:32 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AoZgy-00046v-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 21:56:37 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoZgW-00042Q-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 21:56:08 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoZgO-0003sp-Dq; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 21:56:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoZg0-0003qU-Av for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 21:55:36 -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 VAA15098 for ; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 21:55:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoZfx-00041L-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 21:55:33 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AoZez-0003x1-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 21:54:34 -0500 Received: from mail008.syd.optusnet.com.au ([211.29.132.212]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoZes-0003sy-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 21:54:27 -0500 Received: from zen.fernhaven (c211-30-106-146.carlnfd1.nsw.optusnet.com.au [211.30.106.146]) by mail008.syd.optusnet.com.au (8.11.6p2/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i152rqd32251 for ; Thu, 5 Feb 2004 13:53:54 +1100 Received: from [172.16.0.129] (helo=fred.fernhaven) by zen.fernhaven with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1AoZeE-0007Q2-00 for ; Thu, 05 Feb 2004 13:53:46 +1100 From: Brett Watson Organization: PhD Student, Macquarie University To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 1a. Inventory of Problems - Spoofed mail addresses 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: <200402051353.45258.famous-asrg@nutters.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2004 13:53:45 +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 (Subject changed in an attempt to conform to posting guidelines. I think the subject under discussion -- mail sent from A to B at the request of third party C -- falls under section 1a.) Alan DeKok wrote: > Is it really that difficult for your local browser to copy the web > page, and send it? Seth Breidbart responded: > Difficult? No. Copyright violation? Yes. To which I say: How much sympathy are we due to offer in cases where the obstacle is self-imposed? Arbitrary publication X probably offers a "mail this item to a friend" service in preference to simply authorising you to do the same on the basis that the former alternative gives them greater data about who is getting their articles. Theoretically, it reveals to publication X the email addresses of two readers: a sender, and a person that the sender thinks is an interested party. Assuming that the sender isn't abusing the facility, that is. The major problem with this kind of third party mail request is that it does not fit with any viable proposed method of sender authorisation. The only viable practice that I can envisage involves the publication using its own address as the envelope-sender address, and the "Sender:" address in the message. The "From:" address in the message can be set to the address used by the person requesting the mailing. If the transmission is blocked due to policy constraints at the recipient's end, then that's just tough luck. If failure to verify the veracity of data entered in such a web-form results in widespread abuse and consequent blacklisting of the publication's mail servers, then that's par for the course. I guess I'm proposing a BCP, really. It goes like this: Scenario: party A sends mail to party B at the request of party C. Example: Chris wants publisher Aardvarks.example.com to mail an article to Bob. The subsequent mail transaction has Aardvarks.example.com as the SMTP-sender, and Bob's mail server as the SMTP-receiver. "MAIL From:" is given as a bounce-handling address at Aardvarks.example.com (possibly utilising VERP), which allows an LMAP-like system to bless the use of the given address. This would not be possible if Chris' address were used at this point. "RCPT To:" is given as Bob's address. In the message itself, "Sender:" is an appropriate Aardvarks.example.com address, "From:" is Chris' address, and "To:" is Bob's address. If the message is refused for any reason, the bounce-handler at Aardvarks.example.com is in a position to notify Chris of this failure via email. It is the responsibility of Aardvarks.example.com to make sure that all potential abuse vectors in this system are minimised, since it bears the risk of blacklisting if third parties attempt to use it as a weapon of abuse. I won't engage in a comprehensive review of potential abuse vectors here. I do note that the use of Aardvarks.example.com as a "MAIL From:" address closes one potential abuse path, since there is no possibility that a bounce will be directed at an innocent third party. Contrast this with the case where "MAIL From:" is the address provided in the web-form. Regards, TFBW _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Feb 4 21:59:04 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA15160 for ; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 21:59:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoZiu-0004St-71 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 21:58:37 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i152wajt017157 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 21:58:36 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoZiu-0004Se-3G for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 21:58:36 -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 VAA15152 for ; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 21:58:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoZir-0004Fr-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 21:58:33 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AoZht-0004BQ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 21:57:34 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoZhL-000476-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 21:56:59 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoZhN-00047e-FD; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 21:57:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoZh0-00045S-R9 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 21:56:38 -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 VAA15113 for ; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 21:56:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoZgx-00046l-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 21:56:36 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AoZg2-00042C-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 21:55:39 -0500 Received: from black.infobro.com ([63.71.25.39] helo=infobro.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoZfM-0003xJ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 21:54:56 -0500 Received: from red (unverified [207.199.136.153]) by infobro.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 21:52:44 -0500 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 21:53:01 -0500 Message-ID: <01C3EB69.428F5910.eric@infobro.com> From: "Eric D. Williams" To: "asrg@ietf.org" Subject: RE: [Asrg] Its all over for Challenge Response Organization: Information Brokers, Inc. X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 21:44:48 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,RATWARE_EMWAC, TO_ADDRESS_EQ_REAL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Actually I was not commenting on your original thread of discussion I was commenting on your analysis of the 'locks' example. IMHO that analysis, specifically, was erroneous. I do recognize the motivation and accuracy of your original statement. I think this is merely an issue my commentary being out-of-band to that original thread. Sorry. -e On Wednesday, February 04, 2004 10:02 AM, Paul Tenny [SMTP:pwtenny@earthlink.net] wrote: > Eric D. Williams wrote: > > I hope this clarifies, what I think was the example. > > You missed the point of it by about 500 miles. > > Intent? Law? Violation? Did you even read what I said originally? > > I wrote; > > It becomes exceptionally difficult when you rely on the law as part > > of the solution to a problem. > > > I think our legal system has shown over and over it doesn't matter > > how much you punish or threaten someone, the only way to stop them > > is to put up a better defense against *them*, not their methods. > > I can't think of a reason someone would take something so wildly out > of context for any reason unless they simply missed the point, so > there it is. > > It doesn't have anything to do with what you think, or what he thinks, > or what I think. Trying to punish people after they've done something > wrong is not a solution, it's a fix. We don't need fixes, we need > solutions. > > The answer's out there, trust me. > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > 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 Feb 5 00:46:10 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA19852 for ; Thu, 5 Feb 2004 00:46:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AocKd-0000Yg-BI for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 05 Feb 2004 00:45:43 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i155jhcJ002140 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 5 Feb 2004 00:45:43 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AocKd-0000YR-6x for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 05 Feb 2004 00:45:43 -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 AAA19848 for ; Thu, 5 Feb 2004 00:45:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AocKa-0003gB-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Feb 2004 00:45:40 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AocJl-0003bY-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Feb 2004 00:44:50 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AocJJ-0003W2-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Feb 2004 00:44:21 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AocIz-0000O9-Cg; Thu, 05 Feb 2004 00:44:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AocIi-0000Nu-5B for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 05 Feb 2004 00:43:44 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA19801 for ; Thu, 5 Feb 2004 00:43:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AocIf-0003UH-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Feb 2004 00:43:41 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AocHh-0003PO-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Feb 2004 00:42:42 -0500 Received: from mail1.panix.com ([166.84.1.72]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AocHa-0003Kq-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Feb 2004 00:42:34 -0500 Received: from panix5.panix.com (panix5.panix.com [166.84.1.5]) by mail1.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B74C748B40 for ; Thu, 5 Feb 2004 00:42:34 -0500 (EST) Received: (from sethb@localhost) by panix5.panix.com (8.11.6p2-a/8.8.8/PanixN1.1) id i155gYJ04010; Thu, 5 Feb 2004 00:42:34 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200402050542.i155gYJ04010@panix5.panix.com> From: Seth Breidbart To: asrg@ietf.org In-reply-to: <27C4E14288DB344FBA10705D57A9BB04016984BF@DF-CHOPPER.platinum.corp.microsoft.com> (bobatk@Exchange.Microsoft.com) Subject: Re: [Asrg] Its all over for Challenge Response References: <27C4E14288DB344FBA10705D57A9BB04016984BF@DF-CHOPPER.platinum.corp.microsoft.com> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2004 00:42:34 -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 "Bob Atkinson" wrote: >> From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Seth >> Breidbart >> That can always be done by selecting a different ISP. Therefore, any >> problem is self-limiting. > > This is to me a short sighted perspective. Not only are there > significant logistical costs to switching ISPs (economists would say > there is significant friction in the transaction) in many many areas it > is the case that just one ISP has a monopoly, and there simply isn't > another choice. If you have Internet access, there's another choice. I've been using Panix since 1993 or so, but I haven't been dialing directly into it for most of that time. I get raw IP service locally (that has to be local, and may have limited options); email and netnews come from where _I_ want. > Indeed, that is the situation for me personally: I'm stuck with my > cable provider, whether I like them or not, and that's unlikely to > change for decades (my property boundary is a telco central office > boundary, so DSL will never come). How do they prevent you from having an email account elsewhere? Seth _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Feb 5 13:28:14 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA27399 for ; Thu, 5 Feb 2004 13:28:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AooE6-0004Uh-H5 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 05 Feb 2004 13:27:47 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i15IRkug017270 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 5 Feb 2004 13:27:46 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AooE6-0004UT-8x for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 05 Feb 2004 13:27:46 -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 NAA27311 for ; Thu, 5 Feb 2004 13:27:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AooE4-0005c6-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Feb 2004 13:27:44 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AooCU-0005Is-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Feb 2004 13:26:07 -0500 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AooBS-00053h-01 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Feb 2004 13:25:02 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by mx2.foretec.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1Aoo0X-00054R-GR for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Feb 2004 13:13:46 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aonyq-0003dW-QI; Thu, 05 Feb 2004 13:12:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aony4-0003cN-5t for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 05 Feb 2004 13:11:13 -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 NAA26994 for ; Thu, 5 Feb 2004 13:11:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aony2-00045x-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Feb 2004 13:11:10 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AonxK-0003xp-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Feb 2004 13:10:27 -0500 Received: from [131.107.8.12] (helo=exchange.microsoft.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AonwD-0003et-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Feb 2004 13:09:17 -0500 Received: from DF-VRS-01.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.4.14]) by exchange.microsoft.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1069); Thu, 5 Feb 2004 10:08:36 -0800 Received: from 10.197.0.83 by DF-VRS-01.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (InterScan E-Mail VirusWall NT); Thu, 05 Feb 2004 10:08:41 -0800 Received: from DF-CHOPPER.platinum.corp.microsoft.com ([10.197.0.82]) by DF-BEG.platinum.corp.microsoft.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Thu, 5 Feb 2004 10:08:44 -0800 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7165.0 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] Its all over for Challenge Response Message-ID: <27C4E14288DB344FBA10705D57A9BB04016985A3@DF-CHOPPER.platinum.corp.microsoft.com> Thread-Topic: [Asrg] Its all over for Challenge Response Thread-Index: AcPrqy5LaYX34z00R0+yuELIHB0UowAZwIXA From: "Bob Atkinson" To: "Seth Breidbart" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Feb 2004 18:08:44.0196 (UTC) FILETIME=[17A88640:01C3EC13] Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2004 10:08:44 -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 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > From: asrg-admin@ietf.org On Behalf Of Seth Breidbart > > This is to me a short sighted perspective. Not only are there > > significant logistical costs to switching ISPs (economists would say > > there is significant friction in the transaction) in many many areas it > > is the case that just one ISP has a monopoly, and there simply isn't > > another choice. >=20 > If you have Internet access, there's another choice. I've been using > Panix since 1993 or so, but I haven't been dialing directly into it > for most of that time. I get raw IP service locally (that has to be > local, and may have limited options); email and netnews come from > where _I_ want. Asking me to choose between a 24.4 kbps dialup (my phone lines are poor quality) and a 750 Mbps broadband is only offering a false choice. My ISP owns me, body and soul. And I'm by no means alone in that situation; there are millions of others. > > Indeed, that is the situation for me personally: I'm stuck with my > > cable provider, whether I like them or not, and that's unlikely to > > change for decades (my property boundary is a telco central office > > boundary, so DSL will never come). >=20 > How do they prevent you from having an email account elsewhere? They prevent it because they own the filtering behavior on outbound email (port 25 or whatever). They can and do deny or allow me to engage with other mail addresses entirely at their whim. Concretely, I've been cut off entirely twice in the last two-ish years. Bob _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Feb 5 16:18:47 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA09421 for ; Thu, 5 Feb 2004 16:18:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aoqt9-0000b5-8P for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 05 Feb 2004 16:18:19 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i15LIJ9c002289 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 5 Feb 2004 16:18:19 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aoqt9-0000aq-2e for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 05 Feb 2004 16:18:19 -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 QAA09392 for ; Thu, 5 Feb 2004 16:18:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aoqt6-000280-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Feb 2004 16:18:17 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AoqsI-00021f-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Feb 2004 16:17:26 -0500 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoqrN-0001v1-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Feb 2004 16:16:29 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by mx2.foretec.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1AoqrN-0007Yy-TI for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Feb 2004 16:16:30 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aoqqw-0000Ru-Gw; Thu, 05 Feb 2004 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 1AopiP-0005tV-TE for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 05 Feb 2004 15:03:10 -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 PAA01833 for ; Thu, 5 Feb 2004 15:03:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AopiM-000012-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Feb 2004 15:03:06 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AophO-0007hN-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Feb 2004 15:02:07 -0500 Received: from main.gmane.org ([80.91.224.249]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AopgR-0007Wp-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Feb 2004 15:01:08 -0500 Received: from root by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1AopgL-0003nB-00 for ; Thu, 05 Feb 2004 21:01:01 +0100 Received: from 59.93-182-adsl-pool.axelero.hu ([81.182.93.59]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu Feb 5 20:01:01 2004 Received: from zamboriz by 59.93-182-adsl-pool.axelero.hu with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu Feb 5 20:01:01 2004 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: asrg@ietf.org From: "Za'mbori, Zolta'n" Lines: 31 Message-ID: References: <200402051353.45258.famous-asrg@nutters.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 59.93-182-adsl-pool.axelero.hu User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113 X-Accept-Language: hu, en In-Reply-To: <200402051353.45258.famous-asrg@nutters.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] Re: 1a. Inventory of Problems - Spoofed mail addresses Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2004 20:56:23 +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 Brett Watson wrote: > Scenario: party A sends mail to party B at the request of party C. Example: > Chris wants publisher Aardvarks.example.com to mail an article to Bob. The > subsequent mail transaction has Aardvarks.example.com as the SMTP-sender, and > Bob's mail server as the SMTP-receiver. "MAIL From:" is given as a > bounce-handling address at Aardvarks.example.com (possibly utilising VERP), > which allows an LMAP-like system to bless the use of the given address. This > would not be possible if Chris' address were used at this point. "RCPT To:" > is given as Bob's address. In the message itself, "Sender:" is an appropriate > Aardvarks.example.com address, "From:" is Chris' address, and "To:" is Bob's > address. If the message is refused for any reason, the bounce-handler at > Aardvarks.example.com is in a position to notify Chris of this failure via > email. IMHO there are no 100% solution to this situation. (Other than the copy-paste "solution".) If Aardvarks.example.com will be the MAIL FROM than MTA doing white-list filtering at the SMTP level will refuse this email even the white-list contains the email address of Bob. If Bob's address will be the MAIL FROM than MTA with transport path enforcing filter will refuse the email. If both Aardvarks.example.com and Bob are in the MAIL FROM: (source route notation) then non RFC compliant MTAs will refuse or mishandle the email. z2 _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Feb 5 16:37:20 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA12173 for ; Thu, 5 Feb 2004 16:37:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AorB6-0002PO-L3 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 05 Feb 2004 16:36:52 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i15LaqqS009252 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 5 Feb 2004 16:36:52 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AorB6-0002P9-Gy for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 05 Feb 2004 16:36:52 -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 QAA12132 for ; Thu, 5 Feb 2004 16:36:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AorB4-0005oL-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Feb 2004 16:36:50 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AorAD-0005bZ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Feb 2004 16:35:58 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aor8N-0005A5-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Feb 2004 16:34:03 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aor8K-0002AW-Ou; Thu, 05 Feb 2004 16:34:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aor7f-00029Q-Rm for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 05 Feb 2004 16:33:19 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA11319 for ; Thu, 5 Feb 2004 16:33:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aor7d-0004zF-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Feb 2004 16:33:18 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Aor5T-0004Ro-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Feb 2004 16:31:04 -0500 Received: from ip-66-80-117-3.nyc.megapath.net ([66.80.117.3] helo=longsword.omniti.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aor3F-0003tM-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Feb 2004 16:28:46 -0500 Received: from ip-66-80-117-2.nyc.megapath.net ([66.80.117.2] helo=[10.80.116.129]) by longsword.omniti.com with asmtp (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.14) id 1Aor3F-0005MC-FD; Thu, 05 Feb 2004 16:28:45 -0500 In-Reply-To: References: <200402051353.45258.famous-asrg@nutters.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v612) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <6A950F46-5822-11D8-A22A-000393B2B3C0@omniti.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: asrg@ietf.org From: George Schlossnagle Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 1a. Inventory of Problems - Spoofed mail addresses To: "Za'mbori, Zolta'n" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.612) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2004 16:29:44 -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 On Feb 5, 2004, at 2:56 PM, Za'mbori, Zolta'n wrote: > Brett Watson wrote: >> Scenario: party A sends mail to party B at the request of party C. >> Example: Chris wants publisher Aardvarks.example.com to mail an >> article to Bob. The subsequent mail transaction has >> Aardvarks.example.com as the SMTP-sender, and Bob's mail server as >> the SMTP-receiver. "MAIL From:" is given as a bounce-handling address >> at Aardvarks.example.com (possibly utilising VERP), which allows an >> LMAP-like system to bless the use of the given address. This would >> not be possible if Chris' address were used at this point. "RCPT To:" >> is given as Bob's address. In the message itself, "Sender:" is an >> appropriate Aardvarks.example.com address, "From:" is Chris' address, >> and "To:" is Bob's address. If the message is refused for any reason, >> the bounce-handler at Aardvarks.example.com is in a position to >> notify Chris of this failure via email. > > IMHO there are no 100% solution to this situation. (Other than the > copy-paste "solution".) > > If Aardvarks.example.com will be the MAIL FROM than MTA doing > white-list filtering at the SMTP level will refuse this email even the > white-list contains the email address of Bob. Whitelisting based on the MAIL FROM: is faulty at best - the forgability of that information is why this discussion is occuring at all. In this situation, Aardvarks has no business or compelling interesting in putting Bob's address in the MAIL FROM:. Bob is not the agent sending the mail, Aardvarks is. Compelling reasons for Aardvarks to use their own address as the MAIL FROM: include: a) they actually sent it b) if Bill lied (intentionally or otherwise) about being Bob, now Aardvarks will be the one contacted, and they can correct their behavior. c) Aardvarks stays in the loop of how their resources are being used. // George Schlossnagle // Postal Engine -- http://www.postalengine.com/ // Ecelerity: fastest MTA on earth _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Feb 5 22:33:50 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA26075 for ; Thu, 5 Feb 2004 22:33:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aowk7-0007pS-3A for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 05 Feb 2004 22:33:23 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i163XNar030088 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 5 Feb 2004 22:33:23 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aowk6-0007pD-Rh for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 05 Feb 2004 22:33:22 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA26033 for ; Thu, 5 Feb 2004 22:33:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aowk3-0006ly-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Feb 2004 22:33:19 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Aowj5-0006j5-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Feb 2004 22:32:20 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AowiE-0006he-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Feb 2004 22:31:26 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aowhs-0007LM-6d; Thu, 05 Feb 2004 22:31:04 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AowhD-0007KG-9q for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 05 Feb 2004 22:30:26 -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 WAA25965 for ; Thu, 5 Feb 2004 22:30:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AowhA-0006el-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Feb 2004 22:30:20 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AowgD-0006dS-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Feb 2004 22:29:21 -0500 Received: from mailbox.onlinepolicy.net ([64.62.161.194]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aowfe-0006ax-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Feb 2004 22:28:46 -0500 Received: by mailbox.onlinepolicy.net (Postfix, from userid 504) id 38975168468; Thu, 5 Feb 2004 19:19:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from queernet.org (c-24-16-147-19.client.comcast.net [24.16.147.19]) by mailbox.onlinepolicy.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D2CE16845A; Thu, 5 Feb 2004 19:19:41 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <402309CD.4020406@queernet.org> From: "Roger B.A. Klorese" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.5b (Windows/20040130) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" Cc: "'Andreas Saurwein'" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Its all over for Challenge Response References: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0356EF80@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> In-Reply-To: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0356EF80@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: Thu, 05 Feb 2004 19:28:13 -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 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > I think that it would be OK to require ISPs to get consent from > the end user. The end-user consents by not moving to another ISP. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Feb 5 22:57:57 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA26750 for ; Thu, 5 Feb 2004 22:57:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aox7P-0000gU-RN for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 05 Feb 2004 22:57:30 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i163vRb4002624 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 5 Feb 2004 22:57:27 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aox7P-0000gF-Jk for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 05 Feb 2004 22:57:27 -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 WAA26739 for ; Thu, 5 Feb 2004 22:57:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aox7M-0007iA-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Feb 2004 22:57:24 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Aox6S-0007gU-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Feb 2004 22:56:29 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aox63-0007eB-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Feb 2004 22:56:03 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aox61-0000Wc-Iv; Thu, 05 Feb 2004 22:56:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aox5Q-0000Vr-Lr for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 05 Feb 2004 22:55:24 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA26619 for ; Thu, 5 Feb 2004 22:55:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aox5N-0007cM-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Feb 2004 22:55:21 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Aox4P-0007aJ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Feb 2004 22:54:22 -0500 Received: from mail004.syd.optusnet.com.au ([211.29.132.145]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aox3k-0007Wa-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Feb 2004 22:53:41 -0500 Received: from zen.fernhaven (c211-30-106-146.carlnfd1.nsw.optusnet.com.au [211.30.106.146]) by mail004.syd.optusnet.com.au (8.11.6p2/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i163r3s12558 for ; Fri, 6 Feb 2004 14:53:04 +1100 Received: from [172.16.0.129] (helo=fred.fernhaven) by zen.fernhaven with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1AowYd-0002WD-00 for ; Fri, 06 Feb 2004 14:21:31 +1100 From: Brett Watson Organization: PhD Student, Macquarie University To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 1a. Inventory of Problems - Spoofed mail addresses 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: <200402061421.29541.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, 6 Feb 2004 14:21:29 +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 Za'mbori, Zolta'n wrote: > If Aardvarks.example.com will be the MAIL FROM than MTA doing white-list > filtering at the SMTP level will refuse this email even the white-list > contains the email address of Bob. So our scenario goes like this: Chris wants publisher Aardvarks to send an article to Bob. Chris is in Bob's whitelist, but Aarvarks is not. Should the message from Aardvarks be delivered to Bob on the basis that it was requested by Chris, although not sent *by* him as such? In other words, should the whitelisting be transferrable? If Bob has authorised Chris to send mail to him, can Chris then share that authorisation with Aardvarks? If so, is the authorisation a one-off thing, or a permanent thing? And can Aardvarks then share the authority with its "business partners"? You can probably see where this is going. It's the situation that we have now with email addresses. I can create a single-use email address (like the one I've used for subscription to this list), but I can't control its dissemination and subsequent use. The best I can do is retire an address when it becomes abused beyond its worth. If I had a strong LMAP-like means of verifying sender addresses, then I could restrict incoming addresses to use by particular senders, but the senders could not easily share their authority to send. Anything more subtle than those two policies will be difficult to implement. Not impossible, but certainly complex. So let us assume that Chris is NOT authorised to share his mail-sending authority with third parties. Acting on Chris' request, Aardvarks.example.com finds itself unable to send mail to Bob, because Bob's mail policies reject mail from unknown parties. What can Aardvarks do about this? One possibility is to mail the article to Chris instead, saying, "we were unable to deliver this article to Bob as you requested. Please forward it to him with our compliments, and suggest that he add Aardvarks to his mail white-list if he wishes to receive forwarded articles from us more conveniently in future." If Chris is unable to forward the article to Bob himself, then he never had the authority to request the mailing in the first place. Regards, TFBW _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Feb 5 23:04:56 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA27018 for ; Thu, 5 Feb 2004 23:04:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoxEE-0001W6-5i for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 05 Feb 2004 23:04:30 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1644UxR005824 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 5 Feb 2004 23:04:30 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoxED-0001Vr-UX for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 05 Feb 2004 23:04:30 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA27015 for ; Thu, 5 Feb 2004 23:04:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoxE9-0000DP-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Feb 2004 23:04:26 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AoxDF-0000BB-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Feb 2004 23:03:30 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoxCr-00008i-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Feb 2004 23:03:05 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoxCn-0001M6-JI; Thu, 05 Feb 2004 23:03:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoxCD-0001L9-GI for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 05 Feb 2004 23:02:25 -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 XAA26919 for ; Thu, 5 Feb 2004 23:02:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoxC9-00006w-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Feb 2004 23:02:21 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AoxBH-00004J-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Feb 2004 23:01:28 -0500 Received: from pigeon.verisign.com ([65.205.251.71]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoxAh-00001q-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Feb 2004 23:00:51 -0500 Received: from mou1wnexc01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.53]) by pigeon.verisign.com (8.12.10/) with ESMTP id i1640pXp010460; Thu, 5 Feb 2004 20:00:51 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <1MHC4F88>; Thu, 5 Feb 2004 20:00:51 -0800 Message-ID: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0356EFBE@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Roger B.A. Klorese'" , "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" Cc: "'Andreas Saurwein'" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Its all over for Challenge 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: Thu, 5 Feb 2004 20:00:50 -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=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 > Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > > I think that it would be OK to require ISPs to get consent from > > the end user. > > The end-user consents by not moving to another ISP. That is where your core political beliefs clearly differ from mine. I believe in personal freedom, there is no choice of cable company in my town, they are the only provider of high speed Internet. I believe they should be a common carrier by virtue of their monopoly status. Every individual should have the right to become a full citizen of the net. That means owning and controlling their own Internet identity - they should each have their own domain name. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Feb 5 23:08:16 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA27109 for ; Thu, 5 Feb 2004 23:08:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoxHS-0001p3-2w for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 05 Feb 2004 23:07:50 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1647neK006993 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 5 Feb 2004 23:07:49 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoxHR-0001of-IZ for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 05 Feb 2004 23:07:49 -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 XAA27102 for ; Thu, 5 Feb 2004 23:07:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoxHI-0000LG-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Feb 2004 23:07:40 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AoxGT-0000J3-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Feb 2004 23:06:51 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoxFg-0000Ge-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Feb 2004 23:06:00 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoxFh-0001Yc-N4; Thu, 05 Feb 2004 23:06:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoxFE-0001XS-73 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 05 Feb 2004 23:05:32 -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 XAA27038 for ; Thu, 5 Feb 2004 23:05:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoxF9-0000Fm-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Feb 2004 23:05:27 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AoxE8-0000DC-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Feb 2004 23:04:24 -0500 Received: from mailbox.onlinepolicy.net ([64.62.161.194]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoxDE-00008a-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Feb 2004 23:03:28 -0500 Received: by mailbox.onlinepolicy.net (Postfix, from userid 504) id CFD0C168470; Thu, 5 Feb 2004 19:54:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from queernet.org (c-24-16-147-19.client.comcast.net [24.16.147.19]) by mailbox.onlinepolicy.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCA3C16846E; Thu, 5 Feb 2004 19:54:30 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <402311F7.4050903@queernet.org> From: "Roger B.A. Klorese" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.5b (Windows/20040130) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" Cc: "'Andreas Saurwein'" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Its all over for Challenge Response References: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0356EFBE@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> In-Reply-To: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0356EFBE@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: Thu, 05 Feb 2004 20:03:03 -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 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > Every individual should have the right to become a full citizen > of the net. That means owning and controlling their own Internet > identity - they should each have their own domain name. Whatever the cost to the provider? They should invest in 1000x the bandwidth they need in order to deliver spam and viruses to your desktop and let you make your own decisions? _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Feb 5 23:30:56 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA28200 for ; Thu, 5 Feb 2004 23:30:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoxdL-0003Ow-QF for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 05 Feb 2004 23:30:28 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i164URj1013068 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 5 Feb 2004 23:30:27 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoxdL-0003Oh-Lu for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 05 Feb 2004 23:30:27 -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 XAA28197 for ; Thu, 5 Feb 2004 23:30:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoxdJ-00026h-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Feb 2004 23:30:25 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AoxcX-00024y-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Feb 2004 23:29:38 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aoxc2-00021j-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Feb 2004 23:29:06 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aoxby-0003C6-S5; Thu, 05 Feb 2004 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 1Aoxbm-00039w-2l for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 05 Feb 2004 23:28:50 -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 XAA28123 for ; Thu, 5 Feb 2004 23:28:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aoxbk-0001z3-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Feb 2004 23:28:48 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Aoxat-0001qF-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Feb 2004 23:27:56 -0500 Received: from mail.chariot.net.au ([203.87.95.38]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoxZk-0001d7-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 05 Feb 2004 23:26:44 -0500 Received: from localhost (avs1.sa.chariot.net.au [203.87.94.5]) by mail.chariot.net.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F12B5FF22; Fri, 6 Feb 2004 14:56:31 +1030 (CST) Received: from mail.chariot.net.au ([203.87.95.38]) by localhost (avs1.sa.chariot.net.au [203.87.94.5]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 21553-05-10; Fri, 6 Feb 2004 14:56:30 +1030 (CST) Received: from rebel (ppp-169.cust203-87-118.ghr.chariot.net.au [203.87.118.169]) by mail.chariot.net.au (Postfix) with SMTP id 73D285FFDB; Fri, 6 Feb 2004 14:56:21 +1030 (CST) From: "Chris" To: "Brett Watson" , Subject: RE: [Asrg] 1a. Inventory of Problems - Spoofed mail addresses 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: <200402051353.45258.famous-asrg@nutters.org> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at chariot.net.au Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 14:55:10 +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 Just a note on third party sending from what I read some people seem to think its an aberration and not the norm It is quite the norm for some large websites eg: Ebay ebay cust 1 sends email to ebay cust 2 requesting details of auction item for privacy reasons they don't simply give out email addresses So ebay posts the mail using the from address as ebay cust 1 therefore ebay cust 2 can reply to ebay cust 1 directly this is in effect a spoofed return address Many "contact" based websites use this method Nothing these websites do is wrong, they just take advantage of the way the system was designed Solutions? There really isn't one except to insist that ebay et al routes all messages AND replies through its server(s) I am sure this is not something they would want to do You *could* use the "From" field for ebay and the "ReplyTo" field for cust 1 but that would break many clients because as far as I am aware many ignore this field and use the "From" field as the reply address Hence they would reply to the wrong address eg ebay's sending address which probably simply bounces mail Regards Chris > -----Original Message----- > From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of Brett > Watson > Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2004 1:24 PM > To: asrg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Asrg] 1a. Inventory of Problems - Spoofed mail addresses > > > (Subject changed in an attempt to conform to posting guidelines. > I think the > subject under discussion -- mail sent from A to B at the request of third > party C -- falls under section 1a.) > > Alan DeKok wrote: > > Is it really that difficult for your local browser to copy the web > > page, and send it? > > Seth Breidbart responded: > > Difficult? No. Copyright violation? Yes. > > To which I say: > How much sympathy are we due to offer in cases where the obstacle is > self-imposed? Arbitrary publication X probably offers a "mail > this item to a > friend" service in preference to simply authorising you to do the > same on the > basis that the former alternative gives them greater data about who is > getting their articles. Theoretically, it reveals to publication > X the email > addresses of two readers: a sender, and a person that the sender > thinks is an > interested party. Assuming that the sender isn't abusing the > facility, that > is. > > The major problem with this kind of third party mail request is > that it does > not fit with any viable proposed method of sender authorisation. The only > viable practice that I can envisage involves the publication > using its own > address as the envelope-sender address, and the "Sender:" address in the > message. The "From:" address in the message can be set to the > address used by > the person requesting the mailing. If the transmission is blocked due to > policy constraints at the recipient's end, then that's just tough > luck. If > failure to verify the veracity of data entered in such a web-form > results in > widespread abuse and consequent blacklisting of the publication's mail > servers, then that's par for the course. > > I guess I'm proposing a BCP, really. It goes like this: > > Scenario: party A sends mail to party B at the request of party > C. Example: > Chris wants publisher Aardvarks.example.com to mail an article to > Bob. The > subsequent mail transaction has Aardvarks.example.com as the > SMTP-sender, and > Bob's mail server as the SMTP-receiver. "MAIL From:" is given as a > bounce-handling address at Aardvarks.example.com (possibly > utilising VERP), > which allows an LMAP-like system to bless the use of the given > address. This > would not be possible if Chris' address were used at this point. > "RCPT To:" > is given as Bob's address. In the message itself, "Sender:" is an > appropriate > Aardvarks.example.com address, "From:" is Chris' address, and > "To:" is Bob's > address. If the message is refused for any reason, the bounce-handler at > Aardvarks.example.com is in a position to notify Chris of this > failure via > email. > > It is the responsibility of Aardvarks.example.com to make sure that all > potential abuse vectors in this system are minimised, since it > bears the risk > of blacklisting if third parties attempt to use it as a weapon of > abuse. I > won't engage in a comprehensive review of potential abuse vectors > here. I do > note that the use of Aardvarks.example.com as a "MAIL From:" > address closes > one potential abuse path, since there is no possibility that a > bounce will be > directed at an innocent third party. Contrast this with the case > where "MAIL > From:" is the address provided in the web-form. > > Regards, > TFBW > > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > 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 Feb 6 00:29:00 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA29678 for ; Fri, 6 Feb 2004 00:28:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoyXY-0006SE-LB for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 06 Feb 2004 00:28:32 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i165SWDv024807 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 6 Feb 2004 00:28:32 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoyXY-0006S2-F8 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 06 Feb 2004 00:28:32 -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 AAA29675 for ; Fri, 6 Feb 2004 00:28:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoyXW-0004RT-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 06 Feb 2004 00:28:30 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AoyWV-0004PG-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 06 Feb 2004 00:27:28 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoyWE-0004NQ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 06 Feb 2004 00:27:10 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoyW5-0006B3-62; Fri, 06 Feb 2004 00:27:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoyVW-00068o-9t for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 06 Feb 2004 00:26:26 -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 AAA29649 for ; Fri, 6 Feb 2004 00:26:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoyVT-0004ML-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 06 Feb 2004 00:26:23 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AoyUW-0004Kb-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 06 Feb 2004 00:25:24 -0500 Received: from mail3.panix.com ([166.84.1.74]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoyTi-0004JJ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 06 Feb 2004 00:24:34 -0500 Received: from panix5.panix.com (panix5.panix.com [166.84.1.5]) by mail3.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D06B982CA for ; Fri, 6 Feb 2004 00:24:30 -0500 (EST) Received: (from sethb@localhost) by panix5.panix.com (8.11.6p2-a/8.8.8/PanixN1.1) id i165OTP06681; Fri, 6 Feb 2004 00:24:29 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200402060524.i165OTP06681@panix5.panix.com> From: Seth Breidbart To: asrg@ietf.org In-reply-to: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0356EFBE@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> (pbaker@verisign.com) Subject: Re: [Asrg] Its all over for Challenge Response References: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0356EFBE@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 00:24:29 -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 "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" wrote: >> Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: >> > I think that it would be OK to require ISPs to get consent from >> > the end user. >> >> The end-user consents by not moving to another ISP. > > That is where your core political beliefs clearly differ from mine. > > I believe in personal freedom, So do I. > there is no choice of cable company in my town, they are the only > provider of high speed Internet. I believe they should be a common > carrier by virtue of their monopoly status. In that case they should be allowed to provide _only_ IP-level connectivity, because that's all they have a monopoly on. You could then get your email from any email provider you wanted; that's clearly not a monopoly. > Every individual should have the right to become a full citizen > of the net. That means owning and controlling their own Internet > identity - they should each have their own domain name. If you don't want to spend the $10 you can get a free third-level domain. So what's the problem? Seth _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Feb 6 00:29:57 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA29720 for ; Fri, 6 Feb 2004 00:29:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoyYU-0006Sq-JT for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 06 Feb 2004 00:29:30 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i165TUFm024842 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 6 Feb 2004 00:29:30 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoyYU-0006Sb-DS for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 06 Feb 2004 00:29:30 -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 AAA29713 for ; Fri, 6 Feb 2004 00:29:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoyYR-0004TS-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 06 Feb 2004 00:29:28 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AoyXW-0004Rg-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 06 Feb 2004 00:28:31 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoyX1-0004PS-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 06 Feb 2004 00:27:59 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoyX2-0006KC-UG; Fri, 06 Feb 2004 00:28:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoyWV-0006Fl-TS for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 06 Feb 2004 00:27:27 -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 AAA29667 for ; Fri, 6 Feb 2004 00:27:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoyWT-0004Ok-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 06 Feb 2004 00:27:25 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AoyVY-0004NE-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 06 Feb 2004 00:26:29 -0500 Received: from mail1.panix.com ([166.84.1.72]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoyVQ-0004LN-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 06 Feb 2004 00:26:20 -0500 Received: from panix5.panix.com (panix5.panix.com [166.84.1.5]) by mail1.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47AFB4879D for ; Fri, 6 Feb 2004 00:26:20 -0500 (EST) Received: (from sethb@localhost) by panix5.panix.com (8.11.6p2-a/8.8.8/PanixN1.1) id i165QKB06853; Fri, 6 Feb 2004 00:26:20 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200402060526.i165QKB06853@panix5.panix.com> From: Seth Breidbart To: asrg@ietf.org In-reply-to: <402311F7.4050903@queernet.org> (rogerk@queernet.org) Subject: Re: [Asrg] Its all over for Challenge Response References: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0356EFBE@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <402311F7.4050903@queernet.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, 6 Feb 2004 00:26:20 -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 "Roger B.A. Klorese" wrote: > Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: >> Every individual should have the right to become a full citizen >> of the net. That means owning and controlling their own Internet >> identity - they should each have their own domain name. > > Whatever the cost to the provider? They should invest in 1000x the > bandwidth they need in order to deliver spam and viruses to your desktop > and let you make your own decisions? Sure; of course, you pay your provider for bandwidth, so they're investing only in what they're reselling. That seems reasonable to me. Of course, if you don't want to pay $500/month for all the bandwidth taken by email worms attacking your system, you can get a $10 (or free) email account elsewhere and let the garbage be filtered out there. Seth _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Feb 6 00:47:04 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA00060 for ; Fri, 6 Feb 2004 00:47:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aoyp3-0007ZZ-4C for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 06 Feb 2004 00:46:37 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i165kbGZ029103 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 6 Feb 2004 00:46:37 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aoyp2-0007ZK-Vn for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 06 Feb 2004 00:46:37 -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 AAA00052 for ; Fri, 6 Feb 2004 00:46:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aoyp0-0005Fc-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 06 Feb 2004 00:46:34 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Aoynz-0005Ck-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 06 Feb 2004 00:45:32 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aoynl-0005AD-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 06 Feb 2004 00:45:17 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoynX-0007Nw-1E; Fri, 06 Feb 2004 00:45:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aoymw-0007HI-IH for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 06 Feb 2004 00:44:26 -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 AAA00025 for ; Fri, 6 Feb 2004 00:44:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aoymt-00059G-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 06 Feb 2004 00:44:23 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Aoylw-00057h-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 06 Feb 2004 00:43:24 -0500 Received: from mail1.panix.com ([166.84.1.72]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aoyl6-00056S-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 06 Feb 2004 00:42:32 -0500 Received: from panix5.panix.com (panix5.panix.com [166.84.1.5]) by mail1.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B5FB48916 for ; Fri, 6 Feb 2004 00:42:32 -0500 (EST) Received: (from sethb@localhost) by panix5.panix.com (8.11.6p2-a/8.8.8/PanixN1.1) id i165gVk08465; Fri, 6 Feb 2004 00:42:31 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200402060542.i165gVk08465@panix5.panix.com> From: Seth Breidbart To: asrg@ietf.org In-reply-to: Subject: Re: [Asrg] 1a. Inventory of Problems - Spoofed mail addresses References: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 00:42:31 -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 > You *could* use the "From" field for ebay and the "ReplyTo" field > for cust 1 but that would break many clients because as far as I am > aware many ignore this field and use the "From" field as the reply > address Then the client is already broken. That's its users' problem. Seth _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Feb 6 01:19:00 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA00967 for ; Fri, 6 Feb 2004 01:19:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AozJw-0001bA-1q for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 06 Feb 2004 01:18:32 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i166IW6u006138 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 6 Feb 2004 01:18:32 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AozJv-0001av-UF for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 06 Feb 2004 01:18:31 -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 BAA00955 for ; Fri, 6 Feb 2004 01:18:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AozJt-0006fg-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 06 Feb 2004 01:18:29 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AozIy-0006de-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 06 Feb 2004 01:17:33 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AozIY-0006bB-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 06 Feb 2004 01:17:06 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AozIT-0001S5-MO; Fri, 06 Feb 2004 01:17:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AozIA-0001Qu-04 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 06 Feb 2004 01:16:42 -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 BAA00895 for ; Fri, 6 Feb 2004 01:16:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AozI6-0006a9-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 06 Feb 2004 01:16:38 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AozHL-0006Vg-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 06 Feb 2004 01:15:52 -0500 Received: from mail1.panix.com ([166.84.1.72]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AozGL-0006RR-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 06 Feb 2004 01:14:49 -0500 Received: from panix5.panix.com (panix5.panix.com [166.84.1.5]) by mail1.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E27F9488D7 for ; Fri, 6 Feb 2004 01:14:48 -0500 (EST) Received: (from sethb@localhost) by panix5.panix.com (8.11.6p2-a/8.8.8/PanixN1.1) id i166EmG10874; Fri, 6 Feb 2004 01:14:48 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200402060614.i166EmG10874@panix5.panix.com> From: Seth Breidbart To: asrg@ietf.org In-reply-to: <27C4E14288DB344FBA10705D57A9BB04016985A3@DF-CHOPPER.platinum.corp.microsoft.com> (bobatk@Exchange.Microsoft.com) Subject: Re: [Asrg] Its all over for Challenge Response References: <27C4E14288DB344FBA10705D57A9BB04016985A3@DF-CHOPPER.platinum.corp.microsoft.com> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 01:14:48 -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 >> If you have Internet access, there's another choice. I've been using >> Panix since 1993 or so, but I haven't been dialing directly into it >> for most of that time. I get raw IP service locally (that has to be >> local, and may have limited options); email and netnews come from >> where _I_ want. > > Asking me to choose between a 24.4 kbps dialup (my phone lines are poor > quality) and a 750 Mbps broadband is only offering a false choice. My > ISP owns me, body and soul. And I'm by no means alone in that situation; > there are millions of others. So get your IP connection via broadband and your email elsewhere. >> How do they prevent you from having an email account elsewhere? > > They prevent it because they own the filtering behavior on outbound > email (port 25 or whatever). So find someone who'll forward your email from another port (e.g. using the Submit protocol), or get an account you can ssh to, or find some other solution. There are plenty of them. (You can even arrange to ssh to Port 80, and I doubt they'll ever block _that_ port outgoing.) Seth _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Feb 6 03:23:00 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA16410 for ; Fri, 6 Feb 2004 03:23:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ap1Fw-0008Kf-8p for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 06 Feb 2004 03:22:32 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i168MWlQ032029 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 6 Feb 2004 03:22:32 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ap1Fv-0008KW-Kr for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 06 Feb 2004 03:22:31 -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 DAA16406 for ; Fri, 6 Feb 2004 03:22:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ap1Ft-0003uC-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 06 Feb 2004 03:22:29 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Ap1F0-0003sH-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 06 Feb 2004 03:21:35 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ap1E4-0003q5-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 06 Feb 2004 03:20:36 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ap1Dd-00089D-4E; Fri, 06 Feb 2004 03:20:09 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ap1DD-00087W-25 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 06 Feb 2004 03:19:43 -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 DAA16347 for ; Fri, 6 Feb 2004 03:19:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ap1DA-0003ml-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 06 Feb 2004 03:19:40 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Ap1CE-0003ja-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 06 Feb 2004 03:18:43 -0500 Received: from mail005.syd.optusnet.com.au ([211.29.132.54]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ap1Bn-0003fc-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 06 Feb 2004 03:18:15 -0500 Received: from zen.fernhaven (c211-30-106-146.carlnfd1.nsw.optusnet.com.au [211.30.106.146]) by mail005.syd.optusnet.com.au (8.11.6p2/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i168Hjg10041 for ; Fri, 6 Feb 2004 19:17:45 +1100 Received: from [172.16.0.129] (helo=fred.fernhaven) by zen.fernhaven with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1Ap1BJ-0008A7-00 for ; Fri, 06 Feb 2004 19:17:45 +1100 From: Brett Watson Organization: PhD Student, Macquarie University To: Subject: Re: [Asrg] 1a. Inventory of Problems - Spoofed mail addresses User-Agent: KMail/1.5.4 References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200402061917.43884.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, 6 Feb 2004 19:17:43 +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 On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 15:25, Chris wrote: > for privacy reasons they don't simply give out email addresses > So ebay posts the mail using the from address as ebay cust 1 > > therefore ebay cust 2 can reply to ebay cust 1 directly > > this is in effect a spoofed return address At the risk of being patronising, I need to point out that this is *not* what we would call "spoofing". Here are the ABCs of email addressing. There are two areas where email addresses are used: the "envelope", and the "message headers". The "envelope" is that part which is negotiated in SMTP using the "MAIL From:" and "RCPT To:" commands. The "message headers" are that part of the message (transmitted in the DATA phase of SMTP) which specify the message metadata, including certain address specifications, like "From:", "To:", "Cc:", "Sender:", "Return-Path:", and various others. The "message headers" are what the mail user gets to see, since the envelope data is not transmitted in POP or IMAP. "Spoofed mail addresses" refer specifically to the "MAIL From:" part of the envelope. This is what LMAP-like proposals endeavour to validate. The "MAIL From:" address is the one that a bounce should be directed to in the case of a delivery failure part way through the relaying process. All the addresses in the "message header" can also be fabricated at whim by the sender (and are usually false in the case of spam or viruses). I don't know of any proposals to validate these header fields. Please note that there does not need to be *any* relationship between the envelope addresses and the "From:", "To:", and "Cc:" headers -- not even when standards are followed to the letter. In the case of the eBay example, eBay is quite at liberty (protocol-wise) to send mail in which the "From:" header is an eBay customer's address, while the "MAIL From:" envelope address is an eBay address. Regards, TFBW _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Feb 6 05:26:03 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA19284 for ; Fri, 6 Feb 2004 05:26:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ap3B2-0007MI-KI for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 06 Feb 2004 05:25:36 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i16APaXm028287 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 6 Feb 2004 05:25:36 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ap3B2-0007MA-8x for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 06 Feb 2004 05:25:36 -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 FAA19280 for ; Fri, 6 Feb 2004 05:25:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ap3Ay-0001fH-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 06 Feb 2004 05:25:33 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Ap3A3-0001dQ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 06 Feb 2004 05:24:36 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ap39o-0001bb-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 06 Feb 2004 05:24:20 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ap39V-0007CG-AA; Fri, 06 Feb 2004 05:24:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ap398-0007BF-6h for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 06 Feb 2004 05:23:38 -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 FAA19255 for ; Fri, 6 Feb 2004 05:23:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ap394-0001al-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 06 Feb 2004 05:23:34 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Ap386-0001YJ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 06 Feb 2004 05:22:34 -0500 Received: from argon.connectinternetsolutions.com ([193.110.243.33] helo=argon.connect.org.uk) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ap37M-0001WR-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 06 Feb 2004 05:21:48 -0500 Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 1Ap37M-0007Ls-CV; Fri, 06 Feb 2004 10:21:48 +0000 In-Reply-To: <401E5A6B.1060304@solidmatrix.com> To: "Yakov Shafranovich" From: "Jon Kyme" Cc: "ASRG" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.10.1] X-connectmail-Originating-IP: 172.25.243.3 Message-Id: Subject: [Asrg] Re: 2. C/R - 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: Fri, 06 Feb 2004 10:21:48 +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=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 > > > > The point was about paying for puzzle solving with porn views. > > I'm still unaware of the existence of an exploit or a good discussion > of > > the economics. > > > > I'm not saying it's impossible, just currently in the realm of theory. > > > > The original news article is here, you can probably contact the > journalist and ask: > > http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/03278/228349.stm > I've had helpful responses now from both Byron Spice (the author of the article) and Luis von Ahn at CMU, and I'm happy to be able to introduce some facts into the argument. Luis was able to tell me this: "The first mention that such an attack was possible comes from myself. I thought of it at around early 2001 and told a few people about it. Some time in 2002 I heard that one porn company was doing it for some time against the Yahoo! CAPTCHA but that they had stopped. Ever since, all I have heard is rumors that this happens, but I have not been able to see it in real life." Machine attacks are documented, for instance, Greg Mori of UC Berkeley Computer Vision Group has some pages outlining a method used to break Gimpy, the CAPTCHA used at Yahoo! http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~mori/gimpy/gimpy.html There's a news article here: http://www.siam.org/siamnews/11-02/gimpy.htm I think the bottom line is that "easy" CAPTCHAs are likely to be vulnerable to machine-based attacks. It's clearly possible that "hard" puzzles may be susceptible to what Luis has called "Stealing Cycles from Humans" (or in the case of the pay-with-porn approach, "buying cycles"), however, the economics of this kind of attack have not been fully explored. We don't have any firm evidence for an actual exploit "in the wild". This is an issue for C/R schemes which assume that success solving an easy puzzle assures us that there is a human "on the end". Getting a solution for a hard puzzle might make us feel fairly secure, but the fact remains that this input to our system is from an untrusted source, and can't be relied on to establish trust beyond a certain level of confidence. Regards, Jon Kyme -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Feb 6 17:11:38 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA25194 for ; Fri, 6 Feb 2004 17:11:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ApEBr-00049j-Ly for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 06 Feb 2004 17:11:11 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i16MBBhP015971 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 6 Feb 2004 17:11:11 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ApEBr-00049W-Ha for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 06 Feb 2004 17:11:11 -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 RAA25170 for ; Fri, 6 Feb 2004 17:11:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ApEBp-0006RX-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 06 Feb 2004 17:11:09 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1ApEAo-0006NE-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 06 Feb 2004 17:10:07 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ApEA5-0006JW-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 06 Feb 2004 17:09:21 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ApE9k-0003xj-Vv; Fri, 06 Feb 2004 17:09:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ApE9j-0003xT-OB for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 06 Feb 2004 17:08:59 -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 RAA25103 for ; Fri, 6 Feb 2004 17:08:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ApE9h-0006IS-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 06 Feb 2004 17:08:57 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1ApE8l-0006Ff-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 06 Feb 2004 17:07:59 -0500 Received: from fe02.axelero.hu ([195.228.240.90] helo=digpala.axelero.hu) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ApE7p-0006Cw-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 06 Feb 2004 17:07:01 -0500 Received: from digpala (localhost-02 [127.0.2.1]) by digpala.axelero.hu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with SMTP id i16M70JE010047 for ; Fri, 6 Feb 2004 23:07:00 +0100 (CET) Received: from fe02.axelero.hu [127.0.2.1] via SMTP gateway by digpala [195.228.240.90]; id A0273C7E2B4 at Fri, 06 Feb 2004 23:07:00 +0100 Received: from axelero.hu (25.93-182-adsl-pool.axelero.hu [81.182.93.25]) (authenticated bits=0) by fe02.axelero.hu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i16M6xeG009998 for ; Fri, 6 Feb 2004 23:07:00 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <40241003.9050307@axelero.hu> From: "Za'mbori, Zolta'n" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113 X-Accept-Language: hu, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ASRG References: <200402061421.29541.famous-asrg@nutters.org> In-Reply-To: <200402061421.29541.famous-asrg@nutters.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] Re: 1a. Inventory of Problems - Spoofed mail addresses Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2004 23:06:59 +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 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Brett Watson wrote: > Acting on Chris' request, Aardvarks.example.com > finds itself unable to send mail to Bob, because Bob's mail policies reject > mail from unknown parties. Bob email domain can publish the policy. If the domain express that "we are using transport enforcing filters based on the MAIL FROM" than Aardvark will put itself into the MAIL FROM as sender otherwise it put Bob into the MAIL FROM as return path. Additionaly Aardvark SMTP client can start with Bob address in the MAIL FROM and if there is a 5xx rejection it can start a new mail with itself int the MAIL FROM. z2 _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Feb 6 17:17:31 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA25747 for ; Fri, 6 Feb 2004 17:17:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ApEHW-0004iU-NC for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 06 Feb 2004 17:17:03 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i16MH2YN018124 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 6 Feb 2004 17:17:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ApEHW-0004iE-JI for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 06 Feb 2004 17:17:02 -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 RAA25724 for ; Fri, 6 Feb 2004 17:16:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ApEHU-00078c-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 06 Feb 2004 17:17:00 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1ApEGW-00073j-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 06 Feb 2004 17:16:01 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ApEFe-0006xh-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 06 Feb 2004 17:15:06 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ApEFc-0004OR-3x; Fri, 06 Feb 2004 17:15:04 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ApEEx-0004KH-Cv for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 06 Feb 2004 17:14:24 -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 RAA25349 for ; Fri, 6 Feb 2004 17:14:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ApEEv-0006pp-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 06 Feb 2004 17:14:21 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1ApEDg-0006cK-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 06 Feb 2004 17:13:05 -0500 Received: from tipjar.com ([128.121.115.38]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ApECs-0006XC-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 06 Feb 2004 17:12:14 -0500 Received: from davidnicol.com (adsl-66-143-48-169.dsl.ksc2mo.swbell.net [66.143.48.169]) by tipjar.com id i16MBtNR067824; Fri, 6 Feb 2004 15:12:00 -0700 (MST) X-Received-From: whatever@davidnicol.com X-Received-For: asrg@ietf.org Message-ID: <4024035E.3020100@davidnicol.com> From: david User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6b) Gecko/20031205 Thunderbird/0.4 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Brett Watson CC: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 1a. Inventory of Problems - Spoofed mail addresses References: <200402061421.29541.famous-asrg@nutters.org> In-Reply-To: <200402061421.29541.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: Fri, 06 Feb 2004 15:13:02 -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 Here's how the pay2send.com Advenge SMTP daemon deals with Brett Watson's scenario: Chris knows at least one of Bob's "magic phrases" which he used to get on Bob's whitelist in the first place. The Aardvark article sending service allows Chris to write an introduction to the article (all article sending services I have used have this facility) and Chris includes the magic phrase ("transferrable mnemonic capability key" for the security theorists) in the introduction. Bob receives the article and the introduction in one e-mail, which passes the filter since the introduction includes the magic phrase. Bob also receives a "magic phrase match report" including non-mnemonic one-time-use capability keys for * adding whatever the return address on aardvark press forwarded articles is to his whitelist * adding the aardvark outgoing SMTP host to his whitelist * invalidating the magic key used (in case Chris is out of control). Unless Bob uses one of the whitelist extension buttons, he will not receive further mail from Aardvark even if they send him some. (unless it quotes Chris's introduction again.) As a special case, consider: (1) Chris has registered a RAPNAP preference list, which for ASRG purposes is a per-sender RMX list (2) Aardvark forwarding uses the forwarding requestor's e-mail address as the source address for the forwarded article (Amazon.com apparently currently does this with book reccommendations) If 1 and 2 are both true, Chris will receive a challenge concerning mail from him originating at a new peer and must approve Aardvark's peer before the Advenge SMTPD server will even accept Chris's return address from Aardvark's server, so Chris will have to do that, which will moot the magic phrase being in the introduction, because the message will have gotten approved based on Chris being whitelisted so the magic phrase inspection will not be required. Chris can take Aardvark's IP out of his RAPNAP server list afterwards, or leave it there and trust that Aardvark isn't going to actionably misrepresent next quarter's Aardvark catalog as a personal message from Chris. If 2 but not 1, mail spoofed as From Chris has the benefit of Chris's whitelisting status. Special case 2: lemma (2) is true, but Chris has registered a public key with the server infrastructure rather than a Peer Network Address list. In order to get past the Advenge filtering system, Chris has to public-key-sign the text he pastes into the introductory text control in Aardvark's article forwarding form. Brett Watson wrote: > Za'mbori, Zolta'n wrote: > >>If Aardvarks.example.com will be the MAIL FROM than MTA doing white-list >>filtering at the SMTP level will refuse this email even the white-list >>contains the email address of Bob. > > > So our scenario goes like this: Chris wants publisher Aardvarks to send an > article to Bob. Chris is in Bob's whitelist, but Aarvarks is not. Should the > message from Aardvarks be delivered to Bob on the basis that it was requested > by Chris, although not sent *by* him as such? In other words, should the > whitelisting be transferrable? If Bob has authorised Chris to send mail to > him, can Chris then share that authorisation with Aardvarks? If so, is the > authorisation a one-off thing, or a permanent thing? And can Aardvarks then > share the authority with its "business partners"? > > You can probably see where this is going. It's the situation that we have now > with email addresses. I can create a single-use email address (like the one > I've used for subscription to this list), but I can't control its > dissemination and subsequent use. The best I can do is retire an address when > it becomes abused beyond its worth. If I had a strong LMAP-like means of > verifying sender addresses, then I could restrict incoming addresses to use > by particular senders, but the senders could not easily share their authority > to send. Anything more subtle than those two policies will be difficult to > implement. Not impossible, but certainly complex. > > So let us assume that Chris is NOT authorised to share his mail-sending > authority with third parties. Acting on Chris' request, Aardvarks.example.com > finds itself unable to send mail to Bob, because Bob's mail policies reject > mail from unknown parties. What can Aardvarks do about this? One possibility > is to mail the article to Chris instead, saying, "we were unable to deliver > this article to Bob as you requested. Please forward it to him with our > compliments, and suggest that he add Aardvarks to his mail white-list if he > wishes to receive forwarded articles from us more conveniently in future." I agree that the above policy is a reasonable one for Aardvarks to follow. > If Chris is unable to forward the article to Bob himself, then he never had > the authority to request the mailing in the first place. "Introductory texts" on article forwarding systems are a perfect place to insert "classical passwords." _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Feb 6 19:40:34 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA01619 for ; Fri, 6 Feb 2004 19:40:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ApGVz-0003RK-2E for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 06 Feb 2004 19:40:07 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i170e6P9013201 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 6 Feb 2004 19:40:06 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ApGVx-0003Qp-CA for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 06 Feb 2004 19:40:05 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA01605 for ; Fri, 6 Feb 2004 19:40:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ApGVv-0000QV-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 06 Feb 2004 19:40:03 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1ApGV0-0000Nc-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 06 Feb 2004 19:39:07 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ApGUB-0000Kl-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 06 Feb 2004 19:38:15 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ApGTx-00032u-Ew; Fri, 06 Feb 2004 19:38:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ApGT5-0002lJ-4Z for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 06 Feb 2004 19:37:07 -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 TAA01565 for ; Fri, 6 Feb 2004 19:37:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ApGT3-0000Gc-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 06 Feb 2004 19:37:05 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1ApGSC-0000Dn-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 06 Feb 2004 19:36:12 -0500 Received: from jtel.ca ([64.7.158.10] helo=mail.worldline.ca) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ApGRm-0000Ah-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 06 Feb 2004 19:35:46 -0500 Received: from waltdnes.org ([64.7.156.192]) by mail.worldline.ca (8.12.8/8.12.8) with SMTP id i170lJT2028011 for ; Fri, 6 Feb 2004 19:47:21 -0500 Received: by waltdnes.org (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Fri, 6 Feb 2004 19:31:36 +4300 From: "Walter Dnes" To: ASRG list Subject: Re: [Asrg] Its all over for Challenge Response Message-ID: <20040207003136.GD10208@m450> References: <27C4E14288DB344FBA10705D57A9BB04016985A3@DF-CHOPPER.platinum.corp.microsoft.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <27C4E14288DB344FBA10705D57A9BB04016985A3@DF-CHOPPER.platinum.corp.microsoft.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, 6 Feb 2004 19:31:36 -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, Feb 05, 2004 at 10:08:44AM -0800, Bob Atkinson wrote > Asking me to choose between a 24.4 kbps dialup (my phone lines are poor > quality) and a 750 Mbps broadband is only offering a false choice. My > ISP owns me, body and soul. And I'm by no means alone in that situation; > there are millions of others. > > > > Indeed, that is the situation for me personally: I'm stuck with my > > > cable provider, whether I like them or not, and that's unlikely to > > > change for decades (my property boundary is a telco central office > > > boundary, so DSL will never come). > > > > How do they prevent you from having an email account elsewhere? > > They prevent it because they own the filtering behavior on outbound > email (port 25 or whatever). They can and do deny or allow me to engage > with other mail addresses entirely at their whim. Concretely, I've been > cut off entirely twice in the last two-ish years. Haven't you ever heard of smtp-submit (port 587) or ssh-tunneling or a web interface to email at another 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 Feb 6 20:27:22 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA01621 for ; Fri, 6 Feb 2004 19:40:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ApGVz-0003Rp-GM for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 06 Feb 2004 19:40:07 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i170e6qb013224 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 6 Feb 2004 19:40:07 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ApGVy-0003Qu-0q for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 06 Feb 2004 19:40:06 -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 TAA01608 for ; Fri, 6 Feb 2004 19:40:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ApGVw-0000Qa-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 06 Feb 2004 19:40:04 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1ApGV1-0000Nk-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 06 Feb 2004 19:39:07 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ApGUB-0000Km-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 06 Feb 2004 19:38:15 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ApGTx-00032m-06; Fri, 06 Feb 2004 19:38:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ApGT1-0002kA-JV for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 06 Feb 2004 19:37:03 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA01539 for ; Fri, 6 Feb 2004 19:36:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ApGSz-0000G9-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 06 Feb 2004 19:37:02 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1ApGS8-0000DF-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 06 Feb 2004 19:36:09 -0500 Received: from jtel.ca ([64.7.158.10] helo=mail.worldline.ca) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ApGRF-0000Aa-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 06 Feb 2004 19:35:13 -0500 Received: from waltdnes.org ([64.7.156.192]) by mail.worldline.ca (8.12.8/8.12.8) with SMTP id i170kkT2028002 for ; Fri, 6 Feb 2004 19:46:48 -0500 Received: by waltdnes.org (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Fri, 6 Feb 2004 19:31:04 +4300 From: "Walter Dnes" To: ASRG list Subject: Re: [Asrg] 3a. Requirements - User Needs Message-ID: <20040207003104.GC10208@m450> References: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0356EF94@mou1wnexm02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <402170A3.70502@solidmatrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <402170A3.70502@solidmatrix.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 19:31:04 -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 On Wed, Feb 04, 2004 at 05:22:27PM -0500, Yakov Shafranovich wrote > Various "Turing test" schemes are in use today for signups, C/R, and > WHOIS lookups. The W3C draft pointed out some of the problems inherent > with these schemes for disabled users. Has there been a response from > the industry? Does anyone really care unless the end-user constituency > is large enough to make a commercial or public difference? If a jurisdiction has laws regarding access for the disabled, all you need is one disabled person and one lawyer, and it's game over for the turing test. -- Walter Dnes Email users are divided into two classes; 1) Those who have effective spam-blocking 2) Those who wish they did _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Feb 7 05:35:52 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA29234 for ; Sat, 7 Feb 2004 05:35:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ApPo5-000255-I1 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 07 Feb 2004 05:35:25 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i17AZPeE007995 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 7 Feb 2004 05:35:25 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ApPo5-00024s-AL for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 07 Feb 2004 05:35:25 -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 FAA29216 for ; Sat, 7 Feb 2004 05:35:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ApPo1-0000EE-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 07 Feb 2004 05:35:22 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1ApPn6-0000At-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 07 Feb 2004 05:34:24 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ApPmC-00007O-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 07 Feb 2004 05:33:28 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ApPll-0001rH-PB; Sat, 07 Feb 2004 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 1ApPl9-0001mc-Bx for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 07 Feb 2004 05:32:23 -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 FAA29190 for ; Sat, 7 Feb 2004 05:32:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ApPl5-00002U-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 07 Feb 2004 05:32:19 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1ApPk9-0007ma-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 07 Feb 2004 05:31:21 -0500 Received: from argon.connectinternetsolutions.com ([193.110.243.33] helo=argon.connect.org.uk) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ApPjS-0007jc-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 07 Feb 2004 05:30:38 -0500 Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 1ApPjK-00075d-Ie for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 07 Feb 2004 10:30:30 +0000 In-Reply-To: <20040207003104.GC10208@m450> Subject: Re: [Asrg] 3a. Requirements - User Needs 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, 07 Feb 2004 10:30:30 +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=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 > > If a jurisdiction has laws regarding access for the disabled, all you > need is one disabled person and one lawyer, and it's game over for the > turing test. > You're pre-judging your hypothetical court case rather, aren't you? IANAL, but in the UK at least, I gather this would only be an issue with *some* *public* services. I'm not required to provide (for instance) wheelchair ramps at my front door. Besides, reasonable alternative provisions might cover you (depending on your local laws) - a multi-modal "sound or vision" puzzle perhaps. -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Feb 7 07:15:58 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA01765 for ; Sat, 7 Feb 2004 07:15:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ApRMv-0001AW-LE for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 07 Feb 2004 07:15:29 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i17CFTYU004486 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 7 Feb 2004 07:15:29 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ApRMv-0001AH-HB for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 07 Feb 2004 07:15:29 -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 HAA01761 for ; Sat, 7 Feb 2004 07:15:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ApRMu-0007Xt-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 07 Feb 2004 07:15:29 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1ApRLz-0007UY-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 07 Feb 2004 07:14:32 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ApRLc-0007Qf-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 07 Feb 2004 07:14:08 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ApRLV-00010k-6X; Sat, 07 Feb 2004 07:14:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ApRKw-0000zv-TI for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 07 Feb 2004 07:13:26 -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 HAA01724 for ; Sat, 7 Feb 2004 07:13:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ApRKw-0007PM-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 07 Feb 2004 07:13:26 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1ApRK0-0007Kd-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 07 Feb 2004 07:12:28 -0500 Received: from fe05.axelero.hu ([195.228.240.93]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ApRJ2-0007G1-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 07 Feb 2004 07:11:28 -0500 Received: from fe05 (localhost-02 [127.0.2.1]) by fe05.axelero.hu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with SMTP id i17CBPTj008973 for ; Sat, 7 Feb 2004 13:11:29 +0100 (CET) Received: from fe05.axelero.hu [127.0.2.1] via SMTP gateway by fe05 [195.228.240.93]; id A0230A82AA8 at Sat, 07 Feb 2004 13:11:25 +0100 Received: from axelero.hu (75.93-182-adsl-pool.axelero.hu [81.182.93.75]) (authenticated bits=0) by fe05.axelero.hu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i17CBOVv008922 for ; Sat, 7 Feb 2004 13:11:25 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <4024D5EB.4080008@axelero.hu> From: "Za'mbori, Zolta'n" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113 X-Accept-Language: hu, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ASRG References: <200402061421.29541.famous-asrg@nutters.org> In-Reply-To: <200402061421.29541.famous-asrg@nutters.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] Re: 1a. Inventory of Problems - Third party submit (was Spoofed mail addresses) Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 07 Feb 2004 13:11:23 +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 Brett Watson wrote: > So let us assume that Chris is NOT authorised to share his mail-sending > authority with third parties. Acting on Chris' request, Aardvarks.example.com > finds itself unable to send mail to Bob, because Bob's mail policies reject > mail from unknown parties. What can Aardvarks do about this? One possibility > is to mail the article to Chris instead, saying, "we were unable to deliver > this article to Bob as you requested. Please forward it to him with our > compliments, and suggest that he add Aardvarks to his mail white-list if he > wishes to receive forwarded articles from us more conveniently in future." There is an additional possibility. Aardvarks is like a MUA. Chris compose (select) the message what he wants to send to Bob. Aardvarks submit the message as the MUA of Chris. z2 _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Feb 7 12:15:10 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA09012 for ; Sat, 7 Feb 2004 12:15:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ApW2V-0002hR-7z for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 07 Feb 2004 12:14:43 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i17HEhjG010371 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 7 Feb 2004 12:14:43 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ApW2V-0002hC-0i for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 07 Feb 2004 12:14:43 -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 MAA09009 for ; Sat, 7 Feb 2004 12:14:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ApW2T-0004ot-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 07 Feb 2004 12:14:41 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1ApW1Y-0004ka-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 07 Feb 2004 12:13:44 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ApW19-0004fv-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 07 Feb 2004 12:13:19 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ApW0q-0002RL-SN; Sat, 07 Feb 2004 12:13:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ApW0V-0002Qc-Bo for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 07 Feb 2004 12:12:39 -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 MAA08971 for ; Sat, 7 Feb 2004 12:12:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ApW0U-0004f2-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 07 Feb 2004 12:12:38 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1ApVzW-0004b8-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 07 Feb 2004 12:11:39 -0500 Received: from snoopy.kiva.net ([216.9.137.16]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ApVzA-0004XT-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 07 Feb 2004 12:11:16 -0500 Received: from [64.151.129.154] (dial-64-151-129-154.bton.kiva.net [64.151.129.154]) by snoopy.kiva.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A1C91D8AE for ; Sat, 7 Feb 2004 12:11:15 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v606) In-Reply-To: <20040202170008.29093.9327.Mailman@www1.ietf.org> References: <20040202170008.29093.9327.Mailman@www1.ietf.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Jim Witte To: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.606) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] Re: 0. General - Bounces and Attachments Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2004 12:11:11 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 2 Feb 2004, at 11:40, "Alan DeKok" > If SMTP required the originator to publish the size and number of > messages they were trying to deliver, then that would provide > significant information to the recipient, which would allow him to > make better decisions about the messages. > > e.g. I don't know who you are, and you want to send me a 1M message? > sorry, you get 10 kbps. > > e.g. You said you wanted to send me a 1k message, and you've just > hit the 10k mark. I think I'll hang up now, and blacklist you. I can do that now with a procmail filter. What I'd like is the ability to either read only parts of the incoming mail (to check MIME content, etc), and/or to have a header that tells how many parts the message has. I might be able to do this already to, but not within the POP protocol as is - ie I'd have to log onto the server and directly read the mail file, just like procmail does. > These sort of protocol additions have *zero* impact on trusted and > honest users of SMTP. They can have large impact on the ability to > deal with malicious unknown senders. I agree that things like this of little impact on honest senders (the only exception I can think of is if you long-lost aunt, whose email isn't on your white-list, sends you 10MB of pictures. But then, you probably don't want them in that case..) Jim _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Feb 7 13:52:11 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA11325 for ; Sat, 7 Feb 2004 13:52:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ApXYN-00021P-A2 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 07 Feb 2004 13:51:43 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i17IpgiA007763 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 7 Feb 2004 13:51:42 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ApXYM-000218-A6 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 07 Feb 2004 13:51:42 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA11316 for ; Sat, 7 Feb 2004 13:51:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ApXYK-0004Pb-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 07 Feb 2004 13:51:40 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1ApXXQ-0004Lb-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 07 Feb 2004 13:50:45 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ApXWy-0004HY-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 07 Feb 2004 13:50:16 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ApXWk-0001rW-Jo; Sat, 07 Feb 2004 13:50:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ApXWO-0001qx-Kd for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 07 Feb 2004 13:49:40 -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 NAA11298 for ; Sat, 7 Feb 2004 13:49:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ApXWM-0004Fi-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 07 Feb 2004 13:49:38 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1ApXVM-0004Bo-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 07 Feb 2004 13:48:37 -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 1ApXUW-00048k-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 07 Feb 2004 13:47:44 -0500 Received: from newgiles.nitros9.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.nitros9.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 788AB16CCA for ; Sat, 7 Feb 2004 13:50:10 -0500 (EST) From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spooked mail addresses In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 04 Feb 2004 15:52:58 GMT." <20040204155258.GA31706@linuxufo.com> Message-Id: <20040207185010.788AB16CCA@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, 07 Feb 2004 13:50:10 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Peter Sergeant wrote: > I realise people have wildly differing ideas of what constitutes spam, > but what definition fits an email that you have specifically requested > be sent to someone you know, on your behalf, most likely for > non-commerical reasons? That depends on how the recipient can deal with it. > I don't really see how this is philosophically different from going to a > web-based email account, typing in a friend's email address, and sending > them a message - it's just that in the case of emailing someone an > article, someone else wrote the original content. How can the recipient tell that this is happening? A1) they can't, so it's indistinguishable from spam or A2) some method on top of SMTP to tie the real originator to the mailer sending the URL, in which case there are other issues... Right now, the answer is A1: no way to tell. Alan DEKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Feb 7 15:14:10 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA13442 for ; Sat, 7 Feb 2004 15:14:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ApYph-0004f6-KH for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 07 Feb 2004 15:13:41 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i17KDfoL017914 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 7 Feb 2004 15:13:41 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ApYph-0004er-Bi for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 07 Feb 2004 15:13:41 -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 PAA13400 for ; Sat, 7 Feb 2004 15:13:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ApYpg-0002Ft-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 07 Feb 2004 15:13:40 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1ApYoi-0002CL-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 07 Feb 2004 15:12:41 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ApYoH-000297-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 07 Feb 2004 15:12:13 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ApYo6-00044O-A5; Sat, 07 Feb 2004 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 1ApYnm-0003zp-FE for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 07 Feb 2004 15:11:42 -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 PAA13242 for ; Sat, 7 Feb 2004 15:11:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ApYnj-00028P-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 07 Feb 2004 15:11:39 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1ApYmo-00024p-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 07 Feb 2004 15:10:42 -0500 Received: from xuxa.iecc.com ([208.31.42.42]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ApYlv-00021N-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 07 Feb 2004 15:09:47 -0500 Received: (qmail 7315 invoked by uid 100); 7 Feb 2004 20:09:47 -0000 Message-ID: <20040207200947.7314.qmail@xuxa.iecc.com> From: John Levine To: asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <40181B01.3040505@solidmatrix.com> Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA Subject: [Asrg] Re: Documents for LMAP BOF Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 7 Feb 2004 20:09:47 -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've made up two draft documents for the BOF, since neither Yakov and I will be going. a) LMAP overview, heavily reworked from the version that Alan wrote a while ago. I took out all of the comparisons to now abandoned documents and added a discussion of the relative merits of using IP, HELO/EHLO, return path, and message header addresses as verification keys, and why LMAP uses the return path. http://www.taugh.com/draft-irtf-asrg-lmap-discussion-01.txt b) a strawman "flexible sender verification" which basically squishes DMP and a cut down version of RMX together, due to concerns from some ISPs that want to do one lookup per domain, slurp up all the IPs for that domain, and cache it, and other ISPs who want to do a simple DNSBL style lookup for each message. http://www.taugh.com/draft-levine-fsv-00.txt Read fast, we have to sumit I-D's for Seoul by Monday. 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 Sat Feb 7 17:06:20 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA15517 for ; Sat, 7 Feb 2004 17:06:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ApaaH-0006SK-IY for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 07 Feb 2004 17:05:53 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i17M5rqD024810 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 7 Feb 2004 17:05:53 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ApaaH-0006S5-Ds for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 07 Feb 2004 17:05:53 -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 RAA15511 for ; Sat, 7 Feb 2004 17:05:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ApaaF-00023u-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 07 Feb 2004 17:05:51 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1ApaZJ-0001zS-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 07 Feb 2004 17:04:54 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ApaYe-0001uY-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 07 Feb 2004 17:04:12 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ApaYT-00062R-As; Sat, 07 Feb 2004 17:04:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ApaYE-00061R-IA for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 07 Feb 2004 17:03:46 -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 RAA15453 for ; Sat, 7 Feb 2004 17:03:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ApaYC-0001t8-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 07 Feb 2004 17:03:44 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1ApaXJ-0001ni-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 07 Feb 2004 17:02:49 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com ([65.205.251.73]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ApaWI-0001br-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 07 Feb 2004 17:01:46 -0500 Received: from mou1wnexc02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.54]) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.10/) with ESMTP id i17M1h33013779; Sat, 7 Feb 2004 14:01:43 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <13KVXW6W>; Sat, 7 Feb 2004 14:01:43 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'John Levine'" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Re: Documents for LMAP BOF MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2004 14:01:41 -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=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Some comments: 1) BGP Security Concerns The primary security concern that needs to be addressed is the incentive to hijack legitimate IP address blocks via BGP spoofing. This is something the IAB should consider as a matter of urgency. The only proposal made in the area (Kent) is undeployable, it requires adding IPSEC to every router on the backbone which ain't happening and is not necessary. It is very clear that the ISPs will be deploying IP based authentication schemes in the near future regardless of concerns raised by the IETF. 2) DNS Security Concerns The DNS statement is incorrect. The DNS does have security, it just is not very good and it is not cryptographically based. The cookie mechanism is limited to a 16 bit cookie. This could be easily extended to 128 bits by means of a dummy resource request. DNSSEC is undeployable as currently specified. The IESG is aware of this issue. 3) We do not need yet another IP authentication scheme. At this point proposing yet another scheme based on the same principles does not contribute to the discussion. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Feb 7 22:16:25 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA22216 for ; Sat, 7 Feb 2004 22:16:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ApfQM-0008WF-FO for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 07 Feb 2004 22:15:58 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i183FwXK032746 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 7 Feb 2004 22:15:58 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ApfQM-0008W5-Af for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 07 Feb 2004 22:15:58 -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 WAA22209 for ; Sat, 7 Feb 2004 22:15:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ApfQJ-0001UY-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 07 Feb 2004 22:15:55 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1ApfPN-0001Qq-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 07 Feb 2004 22:14:57 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ApfOf-0001N4-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 07 Feb 2004 22:14:13 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ApfOS-0008HZ-UQ; Sat, 07 Feb 2004 22:14:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ApfEk-0007fV-TE for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 07 Feb 2004 22:03:58 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA22041 for ; Sat, 7 Feb 2004 22:03:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ApfEh-0000kh-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 07 Feb 2004 22:03:55 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1ApfDk-0000h8-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 07 Feb 2004 22:02:56 -0500 Received: from mout.perfora.net ([217.160.230.41]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ApfD0-0000dS-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 07 Feb 2004 22:02:10 -0500 Received: from [217.160.230.52] (helo=smtp.perfora.net) by mout.perfora.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1ApfD0-00055m-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 07 Feb 2004 22:02:10 -0500 Received: from [68.29.196.48] (helo=solidmatrix.com) by smtp.perfora.net with asmtp (TLSv1:RC4-MD5:128) (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1ApfCz-0000qH-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 07 Feb 2004 22:02:10 -0500 Message-ID: <4025A6A6.8050405@solidmatrix.com> From: Yakov Shafranovich Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, he, ru MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ASRG X-Enigmail-Version: 0.82.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] 0. General - Mailing List Archives for Subgroups Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 07 Feb 2004 22:01:58 -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 All of the subgroups listed on our website have been setup with individual mailing lists. All of the lists have their archives available publicly online via Gmane.org: http://news.gmane.org/index.php?prefix=gmane.ietf.asrg We also updated the website to include links to the archives. 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 Sat Feb 7 22:27:23 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA22372 for ; Sat, 7 Feb 2004 22:27:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Apfay-0000e9-Hp for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 07 Feb 2004 22:26:56 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i183QuXc002479 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 7 Feb 2004 22:26:56 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Apfay-0000du-CY for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 07 Feb 2004 22:26:56 -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 WAA22361 for ; Sat, 7 Feb 2004 22:26:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Apfav-0002B5-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 07 Feb 2004 22:26:53 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1ApfZy-00027q-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 07 Feb 2004 22:25:54 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ApfZL-00024j-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 07 Feb 2004 22:25:15 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ApfZ7-0000LY-0Y; Sat, 07 Feb 2004 22:25:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ApfYB-0000H6-0L for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 07 Feb 2004 22:24:03 -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 WAA22337 for ; Sat, 7 Feb 2004 22:23:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ApfY7-000210-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 07 Feb 2004 22:23:59 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1ApfXA-0001ws-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 07 Feb 2004 22:23:00 -0500 Received: from bsdsgr04.sagres.com.br ([200.140.134.134]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ApfWT-0001op-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 07 Feb 2004 22:22:17 -0500 Received: from ntsgr07.sagres.com.br (NTsgr07.sagres.com.br [10.0.17.7]) by BSDsgr04.sagres.com.br (8.12.8p1/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i181Q49F087592 for ; Sun, 8 Feb 2004 01:26:04 GMT (envelope-from saurwein@uniwares.com) Received: from leonone.uniwares.com ([200.140.11.224]) by ntsgr07.sagres.com.br (Lotus Domino Release 5.0.12) with ESMTP id 2004020800294353:11680 ; Sun, 8 Feb 2004 00:29:43 -0300 Message-Id: <6.0.3.0.0.20040208011534.01b2eec0@mail.uniwares.com> X-Sender: saurwein.uniwares@mail.uniwares.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.3.0 To: asrg@ietf.org From: Andreas Saurwein Mime-Version: 1.0 X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on ntsgr07/SAGRES(Release 5.0.12 |February 13, 2003) at 08/02/2004 00:29:43, Serialize by Router on ntsgr07/SAGRES(Release 5.0.12 |February 13, 2003) at 08/02/2004 00:29:44, Serialize complete at 08/02/2004 00:29:44 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: [Asrg] 0. General - Spamming on QMTP? Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 08 Feb 2004 01:17:46 -0200 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=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Just wondering if there are any (more) occurances of spamming using QMTP? If so, would it be reasonable to address QMTP in this group? Maex? I think you have some experience with that. Cheers Andreas _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Feb 7 22:27:24 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA22382 for ; Sat, 7 Feb 2004 22:27:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Apfaz-0000eR-AB for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 07 Feb 2004 22:26:57 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i183Qvr2002497 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 7 Feb 2004 22:26:57 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Apfaz-0000eC-64 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 07 Feb 2004 22:26:57 -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 WAA22364 for ; Sat, 7 Feb 2004 22:26:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Apfav-0002BA-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 07 Feb 2004 22:26:53 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1ApfZy-00027y-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 07 Feb 2004 22:25:56 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ApfZL-00024k-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 07 Feb 2004 22:25:15 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ApfZ8-0000MB-TO; Sat, 07 Feb 2004 22:25:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ApfZ2-0000LD-Bm for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 07 Feb 2004 22:24:56 -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 WAA22344 for ; Sat, 7 Feb 2004 22:24:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ApfYz-00024F-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 07 Feb 2004 22:24:53 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1ApfY0-000203-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 07 Feb 2004 22:23:53 -0500 Received: from rwcrmhc11.comcast.net ([204.127.198.35]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ApfX2-0001sa-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 07 Feb 2004 22:22:52 -0500 Received: from fda.zemos.net ([68.38.12.170]) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc11) with ESMTP id <200402080322170130072rate>; Sun, 8 Feb 2004 03:22:17 +0000 Received: from zemos.net (phil [10.0.0.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by fda.zemos.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CCC9186A2; Sat, 7 Feb 2004 22:22:15 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <4025AB66.4090400@zemos.net> From: Philip Miller User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040122 Debian/1.6-1 X-Accept-Language: en, en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John Levine Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: Documents for LMAP BOF References: <20040207200947.7314.qmail@xuxa.iecc.com> In-Reply-To: <20040207200947.7314.qmail@xuxa.iecc.com> Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------000208040405020605060901" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 07 Feb 2004 22:22:14 -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 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------000208040405020605060901 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit John Levine wrote: > I've made up two draft documents for the BOF, since neither Yakov and I > will be going. > > a) LMAP overview, heavily reworked from the version that Alan wrote a > while ago. I took out all of the comparisons to now abandoned documents > and added a discussion of the relative merits of using IP, HELO/EHLO, > return path, and message header addresses as verification keys, and why > LMAP uses the return path. > > http://www.taugh.com/draft-irtf-asrg-lmap-discussion-01.txt Before starting in, one quick note: It would have been a lot easier to compare this mechanically (i.e. diff -u) to the -00 draft if you had used the same page-width as Alan did. I have attached at the end of this message a diff of typo fixes. In paragraph 1 of section 1.2, "Interpretation of LMAP Data", the range should cover complete reliance on the data published in LMAP (making accept/reject decisions solely on that basis) to complete ignorance (non-implementation on the recipient side or not using the data to influence the decision). I think the last sentence of that paragraph is entirely unnecessary. Paragraph 2 is bluntly wrong. The intent of creating LMAP is that eventually it WILL be used to reject mail, because it is assumed to be forged. A comment like this belongs much later in the document, in a deployment considerations section. In section 2.2.1, "IP Address", paragraph 2, I disagree with equating MTA Mark and LMAP. By design, they address different issues. MTA Mark addresses usage that providers don't like and is for the use of IP-space owners. LMAP addresses domain name abuse, and is for the owners of individual domain names. Although the intersection between those 2 sets is large (all ISPs, effectively), they are not equivalent. OTOH, if your intent is really to generalize the concept embodied by LMAP, that runs contradictory to your email, which reads "... and why LMAP uses the return path." I have no objection to the generalization, but pick one, please. I don't like how the comparison section phrases LMAP as a modification to RFC 2821. I suspect that such wording will raise a lot of unnecessary resistance to LMAP for no particular reason. I interpreted that part of RFC 2821 to mean that recipient MTAs should not reject mail on the basis of the the HELO name not resolving to the connecting IP or the connecting IP not reverse-resolving to the HELO name. Following this interpretation, LMAP suggests neither, and thus is no modification to 2821, only an application of the liberties of "local policy"-based rejections. As I look that the rest of 2.2.*, I notice that 2.2.1 is excessively chatty. Most of that should be in 2.2.5, "Comparison" 2.2.5, last paragraph: DATA payload headers are not particularly useful for LMAP verification, because there are frequent enough circumstances in which they will not verify for valid mail. They're also even more prone to RFC 2821 non-compliance than HELO and return path are. None of 2.3 belongs in the problem statement and scope section. LMAP does not address a problem in the DNS. Perhaps 2.3 should have been 3.1, and titled "Reliance on DNS". There should be a big reference to the "Security Considerations" section below in that, rather than spreading out such discussion. The text in 2.3.1, "DNS Poisoning", has nothing to do with DNS poisoning attacks. Have a look at The section headers under 3, "Common Concerns with LMAP", are ambiguous. In reading carefully, it's clear that the section headers are the summary responses, but it may be clearer if they were the common concerns themselves, in quotes. E.g.: "3.1 LMAP Changes the end to end nature of the Internet" "3.2 Roaming users are harmed by LMAP" etc. 3.3, on Relaying and Forwarding, has more hand-waving than most of the rest of this document. First off, there are 2 separate circumstances to be dealt with. They may have the same solution, but they should be described separately. Here's how I would define them: 1. Relaying is a service provided to senders in which the relaying domain agrees to deliver the sender's messages outside the relay's and sender's domains. In the relaying case, sender-rewriting is perfectly acceptable, as it means there is another party who is at least as responsible for the message as the sender, and is willing to accept that accountability. How the rewriting is done and ensuring that bounces, DSNs, and the like get through is all a matter of local policy and agreement. 2. Forwarding is a service provided to recipients in which the forwarding domain agrees to deliver messages addressed to one mailbox to another mailbox. The forwarding case is where the hand-waving comes in. Sender-rewriting is undesirable here. It means that the intermediary recipient is essentially forced to present themselves as accountable for a message that they have no connection to. It also present a heavy burden on many users who use something like pobox.com or ieee.org to forward to an ISP account where they have no control over any whitelisting. Regardless of the merits and usability of various sender-rewriting schemes, there is massive potential for bad security and privacy without a lot of implementation consideration. Basically, I believe that we need to shift gears from practically mandating sender-rewriting to making it clear that this is an open problem. This is somewhere that I think general IETF input would be very useful. 3.4. Kiosks, etc., is somewhat glib about this issue. I've recently been involved in discussions elsewhere on the major issues surrounding this. There are a few problems and solutions. Again, I don't think recommending this solution straight-off is the right way to handle it when we're putting this before a large group of people who would most likely make very valuable contributions to the discourse if it's clear that there's something to discuss. If all of section 4 could be put in a table on a website somewhere, to make it easier to digest, that may be useful. The note on DNS reliance should mostly fall under Security Considerations, as noted above. The text acknowledging previous contributors has been removed. > b) a strawman "flexible sender verification" which basically squishes > DMP and a cut down version of RMX together, due to concerns from some > ISPs that want to do one lookup per domain, slurp up all the IPs for > that domain, and cache it, and other ISPs who want to do a simple DNSBL > style lookup for each message. > > http://www.taugh.com/draft-levine-fsv-00.txt I will concur with Phill in that I don't think we need another rehash of these ideas. At any rate, if we submit the discussion document for consideration by the IETF, the implementation will be heavily discussed in that realm anyway. There's no point in muddying the waters on this point, and I think FSV does just that. Philip Miller --------------000208040405020605060901 Content-Type: text/x-patch; name="lmap_typos.diff" Content-Disposition: inline; filename="lmap_typos.diff" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --- draft-irtf-asrg-lmap-discussion-01.txt 2004-02-07 21:25:37.000000000 -0500 +++ draft-irtf-asrg-lmap-discussion-02.txt 2004-02-07 21:31:36.000000000 -0500 @@ -170,7 +170,7 @@ a recipient would choose to accept that non-consensual mes- sage. - The method of eastablishing whether an IP address can send + The method of establishing whether an IP address can send messages for a domain is similar to the usage of Dialup User Lists (DUL) [ref: MAPS DUL]. With those methods, a network provider publishes a list of IP addresses which have been as- @@ -276,7 +276,7 @@ to pretend not to be a sender on a recipient's blacklist. +o In account fraud, also known as ``phishing'', a sender poses - as a person or organization with whom the receipient has a + as a person or organization with whom the recipient has a business relationship, or would like to have a business re- lationship. The sender does so in order to trick the recip- ient into revealing personal information that the sender can @@ -392,7 +392,7 @@ that the host at the connecting IP is authorized to use the domain name it is offering. Like IP validation, HELO/EHLO validation doesn't provide a contact e-mail address. The HE- - LO/EHLO address shold be the host's name, such as MAIL.EXAM- + LO/EHLO address should be the host's name, such as MAIL.EXAM- PLE.COM, even if the mail it sends all has addresses in the domain EXAMPLE.COM. Although the address Postmaster@EXAM- PLE.COM would exist, the address Postmaster@MAIL.EXAMPLE.COM @@ -403,7 +403,7 @@ mail since few hosts accept mail to domain literal addresses. RFC 2821 permits the SMTP server to validate a domain address provided to EHLO or HELO by doing a DNS lookup to see if the - IP address matxhes, but does not permit the server to reject + IP address matches, but does not permit the server to reject mail if the validation fails. HELO/EHLO-based LMAP would mod- ify RFC2821 by allowing the server to reject mail based on HE- LO/EHLO validation failure. @@ -429,7 +429,7 @@ Although any or all of these items could be used for message - validation, the LMAP propoals use the return path as a compro- + validation, the LMAP proposals use the return path as a compro- mise between the best quality data and efficiency of opera- tion. A verified return path, unlike IP or HELO/EHLO data, is very likely to provide a specific responsible address and re- @@ -530,7 +530,7 @@ Another concern raised about LMAP is that it will negatively affect roaming users, that is, users not connected to their - usual or home networ. The main concern of roaming users is + usual or home network. The main concern of roaming users is that the deployment of LMAP will break the "end to end" nature of the Internet. @@ -585,7 +585,7 @@ Roaming users may update LMAP information for their domain through Dynamic DNS (DDNS). Any messages they send will then - pass LMAP criteries, subject to DNS propagation delays. + pass LMAP criteria, subject to DNS propagation delays. Roaming users can also publish a policy though LMAP that any IP address on the Internet is permitted to claim association @@ -700,7 +700,7 @@ Each of these proposals is a work in progress, hence the read- er must refer to the latest defining document for each to - learn the eaxct details of each. These comparisons are not + learn the exact details of each. These comparisons are not intended to recommend one proposal over another, but rather to highlight the differences among them. @@ -877,8 +877,8 @@ Publication of LMAP information results in a readily available list of IP addresses of hosts authorized to send messages as- - sociated with a domain. These lists yeild information about - the network structure, andbusiness relationships, and presents + sociated with a domain. These lists yield information about + the network structure, and business relationships, and presents hostile parties with a list of targets to attempt to compro- mise. --------------000208040405020605060901-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Feb 7 22:58:28 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA22852 for ; Sat, 7 Feb 2004 22:58:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Apg53-0002Ba-UL for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 07 Feb 2004 22:58:02 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i183w12f008395 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 7 Feb 2004 22:58:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Apg53-0002BK-Q5 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 07 Feb 2004 22:58:01 -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 WAA22849 for ; Sat, 7 Feb 2004 22:57:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Apg50-000447-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 07 Feb 2004 22:57:58 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Apg42-00040T-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 07 Feb 2004 22:56:59 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Apg3K-0003wb-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 07 Feb 2004 22:56:14 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Apg38-0001zV-HC; Sat, 07 Feb 2004 22:56:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ApfzA-0001sL-Us for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 07 Feb 2004 22:51:57 -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 WAA22674 for ; Sat, 7 Feb 2004 22:51:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Apfz7-0003gM-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 07 Feb 2004 22:51:53 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1ApfyA-0003dA-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 07 Feb 2004 22:50:54 -0500 Received: from mout.perfora.net ([217.160.230.41]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ApfxK-0003aD-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 07 Feb 2004 22:50:03 -0500 Received: from [217.160.230.52] (helo=smtp.perfora.net) by mout.perfora.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1ApfxK-0006J0-00; Sat, 07 Feb 2004 22:50:02 -0500 Received: from [68.29.196.48] (helo=solidmatrix.com) by smtp.perfora.net with asmtp (TLSv1:RC4-MD5:128) (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1ApfxJ-0001W9-00; Sat, 07 Feb 2004 22:50:02 -0500 Message-ID: <4025B1DE.1040600@solidmatrix.com> From: Yakov Shafranovich Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, he, ru MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" CC: "'John Levine'" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: Documents for LMAP BOF References: In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 0.82.2.0 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: Sat, 07 Feb 2004 22:49:50 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > Some comments: > > 1) BGP Security Concerns > > The primary security concern that needs to be addressed is the > incentive to hijack legitimate IP address blocks via BGP spoofing. > Is this the same IP spoofing issue being addressed in the end of this message: http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg08549.html > > 2) DNS Security Concerns > > The DNS statement is incorrect. The DNS does have security, it just > is not very good and it is not cryptographically based. > Doesn't this cover this: "2.3.2 Increased incentive for DNS cracks LMAP will also have the effect of increasing the incentives for spammers to crack and subvert DNS servers (in order to spoof receivers doing LMAP checks against the DNS database). " 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 Feb 7 23:55:25 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA23716 for ; Sat, 7 Feb 2004 23:55:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ApgyA-0005f7-7n for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 07 Feb 2004 23:54:58 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i184sw3P021758 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 7 Feb 2004 23:54:58 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ApgyA-0005eq-2K for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 07 Feb 2004 23:54:58 -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 XAA23713 for ; Sat, 7 Feb 2004 23:54:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Apgy7-0007kT-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 07 Feb 2004 23:54:55 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1ApgxB-0007hG-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 07 Feb 2004 23:53:57 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ApgwN-0007e3-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 07 Feb 2004 23:53:07 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ApgwH-0005S6-I2; Sat, 07 Feb 2004 23:53:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ApgwE-0005Rq-0U for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 07 Feb 2004 23:52:58 -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 XAA23702 for ; Sat, 7 Feb 2004 23:52:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ApgwB-0007dY-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 07 Feb 2004 23:52:55 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1ApgvF-0007aW-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 07 Feb 2004 23:51:58 -0500 Received: from sccrmhc12.comcast.net ([204.127.202.56]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Apgup-0007XM-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 07 Feb 2004 23:51:31 -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 <200402080451010120084j5ae>; Sun, 8 Feb 2004 04:51:01 +0000 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20040207212637.09be4d90@mail.1s.com> X-Sender: pollarda@mail.1s.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 To: "Jon Kyme" , Asrg@ietf.org From: Art Pollard Subject: Re: [Asrg] 3a. Requirements - User Needs In-Reply-To: References: <20040207003104.GC10208@m450> 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, 07 Feb 2004 21:50:56 -0700 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 >You're pre-judging your hypothetical court case rather, aren't you? >IANAL, but in the UK at least, I gather this would only be an issue with >*some* *public* services. I'm not required to provide (for instance) >wheelchair ramps at my front door. >Besides, reasonable alternative provisions might cover you (depending on >your local laws) - a multi-modal "sound or vision" puzzle perhaps. Any successful system should allow the recipient to send back multiple challenges and the recipient could then take their pick as to which one they would like to solve. Thus they could have a CPU based system (penny black), a sight based system (decode graphic), sound based system, something for cell phones, or ..... this could even be done / offered in multiple languages. Thus the protocol shouldn't make life difficult for people with disabilities. It would be up to the recipient to provide an access method for each of the disabilities that they choose to address -- or none at all. But that should be left to the recipient not the protocol. Personally, I think an XML schema should be created that defines the different challenges. The sender or sender's client could then (perhaps automatically) select the challenge they wish to solve. Also, the issue of keeping the challenge response system from being used as an advertising mechanism can be easily solved by having the original application include a "password" (which can be a random number). Then when the challenge is sent, it can reference this password. If the challenge does not reference the password, it is considered bogus and dropped. The passwords can be one time only passwords so they do not run the risk of being compromised. -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 Sun Feb 8 05:54:31 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA15525 for ; Sun, 8 Feb 2004 05:54:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ApmZg-0001gH-H5 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 08 Feb 2004 05:54:04 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i18As4Ni006457 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 8 Feb 2004 05:54:04 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ApmZg-0001g4-C3 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 08 Feb 2004 05:54:04 -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 FAA15347 for ; Sun, 8 Feb 2004 05:54:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ApmZc-0003Ko-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 08 Feb 2004 05:54:00 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1ApmXl-0002wV-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 08 Feb 2004 05:52:06 -0500 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ApmWb-0002km-01 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 08 Feb 2004 05:50:53 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by mx2.foretec.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1ApmHj-0001uj-9k for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 08 Feb 2004 05:35:31 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ApmHG-0000nM-Uh; Sun, 08 Feb 2004 05:35:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ApmGX-0000ef-2I for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 08 Feb 2004 05:34:17 -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 FAA14849 for ; Sun, 8 Feb 2004 05:34:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ApmGT-0001i6-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 08 Feb 2004 05:34:13 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1ApmFX-0001Zc-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 08 Feb 2004 05:33:15 -0500 Received: from relay.pair.com ([209.68.1.20]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ApmES-0001Kp-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 08 Feb 2004 05:32:08 -0500 Received: (qmail 44723 invoked from network); 8 Feb 2004 10:32:08 -0000 Received: from ppp183.pool1.dvo.skyinet.net (HELO vaio) (202.78.126.183) by relay.pair.com with SMTP; 8 Feb 2004 10:32:08 -0000 X-pair-Authenticated: 202.78.126.183 Message-Id: <4.1.20040208174628.03f42d50(null)> X-Sender: spam@mail.accuspam.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 To: asrg@ietf.org From: AccuSpam Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: [Asrg] 2b - Proposal to create filtering standard advantageous to spammers (competition system for spammers) Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 08 Feb 2004 18:32:30 +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 If this idea is a rehash, please accept my apology and point me to the former discussion. What if we turned the spam problem upside-down? Seems like most energy is focused on stopping or blocking spam. What if we facilitated it's delivery? Sounds crazy right! Please read on. I got off to pondering about how spam is basically an economic phenomenon...increase it's cost and it decreases (as evident by anti-spam results), but more important perhaps that by decreasing it's cost, it (the actual reading of it) might actually increase and that might be good thing. In short, my idea is we propose a standard for attaching keywords in the header of an email, which summarize the targetted content of the email. Think of bidded search terms for PPC advertising (e.g. Overture.com). Then receivers of email can easily install filters to prioritize email on content they are interested in and de-prioritize (delete, delay, relegate to spam folder, etc) the rest. The spammers typical motivation is economic. Spammers also compete for resources between themselves, just like any economic system. If some spammers make more $ by targetting their spam, they squeeze out economically those who use inferior methods. Right now, it seems we have the opposite, where spammers (the inferior targetting) squeezes out the relevant email (even email from marketers I wish to hear from). Overture proved that highly targetted advertising tromps other advertising, and PPC continues gooble up advertising resources across the internet. The difference is that spammers have no incentive to pay per click, but I will get to issue of reputation capital below... It seems to me that what makes spam such a monumental problem is that currently the spammer has no global way to target his message other than to send a copy to everyone, as evident by the microscopic response rates to typical spam. If a spammer could yield a 100 or 1000 times greater response rate by merely attaching keyboards, it seems to me the spammer would have an economic incentive to do so. Then the problem becomes how to prioritize amongst the messages with similar keywords, and how to detect deception. Basically it becomes a reputation problem. If we can indeed help spammers make more $ by helping them target their messages, then my companion idea is build in a trust mechanism that spammers can opt into. Spammers then can build reputation for their trust signature. That reputation could be qualified on different levels, such as my local actions (which message I read/keep and which I discard) and on shared reputation totals. In short, a system where spammers compete with each other to find the best keywords and build best reputations for those keywords. Instead of paying with currency for ranking (ala Overture.com), they pay with their reputation (ala Google.com). It seems to me that some people want what spammers are selling. If we help both parties (sender and receiver) become more efficient, then both parties have an incentive to opt into that framework. In terms of creating a global standard, this idea does not require an overhaul of existing protocols and doesn't suffer from "chicken and egg" delimma, i.e. is compatible with an evolutionary adoption rate. This won't completely stop some fringe spammers from attempting to bypass the reputation system and send untargetted email, but the realities of economics are that those who provide resources want to maximize profit. Resources are not infinite, else spam would already be 99.999999999999% of all email. I think my idea will may spammer resources more expensive, and thus the spammer who has a choice of sending an ad about viagra to everyone, or sending it only to people who are interested in viagra, will find it more profitable to enter the reputation system. I admit I haven't thought through this idea very far, especially into all the implementation issues. It is just an idea that bounced off top of my head and I thought I would share it here, FWIW. No need to flame me if you think it is bad idea, just let it keep bouncing right off into neverneverland :-) P.S. The idea has nothing to do with algorithms at AccuSpam, so please do not involve AccuSpam in the discussion. Thanks. Shelby Moore http://accuspam.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Feb 8 06:25:38 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA16115 for ; Sun, 8 Feb 2004 06:25:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Apn3n-0003gD-K0 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 08 Feb 2004 06:25:11 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i18BPBfc014139 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 8 Feb 2004 06:25:11 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Apn3n-0003fy-FG for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 08 Feb 2004 06:25:11 -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 GAA16078 for ; Sun, 8 Feb 2004 06:25:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Apn3j-0005aV-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 08 Feb 2004 06:25:07 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Apn2l-0005Vn-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 08 Feb 2004 06:24:08 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Apn1p-0005RN-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 08 Feb 2004 06:23:09 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Apn1h-0003SH-82; Sun, 08 Feb 2004 06:23:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Apn0t-0003Lr-EO for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 08 Feb 2004 06:22:11 -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 GAA16020 for ; Sun, 8 Feb 2004 06:22:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Apn0p-0005Mg-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 08 Feb 2004 06:22:07 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Apmzt-0005Iw-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 08 Feb 2004 06:21:09 -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 1ApmzE-0005Fj-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 08 Feb 2004 06:20:28 -0500 Received: from newgiles.nitros9.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.nitros9.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D15E16FD6 for ; Sun, 8 Feb 2004 06:22:52 -0500 (EST) From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 1a. Inventory of Problems - Spoofed mail addresses In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 06 Feb 2004 14:55:10 +1030." Message-Id: <20040208112252.1D15E16FD6@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, 08 Feb 2004 06:22:52 -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 "Chris" wrote: > for privacy reasons they don't simply give out email addresses > So ebay posts the mail using the from address as ebay cust 1 > > therefore ebay cust 2 can reply to ebay cust 1 directly > > this is in effect a spoofed return address No. Ebay is creating email accounts owned by Ebay, and managed by ebay. This has nothing to do with email spoofing. > Solutions? There is no problem, so there is no solution needed. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Feb 8 07:56:43 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA17775 for ; Sun, 8 Feb 2004 07:56:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ApoTu-0008RD-3R for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 08 Feb 2004 07:56:14 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i18CuEjo032429 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 8 Feb 2004 07:56:14 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ApoTt-0008Qg-UX for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 08 Feb 2004 07:56:13 -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 HAA17770 for ; Sun, 8 Feb 2004 07:56:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ApoTt-0003oR-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 08 Feb 2004 07:56:13 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1ApoSu-0003kg-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 08 Feb 2004 07:55:13 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ApoRx-0003gn-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 08 Feb 2004 07:54:13 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ApoRk-0008Aj-Lp; Sun, 08 Feb 2004 07:54:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ApoQz-0008AD-9p for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 08 Feb 2004 07:53:13 -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 HAA17754 for ; Sun, 8 Feb 2004 07:53:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ApoQy-0003bv-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 08 Feb 2004 07:53:12 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1ApoPz-0003XD-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 08 Feb 2004 07:52:12 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com ([65.205.251.73]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ApoP2-0003St-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 08 Feb 2004 07:51:12 -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 i18CpBRq024696; Sun, 8 Feb 2004 04:51:11 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc03.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <13JXY3M1>; Sun, 8 Feb 2004 04:51:11 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Yakov Shafranovich'" , "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" Cc: "'John Levine'" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Re: Documents for LMAP BOF MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2004 04:51:10 -0800 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 > > 1) BGP Security Concerns > > > > The primary security concern that needs to be addressed is the > > incentive to hijack legitimate IP address blocks via BGP spoofing. > > > > Is this the same IP spoofing issue being addressed in the end of this > message: > > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/ msg08549.html No. A BGP level attack is an attack on the Internet backbone, I simply inject fake routes into the system. BGP does not have much of an authentication model and that which it does have is not very good. So far the only proposal to fix this is not at all credible. It would require new software on all the backbone routers at a minimum (not going to happen) and it would probably require replacement in many cases. >> 2) DNS Security Concerns >> >> The DNS statement is incorrect. The DNS does have security, it just >> is not very good and it is not cryptographically based. >> > >Doesn't this cover this: > >"2.3.2 Increased incentive for DNS cracks > > LMAP will also have the effect of increasing the incentives > for spammers to crack and subvert DNS servers (in order to > spoof receivers doing LMAP checks against the DNS database). I was referring to Levine's Yet Another RMX Specification, (YARS/FSV) rather than the requirements paper. At this point it is very clear that LMAP is not going to happen as a new spec. Introducing the acronym is unhelpful as it suggests that there is an uncertainty there and a new proposal on the table, this is not the case at this point. YARS is even less helpful. At this point the issue is a straight standards fight between SPF and CallerID in the IP auth area. Nothing else has acquired significant momentum or backing. I do not see any statement in YARS that specifies what is wrong with the other proposals that creates the need for a new scheme that does what is already done. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Feb 8 08:27:45 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA18262 for ; Sun, 8 Feb 2004 08:27:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Apoxw-0001mU-F2 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 08 Feb 2004 08:27:16 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i18DRGrp006840 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 8 Feb 2004 08:27:16 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Apoxw-0001mF-BU for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 08 Feb 2004 08:27:16 -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 IAA18256 for ; Sun, 8 Feb 2004 08:27:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Apoxv-0005jT-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 08 Feb 2004 08:27:15 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Apox1-0005g4-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 08 Feb 2004 08:26:20 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Apowr-0005cG-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 08 Feb 2004 08:26:09 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Apowi-0001dX-A1; Sun, 08 Feb 2004 08:26:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Apow1-0001TU-Jc for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 08 Feb 2004 08:25:17 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA18222 for ; Sun, 8 Feb 2004 08:25:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Apow0-0005b8-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 08 Feb 2004 08:25:16 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Apov5-0005X3-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 08 Feb 2004 08:24:19 -0500 Received: from argon.connectinternetsolutions.com ([193.110.243.33] helo=argon.connect.org.uk) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ApouE-0005Sm-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 08 Feb 2004 08:23:26 -0500 Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 1Apou8-0006Eq-Ou for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 08 Feb 2004 13:23:20 +0000 In-Reply-To: <4025AB66.4090400@zemos.net> Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: Documents for LMAP BOF 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, 08 Feb 2004 13:23:20 +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=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 > 2. Forwarding is a service provided to recipients in which the forwarding > domain agrees to deliver messages addressed to one mailbox to another > mailbox. > The forwarding case is where the hand-waving comes in. Sender-rewriting > is > undesirable here. It means that the intermediary recipient is essentially > forced to present themselves as accountable for a message that they have > no > connection to. It also present a heavy burden on many users who use > something like pobox.com or ieee.org to forward to an ISP account where > they > have no control over any whitelisting. I'm not sure from which point of view you judge sender-rewriting undesirable. It's simply not true that the forwarder has "no connection to" the messages they forward. The forwarder is not part of, or contracted with, the recipent ISP, they're as responsible for the messages they submit as is any other external system. I guess there is added burden for some of the players here, but they're at liberty not to implement, and suffer some degradation to their service. This would be an issue for a user who choses to use a forwarder in an unfriendly environment, and a cost issue for the forwarder. I don't see how it's really fair that I should be able to provide services (and make a profit) in the middle, without taking on some responsibilities there also. -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Feb 8 11:44:54 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA23581 for ; Sun, 8 Feb 2004 11:44:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aps2k-00023z-Tb for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 08 Feb 2004 11:44:27 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i18GiQvr007927 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 8 Feb 2004 11:44:26 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aps2k-00023m-OA for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 08 Feb 2004 11:44:26 -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 LAA23578 for ; Sun, 8 Feb 2004 11:44:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aps2j-0004K1-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 08 Feb 2004 11:44:25 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Aps1o-0004Fi-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 08 Feb 2004 11:43:28 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aps1b-0004BT-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 08 Feb 2004 11:43:15 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aps1N-0001my-Kb; Sun, 08 Feb 2004 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 1Apryp-0001fR-6D for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 08 Feb 2004 11:40:23 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA23499 for ; Sun, 8 Feb 2004 11:40:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Apryo-00042M-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 08 Feb 2004 11:40:22 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Aprxw-0003yr-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 08 Feb 2004 11:39:28 -0500 Received: from mout.perfora.net ([217.160.230.41]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AprxQ-0003uZ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 08 Feb 2004 11:38:56 -0500 Received: from [217.160.230.51] (helo=smtp.perfora.net) by mout.perfora.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1AprxN-0000Cb-00; Sun, 08 Feb 2004 11:38:53 -0500 Received: from [68.29.150.141] (helo=solidmatrix.com) by smtp.perfora.net with asmtp (TLSv1:RC4-MD5:128) (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1AprxM-0002Pe-00; Sun, 08 Feb 2004 11:38:53 -0500 Message-ID: <40266609.7090905@solidmatrix.com> From: Yakov Shafranovich Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, he, ru MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" CC: "'John Levine'" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: Documents for LMAP BOF References: In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 0.82.2.0 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: Sun, 08 Feb 2004 11:38:33 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: >>>1) BGP Security Concerns >>> >>> The primary security concern that needs to be addressed is the >>>incentive to hijack legitimate IP address blocks via BGP spoofing. >>> >> >>Is this the same IP spoofing issue being addressed in the end of this >>message: >> >>http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/ > > msg08549.html > > No. A BGP level attack is an attack on the Internet backbone, I simply > inject > fake routes into the system. BGP does not have much of an authentication > model > and that which it does have is not very good. > Are there any documents describing how this would happen? Can you provide some links? How easy is such attack to pull off? Would a spammer be more likely to hijack a computer with its identity rather than steal an IP? > So far the only proposal to fix this is not at all credible. It would > require > new software on all the backbone routers at a minimum (not going to happen) > and it would probably require replacement in many cases. > Can you provide a link to this proposal? 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 Sun Feb 8 12:13:56 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA24750 for ; Sun, 8 Feb 2004 12:13:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ApsUq-0004Hh-V0 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 08 Feb 2004 12:13:29 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i18HDSnb016466 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 8 Feb 2004 12:13:28 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ApsUq-0004HV-Pg for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 08 Feb 2004 12:13:28 -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 MAA24741 for ; Sun, 8 Feb 2004 12:13:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ApsUp-0006t8-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 08 Feb 2004 12:13:27 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1ApsTr-0006oy-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 08 Feb 2004 12:12:28 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ApsTd-0006kh-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 08 Feb 2004 12:12:13 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ApsTR-00044X-9R; Sun, 08 Feb 2004 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 1ApsSn-00043z-H4 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 08 Feb 2004 12:11:21 -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 MAA24682 for ; Sun, 8 Feb 2004 12:11:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ApsSm-0006jL-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 08 Feb 2004 12:11:20 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1ApsRn-0006fw-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 08 Feb 2004 12:10:20 -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 1ApsR8-0006d0-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 08 Feb 2004 12:09:38 -0500 Received: from newgiles.nitros9.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.nitros9.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5920170A5 for ; Sun, 8 Feb 2004 12:12:06 -0500 (EST) From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spooked mail addresses In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 04 Feb 2004 15:16:10 EST." <200402042016.i14KGAB18578@panix5.panix.com> Message-Id: <20040208171206.E5920170A5@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, 08 Feb 2004 12:12:06 -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=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Seth Breidbart wrote: > >> The glitch is that when the email arrives in my inbox, the from address > >> is the address of the person sending it, not the publication itself. > > > > Such messages are forged spam. > > False. There's no forgery if my email address is used at my request. Once again for people who haven't been following ASRG over the past year: How do I (as the recipient) know your email address was used at your request? If there is a method for me to determine that, great. Right now, there isn't. So such messages are *indistinguishable* from spam. 99.9% of the spam I get is such nonsense. Legitimate senders I deal with don't forge mail to me when they're roaming, because they know it's bad network practice. Using "ssh" to log in to a home site to read/send/port-forward mail is trivial. In general, the vast majority of legitimate email comes from well-known and easily traceable sources. (i.e. traceable with work, but not currently traceable or accountable through SMTP.) Email from this list comes from ietf.org, and as a recipient, I can trivially check that. In contrast, the vast majority of spam does NOT come from well-known sources. The messages fraudulently claim association with domains when they have no permission to do so. Read the LMAP discussion document. It talks about this problem in more detail. > However, the "Sender: " header is appropriate in that situation. That's nice. How can I tell it isn't lying to me? The answer, of course, is that I can't. Spammers use such forged associations to say things like "Honest, this mail isn't coming from AOL, but we really truly are sending it at AOL's request. Now give us your account name and password..." Pretending that untraceable forgeries are a reasonable use of the email system is a good way to make sure that the spam problem will never be addressed. > > Is it really that difficult for your local browser to copy the web > > page, and send it? > > Difficult? No. Copyright violation? Yes. If the host of the article sends a copy to your friend, why can't it give you permission to do so? > > Or, to send a URL? > > Which won't work for someone else who doesn't have an account there. If an account is required, why are you sending them the article? I think you last two comments are arguing opposite sides of the same coin. You can't have it both ways. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Feb 8 12:23:01 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA25377 for ; Sun, 8 Feb 2004 12:23:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Apsde-0005PC-8z for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 08 Feb 2004 12:22:34 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i18HMYX3020772 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 8 Feb 2004 12:22:34 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Apsde-0005Ox-5U for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 08 Feb 2004 12:22:34 -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 MAA25350 for ; Sun, 8 Feb 2004 12:22:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Apsdc-0000Lk-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 08 Feb 2004 12:22:32 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Apsci-0000GD-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 08 Feb 2004 12:21:37 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ApscC-0000AR-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 08 Feb 2004 12:21:04 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ApscB-0005Cf-18; Sun, 08 Feb 2004 12:21:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Apsbi-0004wI-Eo for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 08 Feb 2004 12:20:34 -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 MAA25245 for ; Sun, 8 Feb 2004 12:20:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Apsbh-00008T-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 08 Feb 2004 12:20:33 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Apsal-00000v-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 08 Feb 2004 12:19:36 -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 1ApsZo-0007bX-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 08 Feb 2004 12:18:36 -0500 Received: from newgiles.nitros9.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.nitros9.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06DA116CD1 for ; Sun, 8 Feb 2004 12:21:00 -0500 (EST) From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spooked mail addresses In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 04 Feb 2004 12:13:30 EST." <20040204171330.GD13741@mail> Message-Id: <20040208172100.06DA116CD1@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, 08 Feb 2004 12:21:00 -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 David Maxwell wrote: > > You say 'forges', but isn't this exactly what any MUA does? I can > > configure 'mutt' to send email from you - this doesn't mean that > > legitimate mail I send from 'mutt' is also by definition spam. > > It doesn't mean it's spam, but if there's no way to tell it apart from > spam, then it may as well be spam. This is a basic principle of physics: If you can't tell the difference A and B, then they're the same. I can't tell the difference between spammers forging "from" addresses, and roaming users forging "from" addresses. So to be safe, I treat them all as spam. When people I respect roam, they use well-established network practices to send non-forged messages. It's simple netiquette. > > It's true that there's no technical way for the *recipient* to verify > > that you authorized a message. However, I'd say your logic doesn't hold > > - by the line of reasoning that says any non-source-verifiable email is > > technically equivalent to spam, most of the messages on this list are > > also technically equivalent to spam. This does not make them spam. > > It makes them as problematic to the receiver as spam. They're not as bad as spam. Even without SMTP-layer forwarder verification, it's fairly trivial for a content filter to verify that messages on the "asrg@ietf.org" list come from an MTA at "ietf.org". Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Feb 8 14:44:56 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA29538 for ; Sun, 8 Feb 2004 14:44:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Apuqz-0005pr-2t for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 08 Feb 2004 14:44:29 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i18JiToW022425 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 8 Feb 2004 14:44:29 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Apuqy-0005pc-VF for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 08 Feb 2004 14:44:28 -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 OAA29531 for ; Sun, 8 Feb 2004 14:44:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Apuqw-0003cv-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 08 Feb 2004 14:44:26 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Apuq0-0003Zf-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 08 Feb 2004 14:43:29 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Apupj-0003WF-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 08 Feb 2004 14:43:11 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ApupZ-0005bc-43; Sun, 08 Feb 2004 14:43:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Apup4-0005bJ-IJ for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 08 Feb 2004 14:42:30 -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 OAA29492 for ; Sun, 8 Feb 2004 14:42:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Apup1-0003Vl-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 08 Feb 2004 14:42:27 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Apuo5-0003SG-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 08 Feb 2004 14:41:30 -0500 Received: from mail3.panix.com ([166.84.1.74]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Apunr-0003Oc-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 08 Feb 2004 14:41:15 -0500 Received: from panix5.panix.com (panix5.panix.com [166.84.1.5]) by mail3.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E607C987CB; Sun, 8 Feb 2004 14:41:14 -0500 (EST) Received: (from sethb@localhost) by panix5.panix.com (8.11.6p2-a/8.8.8/PanixN1.1) id i18JfEf10762; Sun, 8 Feb 2004 14:41:14 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200402081941.i18JfEf10762@panix5.panix.com> From: Seth Breidbart To: asrg@ietf.org In-reply-to: <20040208171206.E5920170A5@mail.nitros9.org> (aland@ox.org) Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spooked mail addresses Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2004 14:41:14 -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 Alan DeKok" wrote: > Seth Breidbart wrote: >> > Such messages are forged spam. >> False. There's no forgery if my email address is used at my request. > > Once again for people who haven't been following ASRG over the past > year: How do I (as the recipient) know your email address was used at > your request? > > If there is a method for me to determine that, great. Right now, > there isn't. There isn't for _this_ message (even if I sent it directly to you rather than just to the list) either. > So such messages are *indistinguishable* from spam. Only if you have a rather weak distinguisher. There are a lot of ways to distinguish this message from spam, even if there's no way for you to be sure that I actually wrote it. > Legitimate senders I deal with don't forge mail to me when they're > roaming, because they know it's bad network practice. If I use my own email address then it isn't forgery, period. > In general, the vast majority of legitimate email comes from > well-known and easily traceable sources. If you want to use that as a distinguishing characteristic, fine. I'd claim that The New York Times is a "well-known and easily traceable source", though. > In contrast, the vast majority of spam does NOT come from > well-known sources. Enough of my spam to leave the rest as below a "vast majority" comes from comcast; is that not a well-known source? > The messages fraudulently claim association with > domains when they have no permission to do so. The message actually do come from within comcast's network, despite lacking permission. >> However, the "Sender: " header is appropriate in that situation. > > That's nice. How can I tell it isn't lying to me? The answer, of > course, is that I can't. In general, you can't tell that about any header your machine didn't add. > Pretending that untraceable forgeries are a reasonable use of the > email system is a good way to make sure that the spam problem will > never be addressed. Since when need such messages be "untraceable forgeries"? (1) They're easily traced to the sender. (2) The sender _could_ require some sort of proof in order to register to send such messages. >> Difficult? No. Copyright violation? Yes. > If the host of the article sends a copy to your friend, why can't it > give you permission to do so? It apparently chooses not to do so. Their toys, their copyright, their rules. >> > Or, to send a URL? >> Which won't work for someone else who doesn't have an account there. > > If an account is required, why are you sending them the article? Apparently, the NY Times is willing to email articles on my bahelf to people when I ask it to, though it won't show them the article directly unless they register. Their copyright, their business model, their toys, their rules. > I think you last two comments are arguing opposite sides of the same > coin. You can't have it both ways. They can do what they want. If you don't like their business model, that isn't their problem. Seth _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Feb 8 21:03:11 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA11733 for ; Sun, 8 Feb 2004 21:03:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aq0kz-000769-9F for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 08 Feb 2004 21:02:43 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1922ffF027278 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 8 Feb 2004 21:02:41 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aq0kz-00075t-3T for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 08 Feb 2004 21:02:41 -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 VAA11724 for ; Sun, 8 Feb 2004 21:02:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aq0kw-0000me-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 08 Feb 2004 21:02:38 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Aq0jz-0000ix-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 08 Feb 2004 21:01:40 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aq0jg-0000fT-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 08 Feb 2004 21:01:20 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aq0jN-0006ty-3Y; Sun, 08 Feb 2004 21:01:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aq0j6-0006tI-Ua for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 08 Feb 2004 21:00:45 -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 VAA11683 for ; Sun, 8 Feb 2004 21:00:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aq0j4-0000fE-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 08 Feb 2004 21:00:42 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Aq0i6-0000bO-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 08 Feb 2004 20:59:43 -0500 Received: from rwcrmhc11.comcast.net ([204.127.198.35]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aq0hu-0000X8-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 08 Feb 2004 20:59:30 -0500 Received: from fda.zemos.net ([68.38.12.170]) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc11) with ESMTP id <20040209015855013006vve7e>; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 01:58:55 +0000 Received: from zemos.net (phil [10.0.0.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by fda.zemos.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43476186A3; Sun, 8 Feb 2004 20:58:54 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <4026E95D.7090905@zemos.net> From: Philip Miller User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040122 Debian/1.6-1 X-Accept-Language: en, en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jon Kyme Cc: ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: Documents for LMAP BOF 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, 08 Feb 2004 20:58:53 -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 Jon Kyme wrote: >> 2. Forwarding is a service provided to recipients in which the >> forwarding domain agrees to deliver messages addressed to one mailbox >> to another mailbox. >> The forwarding case is where the hand-waving comes in. Sender-rewriting >> is undesirable here. It means that the intermediary recipient is >> essentially forced to present themselves as accountable for a message >> that they have no connection to. It also present a heavy burden on many >> users who use something like pobox.com or ieee.org to forward to an ISP >> account where they have no control over any whitelisting. > > I'm not sure from which point of view you judge sender-rewriting > undesirable. It's simply not true that the forwarder has "no connection to" > the messages they forward. The forwarder is not part of, or contracted > with, the recipent ISP, they're as responsible for the messages they submit > as is any other external system. I guess there is added burden for some of > the players here, but they're at liberty not to implement, and suffer some > degradation to their service. This would be an issue for a user who choses > to use a forwarder in an unfriendly environment, and a cost issue for the > forwarder. > > I don't see how it's really fair that I should be able to provide services > (and make a profit) in the middle, without taking on some responsibilities > there also. How about we look at a case where the forwarder has no profit, just cost: debian.org. Many debian.org users use their addresses as a general purpose address, with the intention that they will always have it, to forward wherever they go. Thus, they receive and forward mail coming from all over, none of which a 3rd party should see them as responsible for. In many particular cases, that 3rd party is a large ISP corporation that has no profit motive to let end-users selectively disable filtering of some of their mail. Thus, debian.org, ostensibly an agent of the recipient, is forced to bear a cost (taking responsibility for the message in the eyes of the recipient ISP) in place of the sender. Perhaps what we need is some standardized way for the recipient/forwarding user to authorize the message in advance of any filtering. Unfortunately, that probably won't be effective in this case unless we got an ESMTP extension designed for it, because ISPs want to filter as early as possible in the transaction. Philip Miller _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Feb 8 21:34:13 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA12668 for ; Sun, 8 Feb 2004 21:34:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aq1F4-0001fO-2p for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 08 Feb 2004 21:33:46 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i192XkXq006400 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 8 Feb 2004 21:33:46 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aq1F3-0001f9-SM for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 08 Feb 2004 21:33:45 -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 VAA12637 for ; Sun, 8 Feb 2004 21:33:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aq1F1-0003Ik-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 08 Feb 2004 21:33:43 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Aq1EB-0003DL-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 08 Feb 2004 21:32:52 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aq1DU-00038R-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 08 Feb 2004 21:32:08 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aq1DM-0001FG-8q; Sun, 08 Feb 2004 21:32:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aq1D2-0001Ao-0y for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 08 Feb 2004 21:31:40 -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 VAA12527 for ; Sun, 8 Feb 2004 21:31:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aq1Cz-00036V-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 08 Feb 2004 21:31:37 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Aq1C1-00031u-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 08 Feb 2004 21:30:38 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com ([65.205.251.73]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aq1B3-0002xf-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 08 Feb 2004 21:29:37 -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 i192TbP7021009; Sun, 8 Feb 2004 18:29:37 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc03.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <13JX5K7N>; Sun, 8 Feb 2004 18:29:37 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Yakov Shafranovich'" , "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" Cc: "'John Levine'" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Re: Documents for LMAP BOF MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2004 18:29:34 -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=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 > Are there any documents describing how this would happen? Can you > provide some links? I'll have to search to see if I can find a good intro. The basic problem is someone puts a router onto the backbone and then advertises a BGP route for net 18 (MIT) say with a low cost. This is then advertised to all the neighboring nodes and all traffic goes to that node until someone finds out. A second attack would be to compromise an existing router. > How easy is such attack to pull off? Would a spammer be more > likely to > hijack a computer with its identity rather than steal an IP? It is very easy to do - once. It is probably quite difficult to keep your network connection if you repeatedly inject malicious BGP data. At present the attack is usually only made on net blocks that are not in use. This is where the spam from unallocated address blocks comes from. It has even been done accidentally, ask Jeff Schiller about the time net 18 really was re-routed to some guys porn site running over a dialup. The big issue is how much of a problem this is likely to be. How many routers are likely to be cracked? How easy is it to do without getting traced? The questions you ask are really the ones I want an answer to. Is it likely that SPF will encourage much of this sort of thing when it deploys? What can be done to remediate it? I am not going to accept the answer 'don't deploy SPF'. We should secure BGP, it is an accident waiting to happen in any case. > > So far the only proposal to fix this is not at all > credible. It would > > require > > new software on all the backbone routers at a minimum (not > going to happen) > > and it would probably require replacement in many cases. > > > > Can you provide a link to this proposal? Steve Kent, secure BGP http://www.nwfusion.com/details/6484.html Note the start date 1996 - this is the one I don't like at all. Ah, but see this link though http://www.nwfusion.com/details/6485.html soBGP does look like it could work. http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/759/ipj_6-3/ipj_6-3_bgp2.html This draft came out since I looked last. It does have the endorsement that is needed. I will have to read through and see if it works for SPF/CallerID. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Feb 8 23:49:18 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA17557 for ; Sun, 8 Feb 2004 23:49:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aq3Ln-0002s1-1z for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 08 Feb 2004 23:48:51 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i194mpNL011027 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 8 Feb 2004 23:48:51 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aq3Lm-0002rm-U5 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 08 Feb 2004 23:48:50 -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 XAA17536 for ; Sun, 8 Feb 2004 23:48:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aq3Lk-0006X5-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 08 Feb 2004 23:48:48 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Aq3Kn-0006SS-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 08 Feb 2004 23:47:50 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aq3KD-0006No-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 08 Feb 2004 23:47:13 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aq3K1-0002hH-HN; Sun, 08 Feb 2004 23:47:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aq3Jm-0002gU-OQ for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 08 Feb 2004 23:46:46 -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 XAA17477 for ; Sun, 8 Feb 2004 23:46:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aq3Jk-0006Me-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 08 Feb 2004 23:46:44 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Aq3Is-0006IE-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 08 Feb 2004 23:45:51 -0500 Received: from relay.pair.com ([209.68.1.20]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aq3Hy-0006DN-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 08 Feb 2004 23:44:54 -0500 Received: (qmail 40930 invoked from network); 9 Feb 2004 04:44:54 -0000 Received: from ppp132.pool1.dvo.skyinet.net (HELO vaio) (202.78.126.132) by relay.pair.com with SMTP; 9 Feb 2004 04:44:54 -0000 X-pair-Authenticated: 202.78.126.132 Message-Id: <4.1.20040209120752.009e0900(null)> X-Sender: spam@mail.accuspam.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 To: asrg@ietf.org From: AccuSpam Subject: re: [Asrg] Its all over for Challenge Response 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, 09 Feb 2004 12:44:51 +0800 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BEST_PORN,FREE_PORN autolearn=no version=2.60 This rumored threat is probably a non-issue. The IPv4 rate limiting could be applied to any challenge (turning test) _submitted_ over IP (differentiate "submission" from "accessing" the challenge content). There are probably more cost effective attacks for spammers to exploit: http://www.accuspam.com/faq.php#as_automate "...because spammers would not be able to amass enough unique IPv4 addresses (at reasonable cost) to defeat significantly, useful volumes in their economic model...AccuSpam's challenge method is most often not a response but a normal visit to contact form..." Note implicit requirement is to not serve (be able to access) the same challenge twice in succession, so that the hijacked client can not use Javascript to submit the challenge in an auxillary window or frame. However, note the exploit could work to the extent that if the client was made to submit the challenge (not by proxy), i.e. the porn visitor did not receive what was promised for his work or the porn content was always loaded (irrespective of results of challenge submission) in side window or frame. Theoretically it might be possible to write a script that ran in auxillary window or frame which could wait on timer to check the validity of the results of the challenge submission by parsing the returned content in the other companion window or frame. I think serving the challenge over HTTPS would be sufficient so the browser's security system prevents access from script in other window or frame (url containing different domain). Whether such client hacks could produce popular porn sites (see volume requirements argument as well in link above), is highly dubious. The challenge results could return frame busting HTML and/or insure they were on frame or window of sufficient size to interfere with attempted client hacks. Shelby Moore http://AccuSpam.com > spammers have found a way to break C/R schemes that have a 'turing test' > component. > > You simply set up a free porn web site and get people to crack the turing > tests in return for seeing the porn. > > http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/01/28/1344207&mode=flat&tid=111&ti > d=126&tid=172&tid=95&threshold=1 > > Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Feb 9 05:19:33 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA10437 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 05:19:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aq8VO-0006ik-Cm for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 05:19:06 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i19AJ61w025833 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 05:19:06 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aq8VN-0006ia-7m for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 05:19:05 -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 FAA10427 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 05:19:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aq8VK-0002Ve-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 05:19:02 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Aq8UP-0002Pw-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 05:18:05 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aq8Ta-0002Jg-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 05:17:14 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aq8TN-0006WY-Pd; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 05:17:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aq8SX-0006Vu-Vo for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 05:16:09 -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 FAA10240 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 05:16:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aq8SU-0002B2-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 05:16:06 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Aq8Ra-000258-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 05:15:11 -0500 Received: from argon.connectinternetsolutions.com ([193.110.243.33] helo=argon.connect.org.uk) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aq8RF-0001zR-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 05:14:49 -0500 Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 1Aq8RG-0006yh-6Y for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 10:14:50 +0000 In-Reply-To: <4026E95D.7090905@zemos.net> Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: Documents for LMAP BOF 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, 09 Feb 2004 10:14:50 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,NO_COST autolearn=no version=2.60 > > How about we look at a case where the forwarder has no profit, just cost: > debian.org. Many debian.org users use their addresses as a general > purpose > address, with the intention that they will always have it, to forward > wherever they go. OK, debian.org are providing the "appearance" of a mailbox for no charge. Jolly good. Well done. >In many > particular cases, that 3rd party is a large ISP corporation that has no > profit motive to let end-users selectively disable filtering of some of > their mail. Thus, debian.org, ostensibly an agent of the recipient, is > forced to bear a cost (taking responsibility for the message in the eyes > of > the recipient ISP) in place of the sender. > Indeed, that's the point. debian.org *are* sending this mail to isp.example. They're doing this as the agent of a person who is a customer of isp.example They are not doing this *for* isp.example, they're doing this *to* isp.example isp.example hold debian.org responsible for sending it. What's wrong with that? If isp.example users can't modulate the filtering behaviour to pass-thru the debian.org routed stuff and some LMAP-thing is active - this will be a hostile environment for forwarding. debian.org have a number of alternatives: 1. do the rewriting (and accept some implied responsibility?) 2. refuse to rewrite and get blocked by systems which don't like the look of mail from example.com routed via debian.org 3. Provide a real mailbox, POP / IMAP. > Perhaps what we need is some standardized way for the > recipient/forwarding > user to authorize the message in advance of any filtering. Unfortunately, > that probably won't be effective in this case unless we got an ESMTP > extension designed for it, because ISPs want to filter as early as > possible > in the transaction. > Ideally, a system running LMAP-thing should give users the ability to configure it in such a way as not to be forwarding-hostile. If there's no "profit-motive" for supporting this, it suggests that customer demand is too small. I'm very much in favour of some standard for configuring filtering at the ISP. However, I can't see how one could make this a pre-requisite for LMAP deployment. It seems possible that widespread adoption of LMAP-like systems could increase costs for forwarders. I don't believe there's a rule which says that the forwarders p.o.v. is more significant than the receiving ISP's. The feature that allows debian.org to forward transparently has costs. Spome of these costs are currently borne by mom&pop.example.com when their little mail server chokes on 50k bounces an hour from yahoo for spam they didn't send. The costs of spam at isp.example are passed onto the user, they have a business model which supports this. If the forwarder doesn't have such a business, they may have to reconsider the services they offer. Omelette v. Eggs, I suppose, or, better, TANSTAAFL. -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Feb 9 06:45:28 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA13608 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 06:45:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aq9qY-0007P1-6X for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 06:45:02 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i19Bj2uh028444 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 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 1Aq9qW-0007OO-Ew for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 06:45:00 -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 GAA13605 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 06:44:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aq9qS-0002yw-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 06:44:56 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Aq9pX-0002v2-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 06:43:59 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aq9ox-0002qp-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 06:43:23 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aq9ob-0007DA-IA; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 06:43:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aq9nf-0007By-5o for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 06:42:03 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA13461 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 06:41:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aq9nb-0002kt-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 06:41:59 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Aq9mm-0002eg-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 06:41:08 -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 1Aq9ln-0002Y1-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 06:40:07 -0500 Received: from newgiles.nitros9.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.nitros9.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7C1116CD1 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 06:42:32 -0500 (EST) From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spooked mail addresses In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 08 Feb 2004 14:41:14 EST." <200402081941.i18JfEf10762@panix5.panix.com> Message-Id: <20040209114232.A7C1116CD1@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, 09 Feb 2004 06:42:32 -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=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Seth Breidbart wrote: > > So such messages are *indistinguishable* from spam. > > Only if you have a rather weak distinguisher. There are a lot of ways > to distinguish this message from spam, During the SMTP phase, before the message body is received? Nope. There are very few, if any, ways to distinguish such messages from spam. > If I use my own email address then it isn't forgery, period. You appear to be completely missing the point of my entire argument. *You* believe that such messages aren't spam, but you're the originator. Everyone already knows that the originators love their messages, and want them to be recieved. As the recipient *I* don't know that such forged messages aren't spam. If you're not going to address that problem, there isn't any point in continuing this conversation. > If you want to use that as a distinguishing characteristic, fine. I'd > claim that The New York Times is a "well-known and easily traceable > source", though. Bully for you. I may not agree. I may not be able to configure my mailer to magically "know" a near-infinite list of "well-known" sources. Once again, how does my recipient MTA know this? All you're talking about is general concepts "of course you should trust the NYT". OK... why? How? How do I express that trust, or enforce it in my MTA? so far, you've ignored that topic entirely. > Apparently, the NY Times is willing to email articles on my bahelf to > people when I ask it to, though it won't show them the article > directly unless they register. Their copyright, their business model, > their toys, their rules. Bully for them. My business model is that I don't want to deal with people who forge messages. It's simply to expensive for me to verify those messages, as the vast majority of spam I receive is forged. So I have a question for you: Should I be forced to accept such forged messages from the NY times? If the answer is "yes", then you're a spammer. If the answer is "no", then the NY times (and anyone else) must jump through MY hoops in order to talk to me. My MTA, my business model, my rules. If they don't like it, they don't have to talk to me. My reason for being involved in ASRG is to design a system where *everyones* acceptance policies can be published, and used. > They can do what they want. If you don't like their business model, > that isn't their problem. And if I don't like their business model, that's perfectly fine. Alan Dekok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Feb 9 06:53:28 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA13832 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 06:53:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aq9yI-0007qr-AX for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 06:53:02 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i19Br2qv030174 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 06:53:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aq9yI-0007qN-3a for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 06:53:02 -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 GAA13813 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 06:52:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aq9yE-0003dD-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 06:52:58 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Aq9xF-0003Xu-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 06:51:58 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aq9wK-0003Sr-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 06:51:00 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aq9wM-0007dM-DH; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 06:51:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aq9vM-0007c8-L1 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 06:50:00 -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 GAA13745 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 06:49:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aq9vI-0003Mq-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 06:49:56 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Aq9uL-0003Hl-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 06:48:58 -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 1Aq9tR-0003De-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 06:48:01 -0500 Received: from newgiles.nitros9.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.nitros9.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2934516CD1 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 06:50:33 -0500 (EST) From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Fwd: [Asrg] Re: Documents for LMAP BOF] In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 08 Feb 2004 14:41:20 EST." <402690E0.9070906@solidmatrix.com> Message-Id: <20040209115033.2934516CD1@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, 09 Feb 2004 06:50:33 -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=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > or perhaps like this: > > " LMAP is based on two concepts: publication of policy > data by a domain, and application of that data by a recipient > MTA. > " That's pretty much the text in the -00 draft. Was there any reason it was changed for -01? Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Feb 9 06:55:29 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA13935 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 06:55:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqA0F-00081n-67 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 06:55:03 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i19Bt23x030837 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 06:55:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqA0D-00081E-2J for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 06:55:01 -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 GAA13873 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 06:54:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqA08-0003nr-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 06:54:57 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Aq9zA-0003iP-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 06:53:56 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aq9yE-0003dN-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 06:52:58 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aq9yH-0007na-4X; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 06:53:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aq9xO-0007mX-Cf for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 06:52:06 -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 GAA13782 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 06:52:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aq9xK-0003YY-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 06:52:02 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Aq9wO-0003T1-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 06:51:05 -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 1Aq9vU-0003OS-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 06:50:08 -0500 Received: from newgiles.nitros9.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.nitros9.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 616DC16CD1 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 06:52:40 -0500 (EST) From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 08 Feb 2004 09:42:00 +0100." <20040208084200.GA27990@danisch.de> Message-Id: <20040209115240.616DC16CD1@mail.nitros9.org> Subject: [Asrg] Re: smtp-verify vs. the SPF propaganda Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2004 06:52:40 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Hadmut Danisch wrote: > When I blamed them for > intentionally violating german intellectual property law, Such as... ? Patents? Trade secrets? Trademarks? Copyright is not intellectual property law, and a requirement for submitting RFC's is that the author assign copyright to the Internet Society. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Feb 9 07:06:30 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA14425 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 07:06:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqAAu-00006G-TE for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 07:06:04 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i19C64KJ000378 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 07:06:04 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqAAu-000061-Pc for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 07:06:04 -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 HAA14401 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 07:05:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqAAq-0004i6-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 07:06:00 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqA9t-0004cR-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 07:05:02 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqA8y-0004XE-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 07:04:04 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqA8v-0008Ic-7t; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 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 1AqA82-0008HA-LP for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 07:03:06 -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 HAA14278 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 07:03:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqA7y-0004Re-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 07:03:02 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqA71-0004Mr-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 07:02:03 -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 1AqA6i-0004I4-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 07:01:44 -0500 Received: from newgiles.nitros9.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.nitros9.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E012E16CD1 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 07:04:15 -0500 (EST) From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: Documents for LMAP BOF In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 07 Feb 2004 22:22:14 EST." <4025AB66.4090400@zemos.net> Message-Id: <20040209120415.E012E16CD1@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, 09 Feb 2004 07:04:15 -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=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Philip Miller wrote: > Paragraph 2 is bluntly wrong. The intent of creating LMAP is that eventually > it WILL be used to reject mail, because it is assumed to be forged. Absolutely not. The intent is to publish information which lets the recipient MTA make that decision. This is a very different statement of intent than what you wrote. I expect that *many* implementors of LMAP will choose to reject non-compliant messages, but it would be inappropriate for anyone to say that those MTA's are *required* to reject mail based on LMAP. > I don't like how the comparison section phrases LMAP as a modification to > RFC 2821. I suspect that such wording will raise a lot of unnecessary > resistance to LMAP for no particular reason. I interpreted that part of RFC > 2821 to mean that recipient MTAs should not reject mail on the basis of the > the HELO name not resolving to the connecting IP or the connecting IP not > reverse-resolving to the HELO name. Following this interpretation, LMAP > suggests neither, and thus is no modification to 2821, only an application > of the liberties of "local policy"-based rejections. I agree. The text in the -00 draft tried to explain this distinction. The -01 document says: (2.2.5, page 7) >> HELO/EHLO-based LMAP would >> modify RFC2821 by allowing the server to reject mail based on >> HELO/EHLO validation failure. I disagree completely. The HELO/EHLO validation in RFC2821 is about looking up the reverse IP of the originating MTA, and seeing if the name returned is the same as the HELO/EHLO field. LMAP does something completely different, it looks up in the domain of the HELO/EHLO field, to see if the originating IP is permitted to claim association with that domain. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Feb 9 07:10:27 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA14578 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 07:10:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqAEj-0000dU-Ps for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 07:10:01 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i19CA1QV002437 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 07:10:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqAEj-0000dB-0o for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 07:10:01 -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 HAA14546 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 07:09:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqAEe-00054F-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 07:09:56 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqADg-0004yy-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 07:08:57 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqACl-0004uF-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 07:07:59 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqACn-0000Jb-AM; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 07:08:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqABs-00009J-JL for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 07:07:04 -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 HAA14453 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 07:06:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqABo-0004oL-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 07:07:00 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqAAs-0004iX-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 07:06:03 -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 1AqA9z-0004ct-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 07:05:07 -0500 Received: from newgiles.nitros9.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.nitros9.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FD9B16CD1 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 07:07:39 -0500 (EST) From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 0. General - Bounces and Attachments In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 07 Feb 2004 12:11:11 EST." Message-Id: <20040209120739.1FD9B16CD1@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, 09 Feb 2004 07:07:39 -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=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Jim Witte wrote: > > e.g. I don't know who you are, and you want to send me a 1M message? > > sorry, you get 10 kbps. > > > > e.g. You said you wanted to send me a 1k message, and you've just > > hit the 10k mark. I think I'll hang up now, and blacklist you. > > I can do that now with a procmail filter. As you may have noticed, I was talking about doing this in the SMTP stage, BEFORE the body of the message was received. procmail is too late in the sequence of events to matter much. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Feb 9 07:15:28 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA14708 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 07:15:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqAJX-0001A5-IS for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 07:14:59 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i19CExjo004459 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 07:14:59 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqAJX-00019q-Db for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 07:14:59 -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 HAA14705 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 07:14:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqAJW-0005Wm-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 07:14:59 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqAIa-0005RK-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 07:14:00 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqAHd-0005Ko-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 07:13:01 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqAHb-0000xr-8n; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 07:12:59 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqAGf-0000wk-3X for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 07:12:01 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA14613 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 07:11:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqAGa-0005EO-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 07:11:56 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqAFg-0005A5-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 07:11:01 -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 1AqAFV-00055x-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 07:10:50 -0500 Received: from newgiles.nitros9.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.nitros9.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4EF0170BB for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 07:13:21 -0500 (EST) From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Its all over for Challenge Response In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 06 Feb 2004 19:31:36 EST." <20040207003136.GD10208@m450> Message-Id: <20040209121321.C4EF0170BB@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, 09 Feb 2004 07:13:21 -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: > Haven't you ever heard of smtp-submit (port 587) or ssh-tunneling or a > web interface to email at another ISP ? Apparently not. It's a perrenial excuse used to claim that roaming users MUST forge messages, as there is NO other method for them to send email. It's nonsense, and I don't understand why it keeps coming up. The repetition of this excuse is the reason why I wrote ~2 pages of rebuttal in the LMAP discussion document. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Feb 9 10:40:38 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA24338 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 10:40:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqDW7-0007Pu-Nl for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 10:40:11 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i19FeBUT028506 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 10:40:11 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqDW7-0007Ph-HU for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 10:40:11 -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 KAA24298 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 10:40:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqDW5-00013z-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 10:40:09 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqDVE-0000z5-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 10:39:17 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqDUJ-0000uO-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 10:38:19 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqDU1-0006vS-NK; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 10:38:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqDTC-0006gW-He for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 10:37:10 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA24200 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 10:37:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqDTA-0000nj-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 10:37:08 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqDSD-0000j8-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 10:36:10 -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 1AqDRu-0000en-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 10:35:50 -0500 Received: from newgiles.nitros9.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.nitros9.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CBA0170BB for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 10:38:19 -0500 (EST) From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Fwd: [Asrg] Re: Documents for LMAP BOF] In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 08 Feb 2004 17:17:20 EST." <4026B570.3080409@solidmatrix.com> Message-Id: <20040209153819.3CBA0170BB@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, 09 Feb 2004 10:38:19 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,NEW_DOMAIN_EXTENSIONS autolearn=no version=2.60 Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > If the entire purpose of these proposals is to make sure that the sender > is who he claims to be according to DNS information, I would say "has permission to claim association with a domain" > than what we could > do is create an ESMTP extension to pass sender's information to the > server MTA which will be verified via DNS. Since we need to change MTA > software to support sender rewriting schemes, we might as well add a new > extension instead, to pass that information explicitly. Sounds fine to me. Can we have a show of hands from people in the IETF who are *not* opposed to modifying SMTP? > Of course this is just devil's advocate speaking :) Yes, and there are standard arguments against it: - it will take too long to deploy - it won't stop spam. My responses are: - it will take less time to deploy than waiting forever for a perfect solution - it's not intended to stop spam. It's intended to allow the recipient to better deal with the spam he does get. 99.99% of the spam I get is forged. Call me naive, but this says to me that spammers believe that forgery is an important part of the spamming process. This addition would also get rid of the forged viruses & worms. If nothing else, it would make it plainly obvious who's stupid enough to run a system which gets viruses. Right now, I don't get viruses, but I get tons of spam from software by antivirus companies, claiming to have found a virus in a message I sent. The fact that the viruses are forged, and that their "notifications" are spam, is something the virus companies apparently don't get. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Feb 9 10:46:33 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA24626 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 10:46:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqDbr-00080l-8b for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 10:46:07 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i19Fk7Z2030789 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 10:46:07 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqDbr-00080W-0z for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 10:46:07 -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 KAA24619 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 10:46:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqDbo-0001bT-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 10:46:04 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqDap-0001Wd-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 10:45:04 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqDZq-0001OY-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 10:44:02 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqDZp-0007hj-8h; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 10:44:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqDZ1-0007fT-Ee for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 10:43:11 -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 KAA24488 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 10:43:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqDYz-0001L5-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 10:43:09 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqDY6-0001Fc-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 10:42:15 -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 1AqDXE-0001AK-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 10:41:20 -0500 Received: from newgiles.nitros9.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.nitros9.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C45216CD1 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 10:43:50 -0500 (EST) From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Fwd: [Asrg] Re: Documents for LMAP BOF] In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 08 Feb 2004 17:45:19 EST." <4026BBFF.5010507@solidmatrix.com> Message-Id: <20040209154350.9C45216CD1@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, 09 Feb 2004 10:43:50 -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=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > Which brings us back to your original point - why do we want to > authenticate identity? I would suggest that for most cases, we don't. > Identity of the incoming MTA or the sender by > itself will be meaningeless unless combined with some form of a > reputation system. We don't need a repudiation system if we have a live verification system. > As for stopping forgery, since this operates only on the SMTP Session > level, it does not stop forgery of the mail content itself. Rather it > autheticates the SMTP transaction which lets the network administrators > complain to the originator. BUT, if the incoming IP is know, we know who > the admin is anyway, so what's the point to tie it in with a domain. Are you sure we know wo the admin is? Some ISP's delegate IP's, and then disclaim responsibility when their users abuse the net. Are we to hold that ISP responsible? My opinion would be to say "yes". Everyone who contributes to the creation of a problem is partially responsible for it. The fewer people who contribute to creating problems, the fewer problems. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Feb 9 11:55:41 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA28185 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 11:55:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqEgh-0005WK-9J for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 11:55:13 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i19GtBKS021214 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 11:55:11 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqEgh-0005W5-38 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 11:55:11 -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 LAA28158 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 11:55:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqEgg-0001JS-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 11:55:10 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqEfh-0001Eq-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 11:54:10 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqEem-0001A5-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 11:53:12 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqEeb-0005Kb-2t; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 11:53:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqEe0-0005J6-Nu for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 11:52:24 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA28111 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 11:52:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqEdz-00014t-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 11:52:23 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqEd3-0000ya-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 11:51:26 -0500 Received: from sklave3.rackland.de ([213.133.101.23]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqEc4-0000rg-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 11:50:24 -0500 Received: from andromeda (uucp@localhost) by sklave3.rackland.de (8.12.10/8.12.10/Debian-1) with BSMTP id i19GoEeP029416; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 17:50:14 +0100 Received: (from hadmut@localhost) by andromeda.dresden.danisch.de (8.12.10/8.12.10/Debian-5) id i19Go4ox013063; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 17:50:04 +0100 From: Hadmut Danisch To: smtp-verify@asrg.sp.am, ietf-mxcomp@imc.org, asrg@ietf.org Message-ID: <20040209165004.GA12761@danisch.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i Subject: [Asrg] Devilish: Forget about DNS Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2004 17:50:04 +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=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Folks, there has been a lot of discussion about how to cope with the limitations of stone age service DNS. DNS is difficult to extend for new record types, which makes it expensive to introduce a new record type like RMX RR. The currently existing record types make it difficult to store the relevant information, as has been seen by many of the proposals so far, e.g. when people need to store boolen values or integer numbers in A records. When you need to store more information, you need to perform special tricks to store them, like Microsoft's CallerID proposal, which assembles the information from several TXT entries. And - last not least - we are struggling with the packet size limitations and the dualism of UDP and TCP. I'd like to initiate a new discussion thread with this proposal: Forget about DNS (except to use it for what it was built for). We could use a much more modern and robust protocol, the famous and ubiquous HTTP. When we do receive a message from a domain somedomain.com sent from IP address a.b.c.d then we could simple contact the host _lmap.somedomain.com port 80 or - even better - get the SRV entry for _tcp._lmap.somedomain.com which would allow multiple servers, fallback servers, and arbitrary ports. At this port we could fetch from URL /_lmap/somedomain.com (to allow the same server to serve several domains, and receive whatever record format we're going to define, like simple entry lines, XML, ASN.1 or whatever. Need Caching? Just use any HTTP Cache. HTTP pretty well supports transmission of expiry information. Even better: The record could contain a directive to do dynamic queries. In this case we could query /_lmap/somedomain.com.query?ipv4=a.b.c.d or /_lmap/query?domain=somedomain.com&ipv4=a.b.c.d Where the query could be virtually anything if describing it with SPF's macro expansion (maybe include the receiving MTA's country, the MessageID, the size,...). This would allow to easily offer dynamic services as described in http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-danisch-scaf-00.txt Additionally, could optionally provide some kind of security with HTTPS. This is robust, easy to maintain, no need for large scale software replacement, in simple cases it's just a file to be put on a webserver, or people can write CGI scripts for any special case. And today, virtually every domain owner should be able to have a file placed somewere on any web server. And updating the file is easier than with DNS's expiry mechanisms. So all we need bloody DNS for is the A and maybe the SRV record to find the server. No tricks, no record type abuse, no hunting for lost TXT records. Just normal use of existing protocols exactly for what they have been designed for. :-) Hadmut (I was too busy to follow all mailing lists within the last months. Would anyone gimme a hint if this has been proposed already?) _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Feb 9 12:19:41 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA28866 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 12:19:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqF3y-0007cZ-9M for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 12:19:14 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i19HJEQu029289 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 12:19:14 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqF3y-0007cK-4A for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 12:19:14 -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 MAA28835 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 12:19:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqF3w-0003K1-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 12:19:12 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqF36-0003EL-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 12:18:20 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqF20-00038g-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 12:17:12 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqF1p-0007RH-82; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 12:17:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqF18-0007El-CR for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 12:16:18 -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 MAA28706 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 12:16:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqF16-000337-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 12:16:16 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqF00-0002yi-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 12:15:08 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com ([65.205.251.73]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqEzB-0002v3-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 12:14:17 -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 i19HE9lG002451; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 09:14:09 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc03.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <13JX706B>; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 09:14:09 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Hadmut Danisch'" , smtp-verify@asrg.sp.am, ietf-mxcomp@imc.org, asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Devilish: Forget about DNS 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, 9 Feb 2004 09:14:00 -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=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 > there has been a lot of discussion about how to cope with the > limitations of stone age service DNS. > > DNS is difficult to extend for new record types, which makes > it expensive to introduce a new record type like RMX RR. It is also deployed and it works. The problems with the extension mechanism are in my view dealt with by the _protocol mechanism introduced in SRV and used in NAPTR as well as many of the proposals on the table. > And - last not least - we are struggling with the packet size > limitations and the dualism of UDP and TCP. The proposal to introduce XML into SPF makes a lot of sense if you expect the DNS itself to be replaced at some point in the near future with something XML based. I would not recommend going to HTTP or TCP here, I would look at using something like DIME over UDP with a lightweight session layer - TCP is not designed well for transactions of one to four packets. Then we get into the usual issues, this has been proposed so often in the past that there are strong immune responses tuned to reject anything like it on sight in the IETF. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Feb 9 12:27:41 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA29417 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 12:27:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqFBi-0000T9-9I for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 12:27:14 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i19HREei001797 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 12:27:14 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqFBi-0000Su-4J for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 12:27:14 -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 MAA29372 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 12:27:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqFBg-00048y-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 12:27:12 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqFAn-00042F-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 12:26:18 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqF9n-0003v3-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 12:25:15 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqF9k-00007w-JI; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 12:25:12 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqF8p-0008KD-Be for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 12:24:15 -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 MAA29180 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 12:24:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqF8n-0003np-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 12:24:14 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqF7o-0003gr-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 12:23:13 -0500 Received: from mail3.panix.com ([166.84.1.74]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqF6o-0003Vv-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 12:22:10 -0500 Received: from panix5.panix.com (panix5.panix.com [166.84.1.5]) by mail3.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B44198545 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 12:21:54 -0500 (EST) Received: (from sethb@localhost) by panix5.panix.com (8.11.6p2-a/8.8.8/PanixN1.1) id i19HLYE09210; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 12:21:34 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200402091721.i19HLYE09210@panix5.panix.com> From: Seth Breidbart To: asrg@ietf.org In-reply-to: <20040209114232.A7C1116CD1@mail.nitros9.org> (aland@ox.org) Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spooked mail addresses References: <20040209114232.A7C1116CD1@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, 9 Feb 2004 12:21:34 -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 "Alan DeKok" wrote: > Seth Breidbart wrote: >> > So such messages are *indistinguishable* from spam. >> Only if you have a rather weak distinguisher. There are a lot of ways >> to distinguish this message from spam, > > During the SMTP phase, before the message body is received? Nope. So you're looking for a way to distinguish spam from non-spam prior to receiving the message? It can't be done. Period. Proof: 1. Your mother signs up for an AOL account. Using that account, going through AOL's mailserver, she sends you email. Non-spam. 2. A spammer signs up for an AOL account. Using that account, going through AOL's mailserver, she sends you email. Spam. >> If I use my own email address then it isn't forgery, period. > > You appear to be completely missing the point of my entire > argument. *You* believe that such messages aren't spam, but you're > the originator. Do you know the difference between "spam" and "forgery"? I didn't say that somebody using his own address makes the message non-spam, I said it makes it non-forged. > As the recipient *I* don't know that such forged messages aren't > spam. *You* apparently don't even know that such non-forged messages aren't forged. > Once again, how does my recipient MTA know this? All you're talking > about is general concepts "of course you should trust the NYT". > OK... why? How? How do I express that trust, or enforce it in my > MTA? so far, you've ignored that topic entirely. How do you trust _any other_ sender? > My business model is that I don't want to deal with people who forge > messages. You apparently don't want to deal with people who use their own email addresses through sending MTAs you haven't blessed. That's fine with me. > Should I be forced to accept such forged messages from the NY times? Of course not. You shouldn't be _forced_ to accept any message, for any reason or no reason. Remember, I'm the person whose home computer will not accept email from any IP address that's a prime number. My toys, my rules. > If the answer is "no", then the NY times (and anyone else) must jump > through MY hoops in order to talk to me. My MTA, my business model, > my rules. If they don't like it, they don't have to talk to me. That's right. All that I'm objecting to is your _mischaracterizing_ what is being done as "forgery". Seth _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Feb 9 12:35:36 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA29709 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 12:35:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqFJN-0000qC-BV for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 12:35:09 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i19HZ9cX003226 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 12:35:09 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqFJN-0000px-5n for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 12:35:09 -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 MAA29684 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 12:35:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqFJL-0004ns-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 12:35:07 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqFIN-0004im-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 12:34:08 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqFHN-0004bK-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 12:33:05 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqFHI-0000c0-PH; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 12:33:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqFGU-0000bS-Bs for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 12:32:10 -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 MAA29603 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 12:32:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqFGS-0004Z5-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 12:32:08 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqFFW-0004V4-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 12:31:11 -0500 Received: from sklave3.rackland.de ([213.133.101.23]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqFEe-0004R8-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 12:30:16 -0500 Received: from andromeda (uucp@localhost) by sklave3.rackland.de (8.12.10/8.12.10/Debian-1) with BSMTP id i19HU7Jc030871; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 18:30:07 +0100 Received: (from hadmut@localhost) by andromeda.dresden.danisch.de (8.12.10/8.12.10/Debian-5) id i19HRLeg013450; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 18:27:21 +0100 From: Hadmut Danisch To: Patrik =?iso-8859-1?B?RuRsdHN0cvZt?= Cc: ietf-mxcomp@imc.org, asrg@ietf.org, smtp-verify@asrg.sp.am Message-ID: <20040209172720.GA13347@danisch.de> References: <20040209165004.GA12761@danisch.de> <1141F1C8-5B23-11D8-B0AE-000A959CF516@cisco.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1141F1C8-5B23-11D8-B0AE-000A959CF516@cisco.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by sklave3.rackland.de id i19HU7Jc030871 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: [Asrg] Re: Devilish: Forget about DNS Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2004 18:27:20 +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=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Feb 09, 2004 at 06:11:57PM +0100, Patrik F=E4ltstr=F6m wrote: > On 2004-02-09, at 17.50, Hadmut Danisch wrote: >=20 > >DNS is difficult to extend for new record types, which makes > >it expensive to introduce a new record type like RMX RR. >=20 > I don't agree with this. >=20 > I think we should start the discussion right here. What do you base=20 > this information on? I proposed to introduce a new RR with the first version of the=20 RMX draft in December 2002. Since then I'm drowning in mails like "How can you dare...", "We don't want...", "Too many old DNS=20 servers, which can't be replaced...", "Too expensive...", "Too much overhead...", "Will take 10-20 years...", "We don't support this...", "Proprietary DNS server, can't be extended...", "Needs to replace billions of DNS client softare..." and much, much more of that.=20 The other problem is that many, many people complained that they would need to change the firewall or even network structure because records would grow beyond 512 bytes and require TCP queries.=20 As if many of today's DNS records wouldn't be longer than 512 bytes anyway.=20 But if we accept to query DNS records with TCP, why, after all, should=20 we bother to fetch all entries and to stitch information together from=20 differen TXT and A records or a new record type? HTTP is just perfect for fetching a record of any data type and any length. And it exists.=20 No need to replace or update HTTP servers. All we need is to find the HTTP server which is competent to give the=20 answer. Finding the HTTP server is a DNS task, that's what DNS is=20 designed to do. And a HTTP query is imho significantly better than trying to fetch=20 several records throuth DNS/TCP and trying to stitch them together (and no way to trigger the DNS server to refetch missing records). Hadmut _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Feb 9 12:39:55 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA29933 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 12:39:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqFNY-0001ZY-Mn for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 12:39:28 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i19HdS8v006038 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 12:39:28 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqFNY-0001ZJ-En for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 12:39:28 -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 MAA29913 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 12:39:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqFNW-0005EX-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 12:39:26 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqFMS-00057Y-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 12:38:20 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqFMC-000528-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 12:38:04 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqFM8-00016I-J9; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 12:38:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqFLJ-0000uj-85 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 12:37:09 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA29756 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 12:37:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqFLH-0004zQ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 12:37:07 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqFKJ-0004tg-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 12:36:08 -0500 Received: from sklave3.rackland.de ([213.133.101.23]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqFJM-0004ny-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 12:35:08 -0500 Received: from andromeda (uucp@localhost) by sklave3.rackland.de (8.12.10/8.12.10/Debian-1) with BSMTP id i19HZ7nF031094; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 18:35:07 +0100 Received: (from hadmut@localhost) by andromeda.dresden.danisch.de (8.12.10/8.12.10/Debian-5) id i19HUO8K013493; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 18:30:24 +0100 From: Hadmut Danisch To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" Cc: smtp-verify@asrg.sp.am, ietf-mxcomp@imc.org, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Devilish: Forget about DNS Message-ID: <20040209173024.GB13347@danisch.de> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2004 18:30:24 +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=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 On Mon, Feb 09, 2004 at 09:14:00AM -0800, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > > I would not recommend going to HTTP or TCP here, I would look at using > something like DIME over UDP with a lightweight session layer - TCP is not > designed well for transactions of one to four packets. On the contrary: While I agree with you on one hand, the network carries tons of HTTP queries which are answered with one to four packets, and nobody cares about. So why should it be worse to fetch RMX/LMAP/whatever records the same way? The TCP with few packets proplem is a separate problem. Let someone else improve HTTP and benefit once this will be done in future. Hadmut _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Feb 9 12:40:37 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA29993 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 12:40:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqFOD-0001fh-N8 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 12:40:10 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i19He9B4006418 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 12:40:09 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqFOD-0001fR-0p for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 12:40:09 -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 MAA29963 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 12:40:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqFOB-0005Ik-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 12:40:07 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqFND-0005B6-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 12:39:07 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqFMD-00052C-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 12:38:05 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqFMA-000179-AM; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 12:38:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqEyA-00072L-Cn for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 12:13:14 -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 MAA28682 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 12:13:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqEy9-0002qb-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 12:13:13 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqEx9-0002mT-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 12:12:12 -0500 Received: from argv.paf.se ([195.66.31.72] helo=paf.se) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqEwc-0002iH-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 12:11:38 -0500 Received: from [195.66.31.70] (account paf [195.66.31.70] verified) by paf.se (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.8) with ESMTP id 1421675; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 18:11:34 +0100 In-Reply-To: <20040209165004.GA12761@danisch.de> References: <20040209165004.GA12761@danisch.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v612) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <1141F1C8-5B23-11D8-B0AE-000A959CF516@cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ietf-mxcomp@imc.org, asrg@ietf.org, smtp-verify@asrg.sp.am From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Patrik_F=E4ltstr=F6m?= To: Hadmut Danisch X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.612) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] Re: Devilish: Forget about DNS Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2004 18:11:57 +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=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 2004-02-09, at 17.50, Hadmut Danisch wrote: > DNS is difficult to extend for new record types, which makes > it expensive to introduce a new record type like RMX RR. I don't agree with this. I think we should start the discussion right here. What do you base this information on? (I had this view some 5 years ago, but was convinced I was wrong...and now I am on the other side ;-) paf _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Feb 9 12:42:35 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA00155 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 12:42:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqFQ9-0001sQ-7K for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 12:42:09 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i19Hg9qg007208 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 12:42:09 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqFQ9-0001sB-2u for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 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 MAA00068 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 12:42:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqFQ7-0005XB-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 12:42:07 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqFP9-0005PN-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 12:41:07 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqFOB-0005In-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 12:40:07 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqFO8-0001bE-4O; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 12:40:04 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqFNX-0001ZD-TF for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 12:39:27 -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 MAA29910 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 12:39:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqFNW-0005ES-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 12:39:26 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqFMR-00057O-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 12:38:20 -0500 Received: from sklave3.rackland.de ([213.133.101.23]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqFMA-000523-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 12:38:02 -0500 Received: from andromeda (uucp@localhost) by sklave3.rackland.de (8.12.10/8.12.10/Debian-1) with BSMTP id i19Hc0RE031203; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 18:38:00 +0100 Received: (from hadmut@localhost) by andromeda.dresden.danisch.de (8.12.10/8.12.10/Debian-5) id i19Hbjjw013568; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 18:37:45 +0100 From: Hadmut Danisch To: smtp-verify@asrg.sp.am, ietf-mxcomp@imc.org, asrg@ietf.org Message-ID: <20040209173745.GA13511@danisch.de> References: <20040209165004.GA12761@danisch.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040209165004.GA12761@danisch.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i Subject: [Asrg] Re: Devilish: Forget about DNS Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2004 18:37:45 +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=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 After spending 20 more minutes to think about I'd go somewhat more into detail: If wanting to fetch the record for somedomain.com do a DNS query for A, SRV and TXT record (or ANY) on _lmap.somedomain.com (violates the SRV RFC a little bit, but for sake of efficiency) If a SRV record is found then try the servers as described in the SRV records elsif A records are found then try on of them or one after another, Port 80 else error, no record available. end If TXT record available then run it through maxcro expansion for sender name, IP address, MessageID,... and take this as the URL to query. (if macro after first '?' then protect special characters as usual in URL query parameters) else use default URL /_lmap/somedomain.com end -> Fetch record and evaluate Hadmut _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Feb 9 13:07:43 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA01245 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 13:07:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqFoS-0003Ab-DJ for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 13:07:16 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i19I7G2Q012179 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 13:07:16 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqFoR-0003AM-8J for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 13:07:15 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA01230 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 13:07:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqFoP-00001a-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 13:07:13 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqFnS-0007kA-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 13:06:15 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqFmg-0007fo-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 13:05:26 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqFmI-0002vp-CS; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 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 1AqFav-0002II-U2 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 12:53:17 -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 MAA00786 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 12:53:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqFau-0006fm-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 12:53:16 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqFa3-0006az-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 12:52:24 -0500 Received: from mout.perfora.net ([217.160.230.40]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqFZY-0006VF-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 12:51:52 -0500 Received: from [217.160.230.52] (helo=smtp.perfora.net) by mout.perfora.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1AqFZY-0001Ll-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 12:51:52 -0500 Received: from [68.29.206.45] (helo=solidmatrix.com) by smtp.perfora.net with asmtp (TLSv1:RC4-MD5:128) (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1AqFZX-0000zU-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 12:51:52 -0500 Message-ID: <4027C8AE.4060503@solidmatrix.com> From: Yakov Shafranovich Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, he, ru MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ASRG X-Enigmail-Version: 0.83.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] 0. General - Call for papers for the VB2004 conference Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2004 12:51:42 -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 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Helen Martin of Virus Bulletin Magazine asked me to forward this to the main list. Yakov -------------------------------------------------------------------- VB2004: Call for papers Virus Bulletin is seeking submissions from those wishing to present at VB2004, the Fourteenth Virus Bulletin International Conference, which will take place on 29 September to 1 October 2004 at the Fairmont Chicago, Illinois, USA. While past VB conferences have been focused exclusively on anti-virus technologies and malware threats, VB2004 will also cover spam and anti-spam techniques. Submissions are invited on all subjects relevant to the anti-virus and anti-spam arenas. Abstracts of approximately 200 words must reach the Editor of Virus Bulletin no later than Wednesday 31 March 2004. Abstracts should be sent as RTF or plain text files to editor@virusbtn.com. Further details of the paper submission and selection process including a list of suggested topics for papers, can be found at http://www.virusbtn.com/conference/. -------------------------------------------------------------------- ------- 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 Feb 9 13:11:41 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA01366 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 13:11:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqFsI-0003gY-SL for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 13:11:15 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i19IBEqE014160 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 13:11:14 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqFsI-0003gJ-NV for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 13:11:14 -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 NAA01358 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 13:11:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqFsG-0000NZ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 13:11:12 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqFrL-0000JT-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 13:10:16 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqFr7-0000FD-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 13:10:01 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqFr7-0003Wd-Iv; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 13:10:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqFqJ-0003Vh-5U for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 13:09:11 -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 NAA01323 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 13:09:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqFqH-0000Dg-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 13:09:09 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqFpK-00008G-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 13:08:10 -0500 Received: from joy.songbird.com ([208.184.79.7]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqFoR-0007lC-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 13:07:15 -0500 Received: from bbprime (jay.songbird.com [208.184.79.253]) by joy.songbird.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i19IEpd24168; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 10:14:51 -0800 From: Dave Crocker Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <1527804864.20040209100621@brandenburg.com> To: Hadmut Danisch CC: smtp-verify@asrg.sp.am, ietf-mxcomp@imc.org, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Devilish: Forget about DNS In-Reply-To: <20040209165004.GA12761@danisch.de> References: <20040209165004.GA12761@danisch.de> 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, 9 Feb 2004 10:06:21 -0800 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,PRIORITY_NO_NAME autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hadmut, HD> We could use a much more modern and robust protocol, the HD> famous and ubiquous HTTP. Let's see if I understand your proposal: You want to stop using a distributed lookup service that has worked well for 15 years, and you want to replace it with a point-to-point document retrieval service? Oh, no. That's wrong. You want to continue using DNS 'for what it was built' which is mapping between names and addresses. You just don't want to use it for this particular, new name/address mapping. And, by the way, most of the difficulties making changes that you cite have to do with implementation and operation, not protocol. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking Sunnyvale, CA USA _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Feb 9 13:30:44 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA02845 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 13:30:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqGAi-0005MT-9O for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 13:30:16 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i19IUGPD020603 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 13:30:16 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqGAi-0005ME-12 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 13:30:16 -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 NAA02725 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 13:30:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqGAg-0002mO-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 13:30:14 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqG9h-0002cQ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 13:29:13 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqG8h-0002Rk-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 13:28:11 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqG8W-0004qV-Ik; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 13:28:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqG8U-0004qI-R0 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 13:27:58 -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 NAA02398 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 13:27:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqG8S-0002NI-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 13:27:56 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqG75-00028N-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 13:26:32 -0500 Received: from sklave3.rackland.de ([213.133.101.23]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqG5n-0001q7-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 13:25:11 -0500 Received: from andromeda (uucp@localhost) by sklave3.rackland.de (8.12.10/8.12.10/Debian-1) with BSMTP id i19IP6ZX000434; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 19:25:06 +0100 Received: (from hadmut@localhost) by andromeda.dresden.danisch.de (8.12.10/8.12.10/Debian-5) id i19IL9m3014125; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 19:21:09 +0100 From: Hadmut Danisch To: Dave Crocker Cc: smtp-verify@asrg.sp.am, ietf-mxcomp@imc.org, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Devilish: Forget about DNS Message-ID: <20040209182109.GB13974@danisch.de> References: <20040209165004.GA12761@danisch.de> <1527804864.20040209100621@brandenburg.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1527804864.20040209100621@brandenburg.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2004 19:21:09 +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=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 On Mon, Feb 09, 2004 at 10:06:21AM -0800, Dave Crocker wrote: > Hadmut, > > HD> We could use a much more modern and robust protocol, the > HD> famous and ubiquous HTTP. > > Let's see if I understand your proposal: > > You want to stop using a distributed lookup service that has worked well > for 15 years, and you want to replace it with a point-to-point document > retrieval service? No. You don't understand my proposal. > Oh, no. That's wrong. You want to continue using DNS 'for what it was > built' which is mapping between names and addresses. You just don't want > to use it for this particular, new name/address mapping. No. Again, you don't understand my proposal. I just don't want to use DNS to this particular, new name -> lmap record mapping, where the record is some arbitrary octet sequence of maybe several kilobytes. DNS has never been built oder designed for that purpose. So how could it be wrong to not use DNS for something it has not been made for? And, furthermore, analysis of all the comments I received for my RMX drafts and recent discussions showed that some domains would need to dynamically generate the records depending on the query (see the hotmail example in http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-danisch-scaf-00.txt DNS is currently completely unable to provide dynamically generated replies. HTTP servers can easily do that (CGI). Again: I don't want to replace DNS in any way. I just don't want to invent a new use for DNS which DNS can't do properly. That's all. regards Hadmut _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Feb 9 13:53:42 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA04221 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 13:53:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqGWw-00078U-Lz for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 13:53:14 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i19IrEK1027424 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 13:53:14 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqGWw-00078F-Gr for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 13:53:14 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA04197 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 13:53:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqGWu-0005Sr-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 13:53:12 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqGVy-0005Mj-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 13:52:15 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqGV1-0005Go-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 13:51:15 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqGUn-0006sv-O2; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 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 1AqGU2-0006rp-Ul for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 13:50:14 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA04114 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 13:50:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqGU0-0005Aw-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 13:50:12 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqGT7-00056n-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 13:49:18 -0500 Received: from [209.216.76.58] (helo=mail.figuerres.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqGSa-00050q-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 13:48:44 -0500 Received: from viper1 [65.34.96.63] by mail.figuerres.com with ESMTP (SMTPD32-8.02) id A5C52D20090; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 13:47:33 -0500 From: "denny" To: Subject: RE: [Asrg] Devilish: Forget about DNS MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 Thread-Index: AcPvOpHQU26cTFZeQJuuIqlBwyPXogAAhOcQ X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 In-Reply-To: <20040209182109.GB13974@danisch.de> Message-Id: <200402091347771.SM00184@viper1> X-IMAIL-SPAM-VALHELO: (47317136) X-IMAIL-SPAM-VALFROM: (47317136) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2004 13:47:36 -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,MISSING_OUTLOOK_NAME autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Just My $0.02 here.... This sounds *A LOT LIKE* a "Web Service" ... and I think I see what you mean about DNS Vs. HTTP .... It should be very doable to have a "Lookup Service" that replies with data based on the query submitted. Just my bit on what I read.... -----Original Message----- From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Hadmut Danisch Sent: Monday, February 09, 2004 1:21 PM To: Dave Crocker Cc: smtp-verify@asrg.sp.am; ietf-mxcomp@imc.org; asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Devilish: Forget about DNS On Mon, Feb 09, 2004 at 10:06:21AM -0800, Dave Crocker wrote: > Hadmut, > > HD> We could use a much more modern and robust protocol, the > HD> famous and ubiquous HTTP. > > Let's see if I understand your proposal: > > You want to stop using a distributed lookup service that has worked well > for 15 years, and you want to replace it with a point-to-point document > retrieval service? No. You don't understand my proposal. > Oh, no. That's wrong. You want to continue using DNS 'for what it was > built' which is mapping between names and addresses. You just don't want > to use it for this particular, new name/address mapping. No. Again, you don't understand my proposal. I just don't want to use DNS to this particular, new name -> lmap record mapping, where the record is some arbitrary octet sequence of maybe several kilobytes. DNS has never been built oder designed for that purpose. So how could it be wrong to not use DNS for something it has not been made for? And, furthermore, analysis of all the comments I received for my RMX drafts and recent discussions showed that some domains would need to dynamically generate the records depending on the query (see the hotmail example in http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-danisch-scaf-00.txt DNS is currently completely unable to provide dynamically generated replies. HTTP servers can easily do that (CGI). Again: I don't want to replace DNS in any way. I just don't want to invent a new use for DNS which DNS can't do properly. That's all. regards Hadmut _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list 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 Feb 9 13:56:45 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA04324 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 13:56:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqGZt-0007NY-2A for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 13:56:17 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i19IuHZj028358 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 13:56:17 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqGZs-0007NJ-US for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 13:56:16 -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 NAA04311 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 13:56:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqGZq-0005jP-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 13:56:14 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqGYy-0005f4-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 13:55:20 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqGYh-0005aH-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 13:55:03 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqGYh-0007Ci-Jp; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 13:55:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqGW8-00076V-5Z for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 13:52:25 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA04149 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 13:52:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqGW5-0005Nj-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 13:52:22 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqGV8-0005Hn-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 13:51:22 -0500 Received: from mout.perfora.net ([217.160.230.41]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqGUZ-0005Cb-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 13:50:47 -0500 Received: from [217.160.230.51] (helo=smtp.perfora.net) by mout.perfora.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1AqGUU-0001h2-00; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 13:50:42 -0500 Received: from [68.29.206.45] (helo=solidmatrix.com) by smtp.perfora.net with asmtp (TLSv1:RC4-MD5:128) (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1AqGUT-0000wZ-00; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 13:50:42 -0500 Message-ID: <4027D678.7080000@solidmatrix.com> From: Yakov Shafranovich Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, he, ru MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alan DeKok CC: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Fwd: [Asrg] Re: Documents for LMAP BOF] References: <20040209115033.2934516CD1@mail.nitros9.org> In-Reply-To: <20040209115033.2934516CD1@mail.nitros9.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.83.2.0 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: Mon, 09 Feb 2004 13:50:32 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Alan DeKok wrote: > Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > >>or perhaps like this: >> >>" LMAP is based on two concepts: publication of policy >> data by a domain, and application of that data by a recipient >> MTA. >>" > > > That's pretty much the text in the -00 draft. Was there any reason > it was changed for -01? > The current draft is here: http://asrg.kavi.com/apps/group_public/download.php/31/draft-irtf-asrg-lmap-discussion-00.txt It states as follows: " LMAP is based on two concepts: publication of authentication data by a domain, and application of that data by a recipient MTA. " This was in response to Hadmut's comment that the original defition was imprecise. 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 Mon Feb 9 14:03:40 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA04606 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 14:03:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqGga-0007xQ-Lw for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 14:03:12 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i19J3CaI030582 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 14:03:12 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqGga-0007xB-GA for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 14:03:12 -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 OAA04575 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 14:03:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqGgY-0006HY-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 14:03:10 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqGfZ-0006Cb-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 14:02:10 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqGea-00065d-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 14:01:08 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqGeU-0007mY-Bo; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 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 1AqGXs-00079H-41 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 13:54:12 -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 NAA04244 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 13:54:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqGXp-0005YB-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 13:54:09 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqGWr-0005SZ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 13:53:10 -0500 Received: from mout.perfora.net ([217.160.230.41]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqGVw-0005MM-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 13:52:12 -0500 Received: from [217.160.230.51] (helo=smtp.perfora.net) by mout.perfora.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1AqGVw-0001nY-00; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 13:52:12 -0500 Received: from [68.29.206.45] (helo=solidmatrix.com) by smtp.perfora.net with asmtp (TLSv1:RC4-MD5:128) (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1AqGVv-0000zV-00; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 13:52:12 -0500 Message-ID: <4027D6CF.7060307@solidmatrix.com> From: Yakov Shafranovich Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, he, ru MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ASRG CC: smtp-verify@asrg.sp.am X-Enigmail-Version: 0.83.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] 3b. SMTP Session Verification - LMAP Discussion Document Submitted as an 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, 09 Feb 2004 13:51:59 -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 The LMAP Discussion document has been submitted as an Internet draft. We have until February 16th to submit a follow up -01 draft. A copy can be found here: http://asrg.kavi.com/apps/group_public/download.php/31/draft-irtf-asrg-lmap-discussion-00.txt 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 Feb 9 14:20:47 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA05442 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 14:20:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqGx9-000165-Vq for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 14:20:20 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i19JKJGJ004211 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 14:20:19 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqGx9-00015q-R7 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 14:20:19 -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 OAA05424 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 14:20:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqGx7-00009k-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 14:20:17 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqGwC-00004T-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 14:19:20 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqGvK-0007nG-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 14:18:26 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqGuw-0000jZ-5U; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 14:18:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqGnc-0008V2-Jd for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 14:10:28 -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 OAA04909 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 14:10:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqGna-0006zu-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 14:10:26 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqGmq-0006tt-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 14:09:41 -0500 Received: from mout.perfora.net ([217.160.230.40]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqGm3-0006o1-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 14:08:51 -0500 Received: from [217.160.230.51] (helo=smtp.perfora.net) by mout.perfora.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1AqGm2-0006Hm-00; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 14:08:50 -0500 Received: from [68.29.206.45] (helo=solidmatrix.com) by smtp.perfora.net with asmtp (TLSv1:RC4-MD5:128) (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1AqGm1-0001Qh-00; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 14:08:50 -0500 Message-ID: <4027DAB6.5000806@solidmatrix.com> From: Yakov Shafranovich Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, he, ru MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" CC: "'Alan DeKok'" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Fwd: [Asrg] Re: Documents for LMAP BOF] References: In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 0.83.2.0 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: Mon, 09 Feb 2004 14:08:38 -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 Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: >> 99.99% of the spam I get is forged. Call me naive, but this says to >>me that spammers believe that forgery is an important part of the >>spamming process. > > > The way I look at it the spammers are using the forgery to get round the > existing filter technology and blacklists. Deny them that tool and the > existing mechanisms become more effective. > > it is a geschtalt thing. > What I find problematic is that there is an existing identity in email - IP addresses. If blacklists are made to be more feature rich, possibly becoming reputation services, that might help. So I am not sure why going to domain identity or sender identity makes a difference. One compelling argument made so far is that IP owners do not care if their identity gets stolen, but domain owners and senders do. IF you raise the cost for IP owners, they will start to care. My second problem, is that there are multiple ways to introduce sender identity into email. We should stop back for a second, and look at the problem from a bird's eye view. If we were to be designed the email system from scratch, how would sender identity be implemented? Would spam still exist in such system? 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 Feb 9 14:23:56 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA05574 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 14:23:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqH0D-0001Pi-DZ for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 14:23:29 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i19JNTSk005428 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 14:23:29 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqH0D-0001PT-9Y for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 14:23:29 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA05560 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 14:23:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqH0A-0000UA-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 14:23:26 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqGzA-0000Np-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 14:22:25 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqGyo-0000II-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 14:22:02 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqGyo-0001AJ-89; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 14:22:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqGwB-00013M-Az for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 14:19:19 -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 OAA05388 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 14:19:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqGw8-00003z-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 14:19:16 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqGvF-0007mk-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 14:18:22 -0500 Received: from mout.perfora.net ([217.160.230.40]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqGuR-0007he-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 14:17:31 -0500 Received: from [217.160.230.52] (helo=smtp.perfora.net) by mout.perfora.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1AqGuR-00070U-00; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 14:17:31 -0500 Received: from [68.29.206.45] (helo=solidmatrix.com) by smtp.perfora.net with asmtp (TLSv1:RC4-MD5:128) (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1AqGuQ-0002xX-00; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 14:17:31 -0500 Message-ID: <4027DCA5.2030309@solidmatrix.com> From: Yakov Shafranovich Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, he, ru MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alan DeKok CC: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Fwd: [Asrg] Re: Documents for LMAP BOF] References: <20040209153819.3CBA0170BB@mail.nitros9.org> In-Reply-To: <20040209153819.3CBA0170BB@mail.nitros9.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.83.2.0 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: Mon, 09 Feb 2004 14:16:53 -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,NEW_DOMAIN_EXTENSIONS autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Alan DeKok wrote: > Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > >>If the entire purpose of these proposals is to make sure that the sender >>is who he claims to be according to DNS information, > > I would say "has permission to claim association with a domain" > >> than what we could >>do is create an ESMTP extension to pass sender's information to the >>server MTA which will be verified via DNS. Since we need to change MTA >>software to support sender rewriting schemes, we might as well add a new >>extension instead, to pass that information explicitly. > > > Sounds fine to me. Can we have a show of hands from people in the > IETF who are *not* opposed to modifying SMTP? > I am not talking about modifying SMTP itself, rather adding an optional ESMTP extension to it. Servers using this extension would be whitelisted, giving people incentive to use it. Servers, that do not will be treated like they are today. The underlying SMTP protocol will not be modified in any way. In SMTP AUTH RFC there is an AUTH parameter for the MAIL FROM command which indicates the sender. If you use some similar mechanism to pass sender information, you do not have to mess around with changing the semantics of the envelope sender that are defined in RFC 2821. Of course, that would assume that you trust the MTA which brings us back to two separate problems: 1. We are trying to authenticate the incoming MTA. 2. We are trying to authenticate the relationsh between the sender's domain and the incoming MTA. DRIP addresses #1, while the other LMAP proposals address #2. What I see as a problem is that sender's identity is not being explicitly given, rather it is implied from #2. I would be much happier if the incoming MTA would pass me the sender's identity and the question of authentication of MTAs would be separate. For example, with DRIP you can tie MTAs to domains and then to a reputation service for IPs/domains of incoming MTAs. Then you would have a separate mechanism for passing the sender's identity. This would protect you from having trusted MTAs relay spam from hijacked computers since the two identities will remain separate. > 99.99% of the spam I get is forged. Call me naive, but this says to > me that spammers believe that forgery is an important part of the > spamming process. > Well the question is, imagine is the email system had identity. Would it have made a difference? 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 Mon Feb 9 14:34:52 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA06188 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 14:34:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqHAe-0002KM-Ir for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 14:34:25 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i19JYGle008940 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 14:34:16 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqHAe-0002K7-E0 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 14:34:16 -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 OAA06143 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 14:34:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqHAb-0001Rl-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 14:34:13 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqH9b-0001LW-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 14:33:12 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqH8h-0001Fs-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 14:32:15 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqH8T-0001ye-CE; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 14:32:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqH5n-0001jv-Jd for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 14:29:15 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA05842 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 14:29:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqH5k-0000zD-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 14:29:13 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqH4q-0000uw-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 14:28:16 -0500 Received: from mout.perfora.net ([217.160.230.41]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqH41-0000qi-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 14:27:25 -0500 Received: from [217.160.230.51] (helo=smtp.perfora.net) by mout.perfora.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1AqH3z-0008Rm-00; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 14:27:23 -0500 Received: from [68.29.206.45] (helo=solidmatrix.com) by smtp.perfora.net with asmtp (TLSv1:RC4-MD5:128) (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1AqH3y-0001tn-00; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 14:27:23 -0500 Message-ID: <4027DF0B.5010501@solidmatrix.com> From: Yakov Shafranovich Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, he, ru MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dave Crocker CC: Hadmut Danisch , smtp-verify@asrg.sp.am, ietf-mxcomp@imc.org, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Devilish: Forget about DNS References: <20040209165004.GA12761@danisch.de> <1527804864.20040209100621@brandenburg.com> In-Reply-To: <1527804864.20040209100621@brandenburg.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.83.2.0 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: Mon, 09 Feb 2004 14:27:07 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dave Crocker wrote: > Oh, no. That's wrong. You want to continue using DNS 'for what it was > built' which is mapping between names and addresses. You just don't want > to use it for this particular, new name/address mapping. > RMX/LMAP drafts address the question of relationships between a given domain and a given MTA's IP address. There is nothing wrong with using DNS for this purpose and as a matter of fact, the XMPP draft uses a very similar mechanism via DNS. HOWEVER, if you want to store sender's identity in DNS that is a different question. Then, I would agree with Hadmut that DNS was not designed to store information about specific email accounts. 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 Feb 9 14:43:46 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA06668 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 14:43:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqHJP-000395-Ra for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 14:43:19 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i19JhJ4o012085 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 14:43:19 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqHJP-00038q-Lj for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 14:43:19 -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 OAA06642 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 14:43:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqHJN-0002Ek-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 14:43:17 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqHIV-0002AS-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 14:42:23 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqHIG-00025T-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 14:42:08 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqHI8-0002wQ-Pb; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 14:42:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqHHT-0002uR-O6 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 14:41:19 -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 OAA06558 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 14:41:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqHHR-00023Y-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 14:41:17 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqHGa-0001yx-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 14:40:25 -0500 Received: from pigeon.verisign.com ([65.205.251.71]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqHG6-0001ty-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 14:39:54 -0500 Received: from mou1wnexc01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.53]) by pigeon.verisign.com (8.12.10/) with ESMTP id i19Jdkn8011127; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 11:39:46 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <1TZHLNAY>; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 11:39:46 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Dave Crocker'" , Hadmut Danisch Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Devilish: Forget about DNS 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, 9 Feb 2004 11:39:39 -0800 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 > Oh, no. That's wrong. You want to continue using DNS 'for > what it was > built' which is mapping between names and addresses. You just > don't want > to use it for this particular, new name/address mapping. Actually Paul Mockapetris stated in a recent interview that the DNS was intended to be more than a mapping from DNS names to IP addresses. Jon had thought it could do more from the start. The thing that makes DNS work is the fact that the query type supported is very weak, exact match only, wildcards are really a default mechanism rather than a true wildcard match you would get in X.500. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Feb 9 15:36:04 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA09939 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 15:36:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqI7z-0006lG-V0 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 15:35:35 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i19KZZib025984 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 15:35:35 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqI7z-0006l1-QR for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 15:35:35 -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 PAA09926 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 15:35:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqI7y-0006kU-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 15:35:34 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqI72-0006dq-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 15:34:37 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqI6D-0006Xx-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 15:33:45 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqI5V-0006Q7-Hh; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 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 1AqHkX-0003Pu-Cc for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 15:11:21 -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 PAA08492 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 15:11:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqHkU-0004bE-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 15:11:18 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqHjZ-0004Wm-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 15:10:21 -0500 Received: from mout.perfora.net ([217.160.230.41]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqHiw-0004S8-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 15:09:42 -0500 Received: from [217.160.230.51] (helo=smtp.perfora.net) by mout.perfora.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1AqHie-0007qq-00; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 15:09:24 -0500 Received: from [68.29.206.45] (helo=solidmatrix.com) by smtp.perfora.net with asmtp (TLSv1:RC4-MD5:128) (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1AqHic-0002hW-00; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 15:09:24 -0500 Message-ID: <4027E8E8.3040404@solidmatrix.com> From: Yakov Shafranovich Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, he, ru MIME-Version: 1.0 To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Patrik_F=E4ltstr=F6m?= CC: Hadmut Danisch , ietf-mxcomp@imc.org, asrg@ietf.org References: <20040209165004.GA12761@danisch.de> <1141F1C8-5B23-11D8-B0AE-000A959CF516@cisco.com> <20040209172720.GA13347@danisch.de> <4366695D-5B3A-11D8-ABA0-000A959CF516@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <4366695D-5B3A-11D8-ABA0-000A959CF516@cisco.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.83.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by ietf.org id PAA08493 Subject: [Asrg] Re: Devilish: Forget about DNS Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2004 15:09:12 -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: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Patrik F=E4ltstr=F6m wrote: > I see several issues here: >=20 >> I proposed to introduce a new RR with the first version of the >> RMX draft in December 2002. Since then I'm drowning in mails like >> "How can you dare...", "We don't want...", "Too many old DNS >> servers, which can't be replaced..." >=20 >=20 > Three problems here: >=20 > (1) The zone file syntax might not be able to handle a new RR _name_=20 > because of parser issues > (2) The zone file syntax might not be able to handle a numeric RR type > (3) A caching resolver might not be able to cache an unknown RR >=20 > Out of these (3) is broken software. (2) is problematic and (1) is=20 > something users have to manage. >=20 I would like to add to this that XMPP uses SRV records to verify the=20 domain name/server IP relationship. See=20 http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-xmpp-core-22.txt, section=20 14.3. 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=20 taxes" (Benjamin Franklin) ------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Feb 9 15:36:06 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA09956 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 15:36:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqI7z-0006ku-JT for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 15:35:37 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i19KZZ16025968 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 15:35:35 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqI7z-0006kl-42 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 15:35:35 -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 PAA09923 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 15:35:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqI7x-0006kP-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 15:35:33 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqI71-0006di-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 15:34:36 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqI6C-0006Xv-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 15:33:44 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqI5V-0006Pz-0w; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 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 1AqHYv-00046y-Vk for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 14:59:22 -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 OAA07377 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 14:59:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqHYt-0003aC-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 14:59:19 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqHY3-0003VZ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 14:58:28 -0500 Received: from ams-iport-1.cisco.com ([144.254.74.5]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqHXl-0003QX-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 14:58:09 -0500 Received: from cisco.com (144.254.74.60) by ams-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 09 Feb 2004 20:58:15 +0100 Received: from XBE-AMS-302.cisco.com (xbe-ams-302.cisco.com [144.254.75.92]) by ams-msg-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id i19JvCL3006807; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 20:57:14 +0100 (MET) Received: from xfe-ams-302.cisco.com ([144.254.75.89]) by XBE-AMS-302.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Mon, 9 Feb 2004 20:57:04 +0100 Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([144.254.74.55]) by xfe-ams-302.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Mon, 9 Feb 2004 20:57:35 +0100 In-Reply-To: <20040209172720.GA13347@danisch.de> References: <20040209165004.GA12761@danisch.de> <1141F1C8-5B23-11D8-B0AE-000A959CF516@cisco.com> <20040209172720.GA13347@danisch.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v612) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <4366695D-5B3A-11D8-ABA0-000A959CF516@cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ietf-mxcomp@imc.org, asrg@ietf.org, smtp-verify@asrg.sp.am From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Patrik_F=E4ltstr=F6m?= To: Hadmut Danisch X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.612) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Feb 2004 19:57:35.0613 (UTC) FILETIME=[F656AAD0:01C3EF46] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] Re: Devilish: Forget about DNS Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2004 20:58:00 +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=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I see several issues here: > I proposed to introduce a new RR with the first version of the > RMX draft in December 2002. Since then I'm drowning in mails like > "How can you dare...", "We don't want...", "Too many old DNS > servers, which can't be replaced..." Three problems here: (1) The zone file syntax might not be able to handle a new RR _name_ because of parser issues (2) The zone file syntax might not be able to handle a numeric RR type (3) A caching resolver might not be able to cache an unknown RR Out of these (3) is broken software. (2) is problematic and (1) is something users have to manage. > , "Too expensive...", Expensive? > "Too > much overhead...", ??? > "Will take 10-20 years...", "We don't support > this...", "Proprietary DNS server, can't be extended...", Well, NAPTR and SRV took not so many years, and in reality a new round of patches for Bind. Remember that we talk about something which is to be visible in the global DNS, which normally public DNS software is in use. The proprietary stuff is normally hidden inside enterprises (or should be replaced anyway). > "Needs to > replace billions of DNS client softare..." No. This I do not agree with. I have not seen any library which can not query for random RR types. Of course, programmers might be lazy and can not write their own code which parse a new RR type, but this is not an argument for me. For example (good or bad example, you decide...) implementing ENUM using NAPTR as part of IOS in Cisco Routers was not a big deal from a DNS point of view. > and much, much more of > that. Yes, a lot of people say these things....but I have not heard for example people in the DNSEXT wg say such things. They instead say things like "don't overload RR type values in the names (like SRV)" and "don't overload use in RR types (like TXT and NAPTR)". > The other problem is that many, many people complained that they > would need to change the firewall or even network structure because > records would grow beyond 512 bytes and require TCP queries. > As if many of today's DNS records wouldn't be longer than 512 bytes > anyway. Correct. Two issues here: (1) I see a larger risk the rr set expands above 512 bytes if we do NOT use a specialized RR type which minimize the size of the data, and the size of the RR set when sending a query. (2) If they have a firewall which doesn't allow DNS over TCP, they have other problems already. > But if we accept to query DNS records with TCP, why, after all, should > we bother to fetch all entries and to stitch information together from > differen TXT and A records or a new record type? We don't want to use TCP. > HTTP is just perfect > for fetching a record of any data type and any length. And it exists. > No need to replace or update HTTP servers. No, HTTP is not fun. Any implementation of HTTP is multiple degrees harder to implement that DNS. Have you read the spec? > All we need is to find the HTTP server which is competent to give the > answer. Finding the HTTP server is a DNS task, that's what DNS is > designed to do. > > And a HTTP query is imho significantly better than trying to fetch > several records throuth DNS/TCP and trying to stitch them together > (and no way to trigger the DNS server to refetch missing records). If you need to first use DNS, and then some other protocol, then this other protocol should be defined so it solves the problem which is to be solved. We should not get a bulldozer to try to catch flies. See for example RFC 3205. paf _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Feb 9 15:37:51 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA10190 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 15:37:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqI9j-0006zG-CK for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 15:37:23 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i19KbNWN026846 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 15:37:23 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqI9i-0006yt-Ue for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 15:37:23 -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 PAA10129 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 15:37:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqI9h-0006wP-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 15:37:21 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqI8u-0006ri-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 15:36:33 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqI8S-0006lc-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 15:36:04 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqI8P-0006mD-PU; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 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 1AqI4n-0006OU-Ou for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 15:32:17 -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 PAA09718 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 15:32:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqI4m-0006PN-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 15:32:16 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqI3o-0006Kk-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 15:31:16 -0500 Received: from mout.perfora.net ([217.160.230.40]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqI33-0006Gq-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 15:30:30 -0500 Received: from [217.160.230.51] (helo=smtp.perfora.net) by mout.perfora.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1AqI34-0003fG-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 15:30:30 -0500 Received: from [68.29.206.45] (helo=solidmatrix.com) by smtp.perfora.net with asmtp (TLSv1:RC4-MD5:128) (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1AqI33-00037z-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 15:30:30 -0500 Message-ID: <4027EDD9.7050405@solidmatrix.com> From: Yakov Shafranovich Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, he, ru MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ASRG X-Enigmail-Version: 0.83.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] 2. Improving Blacklists and Reputation Services Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2004 15:30:17 -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 I would like to pose a question to the group. The IP address of the incoming MTA is the only sure thing that we possess today that cannot be easily spoofed (BGP attacks aside). There are numerous blacklist and reputation services out there that carry and store information about IP addresses. With an LMAP-type proposal like DRIP, this information can also be keyed by domain name. All of this implies that reputation services such as blacklists will continue to exist. However, a major problem has been with these services is that they provide a binary yes/no answer. Many commercial ISPs would like to make the decisions themselves. Filters such as SpamAssasin would probably be better off basing data on a larger scale than a simple yes or no. Taking all of this into account, I ask the following: 1. Is it feasible to develop a standard format and protocols for storing and quering data from reputation services? 2. Is it feasible for such format to be feature rich providing more data than a simple yes/no. Meng Wong of SPF proposed on his list a while back something like how many messages sent by MTA, how many were spam, etc., akin to what SenderBase does. 3. Can this be supplemented by accrediation formats and protocols? 4. Would any of this improve blacklists? 5. Would all of this reduce spam? Feel free to forward this message to other lists, and NANAE. 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 Feb 9 15:54:44 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA10887 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 15:54:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqIQ4-0000BN-Et for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 15:54:16 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i19KsGvQ000695 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 15:54:16 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqIQ4-0000B7-A5 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 15:54:16 -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 PAA10818 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 15:54:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqIQ2-0000Wa-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 15:54:14 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqIP6-0000Pd-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 15:53:17 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqIOB-0000K6-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 15:52:19 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqINt-00085R-3j; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 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 1AqIMD-00081S-7B for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 15:50:17 -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 PAA10704 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 15:50:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqIMB-00009r-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 15:50:15 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqILF-000068-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 15:49:17 -0500 Received: from mout.perfora.net ([217.160.230.40]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqIKv-000025-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 15:48:57 -0500 Received: from [217.160.230.51] (helo=smtp.perfora.net) by mout.perfora.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1AqIKv-0006uA-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 15:48:57 -0500 Received: from [68.29.206.45] (helo=solidmatrix.com) by smtp.perfora.net with asmtp (TLSv1:RC4-MD5:128) (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1AqIKu-0003Tz-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 15:48:57 -0500 Message-ID: <4027F22E.609@solidmatrix.com> From: Yakov Shafranovich Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, he, ru MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ASRG X-Enigmail-Version: 0.83.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] 3b. SMTP Session Verification - SPF Draft submitted as an Internet draft Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2004 15:48:46 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit SPF has been submitted as an Internet draft. A copy of it can be found here until its get posted by the ID admin: http://spf.pobox.com/draft-mengwong-spf-00.txt 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 Mon Feb 9 16:13:48 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA12467 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 16:13:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqIiT-0001un-V6 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:13:20 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i19LDHLC007355 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 16:13:17 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqIiT-0001uY-5X for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:13:17 -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 QAA12387 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 16:13:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqIiR-0002Au-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:13:15 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqIhU-00026z-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:12:17 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqIgf-00023H-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:11:25 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqIgI-0001Xg-77; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:11:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqIdg-0001Oh-JI for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:08:20 -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 QAA12049 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 16:08:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqIde-0001pZ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:08:19 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqIci-0001kt-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:07:21 -0500 Received: from mout.perfora.net ([217.160.230.41]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqIcA-0001ga-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:06:46 -0500 Received: from [217.160.230.52] (helo=smtp.perfora.net) by mout.perfora.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1AqIcB-0008Ph-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:06:47 -0500 Received: from [68.29.206.45] (helo=solidmatrix.com) by smtp.perfora.net with asmtp (TLSv1:RC4-MD5:128) (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1AqIc9-0005CI-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:06:47 -0500 Message-ID: <4027F65A.7090801@solidmatrix.com> From: Yakov Shafranovich Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, he, ru MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ASRG X-Enigmail-Version: 0.83.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] 3b. SMTP Session Verification - Subgroup launched Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:06:34 -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 The SMTP-VERIFY subgroup has been officially started, mailing list archive can be found here: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.asrg.smtpverify/ Interesting parties who want to join should contact the chairs off-list. Yakov ------- Yakov Shafranovich / asrg shaftek.org SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / research solidmatrix.com "And this too shall come to pass" ------- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Feb 9 16:13:48 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA12468 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 16:13:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqIiU-0001v3-MO for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:13:20 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i19LDIcP007371 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 16:13:18 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqIiU-0001uo-Hg for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:13:18 -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 QAA12390 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 16:13:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqIiS-0002B5-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:13:16 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqIhW-00027F-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:12:20 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqIhG-00023L-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:12:02 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqIhG-0001g5-64; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:12:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqIgW-0001YH-Rh for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:11:16 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA12291 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 16:11:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqIgV-00022c-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:11:15 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqIfb-0001yv-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:10:21 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com ([65.205.251.73]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqIf3-0001v5-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:09:46 -0500 Received: from mou1wnexc02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.54]) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.10/) with ESMTP id i19L9jUK021515; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 13:09:45 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <13KV0TZZ>; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 13:09:45 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Yakov Shafranovich'" , ASRG Subject: RE: [Asrg] 2. Improving Blacklists and Reputation Services MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----_=_NextPart_000_01C3EF51.06EE3610" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2004 13:09:38 -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 This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_000_01C3EF51.06EE3610 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > 1. Is it feasible to develop a standard format and protocols > for storing > and quering data from reputation services? Yes, see the attached. > 2. Is it feasible for such format to be feature rich > providing more data > than a simple yes/no. Meng Wong of SPF proposed on his list a > while back > something like how many messages sent by MTA, how many were > spam, etc., akin to what SenderBase does. You could do that, but you have to take account of the fact that the filter is going to have lots of factors to apply in any case. For example how reliable is the information source, does it talk about every email sender or just some? Is it whitelist or blacklist? If you go into too much detail you impose a model on the solution that is probably unnecessary and is going to limit what people can do. I think it is better to simply use the standard A pointer blacklist type hack and then have a metadata record that tells the filter how it thinks the information should be interpreted. > 3. Can this be supplemented by accrediation formats and protocols? Yes, but the volumes of mail are large, you probably don't want to do more than DNS lookup in the first pass. > 4. Would any of this improve blacklists? Yes, the big problem at the moment is that blacklists are not accountable to any party. They tend to operate by attempting to ram the arbitrary policies they choose down every sender's throat. I think it is better to have the sender say what they their sending policy is. If they state outright 'I send unsolicited mail to anyone I choose' then recipients get to say no. If they say 'I send only mail to people who ask for it by quintuple opt-in' and someone catches them spamming, well they chose the empirical test that they failled. > 5. Would all of this reduce spam? Yes. I think that it will happen gradually. In the first phases people will use SPF to stop their domain being joe jobbed. Given that there is so much joe job spam that gains credits in spam assasin or whatever. In the next phase you add in an accreditation element. This could be a paid service, voluntary, whatever the sender chooses. There will be a lot of different programs for different purposes. I suspect we will have the standard honeypot approach and blacklists that simply report spam sent to honeypots from certain domains. These work pretty well provided people do not imagine that the honeypots are infallible. ISPs and others do not control their customers as absolutely as some anti-spam zealots claim they should. There will also be paid schemes similar to that used for authenticating SSL cert customers. SSL is not an infalible anti-CC fraud protocol, merchants can commit abuse after the data has arrived. But it reduces fraud to a very major degree. Then you will have your Gates endorsed, TrustE style bonded sender ideas. Spammers pay. Phill ------_=_NextPart_000_01C3EF51.06EE3610 Content-Type: text/plain; name="accreditation.txt" Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="accreditation.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable SPF Working Group = =20 Internet Draft P. = Hallam-Baker=20 Document: draft-spf-accreditation-00.txt = VeriSign Inc.=20 Expires: July 2004 = January 2004=20 =20 =20 SPF Accreditation Profile=20 =20 =20 Status of this Memo=20 =20 This document is an Internet-Draft and is NOT offered in = accordance=20 with Section 10 of RFC2026, and the author does not provide = the IETF=20 with any rights other than to publish as an Internet-Draft =20 =20 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet = Engineering=20 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note = that =20 other groups may also distribute working documents as = Internet- Drafts.=20 =20 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six = months=20 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents = at any=20 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference = material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."=20 =20 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at=20 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt=20 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed = at=20 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.=20 =20 Abstract=20 =20 This document describes the SPF accreditation mechanism.=20 =20 An accreditation is a description by a third party that = describes an=20 email sender in some way that helps the recipient estimate the = likelihood that a message authenticated as being originated by = the=20 sender is spam. =20 =20 Conventions used in this document=20 =20 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL = NOT",=20 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" = in this=20 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC-2119 [1].=20 =20 Table of Contents=20 =20 =20 =20 Hallam-Baker Expires - July 2004 = [Page 1]=20 =0C SPF Accreditation Profile = January 2004=20 =20 =20 1. = Introduction..................................................2=20 1.1 Accreditation = Authorities.................................2=20 1.2 Accreditation = Statements..................................3=20 1.3 Publication of Accreditation = Statements...................4=20 1.4 Interpretation of Accreditation = Statements................4=20 2. DNS Publication of Accreditation = Statements...................5=20 2.1 Accreditation Authority Description TXT = Record............5=20 2.2 Sender Recipient A = Record.................................5=20 2.3 Sender Recipient TXT = Record...............................5=20 3. Filter Interpretation = Guidelines..............................5=20 3.1 Establishing Provider = Reputation..........................5=20 3.2 Combining = Accreditations..................................6=20 4. Security = Considerations.......................................6=20 4.1 Unauthenticated or Wrongly Authenticated = Sender...........6=20 4.2 Untrustworthy Accreditation = Provider......................6=20 4.3 DNS Security = Issues.......................................7=20 = References.......................................................7=20 = Acknowledgments..................................................7=20 Author's = Addresses...............................................7=20 =20 =20 1. Introduction=20 =20 An accreditation is a statement by a third party that the = recipient of an email may use to estimate the probability that the sender is a spammer.=20 =20 1.1 Accreditation Authorities=20 =20 An Accreditation Authority is a third party that is = responsible for=20 making statements that describe email senders. =20 =20 Accreditation Authorities MAY be restricted or unrestricted. A = restricted accreditation authority only publishes statements = that=20 relate to a restricted number of email senders. An = unrestricted=20 accreditation authority publishes statements for all email = senders.=20 =20 An accreditation authority may take additional measures to = improve=20 the value of their accreditation, for example bringing civil = suits=20 against parties that breach the undertakings given.=20 =20 Accountability of Accreditation Authorities=20 =20 Experience of anti-spam blacklists has shown that those who = attempt=20 to provide accountability must in turn be accountable.=20 =20 There is no difficulty in ensuring that accreditation = providers are=20 accountable to email recipients. An accreditation authority = that=20 =20 =20 Expires - July 2004 = [Page 2]=20 =0C SPF Accreditation Profile = January 2004=20 =20 =20 provides incorrect accreditation will soon be ignored. The = value of=20 an accreditation may be measured empirically by measuring the=20 proportion of the message sent bearing a particular = accreditation=20 that are determined to be spam (e.g. through user reports).=20 =20 If the ability to measure the value of an accreditation agency = is to=20 be of use to the recipient it must be possible for new = accreditation=20 providers to offer their services without artificial barriers = to=20 entry such as magic lists of =91approved=92 providers.=20 =20 One way to avoid this problem is to allow email senders to = specify=20 the accreditation providers they favor. Although it is = unlikely that=20 any individual would specify an accreditation provider that = gave them=20 a bad rating, an accreditation service that had established a=20 sufficiently high reputation on the basis of its positive=20 accreditations could offer to supply negative ratings.=20 =20 This mechanism offers substantial advantages over the current=20 situation in which maintainers of anti-spam blacklists are=20 effectively unaccountable to any party. Accreditation services = are=20 held accountable to both senders and receivers. =20 =20 Practices Considerations=20 =20 As a trusted third party the actions of an Accreditation = Authority=20 are raise numerous legal issues. These issues are outside the = scope=20 of this document. =20 =20 1.2 Accreditation Statements=20 =20 At present a large number of different parties act as = Accreditation=20 Authorities with respect to sending of email. Blacklists = attempt to=20 identify bad faith actors while whitelists look to identify = good=20 faith actors. Whitelist accreditations may involve a simple = promise=20 not to spam or a promise that is backed up by some form of = penalty=20 such as the forfeiture of a bond or the publication of = negative=20 reputation data.=20 =20 Despite the wide variety in the types of data Accreditation=20 Authorities provide the inferences that anti-spam filtering=20 techniques attempt to draw are the same, is a particular item = of=20 email likely or unlikely to be spam. For this reason we leave = the=20 details of the accreditation mechanism to the Accreditation=20 Authority.=20 =20 =20 =20 Expires - July 2004 = [Page 3]=20 =0C SPF Accreditation Profile = January 2004=20 =20 =20 An accreditation authority MAY publish any form of = accreditation=20 statement they choose. The following types of statement are = likely to=20 be of greatest utility.=20 =20 Identity Accreditation=20 =20 The email sender has provided a real world identity and a = physical=20 address at which legal process can be served and this = information has=20 been authenticated by means of some trustworthy process.=20 =20 Undertaking Accreditation=20 =20 In addition to meeting the identity accreditation = requirements, the=20 email sender has undertaken to comply with a specified email = sending=20 policy.=20 =20 Reputation Accreditation=20 =20 In addition to meeting the undertaking accreditation = requirements,=20 the email sender has been determined to be in compliance with = those=20 requirements=20 =20 1.3 Publication of Accreditation Statements=20 =20 Accreditation statements are published by means of an = extension of=20 the existing mechanism used for publication of anti-spam = blacklists=20 via DNS.=20 =20 An accreditation statement is published by means of the DNS A = record.=20 To avoid collisions with other uses of the DNS addresses in = the=20 127.0.x.x loopback address range are used.=20 =20 [TBS]=20 =20 1.4 Accreditation Authority Meta Data=20 =20 The domain prefix specified for an accreditation service MAY = contain=20 a record that describes the use of the particular = accreditation=20 service with the key _accredit.=20 =20 1.5 Interpretation of Accreditation Statements=20 =20 Email recipients MAY interpret Accreditation Statements in any = fashion they choose, including regarding an Accreditation = Statement=20 as a negative indicator.=20 =20 =20 =20 Expires - July 2004 = [Page 4]=20 =0C SPF Accreditation Profile = January 2004=20 =20 =20 The reputation of the Accreditation Authority MUST be = considered=20 suspect until proven reliable.=20 =20 2. DNS Publication of Accreditation Statements=20 =20 2.1 Accreditation Authority Description TXT Record=20 =20 type:{ identity | undertaking | reputation }=20 The type of accreditation provided as described in the=20 introduction.=20 =20 open:=20 If true the accreditation service is open and MAY be = consulted=20 to obtain information even if the sender does not list = the=20 service as an accreditor.=20 =20 protocol: {dns-a | dns-txt | other }=20 The protocol by which the accreditation may be = retrieved. The=20 keyword dns-a specifies that the accreditation record = is=20 encoded as a DNS A record. The keyword dns-txt = specifies that=20 the accreditation record is encoded as a DNS TXT = record.=20 =20 length:=20 The number of bits in the record value that have = significance. =20 =20 scale: {log2 | log10 | linear | none}=20 The scale to be applied when comparing the = corresponding=20 record values.=20 =20 2.2 Sender Recipient A Record=20 =20 The least significant 16 bits of the A record are interpreted = as=20 directed by the description TXT record.=20 =20 2.3 Sender Recipient TXT Record=20 =20 Option here to add in more descriptive information.=20 =20 3. Filter Interpretation Guidelines=20 =20 An email filter MAY make any use it chooses of information = provided.=20 =20 3.1 Establishing Provider Reputation=20 =20 It is suggested that email filters SHOULD determine weightings = to=20 assign to accreditation notices from particular Accreditation=20 Authorities by means of empirical measurement of their = effectiveness=20 =20 =20 Expires - July 2004 = [Page 5]=20 =0C SPF Accreditation Profile = January 2004=20 =20 =20 rather than fixed a-priori values. If fixed weightings are = assigned=20 it SHOULD be possible to override these values.=20 =20 For example an email recipient receiving a large quantity of = email=20 might perform an analysis of the accuracy of various = Accreditation=20 Authorities on a statistically significant sample of that = email.=20 =20 Recipients of smaller quantities of email might rely on third = party=20 assessments of the accuracy of Accreditation Authorities or on = feedback from end-users identifying messages that have been = wrongly=20 categorized.=20 =20 3.2 Combining Accreditations=20 =20 When combining Accreditations from different Accreditation = Providers=20 filters MAY use the information provided in the Accreditation=20 Authority Description record to determine whether the = information=20 provided is likely to have dependencies or not.=20 =20 For example an email sender that is accredited by two = different=20 Accreditation Authorities that verify identity information is = not=20 likely to be significantly less likely to be a spammer than an = email=20 sender that is only accredited by one Accreditation Authority. = But an=20 Email sender that is accredited by one Accreditation Authority = that=20 verifies identity information and another that monitors = complaints=20 from end users is less likely to be a spammer than a sender = with only=20 one of the accreditations.=20 =20 4. Security Considerations=20 =20 4.1 Unauthenticated or Wrongly Authenticated Sender=20 =20 A positive accreditation has no value if someone other than = the=20 accreditation subject can make use of it. It is therefore = essential=20 for the sender of an email to be accredited before a positive = weight=20 is given to an accreditation value.=20 =20 4.2 Untrustworthy Accreditation Provider=20 =20 An Accreditation Authority may be untrustworthy for many = reasons,=20 they may perform their activities in a negligent fashion or = with=20 actual malice.=20 =20 For example a spammer might run an unrestricted accreditation = service=20 that accurately listed all his rivals as spammers but did not = list=20 the spammer who operated the service. Alternatively an = Accreditation=20 =20 =20 Expires - July 2004 = [Page 6]=20 =0C SPF Accreditation Profile = January 2004=20 =20 =20 service may maliciously publish a negative reputation about a=20 subject.=20 =20 For this reason email filters MUST evaluate the reputation of = the=20 Accreditation Authority as well as the data provided by that=20 authority. =20 =20 The number of email senders that reference accreditation = records=20 published by an Accreditation Authority MAY provide an = indication of=20 the relative trustworthiness of that provider.=20 =20 4.3 DNS Security Issues=20 =20 The DNS protocol does not provide cryptographic assurance of = the=20 integrity of the information published and is vulnerable to = Denial of=20 Service attacks.=20 =20 [This is no big deal for this protocol]=20 =20 References=20 =20 =20 1 Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate = Requirement=20 Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997=20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 cknowledgments=20 =20 =20 =20 uthor's Addresses=20 =20 Phillip Hallam-Baker=20 VeriSign Inc.=20 Email: pbaker@verisign.com=20 =20 =20 =20 Expires - July 2004 = [Page 7]=20 =0C ------_=_NextPart_000_01C3EF51.06EE3610-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Feb 9 16:16:01 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA12737 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 16:16:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqIkf-00028a-Be for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:15:33 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i19LFXBQ008210 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 16:15:33 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqIkf-00028L-73 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:15:33 -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 QAA12690 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 16:15:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqIkd-0002Os-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:15:31 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqIjg-0002Hy-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:14:33 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqIjF-0002CN-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:14:05 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqIjB-0001vx-Sb; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:14:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqIfY-0001UP-Fa for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:10:16 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA12238 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 16:10:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqIfW-0001yO-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:10:14 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqIeZ-0001u7-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:09:15 -0500 Received: from mout.perfora.net ([217.160.230.40]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqIde-0001pa-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:08:18 -0500 Received: from [217.160.230.50] (helo=smtp.perfora.net) by mout.perfora.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1AqIdf-0002i5-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:08:19 -0500 Received: from [68.29.206.45] (helo=solidmatrix.com) by smtp.perfora.net with asmtp (TLSv1:RC4-MD5:128) (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1AqIdd-0001Xd-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:08:19 -0500 Message-ID: <4027F69E.505@solidmatrix.com> From: Yakov Shafranovich Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, he, ru MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ASRG X-Enigmail-Version: 0.83.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] 2b. Filtering - Subgroup launched Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:07:42 -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 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The FILTERING subgroup has been officially started, mailing list archive can be found here: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.asrg.filtering/ Interesting parties who want to join should contact the chairs off-list. 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 Mon Feb 9 16:22:18 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA13892 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 16:22:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqIqj-0002oa-1K for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:21:51 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i19LLmm1010814 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 16:21:48 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqIqi-0002oL-SI for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:21:48 -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 QAA13805 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 16:21:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqIqh-0003OS-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:21:47 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqIp3-00032l-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:20:05 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqIo7-0002rq-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:19:07 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqIo1-0002QR-3v; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 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 1AqInb-0002O8-Em for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:18:37 -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 QAA13204 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 16:18:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqInZ-0002nD-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:18:33 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqImd-0002gN-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:17:35 -0500 Received: from mail.crlf.net ([216.126.92.195]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqImF-0002a6-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:17:11 -0500 Received: by mail.crlf.net (Postfix, from userid 100) id 8BEE21F001; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 16:21:06 -0500 (EST) From: David Maxwell To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" Cc: "'Yakov Shafranovich'" , ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] 2. Improving Blacklists and Reputation Services Message-ID: <20040209212106.GG11940@mail> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2004 16:21:06 -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 On Mon, Feb 09, 2004 at 01:09:38PM -0800, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > > 2. Is it feasible for such format to be feature rich > > providing more data > > than a simple yes/no. Meng Wong of SPF proposed on his list a > > while back > > something like how many messages sent by MTA, how many were > > spam, etc., akin to what SenderBase does. [...] > I think it is better to simply use the standard A pointer blacklist type > hack and then have a metadata record that tells the filter how it thinks the > information should be interpreted. > > > 3. Can this be supplemented by accrediation formats and protocols? > > Yes, but the volumes of mail are large, you probably don't want to do more > than DNS lookup in the first pass. A trivial implementation of this would be one where the blacklist returns 127.0.0.[0-100] as their percentage of certainty that the source is a spammer. The local tools can then multiply that percentage by their 'how much I trust blacklist provider X' factor. -- David Maxwell, david@vex.net|david@maxwell.net --> All this stuff in twice the space would only look half as bad! - me _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Feb 9 16:41:00 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA17029 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 16:41:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqJ8p-0006dH-P9 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:40:31 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i19LeVn3025489 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 16:40:31 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqJ8p-0006cd-Dk for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:40:31 -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 QAA16977 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 16:40:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqJ8n-0007Bb-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:40:29 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqJ7v-00075D-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:39:36 -0500 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqJ6z-0006yM-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:38:37 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by mx2.foretec.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1AqJ6z-00018N-Ee for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:38:37 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqJ6P-0006AY-SY; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 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 1AqJ0d-0005F9-SA for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:32:03 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA15617 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 16:32:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqJ0c-0005eH-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:32:02 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqIyS-0005A7-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:29:50 -0500 Received: from mout.perfora.net ([217.160.230.40]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqIvs-0004XS-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:27:08 -0500 Received: from [217.160.230.52] (helo=smtp.perfora.net) by mout.perfora.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1AqIvn-0006eq-00; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:27:03 -0500 Received: from [68.29.206.45] (helo=solidmatrix.com) by smtp.perfora.net with asmtp (TLSv1:RC4-MD5:128) (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1AqIvj-0005cQ-00; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:27:00 -0500 Message-ID: <4027FB18.7020508@solidmatrix.com> From: Yakov Shafranovich Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, he, ru MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" CC: ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] 2. Improving Blacklists and Reputation Services References: In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 0.83.2.0 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: Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:26:48 -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 Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: >>1. Is it feasible to develop a standard format and protocols >>for storing >>and quering data from reputation services? > > Yes, see the attached. There is a big difference between accreditation and reputation. Lumping them together like your draft does not seem to be a good idea. Additionally, why resort to DNS if other possible ways are possible for retrieving such data. Some ISPs might even want to use bulk methods. The DNS packet size might also be an issue if the reputation and accreditation data is rather large. There is also no indication of what the values measure. Multiple values are possible. If an ISP subscribes or gets data from a specific reputation service like MAPS, then it is very likely that other methods aside from DNS can be used. Additionally, if you have both, than new MTAs on the Internet do not need to pay money to someone in order to get accreditated, rather they can use build their reputation over time. Or they can start with accrediation and then switch to reputation services once their reputation has been established. > > >>2. Is it feasible for such format to be feature rich >>providing more data >>than a simple yes/no. Meng Wong of SPF proposed on his list a >>while back >>something like how many messages sent by MTA, how many were >>spam, etc., akin to what SenderBase does. > > > You could do that, but you have to take account of the fact that the filter > is going to have lots of factors to apply in any case. For example how > reliable is the information source, does it talk about every email sender or > just some? Is it whitelist or blacklist? > > If you go into too much detail you impose a model on the solution that is > probably unnecessary and is going to limit what people can do. > My question is exactly what should such model have. If it is extensible enough that shouldn't be a problem. > I think it is better to simply use the standard A pointer blacklist type > hack and then have a metadata record that tells the filter how it thinks the > information should be interpreted. > I do not think that using DNS for this purpose is necessary, we should look into multiple possibilities. > >>3. Can this be supplemented by accrediation formats and protocols? > > > Yes, but the volumes of mail are large, you probably don't want to do more > than DNS lookup in the first pass. > Unless you use other methods. DDOS attacks on blacklists have shown than reliance on DNS might not be such good idea. Other possibilities like P2P services might be feasible. > >>4. Would any of this improve blacklists? > > > Yes, the big problem at the moment is that blacklists are not accountable to > any party. They tend to operate by attempting to ram the arbitrary policies > they choose down every sender's throat. > > I think it is better to have the sender say what they their sending policy > is. If they state outright 'I send unsolicited mail to anyone I choose' then > recipients get to say no. If they say 'I send only mail to people who ask > for it by quintuple opt-in' and someone catches them spamming, well they > chose the empirical test that they failled. > I still think that reputation is separate from accreditation and is still valuable. All of the blacklist services around today are not going to disappear - we will need a way to gauge whether a specific accreditation authority is doing its job, and taking third party spam data into account can help with that. > >>5. Would all of this reduce spam? > > > Yes. > > I think that it will happen gradually. In the first phases people will use > SPF to stop their domain being joe jobbed. Given that there is so much joe > job spam that gains credits in spam assasin or whatever. > There is still a crucial point that SPF/LMAP does NOT reduce joe jobs in the mail content, only the SMTP transaction. We must make this distinction very clear. I still do not understand how domain identity for MTAs is any better than IP identity for MTAs. Sender identity is different. > In the next phase you add in an accreditation element. This could be a paid > service, voluntary, whatever the sender chooses. There will be a lot of > different programs for different purposes. I suspect we will have the > standard honeypot approach and blacklists that simply report spam sent to > honeypots from certain domains. These work pretty well provided people do > not imagine that the honeypots are infallible. ISPs and others do not > control their customers as absolutely as some anti-spam zealots claim they > should. > > There will also be paid schemes similar to that used for authenticating SSL > cert customers. SSL is not an infalible anti-CC fraud protocol, merchants > can commit abuse after the data has arrived. But it reduces fraud to a very > major degree. > > Then you will have your Gates endorsed, TrustE style bonded sender ideas. > Spammers pay. > Why can't we apply these ideas to today's IP blacklists? Also, "innocent before proven guilty" will turn into "guilty until proven innocent" under these schemes. 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 Mon Feb 9 16:44:36 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA17402 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 16:44:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqJCL-0006vj-Fv for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:44:09 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i19Li9wf026633 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 16:44:09 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqJCL-0006vU-Bm for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:44:09 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA17336 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 16:44:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqJCJ-0007g9-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:44:07 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqJBI-0007UD-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:43:04 -0500 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqJAL-0007JM-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:42:05 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by mx2.foretec.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1AqJAL-0001BD-HS for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:42:05 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqJAH-0006gB-53; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:42:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqJ9k-0006fC-5B for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:41:28 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA17099 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 16:41:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqJ9i-0007HR-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:41:26 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqJ8l-0007BJ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:40:27 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com ([65.205.251.73]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqJ7t-00074n-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:39:33 -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 i19LdXUK003186; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 13:39:33 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc03.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <13JX88XM>; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 13:39:33 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Yakov Shafranovich'" , "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" Cc: ASRG Subject: RE: [Asrg] 2. Improving Blacklists and Reputation Services 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, 9 Feb 2004 13:39:28 -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 > There is a big difference between accreditation and > reputation. Lumping > them together like your draft does not seem to be a good idea. Perhaps, but how do I know Yakov's reputation? I have to ask someone. And they cannot tell me Yakov's reputation, they can only tell me their opinion of his reputation. > Additionally, why resort to DNS if other possible ways are > possible for > retrieving such data. Some ISPs might even want to use bulk > methods. This is possible and even likely. But I see that as an optimization rather than a base protocol. In the original spec I proposed supporting different access protocols and folk said, no just try with one to start. Everyone seemed to think that there would have to be a DNS scheme as a minimum. > The > DNS packet size might also be an issue if the reputation and > accreditation data is rather large. There is also no indication of what > the values measure. Multiple values are possible. If an ISP subscribes > or gets data from a specific reputation service like MAPS, then it is > very likely that other methods aside from DNS can be used. That is the role of the meta-data record. Here it would be easiest if it was possible to go to XML for the description. > Additionally, if you have both, than new MTAs on the Internet do not > need to pay money to someone in order to get accreditated, > rather they > can use build their reputation over time. Or they can start with > accrediation and then switch to reputation services once their > reputation has been established. The draft allows for multiple accreditations of different types. You can have as many accreditations as you can get into your DNS records. what type of accreditation you need is likely to depend on what you want to do. A business sending out a lot of contracts is likely to be a lot more concerned about their mail getting through than joe average. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Feb 9 16:51:12 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA18174 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 16:51:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqJIj-0007Rr-Py for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:50:45 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i19Loj90028625 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 16:50:45 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqJIj-0007Rc-J8 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:50:45 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA18171 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 16:50:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqJIh-00012D-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:50:43 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqJHl-0000uV-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:49:46 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqJHE-0000mr-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:49:12 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqJH3-0007EO-J8; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:49:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqJFj-00078I-Ds for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:47:39 -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 QAA17887 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 16:47:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqJFh-0000aN-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:47:37 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqJEh-0000OI-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:46:36 -0500 Received: from mout.perfora.net ([217.160.230.41]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqJDT-00008L-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:45:19 -0500 Received: from [217.160.230.52] (helo=smtp.perfora.net) by mout.perfora.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1AqJDS-0005gL-00; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:45:18 -0500 Received: from [68.29.206.45] (helo=solidmatrix.com) by smtp.perfora.net with asmtp (TLSv1:RC4-MD5:128) (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1AqJDP-0005xy-00; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:45:18 -0500 Message-ID: <4027FF64.9010902@solidmatrix.com> From: Yakov Shafranovich Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, he, ru MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" CC: ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] 2. Improving Blacklists and Reputation Services References: In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 0.83.2.0 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: Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:45:08 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > >>There is a big difference between accreditation and >>reputation. Lumping >>them together like your draft does not seem to be a good idea. > > Perhaps, but how do I know Yakov's reputation? I have to ask someone. And > they cannot tell me Yakov's reputation, they can only tell me their opinion > of his reputation. Correct which is what the current blacklists do. It is upto you to figure out whose opinions you trust. An accrediation service is vouching for someone, a reputation service is stating an opinion of someone's reputation. The two things are different. > >>Additionally, why resort to DNS if other possible ways are >>possible for >>retrieving such data. Some ISPs might even want to use bulk >>methods. > > > This is possible and even likely. But I see that as an optimization rather > than a base protocol. > > In the original spec I proposed supporting different access protocols and > folk said, no just try with one to start. Everyone seemed to think that > there would have to be a DNS scheme as a minimum. > > >>The >>DNS packet size might also be an issue if the reputation and >>accreditation data is rather large. There is also no indication of what >>the values measure. Multiple values are possible. If an ISP subscribes >>or gets data from a specific reputation service like MAPS, then it is >>very likely that other methods aside from DNS can be used. > > > That is the role of the meta-data record. Here it would be easiest if it was > possible to go to XML for the description. > Perhaps we should just discuss what goes into it first, before discussing how its stored and queried. 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 Mon Feb 9 17:20:55 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA22270 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 17:20:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqJlT-00012t-VH for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 17:20:28 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i19MKR5L004009 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 17:20:27 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqJlS-00012Y-MG for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 17:20:26 -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 RAA22036 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 17:20:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqJlQ-0006Mn-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 17:20:24 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqJjD-0005tL-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 17:18:08 -0500 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqJhu-0005ag-03 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 17:16:46 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by mx2.foretec.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1AqJVv-0001br-8g for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 17:04:23 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqJVY-0007ul-QV; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 17:04:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqJVC-0007rM-6I for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 17:03:38 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA19786 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 17:03:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqJVA-0003T5-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 17:03:36 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqJSz-00033l-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 17:01:22 -0500 Received: from pigeon.verisign.com ([65.205.251.71]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqJRR-0002gb-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:59:45 -0500 Received: from mou1wnexc01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.53]) by pigeon.verisign.com (8.12.10/) with ESMTP id i19Lxin8029389; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 13:59:44 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <1TZHL74L>; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 13:59:44 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Yakov Shafranovich'" , "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" Cc: ASRG Subject: RE: [Asrg] 2. Improving Blacklists and Reputation Services 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, 9 Feb 2004 13:59:41 -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 > Correct which is what the current blacklists do. It is upto you to > figure out whose opinions you trust. An accrediation service > is vouching > for someone, a reputation service is stating an opinion of > someone's > reputation. The two things are different. Absolutely not. An accreditation service is simply stating a fact, any fact at all about the subject. Every forum I have attended where accreditation has been discussed has used it in this sense. Attempting to differentiate reputation is doomed to failure because it is a distinction without a difference. If I state fred is a member of the new york state bar a part of that statement is that fred met their character and fitness criteria when he applied and he has not been kicked out since. So that is an accreditation by the bar that includes a reputation component. Most accreditations will incorporate reputation in some degree. The whole point of introducing the term was to serve as a more illustrative name for what in SAML are called 'attribute assertions'. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Feb 9 17:33:46 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA24129 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 17:33:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqJxw-00026Q-0q for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 17:33:20 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i19MXJrh008076 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 17:33:19 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqJxv-00026B-TL for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 17:33:19 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA24084 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 17:33:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqJxt-0000of-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 17:33:17 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqJwv-0000iq-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 17:32:17 -0500 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqJvy-0000bp-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 17:31:18 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by mx2.foretec.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1AqJvy-00028F-0q for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 17:31:19 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqJvj-0001v8-2k; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 17:31:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqJvW-0001tb-8s for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 17:30:50 -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 RAA23847 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 17:30:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqJvT-0000X7-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 17:30:47 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqJub-0000NW-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 17:29:54 -0500 Received: from out1.smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.25]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqJti-0000EH-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 17:28:58 -0500 X-Sasl-enc: 4NEsFpuDA+bdvbbJPQBikA 1076365674 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 538084DE61E; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 17:27:53 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <4028096A.9070503@elvey.com> From: Matthew Elvey 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 Subject: Re: [Asrg] 2. Improving Blacklists and Reputation Services References: <4027EDD9.7050405@solidmatrix.com> In-Reply-To: <4027EDD9.7050405@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: Mon, 09 Feb 2004 14:27:54 -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 2/9/2004,Yakov Shafranovich sent forth electrons to convey: > I would like to pose a question to the group. The IP address of the > incoming MTA is the only sure thing that we possess today that cannot > be easily spoofed (BGP attacks aside). There are numerous blacklist > and reputation services out there that carry and store information > about IP addresses. With an LMAP-type proposal like DRIP, this > information can also be keyed by domain name. > > All of this implies that reputation services such as blacklists will > continue to exist. However, a major problem has been with these > services is that they provide a binary yes/no answer. This is incorrect; several BLs already provide a variety of answers. The reason many BLs provide a binary answer is that the software they run on only allows it (and can thereby be less resource-intensive). 1 bit for all of IPv4 fits in RAM on many machines, especially if compressed... Some that I've posited are: SpamCop provide its spam/ham ratio. Someone who used this IP [threatened to | did] sue me. A spammer who used this IP owes me money. (payola.org) The admins of this IP tell me they provide a free email service, but do their best to police their users. The admins of this IP tell me they provide a free email service, but do their best to police their users. The admins of this IP tell me they don't spam and agree to pay for any that is sent from this IP. AHBL has 18 response codes listed at http://ahbl.org/responsecodes.php > DDOS attacks on blacklists have shown than reliance on DNS might not > be such good idea. Other possibilities like P2P services might be > feasible. Some BLs have found effective ways to defend themselves, as well. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Feb 9 17:47:55 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA25529 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 17:47:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqKBd-00034O-79 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 17:47:29 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i19MlTOl011794 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 17:47:29 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqKBd-000349-2k for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 17:47:29 -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 RAA25504 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 17:47:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqKBa-0002n0-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 17:47:26 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqKAe-0002hh-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 17:46:28 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqK9k-0002ay-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 17:45:32 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqK9G-0002on-1d; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 17:45:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqK0q-0002Bh-Ni for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 17:36:20 -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 RAA24278 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 17:36:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqK0o-00013Y-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 17:36:18 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqJzr-0000z6-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 17:35:19 -0500 Received: from mout.perfora.net ([217.160.230.41]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqJyv-0000uU-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 17:34:21 -0500 Received: from [217.160.230.50] (helo=smtp.perfora.net) by mout.perfora.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1AqJyv-0005LC-00; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 17:34:21 -0500 Received: from [68.29.206.45] (helo=solidmatrix.com) by smtp.perfora.net with asmtp (TLSv1:RC4-MD5:128) (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1AqJyu-0003Lj-00; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 17:34:21 -0500 Message-ID: <40280ADD.1030909@solidmatrix.com> From: Yakov Shafranovich Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, he, ru MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Matthew Elvey CC: ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] 2. Improving Blacklists and Reputation Services References: <4027EDD9.7050405@solidmatrix.com> <4028096A.9070503@elvey.com> In-Reply-To: <4028096A.9070503@elvey.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.83.2.0 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: Mon, 09 Feb 2004 17:34:05 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Matthew Elvey wrote: > On 2/9/2004,Yakov Shafranovich sent forth electrons to convey: ... >> All of this implies that reputation services such as blacklists will >> continue to exist. However, a major problem has been with these >> services is that they provide a binary yes/no answer. > > This is incorrect; several BLs already provide a variety of answers. Would there be a value to creating a standard protocol and format for such data? 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 Feb 9 17:54:20 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA25933 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 17:54:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqKHq-0003cQ-4L for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 17:53:54 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i19Mrsp8013904 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 17:53:54 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqKHq-0003cA-0Q for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 17:53:54 -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 RAA25895 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 17:53:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqKHn-0003RH-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 17:53:51 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqKGd-0003HH-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 17:52:39 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqKG7-0003Ax-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 17:52:07 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqKG0-0003J6-AV; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 17:52:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqK9p-0002xg-SV for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 17:45:38 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA25354 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 17:45:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqK9n-0002bH-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 17:45:35 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqK9E-0002T6-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 17:45:00 -0500 Received: from mout.perfora.net ([217.160.230.41]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqK80-0002F5-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 17:43:44 -0500 Received: from [217.160.230.50] (helo=smtp.perfora.net) by mout.perfora.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1AqK7r-0007GW-00; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 17:43:35 -0500 Received: from [68.29.206.45] (helo=solidmatrix.com) by smtp.perfora.net with asmtp (TLSv1:RC4-MD5:128) (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1AqK7q-0003XS-00; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 17:43:35 -0500 Message-ID: <40280D0D.3090504@solidmatrix.com> From: Yakov Shafranovich Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, he, ru MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" CC: ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] 2. Improving Blacklists and Reputation Services References: In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 0.83.2.0 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: Mon, 09 Feb 2004 17:43:25 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: >>Correct which is what the current blacklists do. It is upto you to >>figure out whose opinions you trust. An accrediation service >>is vouching >> for someone, a reputation service is stating an opinion of >>someone's >>reputation. The two things are different. > > > Absolutely not. An accreditation service is simply stating a fact, any fact > at all about the subject. > Ok, I will accept that (although somehow whenever I think "accreditation" I am getting a knee-jerk reaction that it will automatically cost money). So what we have is as follows (I think): 1. MTA identity. 2. Domain identity. 3. Sender's identity. And now different accreditation services that provide facts about that subject in two situtations: 1. The sender/MTA/domain explicitely states that it is accredited with a specific service. 2. The receiver uses an accreditation service to obtain information such as reputation about a specific subject without that subject telling the receiver anything. Several things bother me here. First of all, the MTA, sender and sender's domain are different identities and require different mechanisms. The MTA might want to advertise accreditation with ESMTP or DNS, while the domain or sender might want to do so via an email header. Second, checking multiple accreditation authorities with a more complicated syntax slows down the filtering process. Third, checking accreditation on per sender basis slows things down even more and allows for a DDOS attack against the accredidation authority and the receiver. > The whole point of introducing the term was to serve as a more illustrative > name for what in SAML are called 'attribute assertions'. > An interesting thought - can we use SAML for exchanging reputation and accreditation info? 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 Feb 9 18:28:28 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA29920 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 18:28:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqKos-000396-I3 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 18:28:02 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i19NS2YQ012083 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 18:28:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqKos-00038c-4e for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 18:28:02 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA29688 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 18:27:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqKop-00009i-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 18:27:59 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqKnc-0007hQ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 18:26:45 -0500 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqKlW-0007Gp-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 18:24:34 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by mx2.foretec.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1AqKWD-0002Ys-KX for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 18:08:46 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqKVV-0007Iy-I8; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 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 1AqKTE-0006dr-C4 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 18:05:40 -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 SAA27274 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 18:05:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqKTB-0005Jc-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 18:05:37 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqKSL-0005BY-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 18:04:45 -0500 Received: from mout.perfora.net ([217.160.230.41]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqKRh-000545-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 18:04:05 -0500 Received: from [217.160.230.50] (helo=smtp.perfora.net) by mout.perfora.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1AqKRg-0002yM-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 18:04:04 -0500 Received: from [68.29.206.45] (helo=solidmatrix.com) by smtp.perfora.net with asmtp (TLSv1:RC4-MD5:128) (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1AqKRf-0003v6-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 18:04:04 -0500 Message-ID: <402811D7.5060008@solidmatrix.com> From: Yakov Shafranovich Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, he, ru MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ASRG X-Enigmail-Version: 0.83.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] 3b. SMTP Session Verification - Marking MTAs in 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: Mon, 09 Feb 2004 18:03:51 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit MTA MARK draft has been posted to the ID archive: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-stumpf-dns-mtamark-00.txt Abstract: " In contrast to other more extensive approaches to deal with unsolicited email, commonly called "spam", this memo discusses a very simple authentication scheme. It uses marking of hosts in reverse DNS (in-addr.arpa zone) to allow the receiving mail transfer agents to decide whether the connecting (sending) host is a designated mail transfer agent (MTA) or not. Despite being a weaker scheme than most of the other proposals currently discussed, it can reduce the amount of spam and viruses/ worms significantly and has the advantage that it can be implemented based on existing and well-established Internet technology like DNS without any changes to that technology. " 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 Feb 9 18:45:04 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA01147 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 18:45:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqL4x-0004hg-25 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 18:44:39 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i19NidPr018074 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 18:44:39 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqL4w-0004hR-Qk for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 18:44:38 -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 SAA01102 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 18:44:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqL4t-0002E3-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 18:44:35 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqL3v-000283-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 18:43:36 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqL3U-00022R-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 18:43:08 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqL3M-0004VT-K4; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 18:43:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqL2q-0004Uy-0f for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 18:42:31 -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 SAA01054 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 18:42:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqL2m-00021d-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 18:42:25 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqL1p-0001xM-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 18:41:26 -0500 Received: from rwcrmhc11.comcast.net ([204.127.198.35]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqL1K-0001p2-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 18:40:55 -0500 Received: from fda.zemos.net ([68.38.12.170]) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc11) with ESMTP id <20040209234014013006tjg9e>; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 23:40:15 +0000 Received: from zemos.net (phil [10.0.0.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by fda.zemos.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9203C186A3; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 18:40:13 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <40281A5D.7000301@zemos.net> From: Philip Miller User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040122 Debian/1.6-1 X-Accept-Language: en, en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alan DeKok Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: Documents for LMAP BOF References: <20040209120415.E012E16CD1@mail.nitros9.org> In-Reply-To: <20040209120415.E012E16CD1@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, 09 Feb 2004 18:40:13 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Alan DeKok wrote: > Philip Miller wrote: >>Paragraph 2 is bluntly wrong. The intent of creating LMAP is that eventually >>it WILL be used to reject mail, because it is assumed to be forged. > > Absolutely not. > > The intent is to publish information which lets the recipient MTA > make that decision. This is a very different statement of intent than > what you wrote. > > I expect that *many* implementors of LMAP will choose to reject > non-compliant messages, but it would be inappropriate for anyone to > say that those MTA's are *required* to reject mail based on LMAP. Perhaps I wasn't clear. I didn't mean that recipient MTAs *MUST* 55x LMAP-violating mail, I meant that they would be explicitly *allowed* to, which is contrary to the wording in the most recent draft. >>I don't like how the comparison section phrases LMAP as a modification to >>RFC 2821. I suspect that such wording will raise a lot of unnecessary >>resistance to LMAP for no particular reason. I interpreted that part of RFC >>2821 to mean that recipient MTAs should not reject mail on the basis of the >>the HELO name not resolving to the connecting IP or the connecting IP not >>reverse-resolving to the HELO name. Following this interpretation, LMAP >>suggests neither, and thus is no modification to 2821, only an application >>of the liberties of "local policy"-based rejections. > > > I agree. The text in the -00 draft tried to explain this > distinction. > > The -01 document says: (2.2.5, page 7) > > >>>HELO/EHLO-based LMAP would >>> modify RFC2821 by allowing the server to reject mail based on >>> HELO/EHLO validation failure. > > > I disagree completely. The HELO/EHLO validation in RFC2821 is about > looking up the reverse IP of the originating MTA, and seeing if the > name returned is the same as the HELO/EHLO field. LMAP does something > completely different, it looks up in the domain of the HELO/EHLO > field, to see if the originating IP is permitted to claim association > with that domain. Glad we're agreed on this point. Philip Miller _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Feb 9 18:50:16 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA01569 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 18:50:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqL9y-0004wQ-DG for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 18:49:50 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i19Nno2J018988 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 18:49:50 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqL9y-0004wB-9K for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 18:49:50 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA01548 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 18:49:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqL9v-0002z3-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 18:49:47 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqL8y-0002rW-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 18:48:48 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqL8M-0002k4-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 18:48:10 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqL8D-0004na-4K; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 18:48:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqL7P-0004m5-SA for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 18:47:12 -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 SAA01275 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 18:47:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqL7M-0002aI-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 18:47:08 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqL6L-0002Pf-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 18:46:06 -0500 Received: from sccrmhc13.comcast.net ([204.127.202.64]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqL5U-0002Eu-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 18:45:12 -0500 Received: from fda.zemos.net ([68.38.12.170]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc13) with ESMTP id <2004020923444201600fa0vue>; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 23:44:42 +0000 Received: from zemos.net (phil [10.0.0.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by fda.zemos.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B311186A3; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 18:44:42 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <40281B69.10203@zemos.net> From: Philip Miller User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040122 Debian/1.6-1 X-Accept-Language: en, en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jon Kyme Cc: ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: Documents for LMAP BOF 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, 09 Feb 2004 18:44:41 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,NO_COST autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jon Kyme wrote: >>How about we look at a case where the forwarder has no profit, just cost: >>debian.org. Many debian.org users use their addresses as a general >>purpose >>address, with the intention that they will always have it, to forward >>wherever they go. > > OK, debian.org are providing the "appearance" of a mailbox for no charge. > Jolly good. Well done. > >> In many particular cases, that 3rd party is a large ISP corporation >> that has no profit motive to let end-users selectively disable >> filtering of some of their mail. Thus, debian.org, ostensibly an agent >> of the recipient, is forced to bear a cost (taking responsibility for >> the message in the eyes of the recipient ISP) in place of the sender. > > Indeed, that's the point. debian.org *are* sending this mail to > isp.example. They're doing this as the agent of a person who is a customer > of isp.example They are not doing this *for* isp.example, they're doing > this *to* isp.example > > isp.example hold debian.org responsible for sending it. What's wrong with > that? > > If isp.example users can't modulate the filtering behaviour to pass-thru > the debian.org routed stuff and some LMAP-thing is active - this will be a > hostile environment for forwarding. debian.org have a number of > alternatives: > > 1. do the rewriting (and accept some implied responsibility?) > 2. refuse to rewrite and get blocked by systems which don't like the look > of mail from example.com routed via debian.org > 3. Provide a real mailbox, POP / IMAP. > >> Perhaps what we need is some standardized way for the >> recipient/forwarding user to authorize the message in advance of any >> filtering. Unfortunately, that probably won't be effective in this case >> unless we got an ESMTP extension designed for it, because ISPs want to >> filter as early as possible in the transaction. > > Ideally, a system running LMAP-thing should give users the ability to > configure it in such a way as not to be forwarding-hostile. If there's no > "profit-motive" for supporting this, it suggests that customer demand is > too small. > > I'm very much in favour of some standard for configuring filtering at the > ISP. However, I can't see how one could make this a pre-requisite for LMAP > deployment. > > It seems possible that widespread adoption of LMAP-like systems could > increase costs for forwarders. I don't believe there's a rule which says > that the forwarders p.o.v. is more significant than the receiving ISP's. > > The feature that allows debian.org to forward transparently has costs. > Spome of these costs are currently borne by mom&pop.example.com when their > little mail server chokes on 50k bounces an hour from yahoo for spam they > didn't send. > > The costs of spam at isp.example are passed onto the user, they have a > business model which supports this. If the forwarder doesn't have such a > business, they may have to reconsider the services they offer. > > Omelette v. Eggs, I suppose, or, better, TANSTAAFL. Perhaps it's time to suggest a different approach for forwarders. Since forwarders are clearly trusted by the user, we should make it possible for the forwarder to deliver directly to the user's inbox, rather than transferring messages like any other mailer. What if the user had the forwarding system connect to his IMAP host and inject the message there? The biggest problem I see with this is that it breaks multiple forwarding and intermediate filtering (viruses, procmail/popfile sorting, etc.). If it injected to a special folder, that would be solved, too. Now we just need a standard way to carry this out for forwarders to implement. Philip Miller _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Feb 9 18:52:07 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA01729 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 18:52:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqLBl-00059X-HU for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 18:51:41 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i19NpfYi019801 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 18:51:41 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqLBl-00059I-Cz for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 18:51:41 -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 SAA01726 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 18:51:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqLBi-0003E4-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 18:51:38 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqLAp-00036L-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 18:50:44 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqLA9-0002zS-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 18:50:01 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqLA9-0004x6-FR; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 18:50:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqL9w-0004w1-BU for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 18:49:48 -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 SAA01542 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 18:49:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqL9t-0002yn-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 18:49:45 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqL8t-0002qo-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 18:48:44 -0500 Received: from mail1.panix.com ([166.84.1.72]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqL80-0002hy-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 18:47:48 -0500 Received: from panix5.panix.com (panix5.panix.com [166.84.1.5]) by mail1.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4059D4875E for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 18:47:42 -0500 (EST) Received: (from sethb@localhost) by panix5.panix.com (8.11.6p2-a/8.8.8/PanixN1.1) id i19NldZ24320; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 18:47:39 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200402092347.i19NldZ24320@panix5.panix.com> From: Seth Breidbart To: asrg@ietf.org In-reply-to: <4027FF64.9010902@solidmatrix.com> (message from Yakov Shafranovich on Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:45:08 -0500) Subject: Re: [Asrg] 2. Improving Blacklists and Reputation Services References: <4027FF64.9010902@solidmatrix.com> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2004 18:47:39 -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 Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > An accrediation service is vouching for someone, a reputation > service is stating an opinion of someone's reputation. The two > things are different. How are they different (in any way that matters to me)? In both cases, a third party X is saying something to the effect of "I think you should trust Y." (Or is it that accreditation can only be positive, while reputation can be positive or negative? In that case, I see no reason for accreditation services since they're strictly a subset of reputation services.) Seth _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Feb 9 19:15:56 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA03574 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 19:15:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqLYn-00067e-8Z for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 19:15:29 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1A0FTFd023528 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 19:15:29 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqLYn-00067P-0A for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 19:15:29 -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 TAA03569 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 19:15:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqLYl-0006JZ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 19:15:27 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqLY4-0006Eq-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 19:14:44 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqLXX-00069h-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 19:14:11 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqLXM-0005xP-Tz; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 19:14:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqLWv-0005wO-W5 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 19:13:34 -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 TAA03449 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 19:13:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqLWu-00068g-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 19:13:32 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqLW2-00063H-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 19:12:38 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com ([65.205.251.73]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqLVM-0005xb-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 19:11:56 -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 i1A0BuUK003325; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 16:11:56 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc03.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <13JX9MH9>; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 16:11:55 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Yakov Shafranovich'" , "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" Cc: ASRG Subject: RE: [Asrg] 2. Improving Blacklists and Reputation Services 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, 9 Feb 2004 16:11:48 -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 > Ok, I will accept that (although somehow whenever I think > "accreditation" I am getting a knee-jerk reaction that it will > automatically cost money). I think that there will automatically be a cost. But that may be borne by the sender, the recipient, the accreditor or even a charitable basis. Its like the root servers, they are important, they are volunteer run, but they are not cost-free by any stretch of the imagination. > So what we have is as follows (I think): > 1. MTA identity. > 2. Domain identity. > 3. Sender's identity. People start to argue over 'identity' I think we have hooks we can hang the accreditation on. email addresses are one type of 'identity'. I would relabel the rest 'intersubjective agreement between the accreditors as to the party signified by the name'. Yeas, it sounds horrible, and it is not likely many folk here read semiotics and hermenetics. The basic insight I got from the hermeneutic stuff was that if you get picky you can claim any statement is subjective, you just attack the axioms. Black is white if you refuse to believe the evidence to the contrary. I think that a lot of the argumentation on identity ends up as this sort of issue. Yes every name is inherently subjective, they are all assigned at random (according to the trichotemy of Sebok that is what makes it a name). But even though there is no objective definition of 'Microsoft' there is a community reality, what could be called an intersubjective agreement as to who Microsoft is. Yes, the name is only given in the first place by government decree, another government could disagree. The folks in Sealand could declare that Microsoft was somebody else and if you look at it from a strict philosophical point of view they could say that their definition is correct with the same degree of certainty, even though no other country recognises them as a country. But it violates the intersubjective definition that the other 99.999% of the planet who live in the real world agree on. > Third, checking accreditation on per sender basis slows > things down even > more and allows for a DDOS attack against the accredidation authority > and the receiver. Better have some fat pipes :-) Yes, these are issues but they are soluble. If we cannot protect DNS from DoS we are sunk in any of these schemes. > > The whole point of introducing the term was to serve as a > more illustrative > > name for what in SAML are called 'attribute assertions'. > > > > An interesting thought - can we use SAML for exchanging > reputation and > accreditation info? Yes, absolutely. That is one of the things I designed it to do. But the anti-spam world is not very keen on XML. I think you would find it very heavy for a first line of defense. I believe we will end up with a multilayer defense. On the outside we will use lightweight DNS based schemes to decide 'do I want these packets at all'. Then we can do more detailed analysis, taking in more data, doing more work. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Feb 9 19:20:06 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA04066 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 19:20:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqLcp-0006Li-Cc for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 19:19:39 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1A0JdbS024400 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 19:19:39 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqLcp-0006LT-7s for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 19:19:39 -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 TAA03928 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 19:19:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqLcn-00071g-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 19:19:37 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqLbd-0006md-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 19:18:26 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqLaG-0006Vj-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 19:17:00 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqLaG-0006Ad-OY; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 19:17:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqLZk-00069M-4E for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 19:16:28 -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 TAA03610 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 19:16:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqLZi-0006Q3-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 19:16:26 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqLYm-0006Jo-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 19:15:29 -0500 Received: from out1.smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.25]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqLYK-0006Ey-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 19:15:00 -0500 X-Sasl-enc: Wr773Z4m/TeugTm95eT1Mw 1076372092 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 E72454DE555; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 19:14:51 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <4028227B.60801@elvey.com> From: Matthew Elvey 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 Subject: Re: [Asrg] 2. Improving Blacklists and Reputation Services References: <4027EDD9.7050405@solidmatrix.com> <4028096A.9070503@elvey.com> <40280ADD.1030909@solidmatrix.com> In-Reply-To: <40280ADD.1030909@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: Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:14:51 -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 2/9/2004 2:34 PM, Yakov Shafranovich sent forth electrons to convey: > Matthew Elvey wrote: > >> On 2/9/2004,Yakov Shafranovich sent forth electrons to convey: > > ... > >>> All of this implies that reputation services such as blacklists will >>> continue to exist. However, a major problem has been with these >>> services is that they provide a binary yes/no answer. >> >> >> This is incorrect; several BLs already provide a variety of answers. > > > Would there be a value to creating a standard protocol and format for > such data? My plate is full, but I think so. Exact definitions of what an open relay, or a dial-up IP, or a spamming IP is differ, but a standard protocol and form could still be useful http://mail-abuse.com/rbl+/ uses a bitwise binary scheme. I'd guess Paul Vixie/MAPS set the defacto standard of using 127/8 ips. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Feb 9 20:01:56 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA07617 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 20:01:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqMHH-0008IB-UC for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 20:01:27 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1A11RLY031874 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 20:01:27 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqMHH-0008I1-OK for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 20:01:27 -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 UAA07606 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 20:01:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqMHF-00050V-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 20:01:25 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqMGL-0004wO-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 20:00:30 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqMG5-0004s7-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 20:00:13 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqMFv-000880-Q5; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 20:00:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqMEZ-00085n-5M for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 19:58:39 -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 TAA07520 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 19:58:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqMEX-0004lv-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 19:58:37 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqMDR-0004gl-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 19:57:30 -0500 Received: from mout.perfora.net ([217.160.230.41]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqMCn-0004c7-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 19:56:49 -0500 Received: from [217.160.230.52] (helo=smtp.perfora.net) by mout.perfora.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1AqMCj-0004eS-00; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 19:56:45 -0500 Received: from [68.29.153.252] (helo=solidmatrix.com) by smtp.perfora.net with asmtp (TLSv1:RC4-MD5:128) (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1AqMCi-00019E-00; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 19:56:45 -0500 Message-ID: <40282C38.9080200@solidmatrix.com> From: Yakov Shafranovich Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, he, ru MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" CC: ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] 2. Improving Blacklists and Reputation Services References: In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 0.83.2.0 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: Mon, 09 Feb 2004 19:56:24 -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 Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: >>So what we have is as follows (I think): >>1. MTA identity. >>2. Domain identity. >>3. Sender's identity. > > > People start to argue over 'identity' > > I think we have hooks we can hang the accreditation on. email addresses are > one type of 'identity'. > > I would relabel the rest 'intersubjective agreement between the accreditors > as to the party signified by the name'. > > Yeas, it sounds horrible, and it is not likely many folk here read semiotics > and hermenetics. The basic insight I got from the hermeneutic stuff was that > if you get picky you can claim any statement is subjective, you just attack > the axioms. Black is white if you refuse to believe the evidence to the > contrary. > My main concern is identity of the agent that injects the mail into the system (MTA) as opposed to the machine/human sender that actually created the message. I think that these two identities are inherently separate from each other and should be addressed separately. >>>The whole point of introducing the term was to serve as a >>>>more illustrative >>>>>name for what in SAML are called 'attribute assertions'. >>>>> >>An interesting thought - can we use SAML for exchanging >>reputation and >>accreditation info? > > > Yes, absolutely. That is one of the things I designed it to do. But the > anti-spam world is not very keen on XML. I think you would find it very > heavy for a first line of defense. Has there been any work on a profile of SAML for this kind of stuff? Would there be enough interested parties in this that we can possibly get cracking on it? 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 Feb 9 21:23:58 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA11260 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 21:23:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqNYh-00047A-B0 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 21:23:31 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1A2NVSH015816 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 21:23:31 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqNYg-000471-OX for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 21:23:30 -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 VAA11257 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 21:23:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqNYe-0005Jh-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 21:23:28 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqNXj-0005Fo-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 21:22:32 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqNXW-0005BS-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 21:22:18 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqNXE-0003zM-Ll; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 21:22:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqNWi-0003yq-IS for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 21:21:28 -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 VAA11217 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 21:21:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqNWf-0005A1-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 21:21:26 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqNVj-00055X-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 21:20:28 -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 1AqNUy-00051Z-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 21:19:40 -0500 Received: from newgiles.nitros9.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.nitros9.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96DBA170BB for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 21:22:11 -0500 (EST) From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Fwd: [Asrg] Re: Documents for LMAP BOF] In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 09 Feb 2004 13:50:32 EST." <4027D678.7080000@solidmatrix.com> Message-Id: <20040210022211.96DBA170BB@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, 09 Feb 2004 21:22:11 -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=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > > That's pretty much the text in the -00 draft. Was there any reason > > it was changed for -01? > > > > The current draft is here: > > http://asrg.kavi.com/apps/group_public/download.php/31/draft-irtf-asrg-lmap-discussion-00.txt The content of that URL is the -01 draft. It's a *very* bad idea to confuse the two versions. If nothing else, it silently deletes the historical record of the development of the document. > It states as follows: ... > This was in response to Hadmut's comment that the original defition was > imprecise. The original text about "policy" was there because of discussions on asrg & asrg-rmx about the topic. LMAP is not authentication of identity. While the original definition may have been imprecise, it's *intention* was to be imprecise, because of the different policies published by the different proposals. Authentication is just one example of application of a policy. There may be others, like authorization... Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Feb 9 23:49:06 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA15968 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 23:49:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqPp9-0001rb-C1 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 23:48:39 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1A4mdWt007157 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 23:48:39 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqPp9-0001rK-1M for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 23:48:39 -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 XAA15950 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 23:48:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqPp7-0003i4-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 23:48:37 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqPoP-0003d3-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 23:47:54 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqPnp-0003Vv-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 23:47:17 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqPnY-0001eb-RW; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 23:47:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqPnX-0001eP-0B for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 23:46:59 -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 XAA15836 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 23:46:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqPnU-0003U8-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 23:46:56 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqPmU-0003Ly-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 23:45:54 -0500 Received: from mail016.syd.optusnet.com.au ([211.29.132.167]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqPli-0003BT-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 23:45:06 -0500 Received: from zen.fernhaven (c211-30-106-146.carlnfd1.nsw.optusnet.com.au [211.30.106.146]) by mail016.syd.optusnet.com.au (8.11.6p2/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i1A4iYw22239 for ; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 15:44:35 +1100 Received: from [172.16.0.129] (helo=fred.fernhaven) by zen.fernhaven with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1AqPlB-0006bO-00 for ; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 15:44:33 +1100 From: Brett Watson Organization: PhD Student, Macquarie University To: asrg@ietf.org User-Agent: KMail/1.5.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200402101544.32050.famous-asrg@nutters.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] 3b. SMTP Session Verification - The Forwarding Problem Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 15:44:31 +1100 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,HTML_MESSAGE, HTML_SHOUTING9 autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Philip Miller wrote (in reference to the verification problem during mail forwarding): > Since forwarders are clearly trusted by the user, we should make it possible > for the forwarder to deliver directly to the user's inbox, rather than > transferring messages like any other mailer. I disagree. As you go on to say, this breaks instances where there is more than one forwarding, and there is no standard way to deliver a message into an inbox other than SMTP anyhow. (Yes, IMAP has APPEND, and those people who are using IMAP now could already be using this as a forwarding mechanism if they wanted to.) I have an alternative suggestion: make the act of forwarding explicit in the SMTP dialogue. If mail from to is forwarded to , then this normally results in a dialogue between the MTAs for and including "MAIL From:" and "RCPT To:" without explicit mention of anywhere. This is indistinguishable from the case where a user at the MTA for impersonates . The forwarding information could be made explicit in something like the following hypothetical ESMTP extension. Let the ESMTP keyword be "VIA", which allows the additional parameter "Via:" in the MAIL command. The conversation between the MTAs for and now looks as follows. C: 220 C.domain SMTP server ready B: EHLO B.domain C: 250-C.domain greets B.domain C: 250 VIA B: MAIL From: Via: C: 250 OK B: RCPT To: C: 250 OK (etc.) The MTA for can now perform LMAP-like tests against the "Via:" claim. Where there is more than one intermediate forwarding step, the "Via:" clause can specify a comma-separated list of paths, the last of which the sending system claims to represent. Thus, if forwarded to using the same system, the critical line would read, "MAIL From: Via:,". Aside from making the mail system easier to analyse (by preserving more information about the delivery process), this would allow recipients to explicitly reject forwarded mail in cases where they are not expecting any. It may be preferable to insert the "Via:" clause in the RCPT command (as in "RCPT To: Via:"), because there are some obscure cases where this would be more efficient. Finding them is left as an exercise for the reader at this time. Regards, TFBW _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Feb 10 00:28:13 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA17324 for ; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 00:28:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqQQy-0003nR-HN for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 00:27:46 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1A5RiWf014587 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 00:27:44 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqQQy-0003nC-Ax for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 00:27:44 -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 AAA17309 for ; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 00:27:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqQQv-0007DS-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 00:27:41 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqQQ8-000787-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 00:26:53 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqQPS-000711-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 00:26:10 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqQPK-0003bX-DP; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 00:26:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqQOs-0003Yv-UA for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 00:25:34 -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 AAA17225 for ; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 00:25:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqQOq-0006xh-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 00:25:32 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqQNt-0006qH-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 00:24:33 -0500 Received: from zcars04e.nortelnetworks.com ([47.129.242.56]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqQN0-0006fy-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 00:23:38 -0500 Received: from zcard307.ca.nortel.com (zcard307.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.67]) by zcars04e.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.6/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id i1A5N6418633 for ; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 00:23:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard307.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id 1FNDR0QX; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 00:23:07 -0500 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (abrw001r.ca.nortel.com [47.9.16.58]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id 12CGPQFR; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 00:23:06 -0500 Message-ID: <40286AB5.6040706@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.6b) Gecko/20031205 Thunderbird/0.4 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] 2. Improving Blacklists and Reputation Services References: <4027EDD9.7050405@solidmatrix.com> <4028096A.9070503@elvey.com> <40280ADD.1030909@solidmatrix.com> <4028227B.60801@elvey.com> In-Reply-To: <4028227B.60801@elvey.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.83.2.0 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: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 00:23:01 -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 Matthew Elvey wrote: > On 2/9/2004 2:34 PM, Yakov Shafranovich sent forth electrons to convey: >> Would there be a value to creating a standard protocol and format for >> such data? > My plate is full, but I think so. Exact definitions of what an open > relay, or a dial-up IP, or a spamming IP is differ, but a standard > protocol and form could still be useful > http://mail-abuse.com/rbl+/ uses a bitwise binary scheme. I'd guess Paul > Vixie/MAPS set the defacto standard of using 127/8 ips. There's already a draft for both BCPs and protocols of DNSBLs. But as you say, our plates are full. Needs a document editor. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Feb 10 01:12:13 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA18431 for ; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 01:12:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqR7Y-0006zt-14 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 01:11:44 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1A6BiVa026894 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 01:11:44 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqR7X-0006zh-KJ for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 01:11:43 -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 BAA18424 for ; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 01:11:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqR7U-0003kB-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 01:11:40 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqR6d-0003ex-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 01:10:48 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqR5z-0003ZW-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 01:10:07 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqR5t-0006G3-GM; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 01:10:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqR5a-0006Fj-8R for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 01:09:42 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA18385 for ; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 01:09:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqR5X-0003Ym-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 01:09:39 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqR4k-0003Tk-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 01:08:51 -0500 Received: from jtel.ca ([64.7.158.10] helo=mail.worldline.ca) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqR4E-0003Oj-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 01:08:18 -0500 Received: from waltdnes.org ([64.7.158.170]) by mail.worldline.ca (8.12.8/8.12.8) with SMTP id i1A6KrT2014421 for ; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 01:20:53 -0500 Received: by waltdnes.org (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 10 Feb 2004 01:05:47 -0500 From: "Walter Dnes" To: ASRG list Subject: Re: [Asrg] 1a. Inventory of Problems - Spoofed mail addresses Message-ID: <20040210060547.GA15708@m450> References: <200402061421.29541.famous-asrg@nutters.org> <4024035E.3020100@davidnicol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4024035E.3020100@davidnicol.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 01:05:47 -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 On Fri, Feb 06, 2004 at 03:13:02PM -0600, david wrote > Here's how the pay2send.com Advenge SMTP daemon deals with Brett > Watson's scenario: > > Chris knows at least one of Bob's "magic phrases" which he > used to get on Bob's whitelist in the first place. > > The Aardvark article sending service allows Chris to write > an introduction to the article (all article sending services > I have used have this facility) and Chris includes the > magic phrase ("transferrable mnemonic capability key" for the security > theorists) in the introduction. > > Bob receives the article and the introduction in one e-mail, which > passes the filter since the introduction includes the magic phrase. This pre-supposes that Bob uses body filters, i.e. waits till after the DATA: stage before rejecting any email. Yes, it is possible and legal to issue a 5xx reject at the end of the DATA: stage, but then Bob's MTA (or of Bob's inbox provider) has to expend the bandwidth of accepting the body in the first place. > As a special case, consider: > > (1) Chris has registered a RAPNAP preference list, > which for ASRG purposes is a per-sender RMX list > > (2) Aardvark forwarding uses the forwarding requestor's > e-mail address as the source address for the forwarded article > (Amazon.com apparently currently does this with book reccommendations) > > If 1 and 2 are both true, Chris will receive a challenge concerning > mail from him originating at a new peer... I do *NOT* relish the thought of receiving "a challenge concerning a virus from me originating at a new peer" for every virus email sent out with my address forged as the sender. > lemma (2) is true, but Chris has registered a public key with the > server infrastructure rather than a Peer Network Address list. > In order to get past the Advenge filtering system, Context please. Is Advenge "Aardvaark" or is it "Bob" ?? > Chris has to public-key-sign the text he pastes into the introductory > text control in Aardvark's article forwarding form. If Advenge => "Aardvaark" maybe. Otherwise, we're back to Bob having to accept the body. -- 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 Feb 10 01:13:11 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA18472 for ; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 01:13:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqR8U-00078C-4l for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 01:12:42 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1A6CgSO027406 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 01:12:42 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqR8U-00077x-11 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 01:12:42 -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 BAA18461 for ; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 01:12:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqR8R-0003pt-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 01:12:39 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqR7Y-0003kn-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 01:11:44 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqR6r-0003fB-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 01:11:01 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqR6r-0006n7-N6; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 01:11:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqR6Z-0006i1-Tq for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 01:10:43 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA18397 for ; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 01:10:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqR6X-0003dg-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 01:10:41 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqR5V-0003YZ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 01:09:38 -0500 Received: from jtel.ca ([64.7.158.10] helo=mail.worldline.ca) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqR4b-0003TW-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 01:08:41 -0500 Received: from waltdnes.org ([64.7.158.170]) by mail.worldline.ca (8.12.8/8.12.8) with SMTP id i1A6LLT2014433 for ; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 01:21:21 -0500 Received: by waltdnes.org (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 10 Feb 2004 01:06:16 -0500 From: "Walter Dnes" To: ASRG list Subject: Re: [Asrg] 2. Improving Blacklists and Reputation Services Message-ID: <20040210060616.GB15708@m450> References: <4027EDD9.7050405@solidmatrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4027EDD9.7050405@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: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 01:06:16 -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 On Mon, Feb 09, 2004 at 03:30:17PM -0500, Yakov Shafranovich wrote > All of this implies that reputation services such as blacklists will > continue to exist. However, a major problem has been with these services > is that they provide a binary yes/no answer. There is no inherent binary limitation of today's de-facto DNSbl implementations. DNSbls have have approximately 16 million possible responses in the 127.0.0.0/8 CIDR. And furthermore, they can return multiple records for one query (which is the querying software's responsibility to handle properly). Quite a few DNSbls have an "aggregate zone", which can return multiple multiple values. An example is dnsbl.sorbs.net. Here's a comment from my blocklist entries... # dnsbl.sorbs.net aggregate return codes are: # http.dnsbl.sorbs.net 127.0.0.2 # socks.dnsbl.sorbs.net 127.0.0.3 # misc.dnsbl.sorbs.net 127.0.0.4 # smtp.dnsbl.sorbs.net 127.0.0.5 # spam.dnsbl.sorbs.net 127.0.0.6 # web.dnsbl.sorbs.net 127.0.0.7 # block.dnsbl.sorbs.net 127.0.0.8 # zombie.dnsbl.sorbs.net 127.0.0.9 # dul.dnsbl.sorbs.net 127.0.0.10 #badconf.rhsbl.sorbs.net 127.0.0.11 # nomail.rhsbl.sorbs.net 127.0.0.12 Another example is zz.countries.nerd.dk. A query on an IP address will return 127.0.X.Y where (X * 256) + Y == ISO country code of the country where the IP address in question is hosted. In both of the above cases, the idea is to reduce DNS traffic. Rather than querying half-a-dozen of the sub-zones, I query the master zone, and check for any returned values which I want to use. Similarly, I could do multiple queries to cn.countries.nerd.dk, tw.countries.nerd.dk, kr.countries.nerd.dk, etc, etc. But it's less-bandwidth intensive at both ends to use the master zone. There is nothing preventing this type of response being interpreted in a different manner that includes granularity. > Many commercial ISPs would like to make the decisions themselves. > Filters such as SpamAssasin would probably be better off basing data > on a larger scale than a simple yes or no. SPEWS already has a "level 1" and "level 2" response. Is this along the lines that you're thinking of ? Similarly, Spamhaus has multiple lists, with one (ROKSO) reserved for blatant, unrepentant spammers. Between coded numeric valus, and separate subzones for various degrees of spamming, the granularity you are looking for is already available in real-life. -- 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 Feb 10 01:13:11 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA18489 for ; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 01:13:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqR8U-00078U-QB for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 01:12:42 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1A6CgUF027424 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 01:12:42 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqR8U-00078F-Mc for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 01:12:42 -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 BAA18465 for ; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 01:12:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqR8R-0003py-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 01:12:39 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqR7Y-0003kv-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 01:11:45 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqR6r-0003fE-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 01:11:01 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqR6s-0006oI-VB; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 01:11:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqR6c-0006i6-Mo for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 01:10:46 -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 BAA18404 for ; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 01:10:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqR6Z-0003e6-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 01:10:43 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqR5Z-0003ZA-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 01:09:42 -0500 Received: from jtel.ca ([64.7.158.10] helo=mail.worldline.ca) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqR52-0003U7-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 01:09:08 -0500 Received: from waltdnes.org ([64.7.158.170]) by mail.worldline.ca (8.12.8/8.12.8) with SMTP id i1A6LnT2014446 for ; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 01:21:49 -0500 Received: by waltdnes.org (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 10 Feb 2004 01:06:43 -0500 From: "Walter Dnes" To: ASRG list Subject: Re: [Asrg] 2. Improving Blacklists and Reputation Services Message-ID: <20040210060643.GC15708@m450> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 01:06:43 -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 Mon, Feb 09, 2004 at 01:09:38PM -0800, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote > You could do that, but you have to take account of the fact that the > filter is going to have lots of factors to apply in any case. For > example how reliable is the information source, does it talk about > every email sender or just some? Is it whitelist or blacklist? [...deletia...] > Yes, the big problem at the moment is that blacklists are not > accountable to any party. They tend to operate by attempting to ram > the arbitrary policies they choose down every sender's throat. Those two sections above are self-contradictory. Blacklists are accountable to MTA operators. If MTA operators choose not to use a specific lists, it won't be capable of forcing itself down their throats. I am not aware of any DNSbl that blacklists ISPs for the simple reason that they don't use the DNSbl in question. DNSbls *DO* have reputations, which affect how many people are willing to use them. > I think it is better to have the sender say what they their sending > policy is. If they state outright 'I send unsolicited mail to anyone I > choose' then recipients get to say no. If they say 'I send only mail > to people who ask for it by quintuple opt-in' and someone catches > them spamming, well they chose the empirical test that they failled. The problem with that is that almost *EVERY* spammer^H^H^H^H^H^H^H "legitimate marketer" makes that claim, so it's useless. This would allow them to take make one spam run, morph domain name, make another spam run, repaet, rinse, lather. -- 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 Feb 10 03:54:36 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA06324 for ; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 03:54:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqTeh-0007wG-7K for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 03:54:07 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1A8s7rL030505 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 03:54:07 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqTeg-0007vw-3W for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 03:54:06 -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 DAA06318 for ; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 03:54:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqTed-0002fl-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 03:54:03 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqTdh-0002YC-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 03:53:05 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqTcp-0002Q5-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 03:52:11 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqTcg-0007kM-5n; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 03:52:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqTcW-0007iI-Qd for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 03:51:52 -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 DAA06262 for ; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 03:51:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqTcU-0002Oz-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 03:51:50 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqTbe-0002Ib-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 03:50:58 -0500 Received: from argon.connectinternetsolutions.com ([193.110.243.33] helo=argon.connect.org.uk) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqTam-0002BJ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 03:50:04 -0500 Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 1AqTam-0007n8-PF for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 08:50:04 +0000 Subject: Re: [Asrg] 3b. SMTP Session Verification - The Forwarding Problem 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: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 08:50:04 +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=AWL,HTML_MESSAGE autolearn=no version=2.60 Brett Watson wrote: > It may be preferable to insert the "Via:" clause in the RCPT command (as > in > "RCPT To: Via:"), because there are some obscure cases where this > would > be more efficient. That's as maybe. It would be be less "efficient" for most messages with multiple recipients. There's been discussion of ENVID on this list. -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Feb 10 05:44:12 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA10918 for ; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 05:44:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqVMn-00005N-GV for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 05:43:45 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1AAhja7000325 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 05:43:45 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqVMn-00005A-Ba for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 05:43:45 -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 FAA10912 for ; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 05:43:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqVMj-00075h-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 05:43:41 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqVLm-00071K-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 05:42:43 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqVLE-0006x7-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 05:42:08 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqVL6-0008NW-5F; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 05:42:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqVKs-0008N5-3E for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 05:41:46 -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 FAA10860 for ; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 05:41:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqVKo-0006wf-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 05:41:42 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqVJq-0006sX-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 05:40:43 -0500 Received: from mail008.syd.optusnet.com.au ([211.29.132.212]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqVJc-0006oI-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 05:40:28 -0500 Received: from zen.fernhaven (c211-30-106-146.carlnfd1.nsw.optusnet.com.au [211.30.106.146]) by mail008.syd.optusnet.com.au (8.11.6p2/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i1AAdud00718 for ; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 21:39:57 +1100 Received: from [172.16.0.129] (helo=fred.fernhaven) by zen.fernhaven with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1AqVJ6-0000r1-00 for ; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 21:39:56 +1100 From: Brett Watson Organization: PhD Student, Macquarie University To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 3b. SMTP Session Verification - The Forwarding Problem User-Agent: KMail/1.5.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200402102139.54730.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, 10 Feb 2004 21:39:54 +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=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jon Kyme said: > There's been discussion of ENVID on this list. By ENVID, I take it that you mean RFC 3461. The last flurry of conversation about this was in December 2003 (relatively recently), although it's popped up a couple of other times also. Perhaps you can elaborate on why you see it as a viable solution; I see some problems with it. The ENVID value itself isn't useful for determining whether or not a sending system has authority to use any given "MAIL From:" address. This *could* be useful if there were a means to call back the alleged originating system and verify the ENVID (since it should have originated there), but my skim-read of RFC 3461 did not uncover any such verification mechanism. It's not clear to me how ENVID is useful in the current context. The same RFC also has the ORCPT parameter to the RCPT command, which is similar in principle to what I am suggesting, but with significant differences. For starters, ORCPT keeps only the original recipient, not a forwarding path. There are still scenarios in which a sending MTA may produce an envelope containing no addresses for which it has LMAP authorisation. For example, mail from to which is forwarded to , then to . In the transfer from C to D, we will have "MAIL From:", and "RCPT To: ORCPT=rfc822;B". is no longer mentioned. Despite superficial similarity, my proposal is mostly orthogonal to ORCPT. "VIA" is intended to keep a track of the route a mail message takes on its way to the final recipient in a purely ESMTP environment. ORCPT tracks only the original recipient, and is designed to take mail gateways into consideration. Additionally, the "VIA" specification could require that the most recent hop in the path be verifiable by some means (ie LMAP), if we ever agree on a standard means of testing. Failure to pass the test will be valid grounds for rejecting the message. In contrast, RFC 3461 (5.1(b)) forbids rejection on the basis of the ORCPT or NOTIFY parameters to RCPT (except for invalid syntax). In short, neither ENVID or ORCPT give us data which we can use for LMAP verification of forwarded mail, whereas VIA does. I note that ORCPT is a paramater to RCPT, and "Via:" should probably be a parameter to RCPT for similar reasons. So far as this mailing list goes, my favourite prior comment on the subject of ENVID et al is the following one by Tony Finch. https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg01854.html Regards, TFBW _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Feb 10 08:09:21 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA15266 for ; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 08:09:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqXdE-0001Rz-JY for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 08:08:52 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1AD8qVj005569 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 08:08:52 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqXdE-0001Rj-D5 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 08:08:52 -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 IAA15256 for ; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 08:08:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqXdD-0004Kd-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 08:08:51 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqXcH-0004GA-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 08:07:53 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqXbz-0004BJ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 08:07:35 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqXbR-0000wE-DC; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 08:07:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqXbF-0000ve-Kk for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 08:06:49 -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 IAA15134 for ; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 08:06:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqXbE-0004AJ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 08:06:48 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqXaI-00045f-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 08:05:51 -0500 Received: from argon.connectinternetsolutions.com ([193.110.243.33] helo=argon.connect.org.uk) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqXZW-000417-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 08:05:02 -0500 Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 1AqXZQ-0003YY-Px for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 13:04:56 +0000 In-Reply-To: <200402102139.54730.famous-asrg@nutters.org> Subject: Re: [Asrg] 3b. SMTP Session Verification - The Forwarding Problem 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, 10 Feb 2004 13:04:56 +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=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 I said: > > There's been discussion of ENVID on this list. > Brett Watson said: > By ENVID, I take it that you mean RFC 3461. The last flurry of > conversation Many apologies. I was thinking of ORCPT, I claim a transient defect in cerebral perfusion. > RFC 3461 (5.1(b)) forbids rejection on > the basis of the ORCPT or NOTIFY parameters to RCPT (except for > invalid syntax). Actually: "A conforming SMTP server MUST NOT refuse a RCPT command based on the presence or absence of any of these parameters." Which isn't quite the same thing. But then, I still can't see what's wrong with tweaking the MAIL FROM. -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Feb 10 08:41:35 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA18111 for ; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 08:41:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqY8Q-0003ps-GJ for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 08:41:07 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1ADf6uI014738 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 08:41:06 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqY8Q-0003pb-33 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 08:41:06 -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 IAA18003 for ; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 08:41:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqY8O-00010d-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 08:41:04 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqY7S-0000oe-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 08:40:07 -0500 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqY6k-0000im-01 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 08:39:22 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by mx2.foretec.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1AqY1l-0001mw-UI for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 08:34:14 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqY1a-0002tO-Ng; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 08:34:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqY1Y-0002sy-MT for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 08:34:00 -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 IAA17708 for ; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 08:33:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqY1X-0000Fy-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 08:33:59 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqY0j-0000AL-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 08:33:09 -0500 Received: from mail018.syd.optusnet.com.au ([211.29.132.72]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqY0L-0007nG-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 08:32:45 -0500 Received: from zen.fernhaven (c211-30-106-146.carlnfd1.nsw.optusnet.com.au [211.30.106.146]) by mail018.syd.optusnet.com.au (8.11.6p2/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i1ADWA525637 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 00:32:13 +1100 Received: from [172.16.0.129] (helo=fred.fernhaven) by zen.fernhaven with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1AqXzl-0006EF-00 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 00:32:09 +1100 From: Brett Watson Organization: PhD Student, Macquarie University To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 3b. SMTP Session Verification - The Forwarding Problem User-Agent: KMail/1.5.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200402110032.07756.famous-asrg@nutters.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 00:32:07 +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=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I should mention briefly that my suggested "VIA" ESMTP extension can not be implemented exactly as I have presented it in earlier postings, due to syntax constraints. The production for "esmtp-value" does not allow the "space" or "=" characters, but the production for "mailbox" does. RFC 3461 faces the same problem and uses a simple encoding it calls "xtext". The protocol is still theoretically implementable, but it would be somewhat uglier than my examples suggest if the esmtp-parameter mechanism were used. Such is life. It's intended to be one idea in a pool of suggestions rather than an immediate course of action in any case. Regards, TFBW _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Feb 10 10:45:23 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA23641 for ; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 10:45:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aqa4G-0000ZT-IF for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 10:44:56 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1AFiuOQ002187 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 10:44:56 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aqa4G-0000Ys-8n for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 10:44:56 -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 KAA23625 for ; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 10:44:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aqa4D-0004YR-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 10:44:53 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Aqa3J-0004TZ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 10:43:58 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aqa2b-0004On-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 10:43:13 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aqa2P-0000Ni-28; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 10:43:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aqa2N-0000NS-8I for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 10:42:59 -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 KAA23581 for ; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 10:42:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aqa2K-0004OB-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 10:42:56 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Aqa1N-0004JV-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 10:41:57 -0500 Received: from pigeon.verisign.com ([65.205.251.71]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aqa0o-0004En-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 10:41:22 -0500 Received: from mou1wnexc01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.53]) by pigeon.verisign.com (8.12.10/) with ESMTP id i1AFfKJg028747; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 07:41:20 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <1TZHPSM4>; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 07:41:20 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Walter Dnes'" , ASRG list Subject: RE: [Asrg] 2. Improving Blacklists and Reputation Services 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, 10 Feb 2004 07:41:18 -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 > Those two sections above are self-contradictory. Blacklists are > accountable to MTA operators. If MTA operators choose not to use a > specific lists, it won't be capable of forcing itself down their > throats. The problem an ISP faces is that often the first time they know about a blaklist is through a user complaint. They have absolutely no way of knowing whether the arrogant $#@(% they then have to deal with is serving a hundred major ISPs or one lone end user. The ISPs will not reveal which blacklists they use after the MAPS experian lawsuit. At the FTC workshop the three blacklists there could only give one reference customer between the three of them - and that took time to work out. > I am not aware of any DNSbl that blacklists ISPs for the > simple reason that they don't use the DNSbl in question. DNSbls *DO* > have reputations, which affect how many people are willing to > use them. Oh I am. There was the guy in New Zealand who listed his own ISP because they sent him a dunning letter for not paying his connect fees... Yes there is a reputation mechanism, but today it is anecdotal word of mouth. There are no empirical surveys looking at this thing. The few surveys that appear tend to focus on the wrong measure - amount of spam stopped. How fast they react to wrong listings, how many wrong listings they have is not being given enough weight. Sure there are reputations, but there is very little feedback from actions to reputation and not all that there is is particularly good. > > I think it is better to have the sender say what they their sending > > policy is. If they state outright 'I send unsolicited mail > to anyone I > > choose' then recipients get to say no. If they say 'I send only mail > > to people who ask for it by quintuple opt-in' and someone catches > > them spamming, well they chose the empirical test that they failled. > > The problem with that is that almost *EVERY* spammer^H^H^H^H^H^H^H > "legitimate marketer" makes that claim, so it's useless. This would > allow them to take make one spam run, morph domain name, make another > spam run, repaet, rinse, lather. That is something that will have to be fixed. There are some good ways you can fix it. Bonds being one example, if you design the scheme right the upfront cost to the sender is small, unless they are a spammer in which case it will be huge. This gets into an area where proprietary advantage comes into play. I have some ideas as to how I can do this in a way that avoids the issues you raise. Its a bit like the filter vendors at the MIT conference, you give away just enough of an idea. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Feb 10 13:06:35 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA00469 for ; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 13:06:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqcGt-00041A-Om for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 13:06:08 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1AI67qq015443 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 13:06:07 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqcGt-000410-Ht for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 13:06:07 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA00439 for ; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 13:06:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqcGr-0004cS-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 13:06:05 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqcG1-0004X0-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 13:05:13 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqcFN-0004RP-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 13:04:33 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqcEq-0003cC-UK; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 13:04:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqcEo-0003bN-I2 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 13:03:59 -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 NAA00397 for ; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 13:03:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqcEm-0004Q4-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 13:03:56 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqcDo-0004LU-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 13:02:56 -0500 Received: from out1.smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.25]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqcCu-0004FO-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 13:02:01 -0500 X-Sasl-enc: LTFw5ucH9ifTXvoYeWdrlg 1076436112 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 EB05A4DD967; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 13:01:51 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <40291C8E.4040103@elvey.com> From: Matthew Elvey 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: Alan DeKok , John Levine , 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] LMAP BOF - risk of BGP attacks compromising LMAP is significant; Intellectual Property Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 10:01:50 -0800 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-8.0 required=5.0 tests=HABEAS_SWE autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Just wanted to provide some more info on the seriousness of IP hacking, WRT LMAP. (which is based on ) provides an intro to the issue. , and other pages at that site make it clear that this is currently a serious problem. In the same way that ISPs knowingly allow spammers to reside on their networks, they will increasingly knowingly allow IP Hijackers to connect to their networks. S-BGP is mentioned as an infeasible solution: "S-BGP can solve the problem but will require upgrades to the core Internet infrastructure as it requires a lot more memory for routers ... [and more] CPU power or specific hardware for cryptography. Because of these necessary hardware upgrade and serious investment in new hardware that would be necessary, S-BGP has not gone beyond theoretical work so far. " SysAdmins would be wise to ensure that their upstream's IP space is properly registered with their RIRs to a current email address, and that more than just email security is used to authorize updates, and finally to refuse to route through their network IP blocks that are known to have been hijacked, and have their upstreams do so. Because this security problem is likely to be ongoing, it should be addressed in draft-irtf-asrg-lmap-discussion. Do we have two competing versions of the latest, BTW? , . I agree with PHB: > This is something the IAB should consider as a matter of urgency. Anyway, here an attempt to address this. I propose a section 2.4 that reads something like: 2.4 BGP based attacks All versions of LMAP rely on the security of TCP to assure that a message that appears to be sent from an IP address is actually from equipment of the owner/renter of that IP address. But IPs can be and are hijacked - hijackers announce BGP routes to the IP space they wish to steal, and much of the Internet starts routing packets for that IP space to them [ref to http://www.completewhois.com/hijacked/hijacked_qa.htm]. If an IP in IP space authorized by LMAP records is hijacked, the hijacker can send spam from that IP and LMAP will make it appear to be authorized until the domain admin can react and update LMAP records or regain control over the stolen IP space. In the same way that Tier 1 ISPs knowingly allow spammers to reside on their networks, it it likely that they will increasingly knowingly allow IP Hijackers to connect to their networks. The fact that most hijacked IP space is unused somewhat mitigates the risk this poses, as such IPs are less likely to be authorized by LMAP records, as does the fact that such IP space is often quickly blacklisted [ref to http://www.dnsbl.au.sorbs.net/Zombie-FAQ.html]. One more thing - what's with my name being removed from the credits? Contributors need to be listed. I and others contributed and are in , but not in the later versions; you can grab my contact info from if you want to add all that. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Feb 10 14:23:40 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA04039 for ; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 14:23:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqdTU-0002TG-El for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 14:23:12 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1AJNCIQ009492 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 14:23:12 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqdTU-0002T1-7M for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 14:23:12 -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 OAA04001 for ; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 14:23:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqdTR-000566-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 14:23:09 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqdSQ-0004xl-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 14:22:06 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqdRh-0004rx-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 14:21:21 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqdRN-00025G-HZ; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 14:21:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqdB0-0000St-K9 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 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 OAA03055 for ; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 14:04:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqdAy-00030c-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 14:04:04 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqdA4-0002v3-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 14:03:09 -0500 Received: from mout.perfora.net ([217.160.230.40]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aqd9E-0002pV-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 14:02:16 -0500 Received: from [217.160.230.50] (helo=smtp.perfora.net) by mout.perfora.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1Aqd99-0006RR-00; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 14:02:11 -0500 Received: from [68.29.152.163] (helo=solidmatrix.com) by smtp.perfora.net with asmtp (TLSv1:RC4-MD5:128) (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1Aqd98-0006Zp-00; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 14:02:11 -0500 Message-ID: <40292AA7.2060903@solidmatrix.com> From: Yakov Shafranovich Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, he, ru MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Walter Dnes CC: ASRG list Subject: Re: [Asrg] 2. Improving Blacklists and Reputation Services References: <4027EDD9.7050405@solidmatrix.com> <20040210060616.GB15708@m450> In-Reply-To: <20040210060616.GB15708@m450> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.83.2.0 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: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 14:01:59 -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 Walter Dnes wrote: > On Mon, Feb 09, 2004 at 03:30:17PM -0500, Yakov Shafranovich wrote > >>All of this implies that reputation services such as blacklists will >>continue to exist. However, a major problem has been with these services >>is that they provide a binary yes/no answer. > > There is no inherent binary limitation of today's de-facto DNSbl > implementations. DNSbls have have approximately 16 million possible > responses in the 127.0.0.0/8 CIDR. And furthermore, they can return > multiple records for one query (which is the querying software's > responsibility to handle properly). Quite a few DNSbls have an > "aggregate zone", which can return multiple multiple values. What bothers me is that these codes vary from list to list. Would a standard set of codes help? Second problem that I have is the use of 127.xxx IP addresses for this. This is really not something that should be done via IP addresses, a custom SRV, RR or TXT record would server a much better purpose. > > In both of the above cases, the idea is to reduce DNS traffic. Rather > than querying half-a-dozen of the sub-zones, I query the master zone, > and check for any returned values which I want to use. Similarly, I > could do multiple queries to cn.countries.nerd.dk, tw.countries.nerd.dk, > kr.countries.nerd.dk, etc, etc. But it's less-bandwidth intensive at > both ends to use the master zone. There is nothing preventing this type > of response being interpreted in a different manner that includes > granularity. We should explore other protocols beside DNS for exchanging this data. > > >>Many commercial ISPs would like to make the decisions themselves. >>Filters such as SpamAssasin would probably be better off basing data >>on a larger scale than a simple yes or no. > > > SPEWS already has a "level 1" and "level 2" response. Is this along > the lines that you're thinking of ? Similarly, Spamhaus has multiple > lists, with one (ROKSO) reserved for blatant, unrepentant spammers. > Between coded numeric valus, and separate subzones for various degrees > of spamming, the granularity you are looking for is already available > in real-life. > I am actually looking at things like SenderBase and SpamCop - how many spams were caught, how many emails sent, etc. Additionally, as I mentioned above, I am looking into whether some standard format and protocol would ease the use of blacklists. 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 Feb 10 14:25:33 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA04248 for ; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 14:25:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqdVJ-0002hq-QU for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 14:25:05 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1AJP5fM010396 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 14:25:05 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqdVJ-0002hb-Lf for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 14:25:05 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA04169 for ; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 14:25:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqdVH-0005Nz-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 14:25:03 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqdUJ-0005Et-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 14:24:03 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqdTK-000550-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 14:23:02 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqdTI-0002N1-Nq; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 14:23:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqdRS-00026V-A5 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 14:21:06 -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 OAA03919 for ; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 14:21:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqdRP-0004rB-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 14:21:03 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqdQV-0004lo-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 14:20:08 -0500 Received: from mout.perfora.net ([217.160.230.41]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqdPr-0004gJ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 14:19:27 -0500 Received: from [217.160.230.52] (helo=smtp.perfora.net) by mout.perfora.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1AqdPr-0001Gc-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 14:19:27 -0500 Received: from [68.29.152.163] (helo=solidmatrix.com) by smtp.perfora.net with asmtp (TLSv1:RC4-MD5:128) (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1AqdPp-0002WZ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 14:19:27 -0500 Message-ID: <40292EB5.4070105@solidmatrix.com> From: Yakov Shafranovich Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, he, ru MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ASRG X-Enigmail-Version: 0.83.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] 3b. SMTP Session Verification - Updated reading list for the LMAP BOF Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 14:19:17 -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 LMAP Discussion document from the ASRG: draft-irtf-asrg-lmap-discussion Proposals: draft-stumpf-dns-mtamark draft-brand-drip draft-danisch-dns-rr-smtp draft-fecyk-dmp draft-mengwong-spf draft-levine-fsv 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 Feb 10 15:17:47 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA08058 for ; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 15:17:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqeJp-0007W2-Vs for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 15:17:18 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1AKHHO6028883 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 15:17:17 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqeJp-0007Vc-QW for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 15:17:17 -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 PAA07912 for ; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 15:17:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqeJo-0003Th-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 15:17:16 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqeIt-0003JK-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 15:16:20 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqeHw-0003CY-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 15:15:20 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqeHe-0006pz-NP; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 15:15:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqeGs-0006Zh-Ns for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 15:14:14 -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 PAA07575 for ; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 15:14:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqeGr-00035O-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 15:14:13 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqeGH-0002zS-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 15:13:37 -0500 Received: from chronus.sovam.com ([194.67.22.174]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqeFa-0002oD-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 15:12:55 -0500 Received: from ariel ([194.67.3.216]:33286 "EHLO ariel.sovam.com") by chronus.sovam.com with ESMTP id S274287AbUBJUMW (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Feb 2004 23:12:22 +0300 Subject: Re: [Asrg] 2. Improving Blacklists and Reputation Services From: Eugene Crosser To: Yakov Shafranovich Cc: Walter Dnes , ASRG list In-Reply-To: <40292AA7.2060903@solidmatrix.com> References: <4027EDD9.7050405@solidmatrix.com> <20040210060616.GB15708@m450> <40292AA7.2060903@solidmatrix.com> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Teleross Message-Id: <1076443941.7399.52.camel@ariel.sovam.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.5 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 23:12:22 +0300 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 Hello genlemen, I am new here; I am a postmaster and sysadmin for a major ISP in my country, and a programmer (mostly open source). Lately, we are doing rather active antispam R&D and that's why I subscribed to this maillist. On Tue, 2004-02-10 at 22:01, Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > Walter Dnes wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 09, 2004 at 03:30:17PM -0500, Yakov Shafranovich wrote > > > >>All of this implies that reputation services such as blacklists will > >>continue to exist. However, a major problem has been with these services > >>is that they provide a binary yes/no answer. > > > > There is no inherent binary limitation of today's de-facto DNSbl > > implementations. DNSbls have have approximately 16 million possible > > responses in the 127.0.0.0/8 CIDR. And furthermore, they can return > > multiple records for one query (which is the querying software's > > responsibility to handle properly). Quite a few DNSbls have an > > "aggregate zone", which can return multiple multiple values. > > What bothers me is that these codes vary from list to list. Would a > standard set of codes help? > > Second problem that I have is the use of 127.xxx IP addresses for this. > This is really not something that should be done via IP addresses, a > custom SRV, RR or TXT record would server a much better purpose. This decision of dnsbl maintainers to use 'A' RRs has always made me feel uneasy. Given that the search key is a reverse dotted quad IP address, it seems quite logical to use 'PTR' RR, which would give you alphanumeric namespace for the return codes. Or TXT or any other: 'A' seems the least suitable of all. I think that if a dnsbl standard is ever proposed, it sould not use 'A' RRs. Maybe TXT would be best, as they allow more flexible syntax, like that used by SPF. [if I am not supposed to post here not being an asrg member, tell me] Regards Eugene _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Feb 10 16:59:16 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA22563 for ; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 16:59:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aqfu5-0005eY-GS for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 16:58:49 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1ALwntM021724 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 16:58:49 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aqfu5-0005eJ-BG for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 16:58:49 -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 QAA22472 for ; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 16:58:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aqfu3-0003dP-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 16:58:47 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Aqft3-0003Rf-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 16:57:45 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aqfrt-0003CK-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 16:56:33 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqfrO-0005Oe-Js; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 16:56:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqfpX-0005KP-K3 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 16:54:07 -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 QAA21777 for ; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 16:54:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqfpV-0002d3-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 16:54:05 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqfoG-0002LX-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 16:52:48 -0500 Received: from mout.perfora.net ([217.160.230.41]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqfnB-00028V-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 16:51:41 -0500 Received: from [217.160.230.50] (helo=smtp.perfora.net) by mout.perfora.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1AqfnB-0006Yy-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 16:51:41 -0500 Received: from [68.29.247.203] (helo=solidmatrix.com) by smtp.perfora.net with asmtp (TLSv1:RC4-MD5:128) (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1AqfnA-0001lU-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 16:51:41 -0500 Message-ID: <40295266.70405@solidmatrix.com> From: Yakov Shafranovich Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, he, ru MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ASRG X-Enigmail-Version: 0.83.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] 2. Legal - New "No Soliciting" 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, 10 Feb 2004 16:51:34 -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 See: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-malamud-no-soliciting-06.txt 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 Feb 10 17:15:59 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA24463 for ; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 17:15:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqgAG-0007rU-C5 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 17:15:32 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1AMFWjQ030214 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 17:15:32 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqgAG-0007rF-6b for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 17:15:32 -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 RAA24395 for ; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 17:15:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqgAD-0006c4-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 17:15:30 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Aqg9D-0006QT-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 17:14:27 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aqg7y-00067q-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 17:13:10 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aqg7q-0007Eh-Ic; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 17:13:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aqg5A-00072W-S1 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 17:10:16 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA23890 for ; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 17:10:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aqg58-0005lm-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 17:10:14 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Aqg4I-0005ef-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 17:09:23 -0500 Received: from mout.perfora.net ([217.160.230.41]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aqg3L-0005Uf-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 17:08:24 -0500 Received: from [217.160.230.50] (helo=smtp.perfora.net) by mout.perfora.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1Aqg3L-0000W0-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 17:08:23 -0500 Received: from [68.29.247.203] (helo=solidmatrix.com) by smtp.perfora.net with asmtp (TLSv1:RC4-MD5:128) (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1Aqg3K-00028y-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 17:08:23 -0500 Message-ID: <4029564B.5070106@solidmatrix.com> From: Yakov Shafranovich Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, he, ru MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ASRG X-Enigmail-Version: 0.83.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] 3b. SMTP Session Verification - LMAP BOF Schedule and Agenda Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 17:08:11 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The schedule and agenda for the LMAP BOF (MARID) has been posted at the IETF sites. The BOF will take place on Thursday, March 4th, 2004 at 9:00 AM. The current agenda can be found here: http://www.ietf.org/ietf/04mar/marid.txt The IETF schedule is here: http://www.ietf.org/meetings/agenda_59.txt 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 Feb 10 17:25:40 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA25320 for ; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 17:25:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqgJd-0000lL-0O for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 17:25:13 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1AMPC81002925 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 17:25:12 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqgJc-0000l6-Sd for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 17:25:12 -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 RAA25275 for ; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 17:25:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqgJa-0000A1-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 17:25:10 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqgId-00002R-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 17:24:12 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqgHg-0007hz-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 17:23:12 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqgHU-0000Ur-Hi; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 17:23:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqgEs-0000Jj-Px for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 17:20:18 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA24853 for ; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 17:20:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqgEq-0007Ep-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 17:20:16 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqgDy-00078b-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 17:19:23 -0500 Received: from mout.perfora.net ([217.160.230.41]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqgDb-000723-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 17:18:59 -0500 Received: from [217.160.230.50] (helo=smtp.perfora.net) by mout.perfora.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1AqgDc-0001hD-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 17:19:00 -0500 Received: from [68.29.247.203] (helo=solidmatrix.com) by smtp.perfora.net with asmtp (TLSv1:RC4-MD5:128) (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1AqgDa-0002NO-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 17:19:00 -0500 Message-ID: <402958C9.1070108@solidmatrix.com> From: Yakov Shafranovich Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, he, ru MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ASRG X-Enigmail-Version: 0.83.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] FWD: 2b. Filtering Standards - Standard filtering header Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 17:18:49 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit This is forwarded from the filtering subgroup mailing list. Yakov ------------------------------------------------------------ From: Jesse Dougherty Subject: Uses of incoming data ... Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2004 08:49:34 +0000 IMHO, There are really two questions to answer when trying to define headers added to messages to indicate the results of filtering: 1) what information is useful and to whom? 2) what format is useful and how will it be consumed? My quick thoughts on #1 ... The incoming email filtered at a gateway/proxy (SMTP or POP time). The message is then available to a client or workgroup server, where a message disposition decision is made. Please Note: The information required by an administrator of a workgroup server may be different than those of the recipient (as the admin of the server may have to enforce some local policies regarding content, privacy, etc). Definitions of spam aren't consistent (initiate 1 year email list argument here!). Different applications implement: 1) unwanted email (ex: bayes systems trained by individuals/groups) 2) UCBE or some combination thereof (ex: heuristic systems trained on honeypots) 3) Email Hygiene (same as #2 but cleaned of porn, scams, and other nasties) (Please extend the above if you have more insight). Questions: Should we consider a more granular / extensible header spec? ------- 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 Feb 10 18:14:41 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA29102 for ; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 18:14:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aqh50-0000i8-Uv for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 18:14:14 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1ANEAWE002726 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 18:14:10 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aqh50-0000ht-OA for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 18:14:10 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA29034 for ; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 18:14:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aqh4x-00060H-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 18:14:07 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Aqh41-0005vP-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 18:13:10 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aqh36-0005qJ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 18:12:12 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aqh2v-0008Qb-QY; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 18:12:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aqh2A-00088K-Nw for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 18:11:15 -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 SAA28743 for ; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 18:11:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aqh27-0005kN-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 18:11:11 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Aqh1B-0005eN-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 18:10:14 -0500 Received: from pigeon.verisign.com ([65.205.251.71]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aqh0C-0005Yn-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 18:09:12 -0500 Received: from mou1wnexc01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.53]) by pigeon.verisign.com (8.12.10/) with ESMTP id i1AN97Jg001383; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 15:09:07 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <1TZHR4R9>; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 15:09:07 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Matthew Elvey'" , Alan DeKok , John Levine , ASRG Subject: RE: [Asrg] LMAP BOF - risk of BGP attacks compromising LMAP is si gnificant; Intellectual Property 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, 10 Feb 2004 15:09:05 -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 Just to clarify some of my earlier comments. I do think this is a serious issue. That does not mean I believe that the existing security mechanisms are entirely inadequate. It simply means that I think we should try to understand whether this is the case or not. SPF or something like it is going to go ahead, the demand is simply too strong. There are basically two ways ahead here. The first is we wait till we hit the wall and try to solve the problem then. The second is that we try to anticipate. I would prefer the second. However I am quite willing to give the first a go. I don't think that the problem is going to be so severe it cannot be fixed. Proposals that involve replacement of existing plant are completely ludicrous and should not be considered. > -----Original Message----- > From: Matthew Elvey [mailto:matthew@elvey.com] > Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2004 1:02 PM > To: Alan DeKok; John Levine; ASRG > Subject: [Asrg] LMAP BOF - risk of BGP attacks compromising LMAP is > significant; Intellectual Property > > > Just wanted to provide some more info on the seriousness of > IP hacking, > WRT LMAP. > > (which is based on > ) provides an > intro to the issue. > , > and other pages at that site make it clear that this is currently a > serious problem. In the same way that ISPs knowingly allow > spammers to > reside on their networks, they will increasingly knowingly allow IP > Hijackers to connect to their networks. > > S-BGP is mentioned as an infeasible solution: "S-BGP can solve the > problem but will require upgrades to the core Internet > infrastructure as > it requires a lot more memory for routers ... [and more] CPU power or > specific hardware for cryptography. Because of these > necessary hardware > upgrade and serious investment in new hardware that would be > necessary, > S-BGP has not gone beyond theoretical work so far. " > > SysAdmins would be wise to ensure that their upstream's IP space is > properly registered with their RIRs to a current email > address, and that > more than just email security is used to authorize updates, > and finally > to refuse to route through their network IP blocks that are known to > have been hijacked, and have their upstreams do so. > > Because this security problem is likely to be ongoing, it should be > addressed in draft-irtf-asrg-lmap-discussion. > Do we have two competing versions of the latest, BTW? > irtf-asrg-lmap-discussion-00.txt> > , > ? The 00 is > newer than the 01> . > > I agree with PHB: > > This is something the IAB should consider as a matter of urgency. > > Anyway, here an attempt to address this. > I propose a section 2.4 that reads something like: > > 2.4 BGP based attacks > > All versions of LMAP rely on the security of TCP to assure that a > message that appears to be sent from an IP address is actually from > equipment of the owner/renter of that IP address. But IPs can be and > are hijacked - hijackers announce BGP routes to the IP space > they wish > to steal, and much of the Internet starts routing packets for that IP > space to them [ref to > http://www.completewhois.com/hijacked/hijacked_qa.htm]. If > an IP in IP > space authorized by LMAP records is hijacked, the hijacker > can send spam > from that IP and LMAP will make it appear to be authorized until the > domain admin can react and update LMAP records or regain control over > the stolen IP space. > In the same way that Tier 1 ISPs knowingly allow spammers to > reside on > their networks, it it likely that they will increasingly > knowingly allow > IP Hijackers to connect to their networks. The fact that most > hijacked > IP space is unused somewhat mitigates the risk this poses, as > such IPs > are less likely to be authorized by LMAP records, as does the > fact that > such IP space is often quickly blacklisted [ref to > http://www.dnsbl.au.sorbs.net/Zombie-FAQ.html]. > > One more thing - what's with my name being removed from the credits? > Contributors need to be listed. I and others contributed and are in > , but not in the later versions; you can grab my contact info from if you want to add all that. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list 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 Feb 10 20:00:17 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA07530 for ; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 20:00:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqijD-0001jv-Av for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 19:59:48 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1B0xln1006682 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 19:59:47 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqijD-0001ja-6i for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 19:59:47 -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 TAA07417 for ; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 19:59:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqijB-0004hg-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 19:59:45 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqihZ-0004GW-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 19:58:06 -0500 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aqiew-0003aw-04 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 19:55:22 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by mx2.foretec.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1AqiB7-0004sd-30 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 19:24:33 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqiAb-000732-R4; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 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 1Aqi9h-00071q-T2 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 19:23:05 -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 TAA03002 for ; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 19:23:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aqi9f-00061t-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 19:23:04 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Aqi8j-0005pm-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 19:22:06 -0500 Received: from mail019.syd.optusnet.com.au ([211.29.132.73]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aqi7g-0005X8-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 19:21:01 -0500 Received: from zen.fernhaven (c211-30-106-146.carlnfd1.nsw.optusnet.com.au [211.30.106.146]) by mail019.syd.optusnet.com.au (8.11.6p2/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i1B0K7B22937 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 11:20:28 +1100 Received: from [172.16.0.129] (helo=fred.fernhaven) by zen.fernhaven with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1Aqi6m-000145-00 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 11:20:04 +1100 From: Brett Watson Organization: PhD Student, Macquarie University To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 2. Improving Blacklists and Reputation Services User-Agent: KMail/1.5.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200402111120.02939.famous-asrg@nutters.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 11:20:02 +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=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > Second problem that I have is the use of 127.xxx IP addresses for this. This > is really not something that should be done via IP addresses, a custom SRV, > RR or TXT record would server a much better purpose. As I understand it, the primary reason the use of "A" records isn't going away any time soon is because they can be accessed with the BSD 4.3 gethostbyname() function call. Access to other record types requires some other API, and there's no other API as broadly deployed. A push for standard semantics across blacklists will encounter more political barriers than technical, I think, but it's worth discussing. If you want to introduce new RR types, then bear in mind that they'll have to coexist with "A" records for some time as a matter of practicality. Note also that many blacklists already use TXT records to hold URI pointers to further information on the listing. Regards, TFBW _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Feb 10 20:04:45 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA08011 for ; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 20:04:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqinZ-0002FZ-66 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 20:04:17 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1B14HBv008643 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 20:04:17 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqinZ-0002FK-1x for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 20:04:17 -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 UAA07944 for ; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 20:04:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqinX-0005eL-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 20:04:15 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqimZ-0005Ru-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 20:03:15 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqilY-0005Cs-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 20:02:12 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqilN-0001tR-Vy; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 20:02:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aqib0-0000vA-8w for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 19:51:18 -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 TAA06246 for ; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 19:51:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aqiay-000304-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 19:51:16 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Aqia3-0002rJ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 19:50:20 -0500 Received: from mout.perfora.net ([217.160.230.40]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqiZ6-0002hw-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 19:49:20 -0500 Received: from [217.160.230.51] (helo=smtp.perfora.net) by mout.perfora.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1AqiZ5-0007ds-00; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 19:49:19 -0500 Received: from [68.29.247.203] (helo=solidmatrix.com) by smtp.perfora.net with asmtp (TLSv1:RC4-MD5:128) (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1AqiZ4-0007FE-00; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 19:49:19 -0500 Message-ID: <40297C04.7080306@solidmatrix.com> From: Yakov Shafranovich Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, he, ru MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Brett Watson CC: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 2. Improving Blacklists and Reputation Services References: <200402111120.02939.famous-asrg@nutters.org> In-Reply-To: <200402111120.02939.famous-asrg@nutters.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.83.2.0 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: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 19:49:08 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Brett Watson wrote: > Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > >>Second problem that I have is the use of 127.xxx IP addresses for this. This >>is really not something that should be done via IP addresses, a custom SRV, >>RR or TXT record would server a much better purpose. > > > As I understand it, the primary reason the use of "A" records isn't going away > any time soon is because they can be accessed with the BSD 4.3 > gethostbyname() function call. Access to other record types requires some > other API, and there's no other API as broadly deployed. > > A push for standard semantics across blacklists will encounter more political > barriers than technical, I think, but it's worth discussing. If you want to > introduce new RR types, then bear in mind that they'll have to coexist with > "A" records for some time as a matter of practicality. > It does not hurt to discuss it. If anyone present is involved with a blacklist, or feels brave enough to post to NANAE, additional input would be welcome. 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 Feb 10 20:04:46 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA08028 for ; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 20:04:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqinZ-0002Fr-UY for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 20:04:17 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1B14HC9008661 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 20:04:17 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqinZ-0002Fc-Q9 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 20:04:17 -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 UAA07948 for ; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 20:04:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqinX-0005eQ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 20:04:16 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Aqima-0005S7-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 20:03:17 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqilZ-0005DR-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 20:02:13 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqilN-0001tJ-Gh; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 20:02:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqiZ1-0000qc-J7 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 19:49:15 -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 TAA06002 for ; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 19:49:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqiYz-0002go-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 19:49:13 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqiY7-0002X7-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 19:48:19 -0500 Received: from mout.perfora.net ([217.160.230.40]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqiXF-0002N8-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 19:47:25 -0500 Received: from [217.160.230.51] (helo=smtp.perfora.net) by mout.perfora.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1AqiXC-0007X4-00; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 19:47:22 -0500 Received: from [68.29.247.203] (helo=solidmatrix.com) by smtp.perfora.net with asmtp (TLSv1:RC4-MD5:128) (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1AqiXB-0007Dx-00; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 19:47:22 -0500 Message-ID: <40297B89.6080804@solidmatrix.com> From: Yakov Shafranovich Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, he, ru MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" CC: "'Matthew Elvey'" , John Levine , ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] LMAP BOF - risk of BGP attacks compromising LMAP is significant References: In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 0.83.2.0 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: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 19:47:05 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > Just to clarify some of my earlier comments. > > I do think this is a serious issue. That does not mean I believe that the > existing security mechanisms are entirely inadequate. It simply means that I > think we should try to understand whether this is the case or not. > If this threat any worse than all of the possibly threats against DNS? If it is on the same level, than we should just mention both in the discussion document. That should be sufficient. As for solutions, it might be something that the routing folks need to deal with. I am not sure if we have the mandate or the expertise to deal with it. 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 Feb 10 20:19:42 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA08874 for ; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 20:19:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aqj21-0003gZ-FB for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 20:19:13 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1B1JDr6014166 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 20:19:13 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aqj21-0003gP-9c for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 20:19:13 -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 UAA08842 for ; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 20:19:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aqj1z-0007Rr-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 20:19:11 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Aqj10-0007Lm-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 20:18:11 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aqj07-0007G7-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 20:17:15 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aqizt-0003LT-Kb; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 20:17:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqizH-0003KU-QU for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 20:16:23 -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 UAA08776 for ; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 20:16:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqizF-0007Aq-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 20:16:21 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqiyN-000759-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 20:15:27 -0500 Received: from mail015.syd.optusnet.com.au ([211.29.132.161]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aqiy0-0006yd-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 20:15:04 -0500 Received: from zen.fernhaven (c211-30-106-146.carlnfd1.nsw.optusnet.com.au [211.30.106.146]) by mail015.syd.optusnet.com.au (8.11.6p2/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i1B1EUL27048 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 12:14:33 +1100 Received: from [172.16.0.129] (helo=fred.fernhaven) by zen.fernhaven with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1AqixR-0002lI-00 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 12:14:29 +1100 From: Brett Watson Organization: PhD Student, Macquarie University To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 3b. SMTP Session Verification - The Forwarding Problem User-Agent: KMail/1.5.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200402111214.28427.famous-asrg@nutters.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 12:14:28 +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=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I'll try to make this my last word on the subject, since the appropriate forum for this discussion is probably the new verification sub-group, and I haven't jumped through the necessary hoops to gain posting privs there. Jon Kyme wrote: > But then, I still can't see what's wrong with tweaking the MAIL FROM. In an off-list message, Jon clarified that he was alluding to the following document. http://spf.pobox.com/draft-mengwong-sender-rewrite-01.txt I make the following observations. * Sender rewriting is vulnerable to abuse as a mail relay unless the implementing MTA generates unique return addresses. (See "Hash Secrets" in the referenced document.) VIA has no such vulnerability. * If "Hash Secrets" are used, then sender rewriting may lose its value as a diagnostic trace of the forwarding path. VIA is always useful as a diagnostic trace. * If "Hash Secrets" are used, the implementing MTA must maintain several days of secret-to-email-addresse mapping data, or use a reversible cryptographic encoding. VIA requires no cryptographic techniques or additional maintenance of state. * Sender rewriting can run afoul of address length limitations unless a "Hash Secret" regime is chosen to avoid it. VIA faces no such problem, as it does not overload any existing field. * Sender rewriting makes the return path trustable, so that there is no concern of returning a bounce message to an unrelated third party. VIA can provide no direct assurance about the return path, but if you accept the lemma that "forwarded mail is only accepted from explicitly trusted parties", then VIA effectively provides the same assurance, as trusted parties provide trustworthy data. * Sender rewriting introduces network overhead into the bounce process, as bounces will be "un-forwarded" through the MTAs they were initially forwarded through. VIA maintains the traditional "direct" method of returning bounces. * I consider "anonymous remailers" to be "remailers" rather than "forwarders". If an anonymous remailer wishes to allow replies and/or bounces, it will be obliged to use a cryptographically secure mapping between its own addresses and the addresses of its clients. VIA is not relevant to this case. Regards, TFBW _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Feb 10 20:44:11 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA11191 for ; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 20:44:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqjPj-00061x-GR for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 20:43:43 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1B1hhuW023175 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 20:43:43 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqjPj-00061i-BZ for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 20:43:43 -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 UAA11099 for ; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 20:43:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqjPh-0003i2-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 20:43:41 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqjOJ-0003PT-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 20:42:15 -0500 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqjNN-0003G0-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 20:41:17 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by mx2.foretec.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1AqjNN-0006dJ-Nv for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 20:41:19 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqjN8-0005qS-1t; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 20:41:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqjMF-0005oc-FE for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 20:40:07 -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 UAA10744 for ; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 20:40:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqjMD-0002yj-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 20:40:05 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqjL6-0002mV-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 20:38:57 -0500 Received: from pigeon.verisign.com ([65.205.251.71]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqjK0-0002b6-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 20:37:48 -0500 Received: from mou1wnexc01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.53]) by pigeon.verisign.com (8.12.10/) with ESMTP id i1B1bkJg016913; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 17:37:46 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <1TZHSC3P>; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 17:37:46 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Yakov Shafranovich'" , "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" Cc: "'Matthew Elvey'" , John Levine , ASRG Subject: RE: [Asrg] LMAP BOF - risk of BGP attacks compromising LMAP is si gnificant 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, 10 Feb 2004 17:37:37 -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 > If this threat any worse than all of the possibly threats > against DNS? Far worse in that it brings down large parts of the Internet in the worst case - for real. The probability of it being realized is lower, the consequences are much higher. > If it is on the same level, than we should just mention both in the > discussion document. That should be sufficient. > > As for solutions, it might be something that the routing > folks need to > deal with. I am not sure if we have the mandate or the > expertise to deal > with it. It is not our problem. But there is no point in the IETF as a common forum if we do not raise it and solicit advice. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Feb 10 21:59:57 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA14387 for ; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 21:59:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aqkb4-0003dT-Iy for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 21:59:30 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1B2xUnW013969 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 21:59:30 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aqkb4-0003dE-E5 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 21:59:30 -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 VAA14370 for ; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 21:59:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aqkb1-0004TP-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 21:59:27 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqkaC-0004NC-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 21:58:36 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqkZm-0004FU-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 21:58:10 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqkZd-0003Lg-Bd; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 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 1AqkX6-0003DX-8m for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 21:55:24 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA14161 for ; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 21:55:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqkX3-0003v8-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 21:55:21 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqkW9-0003n7-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 21:54:25 -0500 Received: from mout.perfora.net ([217.160.230.41]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqkVT-0003hK-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 21:53:43 -0500 Received: from [217.160.230.50] (helo=smtp.perfora.net) by mout.perfora.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1AqkVT-0007ZJ-00; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 21:53:43 -0500 Received: from [68.29.135.153] (helo=solidmatrix.com) by smtp.perfora.net with asmtp (TLSv1:RC4-MD5:128) (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1AqkVS-0007f5-00; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 21:53:43 -0500 Message-ID: <4029992E.8090906@solidmatrix.com> From: Yakov Shafranovich Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, he, ru MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Brett Watson CC: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 3b. SMTP Session Verification - The Forwarding Problem References: <200402111214.28427.famous-asrg@nutters.org> In-Reply-To: <200402111214.28427.famous-asrg@nutters.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.83.2.0 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: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 21:53:34 -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 Brett Watson wrote: > I'll try to make this my last word on the subject, since the appropriate forum > for this discussion is probably the new verification sub-group, and I haven't > jumped through the necessary hoops to gain posting privs there. > If you want to join any subgroup, just let the chairs know. 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 Wed Feb 11 00:20:50 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA18973 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 00:20:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqmnP-0003iV-Dy for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 00:20:23 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1B5KN6j014283 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 00:20:23 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqmnO-0003iI-Tl for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 00:20:22 -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 AAA18943 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 00:20:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqmnM-0003Yz-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 00:20:20 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqmmO-0003Rd-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 00:19:20 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqmlU-0003Kt-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 00:18:24 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aqml7-0003Vy-If; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 00:18:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aqmkk-0003VU-Lq for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 00:17:38 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA18823 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 00:17:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aqmki-0003Ev-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 00:17:36 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Aqmjn-00037X-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 00:16:39 -0500 Received: from jtel.ca ([64.7.158.10] helo=mail.worldline.ca) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqmjC-000301-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 00:16:02 -0500 Received: from waltdnes.org ([38.112.103.108]) by mail.worldline.ca (8.12.8/8.12.8) with SMTP id i1B5SuT2013255 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 00:28:57 -0500 Received: by waltdnes.org (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 11 Feb 2004 00:13:32 -0500 From: "Walter Dnes" To: ASRG list Subject: Re: [Asrg] 2. Improving Blacklists and Reputation Services Message-ID: <20040211051332.GB16822@m450> References: <4027FF64.9010902@solidmatrix.com> <200402092347.i19NldZ24320@panix5.panix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200402092347.i19NldZ24320@panix5.panix.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: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 00:13:32 -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 On Mon, Feb 09, 2004 at 06:47:39PM -0500, Seth Breidbart wrote > Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > > > An accrediation service is vouching for someone, a reputation > > service is stating an opinion of someone's reputation. The two > > things are different. > > How are they different (in any way that matters to me)? In both > cases, a third party X is saying something to the effect of "I think > you should trust Y." (Or is it that accreditation can only be > positive, while reputation can be positive or negative? In that case, > I see no reason for accreditation services since they're strictly a > subset of reputation services.) I interpret accreditation to mean testifying to known facts. E.g. the company using a certificate is XYZ. Reputation is more word-of-mouth, or what the community *THINKS* of someone's character. -- Walter Dnes Email users are divided into two classes; 1) Those who have effective spam-blocking 2) Those who wish they did _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Feb 11 01:38:58 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA22058 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 01:38:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aqo10-0001cv-8C for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 01:38:30 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1B6cUqH006247 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 01:38:30 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aqo10-0001cg-47 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 01:38:30 -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 BAA22053 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 01:38:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aqo0w-000487-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 01:38:26 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Aqo01-00043C-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 01:37:30 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aqnzi-0003xo-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 01:37:10 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aqnza-0001CO-1z; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 01:37:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqnzA-0001BL-OF for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 01:36:36 -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 BAA22000 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 01:36:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aqnz7-0003x9-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 01:36:33 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Aqny5-0003rx-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 01:35:29 -0500 Received: from jtel.ca ([64.7.158.10] helo=mail.worldline.ca) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aqnxo-0003mU-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 01:35:12 -0500 Received: from waltdnes.org ([38.112.103.108]) by mail.worldline.ca (8.12.8/8.12.8) with SMTP id i1B6mCT2014377 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 01:48:12 -0500 Received: by waltdnes.org (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 11 Feb 2004 01:32:47 -0500 From: "Walter Dnes" To: ASRG list Subject: Re: [Asrg] 2. Improving Blacklists and Reputation Services Message-ID: <20040211063246.GC16822@m450> References: <4027EDD9.7050405@solidmatrix.com> <20040210060616.GB15708@m450> <40292AA7.2060903@solidmatrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <40292AA7.2060903@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: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 01:32:47 -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 On Tue, Feb 10, 2004 at 02:01:59PM -0500, Yakov Shafranovich wrote > What bothers me is that these codes vary from list to list. Would a > standard set of codes help? Back in the days of the DNSbl-BCP sublist, I proposed a rough draft for certain metadata. Right now 127.0.0.2 seems to be the de-facto standard for single-purpose zones, where a binary YES/NO is sufficient. Aggregate zones are a special case, depending on what they want to do. For the SORBS example, adjacent IP addresses are the way to go. zz.countries.nerd.dk is trying to encode a numeric result. > Second problem that I have is the use of 127.xxx IP addresses > for this. This is really not something that should be done via > IP addresses, a custom SRV, RR or TXT record would server a much > better purpose. Don't forget that the internet is global, and there are many languages and character sets for that matter. Should TXT messages be in English or Chinese ? Which character set ? Please justify. On the other hand, numeric codes, in the form of an IP address can be interpreted in any language. > We should explore other protocols beside DNS for exchanging this data. If we can find a better mousetrap, by all means. The major advantage of DNSbls is that they can be implemented without basic changes in the infrastructure. That is a problem that has caused grief with many anti-spam proposals. > I am actually looking at things like SenderBase and SpamCop Puh-lease, not Spamcop and SenderBase. Those two are are absolute jokes... - Spamcop, in it's early days, sent off complaints to IANA about spam originating from 10.0.0.0/8. They've filtered such obvious junk, but I still don't trust them. SpamCop is marketed to newbies who don't know how to parse headers. As long as it relies on newbie users who can't parse headers, I will not trust them. Like all automated software, it can produce some howlers. People who can parse headers can catch the mistakes, newbies can't. AOL gets blocked every now and then. As a matter of fact http://www.spamcop.net/bl.shtml specifically states... "This blocking list is somewhat experimental and should not be used in a production environment where legitimate email must be delivered." - SenderBase, what can I say about them. I've read quite a few posts by people I trust, saying that SenderBase has listed IP addresses that have never been used by mailservers. OK, so that's 2nd hand stories. Look up the following two URLs... http://www.senderbase.org/search?searchString=0.0.0.0%2F16 http://www.senderbase.org/search?searchString=169.254.0.0%2F16 and click on the IP addresses they list. Those damn spammers at IANA again. Their listing is *MUCH* less of a joke today than it was back in December, when there were tons of listings in RFC1918 and multicast space. If they've merely applied filters to zap obvious errors, I still have reason to question the overall reliability of Senderbase listings. In other words, those two are the absolute last DNSbls I would use. They are great for setting up strawman arguments about why DNSbls are bad, but I wouldn't use them on my incoming email. SPEWS produces less collateral damage, fer-cryin-out-loud. -- Walter Dnes Email users are divided into two classes; 1) Those who have effective spam-blocking 2) Those who wish they did _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Feb 11 01:41:56 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA22160 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 01:41:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aqo3r-0001px-HJ for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 01:41:27 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1B6fRop007055 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 01:41:27 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aqo3r-0001pi-77 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 01:41:27 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA22151 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 01:41:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aqo3o-0004Nj-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 01:41:24 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Aqo2s-0004Ib-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 01:40:26 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aqo2U-0004Di-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 01:40:02 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aqo2V-0001fY-Jz; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 01:40:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aqo1t-0001eI-5G for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 01:39:25 -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 BAA22076 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 01:39:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aqo1q-0004Cl-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 01:39:22 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Aqo0x-00048C-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 01:38:27 -0500 Received: from jtel.ca ([64.7.158.10] helo=mail.worldline.ca) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aqo0G-00043J-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 01:37:44 -0500 Received: from waltdnes.org ([38.112.103.108]) by mail.worldline.ca (8.12.8/8.12.8) with SMTP id i1B6ojT2014423 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 01:50:45 -0500 Received: by waltdnes.org (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 11 Feb 2004 01:35:19 -0500 From: "Walter Dnes" To: ASRG list Subject: Re: [Asrg] 2. Improving Blacklists and Reputation Services Message-ID: <20040211063519.GD16822@m450> References: <4027EDD9.7050405@solidmatrix.com> <20040210060616.GB15708@m450> <40292AA7.2060903@solidmatrix.com> <1076443941.7399.52.camel@ariel.sovam.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1076443941.7399.52.camel@ariel.sovam.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: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 01:35:19 -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 On Tue, Feb 10, 2004 at 11:12:22PM +0300, Eugene Crosser wrote > I think that if a dnsbl standard is ever proposed, it sould not use 'A' > RRs. Maybe TXT would be best, as they allow more flexible syntax, like > that used by SPF. As I've mentioned previously, the internet is global in scope. Which language and which character set do you propose to use for TXT messages? IP addresses used as numeric codes can be handled in any language, and character sets are immaterial. -- Walter Dnes Email users are divided into two classes; 1) Those who have effective spam-blocking 2) Those who wish they did _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Feb 11 04:24:05 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA23751 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 04:24:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aqqan-0003IH-9u for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 04:23:37 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1B9NbwY012655 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 04:23:37 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aqqam-0003I2-GH for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 04:23:36 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA23748 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 04:23:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aqqaj-0003v4-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 04:23:33 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqqZp-0003pT-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 04:22:38 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqqZS-0003ji-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 04:22:14 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqqZF-00037S-HT; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 04:22:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqqYp-00036x-7O for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 04:21:35 -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 EAA23670 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 04:21:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqqYm-0003iS-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 04:21:32 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqqXn-0003dE-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 04:20:31 -0500 Received: from argon.connectinternetsolutions.com ([193.110.243.33] helo=argon.connect.org.uk) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqqXQ-0003YO-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 04:20:08 -0500 Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 1AqqXM-0001fH-K9 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 09:20:04 +0000 Subject: Re: [Asrg] 3b. SMTP Session Verification - The Forwarding Problem 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, 11 Feb 2004 09:20:04 +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=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 > > http://spf.pobox.com/draft-mengwong-sender-rewrite-01.txt > > [observations snipped] The concerns are legitimate and need to be (are being) addressed, however, "sender rewriting" doesn't seem to require any changes except at providers of forwarding services, it's completely backwards compatible, as far as I can tell, and doesn't call for any extensions. It may not be as technically "neat" as other suggestions, but I'd guess it has a much better chance of deployment. Sender rewriting provides a whole new envelope, while Brett's "VIA" would provide for adding to the envelope. -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Feb 11 06:04:07 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA26923 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 06:04:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aqs9c-0000wk-7Y for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 06:03:40 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1BB3eS5003634 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 06:03:40 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aqs9c-0000wX-2v for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 06:03:40 -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 GAA26920 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 06:03:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aqs9Y-0005sY-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 06:03:36 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Aqs8b-0005nN-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 06:02:37 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aqs8F-0005hu-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 06:02:15 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aqs82-0000nc-9z; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 06:02:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aqs7d-0000nD-Jt for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 06:01:37 -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 GAA26884 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 06:01:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aqs7Z-0005h9-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 06:01:34 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Aqs6g-0005cB-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 06:00:39 -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 1Aqs6B-0005WZ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 06:00:07 -0500 Received: from newgiles.nitros9.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.nitros9.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB53B16CCA for ; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 06:02:36 -0500 (EST) From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spooked mail addresses In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 09 Feb 2004 12:21:34 EST." <200402091721.i19HLYE09210@panix5.panix.com> Message-Id: <20040211110236.AB53B16CCA@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, 11 Feb 2004 06:02:36 -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 Seth Breidbart wrote: > So you're looking for a way to distinguish spam from non-spam prior to > receiving the message? It can't be done. Period. It can't be done perfectly. But it can be done better than we do it now. Please don't go down the path of "we shouldn't do it until we can do it perfectly, but we know we can't do it perfectly, so we shouldn't even start." It's dated and tiring. > Do you know the difference between "spam" and "forgery"? Do you know how I can tell? The answer is I can't. So all forged messages appear to be spam. I could swear there's an echo in here. > > As the recipient *I* don't know that such forged messages aren't > > spam. > > *You* apparently don't even know that such non-forged messages aren't > forged. They look forged to me. But you're telling me on a mailing list "Hey, trust me!". I couldn't describe how little impact that has on my MTA. Your comments are irrelevant to the only relevant subject: how can MTA's make this determination. You're stuck on the concept that it *can* be made, and are studiously avoiding any kind of rational discussion on *how*. > That's right. All that I'm objecting to is your _mischaracterizing_ > what is being done as "forgery". Once again for the terminally clueless: If I can't tell it isn't forged, it's forged. > How do you trust _any other_ sender? My toys, my rules. I trust certain domains, and my MTA checks that mail allegedly from those domains really comes from a machine known to those domains. This solution doesn't scale. I want a solution that scales. You want to talk about anything but how to implement something we can use. Thanks for trying, but I don't see any point in continuing this conversation. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Feb 11 09:11:17 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA01490 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 09:11:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aqv4i-00051X-OD for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 09:10:48 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1BEAmBv019308 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 09:10:48 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aqv4i-00051L-JQ for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 09:10:48 -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 JAA01483 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 09:10:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aqv4h-0007Zi-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 09:10:47 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Aqv3m-0007TX-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 09:09:51 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aqv3U-0007NW-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 09:09:32 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aqv2y-0004rW-VQ; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 09:09:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aqv2d-0004kG-Gl for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 09:08:39 -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 JAA01378 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 09:08:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aqv2c-0007Kv-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 09:08:38 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Aqv1d-0007E0-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 09:07:37 -0500 Received: from ip-66-80-117-3.nyc.megapath.net ([66.80.117.3] helo=longsword.omniti.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aqv0e-00075Q-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 09:06:36 -0500 Received: from ip-66-80-117-2.nyc.megapath.net ([66.80.117.2] helo=[10.80.116.129]) by longsword.omniti.com with asmtp (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.14) id 1Aqv0e-0007x5-M2; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 09:06:36 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20040211051332.GB16822@m450> References: <4027FF64.9010902@solidmatrix.com> <200402092347.i19NldZ24320@panix5.panix.com> <20040211051332.GB16822@m450> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v612) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ASRG list From: George Schlossnagle Subject: Re: [Asrg] 2. Improving Blacklists and Reputation Services To: "Walter Dnes" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.612) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 09:07:41 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Feb 11, 2004, at 12:13 AM, Walter Dnes wrote: > On Mon, Feb 09, 2004 at 06:47:39PM -0500, Seth Breidbart wrote >> Yakov Shafranovich wrote: >> >>> An accrediation service is vouching for someone, a reputation >>> service is stating an opinion of someone's reputation. The two >>> things are different. >> >> How are they different (in any way that matters to me)? In both >> cases, a third party X is saying something to the effect of "I think >> you should trust Y." (Or is it that accreditation can only be >> positive, while reputation can be positive or negative? In that case, >> I see no reason for accreditation services since they're strictly a >> subset of reputation services.) > > I interpret accreditation to mean testifying to known facts. E.g. > the > company using a certificate is XYZ. Reputation is more word-of-mouth, > or what the community *THINKS* of someone's character. Accreditation to me involves an official, recognizable entity certifying that the party in question meets some sort of standard. This accrediting entity should be widely recognized as being able to provide this sort of assessment without need for corroborating support. Reputation is a less-formal aggregate measure formed from the collective opinion of a community. The difference to me is that with accreditation you can point back to a single entity as the source, while with reputation you cannot. George _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Feb 11 09:16:13 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA01773 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 09:16:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aqv9U-0005d6-Pu for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 09:15:44 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1BEFiLL021634 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 09:15:44 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aqv9U-0005cr-KU for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 09:15:44 -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 JAA01762 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 09:15:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aqv9T-0000KV-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 09:15:43 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Aqv8i-0000En-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 09:14:57 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aqv7p-00007x-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 09:14:01 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aqv7p-0005JP-ND; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 09:14:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aquww-0003yC-IN for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 09:02:46 -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 JAA01198 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 09:02:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aquwv-0006kA-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 09:02:45 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Aquw4-0006ea-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 09:01:53 -0500 Received: from mout.perfora.net ([217.160.230.41]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AquvT-0006Ya-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 09:01:15 -0500 Received: from [217.160.230.50] (helo=smtp.perfora.net) by mout.perfora.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1AquvR-0000Wp-00; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 09:01:13 -0500 Received: from [68.29.135.153] (helo=solidmatrix.com) by smtp.perfora.net with asmtp (TLSv1:RC4-MD5:128) (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1AquvQ-0001BB-00; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 09:01:13 -0500 Message-ID: <402A359D.1070005@solidmatrix.com> From: Yakov Shafranovich Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, he, ru MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Walter Dnes CC: ASRG list Subject: Re: [Asrg] 2. Improving Blacklists and Reputation Services References: <4027EDD9.7050405@solidmatrix.com> <20040210060616.GB15708@m450> <40292AA7.2060903@solidmatrix.com> <20040211063246.GC16822@m450> In-Reply-To: <20040211063246.GC16822@m450> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.83.2.0 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: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 09:01:01 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Walter Dnes wrote: > On Tue, Feb 10, 2004 at 02:01:59PM -0500, Yakov Shafranovich wrote > >>Second problem that I have is the use of 127.xxx IP addresses >>for this. This is really not something that should be done via >>IP addresses, a custom SRV, RR or TXT record would server a much >>better purpose. > > > Don't forget that the internet is global, and there are many languages > and character sets for that matter. Should TXT messages be in English > or Chinese ? Which character set ? Please justify. On the other hand, > numeric codes, in the form of an IP address can be interpreted in any > language. > A new RR with its own format or a TXT record with its own format. I am not talking about a free form format, rather something like LMAP. What I am basically trying to figure out is whether taking the entire mix of DNSBLs outthere with all of their various response codes, formats, etc. and standardazing it would help. > >>We should explore other protocols beside DNS for exchanging this data. > > > If we can find a better mousetrap, by all means. The major advantage > of DNSbls is that they can be implemented without basic changes in the > infrastructure. That is a problem that has caused grief with many > anti-spam proposals. > For major ISPs, bulk transfer of data might be better. To avoid DDOS, P2P might be better. There are other cases. > >>I am actually looking at things like SenderBase and SpamCop > > .... > Puh-lease, not Spamcop and SenderBase. Those two are are absolute > jokes... > In other words, those two are the absolute last DNSbls I would use. > They are great for setting up strawman arguments about why DNSbls are > bad, but I wouldn't use them on my incoming email. SPEWS produces less > collateral damage, fer-cryin-out-loud. > Its a strawman - I am not refering to the use of them, rather to the data the main systems provide. ISPs can use such data to make their own decisions rather than relying on the BL operator to do it for them. Yakov P.S. My company's ISP uses SpamCop, so I know first hand exactly how much damage it is causing. So far efforts to drop it, haven't been successful :( ------- 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 Feb 11 09:16:13 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA01790 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 09:16:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aqv9V-0005dO-F5 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 09:15:45 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1BEFjk7021652 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 09:15:45 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aqv9V-0005d9-BM for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 09:15:45 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA01766 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 09:15:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aqv9T-0000Ka-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 09:15:43 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Aqv8j-0000Ev-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 09:14:58 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aqv7p-00007y-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 09:14:01 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aqv7q-0005JX-8W; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 09:14:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aquyn-00049h-48 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 09:04:41 -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 JAA01220 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 09:04:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aquyl-0006vf-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 09:04:39 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Aquxs-0006q0-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 09:03:44 -0500 Received: from mout.perfora.net ([217.160.230.41]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aqux1-0006kj-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 09:02:51 -0500 Received: from [217.160.230.50] (helo=smtp.perfora.net) by mout.perfora.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1Aquwx-0001HH-00; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 09:02:47 -0500 Received: from [68.29.135.153] (helo=solidmatrix.com) by smtp.perfora.net with asmtp (TLSv1:RC4-MD5:128) (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1Aquwx-0001C8-00; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 09:02:48 -0500 Message-ID: <402A3600.7040503@solidmatrix.com> From: Yakov Shafranovich Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, he, ru MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jon Kyme CC: ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] 3b. SMTP Session Verification - The Forwarding Problem References: In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 0.83.2.0 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: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 09:02:40 -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 Jon Kyme wrote: >> http://spf.pobox.com/draft-mengwong-sender-rewrite-01.txt > > [observations snipped] > > > The concerns are legitimate and need to be (are being) addressed, however, > "sender rewriting" doesn't seem to require any changes except at providers > of forwarding services, it's completely backwards compatible, as far as I > can tell, and doesn't call for any extensions. It may not be as technically > "neat" as other suggestions, but I'd guess it has a much better chance of > deployment. > > Sender rewriting provides a whole new envelope, while Brett's "VIA" would > provide for adding to the envelope. > > There are some concerns with the length limits of certain RFC 2822 headers such as "Return Path" which might cause problems with sender rewriting. 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 Feb 11 09:46:16 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA02821 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 09:46:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aqvca-0007jI-Kj for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 09:45:48 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1BEjmFP029706 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 09:45:48 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aqvca-0007j3-FZ for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 09:45:48 -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 JAA02816 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 09:45:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqvcY-0003SO-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 09:45:46 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Aqvbf-0003Mq-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 09:44:52 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aqvaw-0003Gi-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 09:44:06 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aqvar-0007ZI-EZ; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 09:44:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aqvad-0007Wl-VO for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 09:43:48 -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 JAA02767 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 09:43:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aqvab-0003F9-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 09:43:45 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqvZl-000397-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 09:42:54 -0500 Received: from pigeon.verisign.com ([65.205.251.71]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqvYn-00032R-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 09:41:54 -0500 Received: from mou1wnexc01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.53]) by pigeon.verisign.com (8.12.10/) with ESMTP id i1BEfq7w014178; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 06:41:52 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <1TZH4PLN>; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 06:41:52 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Yakov Shafranovich'" , Walter Dnes Cc: ASRG list Subject: RE: [Asrg] 2. Improving Blacklists and Reputation Services 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, 11 Feb 2004 06:41:51 -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 > A new RR with its own format or a TXT record with its own > format. I am > not talking about a free form format, rather something like LMAP. The info I get from the DNS engineers is that new RRs take a very long time to propagate. DNS servers are not required to support them or forward them under the standard. We almost certainly do not need a TXT record per entry. If we do there starts to be a scaling issue on the back end. If you have 60 million domains to track you need to keep a handle on the per-domain data. 3 bytes per domain is 120 Mb. 32 bytes per domain is 1.2Gb and so on... And that memory footprint will affect caches as well. What I suggest is that we use an A record for _per_domain_ info and a TXT record to describe the format of the record - see my accreditation draft. > What I am basically trying to figure out is whether taking the entire > mix of DNSBLs outthere with all of their various response codes, > formats, etc. and standardazing it would help. Trying to get people to change what they are doing today in a major way is going to fail. They will all wait for someone else to move. Much better to work out how to work within the system. A single TXT record giving descriptive information solves that problem. With the metadata approach you can also tell the user that there is additional info that is NOT in A records. For example a link to a digital certificate, and yes a TXT record if it is really necessary and useful. > For major ISPs, bulk transfer of data might be better. To avoid DDOS, > P2P might be better. There are other cases. DDoS is a solved problem for the core DNS. That is why Vixie used it in the first place. Bulk transfer is a useful supplement, but remember that we have been through this whole thing in the PKI space for 15 years and the trend has been away from CRLs to OCSP/XKMS. In other words the opposite to what you suggest. I would expect that there would be alternative arragements for the major ISPs. But remember that they get their .com data that way so they can do it for their spam data. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Feb 11 10:15:12 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA04573 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 10:15:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aqw4b-0006AD-F8 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 10:14:45 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1BFEjtZ023687 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 10:14:45 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aqw4b-00069y-9M for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 10:14:45 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA04535 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 10:14:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aqw4Z-0006Br-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 10:14:43 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Aqw3e-00066w-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 10:13:46 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aqw35-00061g-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 10:13:11 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aqw2u-0005ax-Ov; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 10:13:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aqw2f-0005XK-Oi for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 10:12:45 -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 KAA04365 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 10:12:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aqw2d-00060c-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 10:12:43 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Aqw1p-0005vR-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 10:11:53 -0500 Received: from argon.connectinternetsolutions.com ([193.110.243.33] helo=argon.connect.org.uk) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aqw0s-0005pg-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 10:10:54 -0500 Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 1Aqw0l-0001JH-2X for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 15:10:47 +0000 Subject: Re: [Asrg] 3b. SMTP Session Verification - The Forwarding Problem 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, 11 Feb 2004 15:10:47 +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=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 > Jon Kyme wrote: > >> http://spf.pobox.com/draft-mengwong-sender-rewrite-01.txt > > > > [observations snipped] > > > > > There are some concerns with the length limits of certain RFC 2822 > headers such as "Return Path" which might cause problems with sender > rewriting. > Yes, these concerns are addressed by the use of some max-length "cookie" rather than an ever-growing (with each forward) verp-like string. Of course, this loses the sender string's "trace" (which is still available in the headers - so no real loss ?) but also limits the risk of exploitation via an explicit return-path "routing". It would require the forwarder to maintain some data, which will have privacy/security implications. Some kind of envelope modification (i.e. more than just RCPT) is probably required for happy forwarding in an environment made unfriendly by LMAP. It's not a big deal really, but it can't be ignored. -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Feb 11 11:43:14 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA08803 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 11:43:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqxRl-0006QJ-MY for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 11:42:46 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1BGgjHF024687 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 11:42:45 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqxRl-0006Q6-D8 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 11:42:45 -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 LAA08797 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 11:42:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqxRk-0000dF-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 11:42:44 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqxQp-0000Y6-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 11:41:48 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqxPw-0000Sv-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 11:40:52 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqxP9-0006DG-SJ; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 11:40:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqxOq-0006C6-Jz for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 11:39:44 -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 LAA08631 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 11:39:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqxOp-0000Lq-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 11:39:43 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqxNu-0000Fh-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 11:38:46 -0500 Received: from ns.dcn.ru ([212.220.30.10] helo=www.dcn.ru) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqxN4-00009F-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 11:37:54 -0500 Received: from edo.dcn.ru (Edo.dcn.ru [10.10.10.212]) by www.dcn.ru (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61104E2AB2 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 21:37:48 +0500 (YEKT) From: "Viktor S. Grishchenko" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 2. Improving Blacklists and Reputation Services User-Agent: KMail/1.5.94 References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="koi8-r" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200402112137.47442.gritzko@post.dcn.ru> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 21:37:47 +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 On Wednesday 11 February 2004 19:41, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > DDoS is a solved problem for the core DNS. That is why Vixie used it in the > first place. Yes, solved, because it is under DDoS all the time: http://www.npaci.edu/online/v7.3/caida.root.html New functionality will introduce new issues (by the way, it is already a straightforward reason to reject new functionality). And million zombie army is not something unreal today. DNS root is too far from its clients to somehow affect their behavior, implement some policy or establish some 'contract'. At the same time it has to run at any cost. This abyss between abilities and responsibilities may be source of many problems. So, your 'solved' better be understood as 'solved for now, until nothing has changed'. E.g. LMAP deployment may introduce additional pressures: functional, bug-related and malicious. Excuse me for being pessimistic and being off-topic, but DNS wasn't engineered to express reputation and trust. There is a high risk to be involved in programming 3D shooter for exactly the Turing machine. H. Danisch states we already do. (I currently don't think so.) -- Viktor S. Grishchenko _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Feb 11 11:49:15 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA08991 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 11:49:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqxXb-000731-1v for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 11:48:47 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1BGmkvV027085 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 11:48:46 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqxXa-00072m-RO for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 11:48:46 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA08966 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 11:48:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqxXZ-0001FY-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 11:48:45 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqxWj-0001AQ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 11:47:54 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqxVy-00014W-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 11:47:06 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqxVt-0006Yb-Fq; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 11:47:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqxVk-0006Y0-EK for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 11:46:52 -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 LAA08902 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 11:46:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqxVj-00013c-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 11:46:51 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqxUt-0000xX-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 11:46:00 -0500 Received: from ip-66-80-117-3.nyc.megapath.net ([66.80.117.3] helo=longsword.omniti.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqxUU-0000r0-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 11:45:35 -0500 Received: from ip-66-80-117-2.nyc.megapath.net ([66.80.117.2] helo=[10.80.116.129]) by longsword.omniti.com with asmtp (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.14) id 1AqxUU-0004TX-CM; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 11:45:34 -0500 In-Reply-To: <200402112137.47442.gritzko@post.dcn.ru> References: <200402112137.47442.gritzko@post.dcn.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v612) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: asrg@ietf.org From: George Schlossnagle Subject: Re: [Asrg] 2. Improving Blacklists and Reputation Services To: "Viktor S. Grishchenko" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.612) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 11:46:31 -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 On Feb 11, 2004, at 11:37 AM, Viktor S. Grishchenko wrote: > Excuse me for being pessimistic and being off-topic, but DNS wasn't > engineered > to express reputation and trust. There is a high risk to be involved in > programming 3D shooter for exactly the Turing machine. H. Danisch > states we > already do. (I currently don't think so.) I don't completely get the analogy, but DNS was designed as an informational system, having the authoritative record-holder for a domain express policy information in a TXT record for that domain seems well in-line with the original design. George _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Feb 11 12:07:17 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA09737 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 12:07:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aqxp3-000130-BH for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 12:06:49 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1BH6nCg004020 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 12:06:49 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aqxp3-00012l-3L for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 12:06:49 -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 MAA09724 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 12:06:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aqxp1-000353-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 12:06:47 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Aqxo8-0002yz-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 12:05:53 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqxnW-0002t9-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 12:05:14 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqxnL-0000g9-E0; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 12:05:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aqxn4-0000et-9s for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 12:04:46 -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 MAA09618 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 12:04:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aqxn2-0002r8-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 12:04:45 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Aqxm9-0002l6-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 12:03:50 -0500 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqxlD-0002fj-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 12:02:51 -0500 Received: from saci.ensmp.fr ([194.214.158.176]) by mx2.foretec.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1AqxlC-0003GI-Tc for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 12:02:51 -0500 Received: from ensmp.fr ([194.214.158.176]) by saci.ensmp.fr (sendmail 9.0.0.PreAlpha11) with ESMTP id S00000000402A4FD601; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 18:02:38 +0100 Message-ID: <402A602D.30200@ensmp.fr> From: Jose Marcio Martins da Cruz Organization: Ecole des Mines de Paris User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; SunOS sun4u; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020920 Netscape/7.0 X-Accept-Language: fr, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Yakov Shafranovich CC: ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] 2. Improving Blacklists and Reputation Services References: <4027EDD9.7050405@solidmatrix.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 18:02:37 +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 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Not exactly the question asked by Yakov, but mainly about what RBLs will be. If I look at our mail server who's sending spam, I can see that most of them are doing only very few connections a day : one, two or three. Very few gateways do more than five connections. - I'm talking about a mailserver with some thousand users and about 50 K connections a day. This may indicate that many spam is sent by a distributed system of workers, and not by open relays. If this is the case, and if this kind of way continues - the tendance will be to have more and more IP addresses to be inserted on blacklists. Also, the time some particular IP address will be used by spammers have chances to be shorter than the address of an open relay. The possible consequence is that the number of addresses may explode. Nowadays, list.dsbl.org has 2100000 (two million and a hundred thousand) addresses. Is it reasonable to consider that there isn't a limit on the number of IP addresses on a blacklist ? Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > I would like to pose a question to the group. The IP address of the > incoming MTA is the only sure thing that we possess today that cannot be > easily spoofed (BGP attacks aside). There are numerous blacklist and > reputation services out there that carry and store information about IP > addresses. With an LMAP-type proposal like DRIP, this information can > also be keyed by domain name. > > All of this implies that reputation services such as blacklists will > continue to exist. However, a major problem has been with these services > is that they provide a binary yes/no answer. Many commercial ISPs would > like to make the decisions themselves. Filters such as SpamAssasin would > probably be better off basing data on a larger scale than a simple yes > or no. > > Taking all of this into account, I ask the following: > 1. Is it feasible to develop a standard format and protocols for storing > and quering data from reputation services? > 2. Is it feasible for such format to be feature rich providing more data > than a simple yes/no. Meng Wong of SPF proposed on his list a while back > something like how many messages sent by MTA, how many were spam, etc., > akin to what SenderBase does. > 3. Can this be supplemented by accrediation formats and protocols? > 4. Would any of this improve blacklists? > 5. Would all of this reduce spam? > > Feel free to forward this message to other lists, and NANAE. > > 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 > > -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Jose Marcio MARTINS DA CRUZ Tel. :(33) 01.40.51.93.41 Ecole des Mines de Paris http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr 60, bd Saint Michel http://www.ensmp.fr/~martins 75272 - PARIS CEDEX 06 mailto:Jose-Marcio.Martins@ensmp.fr _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Feb 11 13:05:15 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA11828 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 13:05:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqyjA-0005PA-Jo for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 13:04:48 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1BI4mPE020770 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 13:04:48 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqyjA-0005Ov-Ea for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 13:04:48 -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 NAA11775 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 13:04:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aqyj8-0001BF-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 13:04:46 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqyiC-000161-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 13:03:48 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aqyhh-00010z-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 13:03:17 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqyhT-0004s1-H1; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 13:03:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqyhE-0004oH-Rn for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 13:02:48 -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 NAA11732 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 13:02:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqyhC-00010P-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 13:02:46 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqygJ-0000vd-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 13:01:51 -0500 Received: from mail3.panix.com ([166.84.1.74]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aqyff-0000qR-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 13:01:11 -0500 Received: from panix5.panix.com (panix5.panix.com [166.84.1.5]) by mail3.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 539809873B for ; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 13:01:03 -0500 (EST) Received: (from sethb@localhost) by panix5.panix.com (8.11.6p2-a/8.8.8/PanixN1.1) id i1BI0VU02730; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 13:00:31 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200402111800.i1BI0VU02730@panix5.panix.com> From: Seth Breidbart To: asrg@ietf.org In-reply-to: (message from George Schlossnagle on Wed, 11 Feb 2004 09:07:41 -0500) Subject: Re: [Asrg] 2. Improving Blacklists and Reputation Services References: <4027FF64.9010902@solidmatrix.com> <200402092347.i19NldZ24320@panix5.panix.com> <20040211051332.GB16822@m450> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 13:00:31 -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 > Accreditation to me involves an official, recognizable entity > certifying that the party in question meets some sort of standard. > This accrediting entity should be widely recognized as being able to > provide this sort of assessment without need for corroborating > support. "official" according to whom? "widely recognized" among whom? > Reputation is a less-formal aggregate measure formed from the > collective opinion of a community. Defined how? Where would you place something like SPEWS? It seems to me that just about all of the interesting cases don't meet either of those definitions. Seth _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Feb 11 13:21:20 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA12333 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 13:21:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aqyyj-0006QR-SJ for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 13:20:54 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1BIKrN3024693 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 13:20:53 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aqyyj-0006QC-Jw for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 13:20:53 -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 NAA12316 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 13:20:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aqyyh-0002hL-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 13:20:51 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Aqyxu-0002bh-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 13:20:03 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aqyx6-0002Vj-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 13:19:12 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aqywv-0006E6-5k; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 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 1Aqywl-0006Du-SZ for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 13:18:51 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA12284 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 13:18:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aqywj-0002UZ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 13:18:49 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Aqyvl-0002Oh-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 13:17:50 -0500 Received: from ip-66-80-117-3.nyc.megapath.net ([66.80.117.3] helo=longsword.omniti.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aqyus-0002JX-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 13:16:54 -0500 Received: from ip-66-80-117-2.nyc.megapath.net ([66.80.117.2] helo=[10.80.116.129]) by longsword.omniti.com with asmtp (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.14) id 1Aqyus-0007fV-IB; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 13:16:54 -0500 In-Reply-To: <200402111800.i1BI0VU02730@panix5.panix.com> References: <4027FF64.9010902@solidmatrix.com> <200402092347.i19NldZ24320@panix5.panix.com> <20040211051332.GB16822@m450> <200402111800.i1BI0VU02730@panix5.panix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v612) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <9A554136-5CBE-11D8-AA0A-000393B2B3C0@omniti.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: asrg@ietf.org From: George Schlossnagle Subject: Re: [Asrg] 2. Improving Blacklists and Reputation Services To: Seth Breidbart X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.612) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 13:17:51 -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 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Feb 11, 2004, at 1:00 PM, Seth Breidbart wrote: >> Accreditation to me involves an official, recognizable entity >> certifying that the party in question meets some sort of standard. >> This accrediting entity should be widely recognized as being able to >> provide this sort of assessment without need for corroborating >> support. > > "official" according to whom? "widely recognized" among whom? Well that's the rub, eh? The validity of an accrediting entity is always questionable. If you look at most accreditations in meatspace, you end up with the same issue. In general, unless the accrediting entity is granted there powers legally, the legitimacy of such an entity rests with the community. >> Reputation is a less-formal aggregate measure formed from the >> collective opinion of a community. > > Defined how? > > Where would you place something like SPEWS? It seems to me that just > about all of the interesting cases don't meet either of those > definitions. Well, why do all cases have to fall into those two categories? I would say that SPEWS is neither. It certainly is not an accreditor, as a) it does not certify anyone b) it bills itself only as a reporting service, not a policy service I don't think it's a reputation system either, though you could make the claims that they provide a gateway into a reputation service (since the accumulate reports and make listing judgements based on the aggregated info) or that the public dnsrbls collectively form a reputation service. I see SPEWS as a watchdog group, which is a third type of system. BondedSender is probably the closest thing to an 'accreditor' for email. George _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Feb 11 14:11:35 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA14892 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 14:11:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqzlK-00039b-C0 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 14:11:07 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1BJB6sJ012117 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 14:11:06 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqzlK-00039M-3Z for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 14:11:06 -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 OAA14865 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 14:11:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqzlH-0000NS-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 14:11:03 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AqzkR-0000ES-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 14:10:12 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AqzjZ-00004z-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 14:09:17 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AqzjJ-0002xH-A0; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 14:09:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aqzj8-0002vf-HC for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 14:08:50 -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 OAA14700 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 14:08:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aqzj6-00000A-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 14:08:48 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Aqzi6-0007gA-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 14:07:47 -0500 Received: from out1.smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.25]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aqzh7-0007VJ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 14:06:45 -0500 X-Sasl-enc: ncPmMJrTYr0DMo0OgSDNZw 1076526404 Received: from elvey.com (ns.nextbus.com [64.164.28.194]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA2D64E88F5; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 14:06:42 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <402A7D41.6020503@elvey.com> From: Matthew Elvey 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: Yakov Shafranovich , ASRG , "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" Subject: Re: [Asrg] LMAP BOF - risk of BGP attacks compromising LMAP is significant References: <40297B89.6080804@solidmatrix.com> In-Reply-To: <40297B89.6080804@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: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 11:06:41 -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 2/10/2004 4:47 PM, Yakov Shafranovich sent forth electrons to convey: > Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > >> Just to clarify some of my earlier comments. >> >> I do think this is a serious issue. That does not mean I believe that >> the >> existing security mechanisms are entirely inadequate. It simply means >> that I >> think we should try to understand whether this is the case or not. >> > > If this threat any worse than all of the possibly threats against DNS? > If it is on the same level, than we should just mention both in the > discussion document. That should be sufficient. I think it's at least as bad, as we know BGP attacks of the kind we're discussing are occuring regularly in the wild, while I at least don't know that's the case for DNS attacks of the kind we're discussing (I know there are DNS attacks of other types, which don't concern us occurring regularly). I think that's all we can do. Perhaps the sorbs folks could be asked what fraction of the lookups that are hits are hits in hijacked IP space. (I'm tempted to suggest that we suggest that a scoring system weigh listing in a DNSRBL of stolen IP space more heavily than an OK from LMAP, but won't; it currently not in LMAP's scope.) And the probability of small BGP attacks of the kind we're discussing is close to 1 > > As for solutions, it might be something that the routing folks need to > deal with. I am not sure if we have the mandate or the expertise to > deal with it. I agree, it's not for us to deal with. > > Yakov PHB wrote: >Far worse in that it brings down large parts of the Internet in >the worst case - for real. > >The probability of it being realized is lower, the consequences >are much higher. > Actually, the probability of BGP attacks that take over small parts of the Internet is close to 1 - it is going on now; see the link in my previous email - www.completewhois.com has long lists of bogons and hijacked IP subnets, many of them current, and some of them not so small - e.g. current /8 bogons, current /16 hijacks, and past /8 hijacks. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Feb 11 16:36:12 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA28248 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 16:36:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ar21H-0000w8-LH for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 16:35:45 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1BLZhfK003594 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 16:35:43 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ar21H-0000vt-8m for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 16:35:43 -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 QAA28158 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 16:35:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ar21F-0003Gu-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 16:35:41 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Ar20G-00035j-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 16:34:41 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ar1zL-0002vq-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 16:33:43 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ar1yf-0000eO-GX; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 16:33:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ar1xl-0000XA-Ks for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 16:32:06 -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 QAA27627 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 16:32:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ar1xj-0002bW-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 16:32:03 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Ar1wd-0002Qo-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 16:30:56 -0500 Received: from mail1.nber.org ([207.113.108.7]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ar1vm-0002Id-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 16:30:03 -0500 Received: from mail1 (root@localhost) by mail1.nber.org (8.12.8/8.12.8) with SMTP id i1BLTsxq011553 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 16:29:55 -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 i1BLTrWv011531; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 16:29:53 -0500 From: Daniel Feenberg To: George Schlossnagle cc: "Viktor S. Grishchenko" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 2. Improving Blacklists and Reputation Services In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 16:21:20 -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 Some years ago I saw a long essay posted on the web with a title something like "DNS makes a bad distributed database for things other than domain names". It was written in the style of an RFC, but it doesn't look like it was ever made part of the series. I don't remember if the arguments made in the paper were good, or merely repeated obvious points about the possible propagation of stale entries, data format limitations, etc. Does anyone remember that paper? I would add that the use of DNS for distributing RBL information has a remarkable breadth of support covering all major open source and proprietary MTAs, and could better be held up as a model for imitation, rather than carping about minor shortcomings. On Wed, 11 Feb 2004, George Schlossnagle wrote: > > On Feb 11, 2004, at 11:37 AM, Viktor S. Grishchenko wrote: > > Excuse me for being pessimistic and being off-topic, but DNS wasn't > > engineered > > to express reputation and trust. There is a high risk to be involved in > > programming 3D shooter for exactly the Turing machine. H. Danisch > > states we > > already do. (I currently don't think so.) > > I don't completely get the analogy, but DNS was designed as an > informational system, having the authoritative record-holder for a > domain express policy information in a TXT record for that domain seems > well in-line with the original design. > > George > > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > 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 Feb 11 16:55:57 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA00478 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 16:55:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ar2KM-0003Lc-Pd for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 16:55:29 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1BLtQVn012862 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 16:55:26 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ar2KM-0003LN-L4 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 16:55:26 -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 QAA00272 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 16:55:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ar2KK-0006PM-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 16:55:24 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Ar2J6-00069Z-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 16:54:08 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ar2IC-0005xD-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 16:53:12 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ar2I0-0002yk-IU; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 16:53:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ar2HB-0002w7-CQ for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 16:52:09 -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 QAA29810 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 16:52:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ar2H9-0005jE-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 16:52:07 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Ar2G5-0005VM-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 16:51:02 -0500 Received: from host217-35-105-169.in-addr.btopenworld.com ([217.35.105.169] helo=mail.neosinteractive.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ar2F8-0005L0-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 16:50:03 -0500 Received: from tthomson ([217.35.105.173] unverified) by mail.neosinteractive.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Wed, 11 Feb 2004 20:54:37 +0000 From: "Tom Thomson" To: Subject: RE: [Asrg] Its all over for Challenge Response Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <6.0.1.1.0.20040204005208.01b0e4c8@mail.uniwares.com> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Feb 2004 20:54:37.0515 (UTC) FILETIME=[42C6F9B0:01C3F0E1] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 21:49:59 -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 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit At 04 February 2004 03:03 Andreas Saurwein wrote:- > At 2/2/2004 01:59 Monday, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > >I don't want my ISP making arbitrary decisions about what mail I receive, > >I want to make those decisions myself, although I will probably use > >third party info to do so. > > Phill, I think that you are making the almost usual mistake here in this > group that you assume that everybody on the internet has an idea what they > are doing. These days are over. Since about 10 years people using the > internet have not a single idea about the technical side of it. > 99.9% of all mail users would be more than happy when their ISP would do > anything to suppress their spam. If this costs some legitimate mails > occasionally, ok, so be it. People are used to it. How does that detract from Pill's point? Where is the problem in the ISP offering an optional blocking service? The ISP I use for my home machines offers an optional spam-blocking service. I chose to switch it on for my systems. It quarantines incoming spam for a limted time (a few days), so I can pick it up if I want it. It doesn't send me stupid notifications about having received spam, it lets me look at the quarantine area on the MTA when I feel like it. That's an ordinary IPS targeting the mass of consumers, most of whom are certainly too unaware to do their own filtering (just as you suggest) but they are certainly not so dumb that they don't understand the options the ISP is offereing them. I believe the vast majority have the filtering switched on. For my work machine, I don't use any external spam filtering. Different world, different choice. Where I do get more complex than the average user is in the use of disposable addresses and addresses where the spam filter is on sometimes and not at other times; I wouldn't expect the average internet to use those things. I would be fairly annoyed if my ISP prevented me from using them. I would be even more annoyed if the advice of some techie (perhaps you?) with too low an opinion of the average user caused the ISP to pull the plug on optional filtering (either making it mandatory or not available). That would be real dumbing down. Tom _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Feb 11 17:15:53 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA02998 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 17:15:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ar2dh-0006OM-OR for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 17:15:25 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1BMFPF6024564 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 17:15:25 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ar2dh-0006O7-Iu for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 17:15:25 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA02876 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 17:15:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ar2df-0001z4-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 17:15:23 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Ar2cD-0001gs-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 17:13:55 -0500 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ar2aF-0000kY-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 17:11:51 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by mx2.foretec.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1Ar2M9-0006yr-TI for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 16:57:18 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ar2Lt-0003Zi-K7; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 16:57:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ar2LQ-0003VU-7K for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 16:56:34 -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 QAA00590 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 16:56:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ar2LN-0006dL-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 16:56:29 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Ar2KL-0006Pa-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 16:55:26 -0500 Received: from host217-35-105-169.in-addr.btopenworld.com ([217.35.105.169] helo=mail.neosinteractive.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ar2J7-00069g-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 16:54:10 -0500 Received: from tthomson ([217.35.105.173] unverified) by mail.neosinteractive.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Wed, 11 Feb 2004 20:58:44 +0000 From: "Tom Thomson" To: "Andreas Saurwein" , "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" , Subject: RE: [Asrg] Its all over for Challenge Response Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <6.0.1.1.0.20040204012036.01c25ec0@mail.uniwares.com> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Feb 2004 20:58:44.0718 (UTC) FILETIME=[D61F28E0:01C3F0E1] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 21:54:06 -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 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I guess that's wrong with a second rate education - it's holders think that their failure to communicate with ordinary people is a failure in those ordinary people rather than a failure in themselves. Tom -----Original Message----- From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of Andreas Saurwein Sent: 04 February 2004 03:33 To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip; asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Its all over for Challenge Response At 4/2/2004 01:18 Wednesday, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > > Phill, I think that you are making the almost usual mistake > > here in this > > group that you assume that everybody on the internet has an > > idea what they > > are doing. > >Actually this is ny main complaint about the IETF establishment. >They still think they have a right to control the future of the net >but they simply don't care about the ordinary user. Suppose that is the price we pay with education - we expect others to have the same level of knowledge and that they understand us and our reasoning. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list 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 Feb 11 17:15:56 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA03015 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 17:15:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ar2dk-0006Of-9P for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 17:15:28 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1BMFSn3024583 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 17:15:28 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ar2dk-0006OP-2Q for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 17:15:28 -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 RAA02880 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 17:15:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ar2dh-0001zX-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 17:15:25 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Ar2cF-0001hK-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 17:13:56 -0500 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ar2aI-0000kY-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 17:11:54 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by mx2.foretec.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1Ar2LL-0006yD-0D for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 16:56:27 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ar2Kv-0003NZ-D9; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 16:56:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ar2Kd-0003N3-0A for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 16:55:43 -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 QAA00387 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 16:55:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ar2Ka-0006VA-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 16:55:40 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Ar2JO-0006CP-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 16:54:26 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com ([65.205.251.73]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ar2IN-0005xx-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 16:53:23 -0500 Received: from mou1wnexc02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.54]) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.10/) with ESMTP id i1BLrFqW013520; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 13:53:16 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <13KWKFHV>; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 13:53:15 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Daniel Feenberg'" , George Schlossnagle Cc: "Viktor S. Grishchenko" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] 2. Improving Blacklists and Reputation Services 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, 11 Feb 2004 13:53:08 -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 > Some years ago I saw a long essay posted on the web with a > title something > like "DNS makes a bad distributed database for things other > than domain > names". It was written in the style of an RFC, but it doesn't > look like it > was ever made part of the series. I seem to recall John Klensen getting irate about all sorts of junk just getting thrown in without any sort of architecture. There was a presentation at an IETF. I think that a lot of his points were on the issue of fuzzy match though. DNS is fast because it is an exact match scheme. Try to fuzz it or include search (aka X.500, LDAP or other failures) and it goes bazzzongo. I agree in principle, but disagree that there is no architecture. We could have one, just insist that the SPF TXT record uses the _SPF prefix. It is an entirely logical extension to the DNS. Instead of extending through the RR system we extend through the name system. > I would add that the use of DNS for distributing RBL information has a > remarkable breadth of support covering all major open source and > proprietary MTAs, and could better be held up as a model for > imitation, > rather than carping about minor shortcomings. The other information point here is that there has been a lot of work on Web Services and WSDL and WS-Policy and that can all be run back to the DNS through appropriate syntax modifications. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Feb 11 17:45:15 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA05549 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 17:45:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ar368-0000oU-Oa for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 17:44:48 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1BMimZ0003120 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 17:44:48 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ar368-0000oF-EN for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 17:44:48 -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 RAA05515 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 17:44:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ar365-00069X-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 17:44:46 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Ar35B-000631-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 17:43:50 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ar34b-0005wd-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 17:43:13 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ar34P-0000as-Cm; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 17:43:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ar2xR-0008TA-V4 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 17:35:50 -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 RAA04733 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 17:35:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ar2xP-0004qn-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 17:35:47 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Ar2wV-0004jE-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 17:34:52 -0500 Received: from mout.perfora.net ([217.160.230.40]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ar2va-0004bS-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 17:33:54 -0500 Received: from [217.160.230.52] (helo=smtp.perfora.net) by mout.perfora.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1Ar2vL-0008Qv-00; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 17:33:39 -0500 Received: from [68.29.208.52] (helo=solidmatrix.com) by smtp.perfora.net with asmtp (TLSv1:RC4-MD5:128) (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1Ar2vK-0000qX-00; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 17:33:39 -0500 Message-ID: <402AAD89.1080104@solidmatrix.com> From: Yakov Shafranovich Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, he, ru MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" CC: "'Daniel Feenberg'" , George Schlossnagle , "Viktor S. Grishchenko" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 2. Improving Blacklists and Reputation Services References: In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 0.83.2.0 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: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 17:32:41 -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 Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: >>I would add that the use of DNS for distributing RBL information has a >>remarkable breadth of support covering all major open source and >>proprietary MTAs, and could better be held up as a model for >>imitation, >>rather than carping about minor shortcomings. > > > The other information point here is that there has been > a lot of work on Web Services and WSDL and WS-Policy and > that can all be run back to the DNS through appropriate > syntax modifications. > Would there be a benefit to the community: 1. Codifying the existing BCPs, protocols and formats in use. 2. Researching future possible formats and protocols. 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 Feb 11 18:09:51 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA07589 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 18:09:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ar3Tu-0005wk-MS for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 18:09:24 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1BN9MYc022852 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 18:09:22 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ar3Tu-0005wV-DR for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 18:09:22 -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 SAA07506 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 18:09:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ar3Tr-0001cH-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 18:09:19 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Ar3Sa-0001QZ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 18:08:01 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ar3Rq-0001IZ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 18:07:14 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ar3Rd-00052M-81; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 18:07:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ar3RP-0004yV-06 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 18:06:47 -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 SAA07179 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 18:06:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ar3RM-0001HC-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 18:06:44 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Ar3QR-0001C1-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 18:05:48 -0500 Received: from tipjar.com ([128.121.115.38]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ar3Q6-00016H-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 18:05:26 -0500 Received: from pay2send.com (adsl-66-143-48-169.dsl.ksc2mo.swbell.net [66.143.48.169]) by tipjar.com id i1BN5Gcb098907; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 16:05:16 -0700 (MST) X-Received-From: davidnicol@pay2send.com X-Received-For: asrg@ietf.org Message-ID: <402AB52D.9010703@pay2send.com> From: david User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6b) Gecko/20031205 Thunderbird/0.4 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Yakov Shafranovich CC: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" , "'Daniel Feenberg'" , George Schlossnagle , "Viktor S. Grishchenko" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 2. Improving Blacklists and Reputation Services (personal RMX) References: <402AAD89.1080104@solidmatrix.com> In-Reply-To: <402AAD89.1080104@solidmatrix.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 17:05:17 -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 I have been of the opinion since late 2002 that DNS would make perfect sense as the way to distribute *PERSONAL* (not per-domain) RMX information. Furthermore I think Verisign (who has at least two people who read this list) would be the perfect entity to unilaterally initiate such a project, since they (some of them, at least) would like to see everyone have a personal domain. Personal RMX information in your personal domain. Or at least a protocol for listing personal RMX information with the domain of which you are a member: when your e-mail addy is you@your.dom your RMX host listings would appear under d.c.b.a.you.rmx.your.domain where a.b.c.d are the dotted-quad IPv4 addresses of the hosts you use. Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > >>> I would add that the use of DNS for distributing RBL information has a >>> remarkable breadth of support covering all major open source and >>> proprietary MTAs, and could better be held up as a model for imitation, >>> rather than carping about minor shortcomings. >> >> >> >> The other information point here is that there has been >> a lot of work on Web Services and WSDL and WS-Policy and >> that can all be run back to the DNS through appropriate >> syntax modifications. >> > > > Would there be a benefit to the community: > 1. Codifying the existing BCPs, protocols and formats in use. > 2. Researching future possible formats and protocols. > > Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Feb 11 19:22:20 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA13482 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 19:22:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ar4c3-0007XH-OO for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 19:21:52 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1C0LpeX028961 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 19:21:51 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ar4c3-0007X2-IR for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 19:21:51 -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 TAA13450 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 19:21:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ar4c1-0003j4-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 19:21:50 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Ar4bF-0003cc-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 19:21:02 -0500 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ar4aT-0003Vm-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 19:20:13 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by mx2.foretec.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1Ar4aU-0000qn-6U for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 19:20:14 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ar4aH-0007Jl-HD; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 19:20:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ar4ZY-0007FG-Fx for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 19:19:16 -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 TAA13309 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 19:19:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ar4ZW-0003O4-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 19:19:14 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Ar4Yh-0003F3-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 19:18:24 -0500 Received: from mail003.syd.optusnet.com.au ([211.29.132.144]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ar4Xw-00031e-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 19:17:36 -0500 Received: from zen.fernhaven (c211-30-104-42.carlnfd1.nsw.optusnet.com.au [211.30.104.42]) by mail003.syd.optusnet.com.au (8.11.6p2/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i1C0GwE07934 for ; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 11:16:59 +1100 Received: from [172.16.0.129] (helo=fred.fernhaven) by zen.fernhaven with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1Ar4XJ-0002br-00 for ; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 11:16:57 +1100 From: Brett Watson To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] 2. Improving Blacklists and Reputation Services User-Agent: KMail/1.5.4 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: <200402121116.55536.famous-asrg@nutters.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 11:16:55 +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=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > I think that a lot of his points were on the issue of fuzzy match > though. DNS is fast because it is an exact match scheme. Try to > fuzz it or include search (aka X.500, LDAP or other failures) > and it goes bazzzongo. I believe this was RFC-ified as RFC 3467, "Role of the Domain Name System". It makes a modestly interesting read. Regards, TFBW _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Feb 12 03:23:36 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA13964 for ; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 03:23:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ArC7n-0008Fn-3o for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 03:23:07 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1C8N6us031719 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 03:23:06 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ArC7l-0008FV-QZ for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 03:23:05 -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 DAA13959 for ; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 03:23:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ArC7j-0005ip-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 03:23:03 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1ArC6l-0005dr-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 03:22:04 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ArC65-0005YU-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 03:21:21 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ArC5n-00080j-GC; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 03:21:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ArC4v-0007wk-Is for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 03:20:09 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA13890 for ; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 03:20:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ArC4t-0005S7-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 03:20:07 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1ArC3v-0005NL-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 03:19:07 -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 1ArC3f-0005IC-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 03:18:52 -0500 Received: from newgiles.nitros9.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.nitros9.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9912F170BF for ; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 03:21:21 -0500 (EST) From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 2. Improving Blacklists and Reputation Services In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 11 Feb 2004 18:02:37 +0100." <402A602D.30200@ensmp.fr> Message-Id: <20040212082121.9912F170BF@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, 12 Feb 2004 03:21:20 -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=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Jose Marcio Martins da Cruz wrote: > If I look at our mail server who's sending spam, I can see that most of > them are doing only very few connections a day : one, two or three. Very > few gateways do more than five connections. - I'm talking about a > mailserver with some thousand users and about 50 K connections a day. > > This may indicate that many spam is sent by a distributed system of > workers, and not by open relays. I've been seeing that for ~4 years now: 100's to 1000's of machines originating spam. Lately, though, it's been hitting 10k IP's. > Is it reasonable to consider that there isn't a limit on the number of > IP addresses on a blacklist ? Hard drives are cheap. 2^32 is a comparitively small number nowadays. The larger problem is that th eblacklists may well end up listing 20-50% of the IP's on the net. That's another issue, which won't be solved by blacklists. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Feb 12 04:02:39 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA15254 for ; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 04:02:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ArCjZ-0003JD-7n for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 04:02:09 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1C928Z7012711 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 04:02:08 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ArCjX-0003Iw-Au for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 04:02:07 -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 EAA15192 for ; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 04:02:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ArCjU-0001u3-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 04:02:04 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1ArCia-0001nn-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 04:01:08 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ArChh-0001hl-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 04:00:13 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ArChW-000345-NY; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 04:00:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ArCgl-00032a-Sp for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 03:59:15 -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 DAA15086 for ; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 03:59:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ArCgj-0001as-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 03:59:13 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1ArCfp-0001Ug-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 03:58:18 -0500 Received: from chello062179063015.chello.pl ([62.179.63.15]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ArCfP-0001Ni-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 03:57:52 -0500 Received: from anfi.freeshell.org (IDENT:rK8nUlqSYk6gR1ECxHxIuhv5CKMHD4t1@anfi.freeshell.org [127.0.0.1]) by anfi.freeshell.org (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i1C8wZEX006501 for ; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 09:58:35 +0100 Message-ID: <402B403B.601@anfi.freeshell.org> From: Andrzej Filip Organization: It is for me to know and for you to find out User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113 X-Accept-Language: en, pl MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 2. Improving Blacklists and Reputation Services References: <20040212082121.9912F170BF@mail.nitros9.org> In-Reply-To: <20040212082121.9912F170BF@mail.nitros9.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.83.2.0 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: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 09:58:35 +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: > Jose Marcio Martins da Cruz wrote: > >>If I look at our mail server who's sending spam, I can see that most of >>them are doing only very few connections a day : one, two or three. Very >>few gateways do more than five connections. - I'm talking about a >>mailserver with some thousand users and about 50 K connections a day. >> >>This may indicate that many spam is sent by a distributed system of >>workers, and not by open relays. > > > I've been seeing that for ~4 years now: 100's to 1000's of machines > originating spam. Lately, though, it's been hitting 10k IP's. > > >>Is it reasonable to consider that there isn't a limit on the number of >>IP addresses on a blacklist ? > > > Hard drives are cheap. 2^32 is a comparitively small number nowadays. > > The larger problem is that th eblacklists may well end up listing > 20-50% of the IP's on the net. That's another issue, which won't be > solved by blacklists. We may consider switching from blacklist to whitelist or "mixed list". Mixed list: if IP itself is listed then return its status if IP is located in "bad neighborhood" the return "bad IP" return "good IP" -- Andrzej [en:Andrew] Adam Filip http://anfi.freeshell.org backup: anfi@xl.wp.pl _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Feb 12 05:31:33 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA18005 for ; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 05:31:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ArE7d-0000V4-GK for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 05:31:06 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1CAV5uH001918 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 05:31:05 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ArE7d-0000Ur-AB for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 05:31:05 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA17969 for ; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 05:31:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ArE7Z-0002af-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 05:31:02 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1ArE6e-0002Uo-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 05:30:05 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ArE5j-0002Pt-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 05:29:07 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ArE5c-0000IZ-Je; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 05:29:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ArE4i-0000AR-4B for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 05:28:04 -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 FAA17901 for ; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 05:28:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ArE4e-0002JY-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 05:28:00 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1ArE3m-0002EK-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 05:27:06 -0500 Received: from chronus.sovam.com ([194.67.22.174]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ArE2t-00022x-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 05:26:11 -0500 Received: from ariel ([194.67.3.216]:33391 "EHLO ariel.sovam.com") by chronus.sovam.com with ESMTP id S274323AbUBLKZj (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Feb 2004 13:25:39 +0300 Subject: Re: [Asrg] 2. Improving Blacklists and Reputation Services From: Eugene Crosser To: Jose Marcio Martins da Cruz Cc: Yakov Shafranovich , ASRG In-Reply-To: <402A602D.30200@ensmp.fr> References: <4027EDD9.7050405@solidmatrix.com> <402A602D.30200@ensmp.fr> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Teleross Message-Id: <1076581539.12239.34.camel@ariel.sovam.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.5 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 13:25:39 +0300 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 Wed, 2004-02-11 at 20:02, Jose Marcio Martins da Cruz wrote: > This may indicate that many spam is sent by a distributed system of > workers, and not by open relays. > > If this is the case, and if this kind of way continues - the tendance > will be to have more and more IP addresses to be inserted on blacklists. >From our experience, great majority of today's spam comes from a distributed system of *zombies*, i.e. home and office workstations that where trojened by some kind of virus. Because this set of dangerous machines is very dynamic (new ones get infected, old ones are healed by antivirus programs), I think that blacklist approach is not effective and should not be used to address this problem. OTOH, LMAP looks very promising against this kind of trouble, if widely deployed. Eugene _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Feb 12 07:13:39 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA20334 for ; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 07:13:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ArFiT-0002eO-9c for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 07:13:13 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1CCDD66010182 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 07:13:13 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ArFiT-0002e8-3u for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 07:13:13 -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 HAA20318 for ; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 07:13:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ArFiO-0003jl-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 07:13:08 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1ArFhR-0003e7-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 07:12:10 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ArFgb-0003Z0-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 07:11:17 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ArFgN-0002UO-4f; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 07:11:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ArFfX-0002TD-7x for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 07:10:11 -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 HAA20279 for ; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 07:10:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ArFfS-0003SX-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 07:10:07 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1ArFeT-0003NS-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 07:09:06 -0500 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ArFdy-0003JJ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 07:08:34 -0500 Received: from saci.ensmp.fr ([194.214.158.176]) by mx2.foretec.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1ArFe1-0003dT-FR for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 07:08:37 -0500 Received: from ensmp.fr ([194.214.158.176]) by saci.ensmp.fr (sendmail 9.0.0.PreAlpha11) with ESMTP id S00000000402A4FF101; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 13:07:11 +0100 Message-ID: <402B6C6E.9080101@ensmp.fr> From: Jose Marcio Martins da Cruz Organization: Ecole des Mines de Paris User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; SunOS sun4u; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020920 Netscape/7.0 X-Accept-Language: fr, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eugene Crosser CC: Yakov Shafranovich , ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] 2. Improving Blacklists and Reputation Services References: <4027EDD9.7050405@solidmatrix.com> <402A602D.30200@ensmp.fr> <1076581539.12239.34.camel@ariel.sovam.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, 12 Feb 2004 13:07:10 +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 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Eugene Crosser wrote: > On Wed, 2004-02-11 at 20:02, Jose Marcio Martins da Cruz wrote: > > >>This may indicate that many spam is sent by a distributed system of >>workers, and not by open relays. >> >>If this is the case, and if this kind of way continues - the tendance >>will be to have more and more IP addresses to be inserted on blacklists. > > >>From our experience, great majority of today's spam comes from a > distributed system of *zombies*, i.e. home and office workstations that > where trojened by some kind of virus. Because this set of dangerous > machines is very dynamic (new ones get infected, old ones are healed by > antivirus programs), I think that blacklist approach is not effective > and should not be used to address this problem. Yes, that's what I was thinking about. Open relays usually may remain much longer on blacklists than zombies, as the problem on the first case comes from MTA configuration. Zombies are used for very short time. So, blocking zombies IP address shall be very quickly and can be removed faster than open relays. I agree with you when you say blacklists shall not be used to address zombies problems. But if we agree that great majority of spam comes from zombies, why should we continue to use blacklists. We use blacklists and we have one DNS server serving rbl requests. named process in this machines eats almost 900 MBytes of memory. Sure, memory is cheap, disk is cheap, bandwidth is cheap - but ther's a limit if blacklists are less efficient than other methods. Or maybe I'm wrong. > > OTOH, LMAP looks very promising against this kind of trouble, if widely > deployed. > > Eugene > > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > > -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Jose Marcio MARTINS DA CRUZ Tel. :(33) 01.40.51.93.41 Ecole des Mines de Paris http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr 60, bd Saint Michel http://www.ensmp.fr/~martins 75272 - PARIS CEDEX 06 mailto:Jose-Marcio.Martins@ensmp.fr _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Feb 12 08:09:18 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA22112 for ; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 08:09:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ArGaI-0001Bp-NQ for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 08:08:50 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1CD8odK004567 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 08:08:50 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ArGaI-0001Ba-CS for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 08:08:50 -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 IAA22073 for ; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 08:08:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ArGaD-0001WP-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 08:08:45 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1ArGYh-0001E7-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 08:07:12 -0500 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ArGXf-00014P-01 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 08:06:07 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by mx2.foretec.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1ArGSy-0004To-EH for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 08:01:16 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ArGSk-0008MX-D3; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 08:01:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ArGRy-0008JT-Fn for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 08:00:14 -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 IAA21846 for ; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 08:00:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ArGRs-0000gR-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 08:00:08 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1ArGQu-0000bP-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 07:59:08 -0500 Received: from mail1.nber.org ([207.113.108.7]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ArGQc-0000X5-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 07:58:51 -0500 Received: from mail1 (root@localhost) by mail1.nber.org (8.12.8/8.12.8) with SMTP id i1CCwq8b012741 for ; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 07:58:52 -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 i1CCwpbO012719; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 07:58:52 -0500 From: Daniel Feenberg To: Jose Marcio Martins da Cruz cc: Eugene Crosser , Yakov Shafranovich , ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] 2. Improving Blacklists and Reputation Services In-Reply-To: <402B6C6E.9080101@ensmp.fr> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 07:50:12 -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 On Thu, 12 Feb 2004, Jose Marcio Martins da Cruz wrote: > Eugene Crosser wrote: > > On Wed, 2004-02-11 at 20:02, Jose Marcio Martins da Cruz wrote: > > > > > >>This may indicate that many spam is sent by a distributed system of > >>workers, and not by open relays. > >> > >>If this is the case, and if this kind of way continues - the tendance > >>will be to have more and more IP addresses to be inserted on blacklists. > > ... > > But if we agree that great majority of spam comes from zombies, why > should we continue to use blacklists. > > We use blacklists and we have one DNS server serving rbl requests. > named process in this machines eats almost 900 MBytes of memory. Sure, > memory is cheap, disk is cheap, bandwidth is cheap - but ther's a > limit if blacklists are less efficient than other methods. > > Or maybe I'm wrong. > Can you explicate further? I would have thought that zombies were an ideal target for an RBL. They produce only spam, so there is no problem of blocking legitimate mail and their owners do not complain about the listing. Of course if the IP address dynamically assigned, there is the remote possibility that the next user will have legitimate mail, but this writer at least believes they should forward that to an MTA with a static address. It would be helpfull in defusing some of this controversy if sendmail had a "dynamic IP" option which caused it to use the smarthost if and only if the direct route was blocked. It is quite possible that many of these users wouldn't notice the difference, and only care because it bit them unexpectedly. As to memory usage of BIND, by the time every possible IP address needs to be in the RBL, memory will be cheap enough to make this possible. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Feb 12 08:14:40 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA22598 for ; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 08:14:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ArGfV-0001bt-Cy for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 08:14:13 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1CDEDCu006183 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 08:14:13 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ArGfV-0001be-8n for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 08:14:13 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA22570 for ; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 08:14:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ArGfQ-0002Jb-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 08:14:08 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1ArGeQ-0002DY-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 08:13:06 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ArGdS-000282-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 08:12:06 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ArGdN-0001Pv-Gd; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 08:12:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ArGck-0001P1-4g for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 08:11:22 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA22390 for ; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 08:11:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ArGcf-00021P-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 08:11:17 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1ArGbe-0001qs-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 08:10:15 -0500 Received: from relay.pair.com ([209.68.1.20]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ArGag-0001eE-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 08:09:14 -0500 Received: (qmail 64615 invoked from network); 12 Feb 2004 13:09:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO vaio) (210.23.252.113) by relay.pair.com with SMTP; 12 Feb 2004 13:09:14 -0000 X-pair-Authenticated: 210.23.252.113 Message-Id: <4.1.20040212183000.009cf710(null)> Message-Id: <4.1.20040212183000.009cf710(null)> X-Sender: spam@mail.accuspam.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 To: asrg@ietf.org From: AccuSpam Subject: re: [Asrg] Its all over for Challenge Response Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 21:02:49 +0800 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 I am following up on (and correcting some minor technical mistakes in) my previous post to this thread stating the theoretical attack is probably a non-issue: https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg09220.html Specifically a probable way to block/disincentivize proxy display of the image based turing test (challenge), is to serve the image and html for page from HTTPS only. If the image is loaded by a proxy web page from a 2nd level domain different from 2nd level domain of image, then browser will at least display a warning, so displaying the image on proxy page will not go smoothly if at all. Attempting to submit by script (a "hidden" small or obscured) frame (or window) from a proxy web page from a different 2nd level domain will be denied by security error in browser: http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/workshop/author/om/xframe_scripting_security.asp Submitting a form from a HTTPS web page with 2nd level domain different from the receiving url will also cause at least a browser warning. Theoretically an attacker could attempt to install and use a different client on the visitor's computer, but each step away from normal use of the browser increases visitor acquisition/attrition costs. These techniques would likely increase the visitor acquisition/attrition costs of such a theoretical porn site attack. Combining these techniques with reasonable IPv4 address rate limiting would probably drastically increase the number of visitors that would be needed and make the theoretical attack uneconomical in spammer business (cost) model. Additionally AccuSpam adds aging of whitelist entries (challenge needs to repeated periodically for same sender) to exponentially increase the costs to the spammer. I (we) disclaim any liability for using these techniques. Use and read this at your own discretion and risk. Shelby Moore http://AccuSpam _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Feb 12 09:07:52 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA24455 for ; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 09:07:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ArHUy-0005d0-KY for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 09:07:25 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1CE7OWp021626 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 09:07:24 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ArHUy-0005cb-2C for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 09:07:24 -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 JAA24412 for ; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 09:07:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ArHUs-0007M4-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 09:07:18 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1ArHTq-0007EQ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 09:06:15 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ArHSl-00077o-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 09:05:07 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ArHSg-0005Gi-Sa; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 09:05:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ArHRy-0005F9-2Q for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 09:04:18 -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 JAA24254 for ; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 09:04:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ArHRs-00073B-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 09:04:12 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1ArHQw-0006yU-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 09:03:15 -0500 Received: from chronus.sovam.com ([194.67.22.174]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ArHQW-0006tk-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 09:02:48 -0500 Received: from ariel ([194.67.3.216]:33437 "EHLO ariel.sovam.com") by chronus.sovam.com with ESMTP id S274328AbUBLOCR (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Feb 2004 17:02:17 +0300 Subject: Re: [Asrg] 2. Improving Blacklists and Reputation Services From: Eugene Crosser To: Daniel Feenberg Cc: Jose Marcio Martins da Cruz , Yakov Shafranovich , ASRG In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Teleross Message-Id: <1076594537.12245.145.camel@ariel.sovam.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.5 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 17:02:17 +0300 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 Thu, 2004-02-12 at 15:50, Daniel Feenberg wrote: > On Thu, 12 Feb 2004, Jose Marcio Martins da Cruz wrote: > > > Eugene Crosser wrote: > > > On Wed, 2004-02-11 at 20:02, Jose Marcio Martins da Cruz wrote: > > > > > > > > >>This may indicate that many spam is sent by a distributed system of > > >>workers, and not by open relays. > > >> > > >>If this is the case, and if this kind of way continues - the tendance > > >>will be to have more and more IP addresses to be inserted on blacklists. > > > > ... > > > > > But if we agree that great majority of spam comes from zombies, why > > should we continue to use blacklists. > > > > We use blacklists and we have one DNS server serving rbl requests. > > named process in this machines eats almost 900 MBytes of memory. Sure, > > memory is cheap, disk is cheap, bandwidth is cheap - but ther's a > > limit if blacklists are less efficient than other methods. > > > > Or maybe I'm wrong. > > > > > Can you explicate further? I would have thought that zombies were > an ideal target for an RBL. They produce only spam, so there is no > problem of blocking legitimate mail and their owners do not complain > about the listing. May I try? 1. When you blacklist an open relay, you can verify with almost 100% accuracy that this is in fact an open relay. Alleged zombie cannot be verified to be a zombie with that level of certainty. 2. Even initial allegation of an IP address as a zombie may be problematic. They often send only a few hundred spam messages at a time. You can expect the same to come from a perfectly legal ISP server before their antispam facilities are triggered and the offending client is blocked. 3. Given the rate at which the number of infected machines may grow, the data in blacklist is doomed to lag behind, and there will be significant number of not-yet-blocked active zombies. That's why I think that blacklisting is a poor remedy for zombie problem. Eugene _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Feb 12 09:22:42 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA25106 for ; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 09:22:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ArHjL-0007A6-Qi for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 09:22:15 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1CEMFQj027524 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 09:22:15 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ArHjL-00079r-N7 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 09:22:15 -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 JAA25036 for ; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 09:22:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ArHjG-00017m-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 09:22:10 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1ArHiJ-00011Y-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 09:21:12 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ArHhc-0000vm-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 09:20:28 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ArHhE-0006nf-UY; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 09:20:04 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ArHgY-0006iv-V1 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 09:19:22 -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 JAA24939 for ; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 09:19:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ArHgT-0000pE-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 09:19:17 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1ArHfW-0000jy-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 09:18:19 -0500 Received: from [209.216.76.58] (helo=mail.figuerres.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ArHfH-0000eK-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 09:18:03 -0500 Received: from viper1 [65.34.96.63] by mail.figuerres.com with ESMTP (SMTPD32-8.02) id AAD3135008A; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 09:16:51 -0500 From: "denny" To: "'ASRG'" Subject: RE: [Asrg] 2. Improving Blacklists and Reputation Services 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: AcPxaGzBeBvg3cY+TtWh5/6m0hay0QACLMPQ Message-Id: <200402120916825.SM02020@viper1> X-IMAIL-SPAM-VALHELO: (20250762) X-IMAIL-SPAM-VALFROM: (20250762) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 09:17:10 -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=MISSING_OUTLOOK_NAME autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > -----Original Message----- > From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Daniel > Feenberg > Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2004 7:50 AM > To: Jose Marcio Martins da Cruz > Cc: Eugene Crosser; Yakov Shafranovich; ASRG > Subject: Re: [Asrg] 2. Improving Blacklists and Reputation Services > > > > On Thu, 12 Feb 2004, Jose Marcio Martins da Cruz wrote: > > > Eugene Crosser wrote: > > > On Wed, 2004-02-11 at 20:02, Jose Marcio Martins da Cruz wrote: > > > > > > > > >>This may indicate that many spam is sent by a distributed system of > > >>workers, and not by open relays. > > >> > > >>If this is the case, and if this kind of way continues - the tendance > > >>will be to have more and more IP addresses to be inserted on > blacklists. > > > > ... > > > > > But if we agree that great majority of spam comes from zombies, why > > should we continue to use blacklists. > > > > We use blacklists and we have one DNS server serving rbl requests. > > named process in this machines eats almost 900 MBytes of memory. Sure, > > memory is cheap, disk is cheap, bandwidth is cheap - but ther's a > > limit if blacklists are less efficient than other methods. > > > > Or maybe I'm wrong. > > > > > Can you explicate further? I would have thought that zombies were > an ideal target for an RBL. They produce only spam, so there is no > problem of blocking legitimate mail and their owners do not complain > about the listing. [denny] AFAIK blacklists work on blocking "subnets" worth of IP's so one zombie can windup blocking an entire domain, of if say you are in a web-hosting farm possibly a group of domains. I think this has been done for two reasons: 1) much simpler and economic to maintain such a list. 2) more incentive for a "legit" ISP / WebHost provider to "clean house". > > Of course if the IP address dynamically assigned, there is the remote > possibility that the next user will have legitimate mail, but this writer > at least believes they should forward that to an MTA with a static > address. It would be helpfull in defusing some of this controversy [denny] I think you are mostly right, about the sending mta I think in the end that the entity that has the address block and ASN number related to it has to be in a position of some responsibility for what traffic they allow across their network. While this topic can get very nasty and ugly (eg p2p fileshare) in the area of email I personally feel it's very clear that allowing random IP's to act as servers of email services is a problem. How to fix it is coming into focus as we all work on the problem. As for "Of course if the IP address dynamically assigned, there is the remote possibility that the next user will have legitimate mail" Well that's a very dynamic problem, rather like computing odds on a winning lotto # which will vary over time based on ticket purchases and other factors. :-) > if sendmail had a "dynamic IP" option which caused it to use the smarthost > if and only if the direct route was blocked. It is quite possible that > many of these users wouldn't notice the difference, and only care because > it bit them unexpectedly. > > As to memory usage of BIND, by the time every possible IP address needs to > be in the RBL, memory will be cheap enough to make this possible. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > 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 Feb 12 13:54:55 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA07007 for ; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 13:54:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ArLyj-0000KU-UN for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 13:54:27 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1CIsPIP001260 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 13:54:25 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ArLyj-0000KF-Pw for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 13:54:25 -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 NAA06996 for ; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 13:54:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ArLyf-0005sd-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 13:54:21 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1ArLxp-0005n4-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 13:53:30 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ArLxR-0005hE-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 13:53:05 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ArLwO-0008PE-Pp; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 13:52:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ArLvv-0008Ku-MX for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 13:51:31 -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 NAA06865 for ; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 13:51:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ArLvq-0005Xh-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 13:51:26 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1ArLus-0005Rq-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 13:50:27 -0500 Received: from bsdsgr04.sagres.com.br ([200.140.134.134]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ArLuM-0005KK-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 13:49:54 -0500 Received: from ntsgr07.sagres.com.br (NTsgr07.sagres.com.br [10.0.17.7]) by BSDsgr04.sagres.com.br (8.12.8p1/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i1CIn4bL003212; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 18:49:05 GMT (envelope-from saurwein@uniwares.com) Received: from leonone.uniwares.com ([200.101.111.106]) by ntsgr07.sagres.com.br (Lotus Domino Release 5.0.12) with ESMTP id 2004021215571099:9049 ; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 15:57:10 -0300 Message-Id: <6.0.3.0.0.20040212164437.01e21ec0@mail.uniwares.com> X-Sender: saurwein.uniwares@mail.uniwares.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.3.0 To: AccuSpam , asrg@ietf.org From: Andreas Saurwein Subject: re: [Asrg] Its all over for Challenge Response In-Reply-To: <4.1.20040212183000.009cf710(null)> References: <4.1.20040212183000.009cf710(null)> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on ntsgr07/SAGRES(Release 5.0.12 |February 13, 2003) at 02/12/2004 03:57:11 PM, Serialize by Router on ntsgr07/SAGRES(Release 5.0.12 |February 13, 2003) at 02/12/2004 03:57:13 PM, Serialize complete at 02/12/2004 03:57:13 PM Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 16:47:24 -0300 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=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 At 12/2/2004 10:02 Thursday, AccuSpam wrote: >Specifically a probable way to block/disincentivize proxy display of the >image based turing test (challenge), is to serve the image and html for >page from HTTPS only. If the image is loaded by a proxy web page from a >2nd level domain different from 2nd level domain of image, then browser >will at least display a warning, so displaying the image on proxy page >will not go smoothly if at all. Attempting to submit by script (a >"hidden" small or obscured) frame (or window) from a proxy web page from a >different 2nd level domain will be denied by security error in browser: Using a pretty simple PHP script, the CAPTCHA can be embedded into a new image which is then delivered to the client, no matter if you use HTTP or HTTPS; the final request from the client has nothing to do with the original request to the CAPTCHA image. Andreas _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Feb 12 14:46:07 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA09588 for ; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 14:46:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ArMmK-0005WI-67 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 14:45:40 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1CJjedZ021214 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 14:45:40 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ArMmK-0005W5-0C for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 14:45:40 -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 OAA09585 for ; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 14:45:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ArMmF-0003M9-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 14:45:35 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1ArMlJ-0003Fx-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 14:44:38 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ArMko-00039a-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 14:44:06 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ArMki-0005IF-T9; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 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 1ArMkG-0005C7-8T for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 14:43:32 -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 OAA09460 for ; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 14:43:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ArMkB-00038A-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 14:43:27 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1ArMjF-00032Y-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 14:42:29 -0500 Received: from relay.pair.com ([209.68.1.20]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ArMit-0002x4-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 14:42:07 -0500 Received: (qmail 26085 invoked from network); 12 Feb 2004 19:41:51 -0000 Received: from softdnserror (HELO vaio) (210.1.83.56) by relay.pair.com with SMTP; 12 Feb 2004 19:41:51 -0000 X-pair-Authenticated: 210.1.83.56 Message-Id: <4.1.20040213033204.01ee1220(null)> X-Sender: spam@mail.accuspam.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 To: asrg@ietf.org From: AccuSpam Subject: re: [Asrg] Its all over for Challenge Response In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.0.20040212164437.01e21ec0@mail.uniwares.com> References: <4.1.20040212183000.009cf710(null)> <4.1.20040212183000.009cf710(null)> 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, 13 Feb 2004 03:43:07 +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 No. With my IP limiting suggestion, for meaningful attack of significant volume, the proxy has to be on the client side, unless a spammer has millions of IP addresses to use for web servers. >Using a pretty simple PHP script, the CAPTCHA can be embedded into a new >image which is then delivered to the client, no matter if you use HTTP or >HTTPS; the final request from the client has nothing to do with the >original request to the CAPTCHA image. > >Andreas Shelby Moore http://AccuSpam.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Feb 12 15:54:04 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA14613 for ; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 15:54:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ArNq3-0004IW-HD for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 15:53:35 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1CKrZ2J016512 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 15:53:35 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ArNq2-0004IF-QY for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 15:53:34 -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 PAA14603 for ; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 15:53:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ArNpz-0002jK-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 15:53:31 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1ArNpG-0002de-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 15:52:47 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ArNok-0002Vn-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 15:52:14 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ArNoX-0003vo-N4; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 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 1ArNjA-0003GR-EE for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 15:46:28 -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 PAA13831 for ; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 15:46:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ArNj7-0001Wq-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 15:46:25 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1ArNi9-0001Re-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 15:45:26 -0500 Received: from out1.smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.25]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ArNhM-0001N0-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 15:44:36 -0500 X-Sasl-enc: NFjVogu8yjL4Jv8M0+98Xg 1076618677 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 0CAE34F4459; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 15:44:35 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <402BE5B3.2070902@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: Christopher Bird Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spoofed mail addresses; envelope and header addresses != References: <001701c3eb2a$34950100$3601a8c0@cb> In-Reply-To: <001701c3eb2a$34950100$3601a8c0@cb> X-Habeas-SWE-1: winter into spring X-Habeas-SWE-2: brightly anticipated X-Habeas-SWE-3: like Habeas SWE (tm) X-Habeas-SWE-4: Copyright 2002 Habeas (tm) X-Habeas-SWE-5: Sender Warranted Email (SWE) (tm). The sender of this X-Habeas-SWE-6: email in exchange for a license for this Habeas X-Habeas-SWE-7: warrant mark warrants that this is a Habeas Compliant X-Habeas-SWE-8: Message (HCM) and not spam. Please report use of this X-Habeas-SWE-9: mark in spam to . Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 12:44:35 -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 2/4/2004 6:21 AM, Christopher Bird sent forth electrons to convey: >... >Computerworld and The Wall Street Journal both have the ability to email >articles to friends. A handy service indeed. >The glitch is that when the email arrives in my inbox, the from address >is the address of the person sending it, not the publication itself. >Those guys have spoofed my email address if I am the sender. Clearly the >mail needs to be identified as being sent at my request, but I am >definitely not the sender. They are. > Therefore they should not forge headers to make it appear otherwise. LMAP enforces this suggestion. E.g. the email could come from "Christopher Bird" , or The envelope from could not match the header from. (IMO, a discussion of what to do when envelope and header (e.g. From: or Sender:) addresses don't match is needed; probably there was one I missed on SPAM-L, ASRG or spf-discuss? I find it hard to swallow the LMAP discussion document's statement that it's not in scope; IMO LMAP should not allow forged email that appears to the end user (based on the header's From: to be from paypal just because the envelope address identifies the mail as being from phisher.dom. I'm looking for a detailed discussion of when what comparisons can and can't be safely used.) But they also may want to consider restricting its use, so it's less of an open relay. E.g. a spammer mustn't be able to send an article from Mr. Fiveentsapill Viagrapharmacydotcom to you (perhaps with a comment about how great the pharmacy and drug are, if that's also permitted by the WSJ system). Frankly, they should simply provide a mailto: link that inserts an url into the body, and ditch the whole rest of the system. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Feb 12 15:54:06 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA14630 for ; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 15:54:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ArNq3-0004Io-Kj for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 15:53:37 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1CKrZL5016532 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 15:53:35 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ArNq3-0004IQ-Fp for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 15:53:35 -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 PAA14607 for ; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 15:53:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ArNq0-0002jP-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 15:53:32 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1ArNpH-0002dn-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 15:52:48 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ArNok-0002Vo-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 15:52:14 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ArNoX-0003vf-6k; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 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 1ArNj5-0003GM-67 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 15:46:23 -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 PAA13813 for ; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 15:46:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ArNj1-0001W5-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 15:46:19 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1ArNi3-0001Qe-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 15:45:20 -0500 Received: from mout.perfora.net ([217.160.230.40]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ArNh7-0001LE-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 15:44:21 -0500 Received: from [217.160.230.52] (helo=smtp.perfora.net) by mout.perfora.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1ArNhA-0001Z1-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 15:44:24 -0500 Received: from [68.29.232.36] (helo=solidmatrix.com) by smtp.perfora.net with asmtp (TLSv1:RC4-MD5:128) (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1ArNh8-0006Rc-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 15:44:24 -0500 Message-ID: <402BE59D.2000409@solidmatrix.com> From: Yakov Shafranovich Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, he, ru MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ASRG X-Enigmail-Version: 0.83.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] 3c. Message Verification - DK-like scheme for public keys in DNS Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 15:44:13 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Interesting read - "Network Application Security Using The Domain Name System": http://josefsson.org/thesis/ 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 Feb 16 05:44:16 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA10342 for ; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 05:44:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AsgE9-0003mO-G1 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 05:43:49 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1GAhnqe014524 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 05:43:49 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AsgE9-0003mB-8K for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 05:43:49 -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 FAA10294 for ; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 05:43:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AsgE5-00029z-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 05:43:45 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AsgCi-00021N-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 05:42:21 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AsgBu-0001xU-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 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 1AsgBR-0003ZJ-Jr; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 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 1AsgAa-0003YR-TQ for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 05:40:08 -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 FAA10201 for ; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 05:40:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AsgAX-0001sn-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 05:40:05 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Asg9Z-0001qj-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 05:39:05 -0500 Received: from bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk ([128.16.5.31]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Asg90-0001p1-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 05:38:30 -0500 Received: from darkblue.cs.ucl.ac.uk by bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk with local SMTP id ; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 10:38:28 +0000 Message-ID: <40309C53.7080705@cs.ucl.ac.uk> From: Yangcheng HUANG Reply-To: y.huang@cs.ucl.ac.uk Organization: UCL User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org CC: Yangcheng HUANG Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] Meaningless words in spams Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 10:32:51 +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 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi! In some spam emails,there are meaningless/unrelated words at the end of the mails,like the following examples. Does anyone know what these words mean? Thanks. Y ************************************************************* (1)Meaningless: "Thanks, Doma Greg ux pvjtutayoklfh ji t tnaq fn cdc" (2)Unrelated " Best Spam Hosting. e-mail: support@linuxwebnet.com abuse e-mail: abuse@linuxwebnet.com http://www.linuxwebnet.com ------- ocean pompeii sanitate critter blinn eric cellophane complain negligee sworn aloud hoofmark wei vitro abdomen mantle bandpass offensive gmt enormity annual bole nitrous dactylic echidna insane sex papoose damascus impermissible fourth cavalry bodleian guerrilla cutworm yank dick behavioral invisible " _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Feb 16 05:49:44 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA10695 for ; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 05:49:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AsgJQ-0004BH-IX for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 05:49:17 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1GAnGa1016065 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 05:49:16 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AsgJQ-0004B2-Dp for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 05:49:16 -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 FAA10688 for ; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 05:49:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AsgJM-0002b8-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 05:49:12 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AsgIT-0002Y6-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 05:48:18 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AsgIB-0002UZ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 05:47:59 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AsgID-00041O-6K; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 05:48:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AsgHV-0003zT-IL for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 05:47:17 -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 FAA10636 for ; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 05:47:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AsgHR-0002Tx-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 05:47:13 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AsgGa-0002Qm-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 05:46:21 -0500 Received: from z.spamhaus.org ([67.89.105.244]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AsgG0-0002KW-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 05:45:44 -0500 X-Sender: matt@y.spamhaus.org (Unverified) To: asrg@ietf.org From: Matt Schneider Subject: Re: [Asrg] Meaningless words in spams In-Reply-To: <40309C53.7080705@cs.ucl.ac.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Message-Id: <20040216104514.94DB641A0@z.spamhaus.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, 16 Feb 2004 10:45:14 +0000 (GMT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Yes, it's a "hash buster" to make each spam slightly different than each other, so they can get around filters i.e. Brightmail. - Matt At 10:32 AM 2/16/2004 +0000, you wrote: >Hi! > >In some spam emails,there are meaningless/unrelated words at the end of >the mails,like the following examples. >Does anyone know what these words mean? > >Thanks. > >Y > >************************************************************* > >(1)Meaningless: > >"Thanks, >Doma Greg >ux pvjtutayoklfh ji t tnaq fn cdc" > >(2)Unrelated >" Best Spam Hosting. >e-mail: support@linuxwebnet.com >abuse e-mail: abuse@linuxwebnet.com >http://www.linuxwebnet.com > >------- >ocean pompeii sanitate critter blinn eric cellophane complain negligee >sworn aloud hoofmark wei vitro abdomen mantle bandpass offensive gmt >enormity annual bole nitrous dactylic echidna insane sex papoose damascus >impermissible fourth cavalry bodleian guerrilla cutworm yank dick >behavioral invisible >" > > > > >_______________________________________________ >Asrg mailing list >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 Feb 16 08:16:42 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA15590 for ; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 08:16:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Asibd-0004wT-9Q for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 08:16:13 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1GDGDqn018991 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 08:16:13 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Asibd-0004wE-0P for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 08:16:13 -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 IAA15574 for ; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 08:16:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Asibb-0002U0-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 08:16:12 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Asiae-0002Rq-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 08:15:12 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AsiZm-0002Q1-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 08:14:18 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AsiZV-0004m4-FW; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 08:14:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AsiYj-0004lp-3T for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 08:13:13 -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 IAA15537 for ; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 08:13:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AsiYi-0002Nw-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 08:13:12 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AsiXt-0002Lw-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 08:12:22 -0500 Received: from sccrmhc12.comcast.net ([204.127.202.56]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AsiXW-0002HX-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 08:11:58 -0500 Received: from fda.zemos.net ([68.38.12.170]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc12) with ESMTP id <2004021613111801200msa1te>; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 13:11:18 +0000 Received: from zemos.net (phil [10.0.0.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by fda.zemos.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14E31186A2; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 08:11:18 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <4030C175.3040706@zemos.net> From: Philip Miller User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040122 Debian/1.6-1 X-Accept-Language: en, en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: y.huang@cs.ucl.ac.uk Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Meaningless words in spams References: <40309C53.7080705@cs.ucl.ac.uk> In-Reply-To: <40309C53.7080705@cs.ucl.ac.uk> 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, 16 Feb 2004 08:11:17 -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 Yangcheng HUANG wrote: > In some spam emails,there are meaningless/unrelated words at the end of > the mails,like the following examples. > Does anyone know what these words mean? It is possibly a technique to throw off hash-based filters, as Matt Schnedier said, if those words are different in every message of the spam run. The other possibility is that they are there to throw off Bayesian filters. Currently, this technique is quite effective against Mozilla Mail. I'm strongly considering moving to something much more powerful because of this. If this discussion continues, it should be moved to the filtering list. Philip Miller _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Feb 16 08:42:59 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA16833 for ; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 08:42:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Asj13-0006ZT-Jr for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 08:42:30 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1GDgTX9025253 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 08:42:29 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Asj13-0006ZD-Cf for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 08:42:29 -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 IAA16817 for ; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 08:42:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Asj11-00049B-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 08:42:27 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Asj01-00045X-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 08:41:26 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Asizi-00041o-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 08:41:06 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Asizd-0006Py-Nu; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 08:41:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Asiys-0006Oa-Ek for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 08:40:14 -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 IAA16717 for ; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 08:40:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Asiyq-000403-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 08:40:12 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Asixv-0003wV-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 08:39:15 -0500 Received: from smtp.rol.ru ([194.67.21.9]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Asix0-0003pv-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 08:38:18 -0500 Received: from ariel.sovam.com ([194.67.3.216]:1676 "EHLO ariel.sovam.com" smtp-auth: "egc@online.ru" TLS-CIPHER: "DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA keybits 256/256 version TLSv1/SSLv3" TLS-PEER-CN1: ) by gnome07.net.rol.ru with ESMTP id S9740526AbUBPNgt (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Feb 2004 16:36:49 +0300 Subject: Re: [Asrg] Meaningless words in spams From: Eugene Crosser To: Matt Schneider Cc: asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <20040216104514.94DB641A0@z.spamhaus.org> References: <20040216104514.94DB641A0@z.spamhaus.org> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Sovintel Message-Id: <1076936118.27204.7.camel@ariel.sovam.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.5 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 16:33:39 +0300 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 Mon, 2004-02-16 at 13:45, Matt Schneider wrote: > Yes, it's a "hash buster" to make each spam slightly different than each > other, so they can get around filters i.e. Brightmail. > > - Matt Also, the maningful but unrelated text, as I understand, is a way to get through Bayesian filters... > At 10:32 AM 2/16/2004 +0000, you wrote: > >Hi! > > > >In some spam emails,there are meaningless/unrelated words at the end of > >the mails,like the following examples. > >Does anyone know what these words mean? > > > >Thanks. > > > >Y > > > >************************************************************* > > > >(1)Meaningless: > > > >"Thanks, > >Doma Greg > >ux pvjtutayoklfh ji t tnaq fn cdc" > > > >(2)Unrelated > >" Best Spam Hosting. > >e-mail: support@linuxwebnet.com > >abuse e-mail: abuse@linuxwebnet.com > >http://www.linuxwebnet.com > > > >------- > >ocean pompeii sanitate critter blinn eric cellophane complain negligee > >sworn aloud hoofmark wei vitro abdomen mantle bandpass offensive gmt > >enormity annual bole nitrous dactylic echidna insane sex papoose damascus > >impermissible fourth cavalry bodleian guerrilla cutworm yank dick > >behavioral invisible _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Feb 16 12:10:59 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA06221 for ; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 12:10:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AsmGO-00074r-9G for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 12:10:32 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1GHAWcX027201 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 12:10:32 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AsmGO-00074e-3o for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 12:10:32 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA06097 for ; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 12:10:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AsmGM-0001ht-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 12:10:30 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AsmFU-0001eK-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 12:09:37 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AsmF9-0001ZZ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 12:09:15 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AsmEv-0006u1-MY; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 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 1AsmEW-0006ss-5f for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 12:08:36 -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 MAA05963 for ; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 12:08:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AsmEU-0001Y7-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 12:08:34 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AsmDY-0001U9-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 12:07:37 -0500 Received: from smtp.everyone.net ([216.200.145.17] helo=rmta04.mta.everyone.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AsmD0-0001Pp-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 12:07:02 -0500 Received: from sohonotebook (ip68-100-37-118.dc.dc.cox.net [68.100.37.118]) by rmta04.mta.everyone.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1926BDE1B0; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 09:06:19 -0800 (PST) From: "Eric Dean" To: , Subject: RE: [Asrg] Meaningless words in spams Message-ID: <00d001c3f4af$39872c40$6401a8c0@sohonotebook> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <40309C53.7080705@cs.ucl.ac.uk> 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, 16 Feb 2004 12:06:29 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Yes, with Bayseian filters that run spam and ham scoring...the spam increments the scores while the added words decrement it back down to a legitimate style messages...learning those phrases don't help either since they are often dynamically generated from a dictionary. > -----Original Message----- > From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Yangcheng HUANG > Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 5:33 AM > To: asrg@ietf.org > Cc: Yangcheng HUANG > Subject: [Asrg] Meaningless words in spams > > > Hi! > > In some spam emails,there are meaningless/unrelated words at > the end of > the mails,like the following examples. > Does anyone know what these words mean? > > Thanks. > > Y > > ************************************************************* > > (1)Meaningless: > > "Thanks, > Doma Greg > ux pvjtutayoklfh ji t tnaq fn cdc" > > (2)Unrelated > " Best Spam Hosting. > e-mail: support@linuxwebnet.com > abuse e-mail: abuse@linuxwebnet.com > http://www.linuxwebnet.com > > ------- > ocean pompeii sanitate critter blinn eric cellophane complain > negligee > sworn aloud hoofmark wei vitro abdomen mantle bandpass offensive gmt > enormity annual bole nitrous dactylic echidna insane sex papoose > damascus impermissible fourth cavalry bodleian guerrilla cutworm yank > dick behavioral invisible > " > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > 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 Feb 16 12:17:59 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA06509 for ; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 12:17:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AsmN9-0007eP-SZ for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 12:17:31 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1GHHVuO029403 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 12:17:31 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AsmN9-0007eA-NE for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 12:17:31 -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 MAA06502 for ; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 12:17:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AsmN8-0002DB-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 12:17:30 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AsmM8-00027S-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 12:16:29 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AsmLk-00024N-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 12:16:04 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AsmLi-0007MO-Na; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 12:16:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AsmLL-0007Lj-GR for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 12:15:39 -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 MAA06443 for ; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 12:15:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AsmLK-00023h-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 12:15:38 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AsmKM-000204-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 12:14:39 -0500 Received: from 216-220-241-233.midmaine.com ([216.220.241.233] helo=nic-naa.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AsmJw-0001vq-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 12:14:12 -0500 Received: from nic-naa.net (localhost.wampumpeag.net [127.0.0.1]) by nic-naa.net (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id i1GHSGCA095300; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 12:28:16 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from brunner@nic-naa.net) Message-Id: <200402161728.i1GHSGCA095300@nic-naa.net> To: "Eric Dean" cc: y.huang@cs.ucl.ac.uk, asrg@ietf.org, brunner@nic-naa.net Subject: Re: [Asrg] Meaningless words in spams In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 16 Feb 2004 12:06:29 EST." <00d001c3f4af$39872c40$6401a8c0@sohonotebook> From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 12:28:16 -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 so, i guess a sliding window would catch filter-busting headers and trailers. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Feb 16 13:07:51 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA09669 for ; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 13:07:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Asn9P-0002c5-VN for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 13:07:24 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1GI7NsZ010031 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 13:07:23 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Asn9P-0002bc-G9 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 13:07:23 -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 NAA09629 for ; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 13:07:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Asn9N-0006ld-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 13:07:21 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Asn8O-0006h6-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 13:06:21 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Asn7S-0006bn-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 13:05:22 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Asn7K-0002KB-Kv; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 13:05:14 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Asn6b-0002HU-Ro for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 13:04:29 -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 NAA09507 for ; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 13:04:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Asn6Z-0006XG-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 13:04:27 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Asn5J-0006IZ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 13:03:10 -0500 Received: from z.spamhaus.org ([67.89.105.244]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Asn3i-0005xf-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 13:01:30 -0500 X-Sender: matt@y.spamhaus.org (Unverified) To: asrg@ietf.org From: Matt Schneider Subject: Re: [Asrg] Meaningless words in spams In-Reply-To: <200402161728.i1GHSGCA095300@nic-naa.net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Message-Id: <20040216180100.262BA41F9@z.spamhaus.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, 16 Feb 2004 18:01:00 +0000 (GMT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 At 12:28 PM 2/16/2004 -0500, you wrote: >so, i guess a sliding window would catch filter-busting headers and trailers. No, they add a bunch of garbage right in the body of the spams too, fake HTML tags or text that's the same color as the background. There's no real way to avoid this stuff. - Matt _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Feb 16 14:07:03 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA11931 for ; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 14:07:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aso4h-00067B-95 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 14:06:35 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1GJ6ZcC023499 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 14:06:35 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aso4h-00066w-3o for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 14:06:35 -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 OAA11880 for ; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 14:06:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aso4e-0002NC-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 14:06:32 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Aso3h-0002K2-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 14:05:34 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aso3U-0002Gs-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 14:05:20 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aso3D-0005rE-Cp; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 14:05:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aso2i-0005oc-69 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 14:04:32 -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 OAA11809 for ; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 14:04:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aso2f-0002Fl-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 14:04:29 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Aso1i-0002CM-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 14:03:30 -0500 Received: from plounts.uits.indiana.edu ([129.79.1.73]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aso0y-00028K-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 14:02:45 -0500 Received: from [156.56.76.79] (iub-vpn-76-79.noc.indiana.edu [156.56.76.79]) by plounts.uits.indiana.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10/IUPO) with ESMTP id i1GJ2bia002581 for ; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 14:02:39 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v612) In-Reply-To: <20040216170008.22513.79638.Mailman@www1.ietf.org> References: <20040216170008.22513.79638.Mailman@www1.ietf.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Jim Witte To: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.612) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] Re: Meaningless Words Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 14:02:37 -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 >> In some spam emails,there are meaningless/unrelated words at the end >> of >> the mails,like the following examples. I've seen those in *newsgroup posts* too (a lot in net.abuse.sightings.*) Are there spam-blockers for newsgroups too? I'd always figured it was some kind of code based on word length or something (terrorist communications perhaps..) Jim Witte jswitte@bloomington.in.us Indiana University CS _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Feb 16 14:24:22 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA12965 for ; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 14:24:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AsoLO-0008N1-UG for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 14:23:55 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1GJNojw032169 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 14:23:50 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AsoLO-0008Mm-QY for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 14:23:50 -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 OAA12947 for ; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 14:23:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AsoLM-0003t4-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 14:23:48 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AsoKa-0003nO-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 14:23:01 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AsoJk-0003g0-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 14:22:08 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AsoJe-00082f-Mw; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 14:22:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AsoJK-0007sj-VW for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 14:21:45 -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 OAA12731 for ; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 14:21:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AsoJI-0003bL-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 14:21:40 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AsoIL-0003UP-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 14:20:42 -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 1AsoHB-0003ME-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 14:19:29 -0500 Received: from [192.168.254.12] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by toaster.scconsult.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B32B0E6FD8 for ; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 14:19:28 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: bill@fireproof.scconsult.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20040216180100.262BA41F9@z.spamhaus.org> References: <20040216180100.262BA41F9@z.spamhaus.org> To: asrg@ietf.org From: Bill Cole Subject: Re: [Asrg] Meaningless words in spams 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, 16 Feb 2004 14:19:22 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 At 6:01 PM +0000 2/16/04, Matt Schneider wrote: >At 12:28 PM 2/16/2004 -0500, you wrote: >>so, i guess a sliding window would catch filter-busting headers and trailers. > >No, they add a bunch of garbage right in the body of the spams too, >fake HTML tags or text that's the same color as the background. > >There's no real way to avoid this stuff. Those are both really quite easy to catch, and can even be caught by automatic learning filters. For example, the word 'oblivity' inside angle brackets (i.e. a bogus HTML tag) occurs nowhere at all in any of my legitimate mail of the past year. It occurs 6 times in my spam of 2004. A filter that checks for strict HTML compliance in HTML mail would have caught all of those, and I see in my current set of Bayesian classifiers that this 'word' (complete with <>) is part of why the later spams containing it were marked as probable spam. Similarly, text that is the same color as the background is a programmatically detectable trick, and there are already filters in use that detect it as spamsign. I also note in peeking at my current Bayesian classifiers that there are many perfectly valid but uncommonly used words there which seem to be strong spamsign for no obvious reason. At least no obvious reason until I look at where in my recent spam they have appeared: the filterbusting attempts that use random dictionary words. A quick browse of the 200k entries in my filter collection and the accuracy it shows leads me to believe that the spammers who try to break filtering are still losing the arms race and may not ever hit on a winning tactic. -- Bill Cole bill@scconsult.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Feb 16 14:34:07 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA13858 for ; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 14:34:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AsoUu-00015r-Eb for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 14:33:40 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1GJXeCJ004197 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 14:33:40 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AsoUu-00015c-B1 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 14:33:40 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA13845 for ; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 14:33:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AsoUr-00056P-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 14:33:37 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AsoTu-00052m-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 14:32:39 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AsoTN-0004yj-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 14:32:05 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AsoTJ-0000vh-5o; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 14:32:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AsoSp-0000v1-Ds for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 14:31:31 -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 OAA13711 for ; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 14:31:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AsoSm-0004wQ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 14:31:28 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AsoRn-0004qg-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 14:30:27 -0500 Received: from z.spamhaus.org ([67.89.105.244]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AsoQt-0004fO-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 14:29:31 -0500 X-Sender: matt@y.spamhaus.org (Unverified) To: asrg@ietf.org From: Matt Schneider Subject: Re: [Asrg] Meaningless words in spams In-Reply-To: References: <20040216180100.262BA41F9@z.spamhaus.org> <20040216180100.262BA41F9@z.spamhaus.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Message-Id: <20040216192901.2F46F41E9@z.spamhaus.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, 16 Feb 2004 19:29:01 +0000 (GMT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 At 02:19 PM 2/16/2004 -0500, you wrote: >At 6:01 PM +0000 2/16/04, Matt Schneider wrote: >>At 12:28 PM 2/16/2004 -0500, you wrote: >>>so, i guess a sliding window would catch filter-busting headers and >>>trailers. >> >>No, they add a bunch of garbage right in the body of the spams too, fake >>HTML tags or text that's the same color as the background. >> >>There's no real way to avoid this stuff. > >Those are both really quite easy to catch, and can even be caught by >automatic learning filters. For example, the word 'oblivity' inside angle >brackets (i.e. a bogus HTML tag) occurs nowhere at all in any of my >legitimate mail of the past year. It occurs 6 times in my spam of 2004. A >filter that checks for strict HTML compliance in HTML mail would have >caught all of those, and I see in my current set of Bayesian classifiers >that this 'word' (complete with <>) is part of why the later spams >containing it were marked as probable spam. Similarly, text that is the >same color as the background is a programmatically detectable trick, and >there are already filters in use that detect it as spamsign. Yes, you can look for bad HTML tags and colored text.. but there will always be a way to sneak garbage in no matter what you do. >I also note in peeking at my current Bayesian classifiers that there are >many perfectly valid but uncommonly used words there which seem to be >strong spamsign for no obvious reason. At least no obvious reason until I >look at where in my recent spam they have appeared: the filterbusting >attempts that use random dictionary words. A quick browse of the 200k >entries in my filter collection and the accuracy it shows leads me to >believe that the spammers who try to break filtering are still losing the >arms race and may not ever hit on a winning tactic. Yes, but you can't start filtering mail based on uncommon words either. One time I was corresponding with a reporter about a spam article and got one of my messages bounced back... I guess I used the word "spam" too many times (like all spammers do, of course). The point is, content filtering sucks. - Matt _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Feb 16 14:39:39 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA14206 for ; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 14:39:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AsoZb-0001sj-9l for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 14:39:11 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1GJcUtq007224 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 14:38:30 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AsoZa-0001sQ-CL for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 14:38:30 -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 OAA14129 for ; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 14:38:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AsoZX-0005Pm-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 14:38:27 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AsoYg-0005NL-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 14:37:35 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AsoYC-0005KQ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 14:37:04 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AsoY8-0001GE-Vl; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 14:37:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AsoXh-0001FM-Ix for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 14:36:33 -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 OAA14076 for ; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 14:36:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AsoXe-0005Jj-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 14:36:30 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AsoWq-0005Gt-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 14:35:40 -0500 Received: from 216-220-241-233.midmaine.com ([216.220.241.233] helo=nic-naa.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AsoW3-0005D3-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 14:34:51 -0500 Received: from nic-naa.net (localhost.wampumpeag.net [127.0.0.1]) by nic-naa.net (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id i1GJm7CA095832; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 14:48:07 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from brunner@nic-naa.net) Message-Id: <200402161948.i1GJm7CA095832@nic-naa.net> To: Bill Cole cc: asrg@ietf.org, brunner@nic-naa.net Subject: Re: [Asrg] Meaningless words in spams In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 16 Feb 2004 14:19:22 EST." From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 14:48:07 -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 i was thinking of ides' sliding window and learning profile when i wrote earlier. one show and tell by its author, a long time ago. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Feb 16 15:26:58 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA18108 for ; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 15:26:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AspK2-0000B3-53 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 15:26:30 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1GKQUC0000673 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 15:26:30 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AspK1-0000Am-Ra for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 15:26:29 -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 PAA18083 for ; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 15:26:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AspK0-0001Fi-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 15:26:28 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AspJ5-0001DJ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 15:25:31 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AspIs-0001Av-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 15:25:18 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AspIc-0007q5-Go; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 15:25:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AsoEE-0007ZS-KM for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 14:16:26 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA12393 for ; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 14:16:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AsoEC-000359-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 14:16:24 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AsoDE-0002yZ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 14:15:24 -0500 Received: from gw.activestate.com ([209.17.183.249] helo=smtp1.ActiveState.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AsoCN-0002q9-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 14:14:31 -0500 Received: from smtp3.ActiveState.com (latte.activestate.com [192.168.4.252]) by smtp1.ActiveState.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i1GJ9tZ9015231 for ; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 11:09:55 -0800 (envelope-from jesse.dougherty@sophos.com) Received: from exchange.activestate.ca (exchange.activestate.com [192.168.3.54]) by smtp3.ActiveState.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i1GJ9ttY029774 for ; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 11:09:55 -0800 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6487.1 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] Meaningless words in spams Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [Asrg] Meaningless words in spams Thread-Index: AcP0uWb2Lhc9Ik+YQn+Bg9oeNp5XsQABsVOw From: "Jesse Dougherty" To: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 11:09:54 -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 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > At 12:28 PM 2/16/2004 -0500, you wrote: > >so, i guess a sliding window would catch filter-busting headers and=20 > >trailers. >=20 > No, they add a bunch of garbage right in the body of the=20 > spams too, fake=20 > HTML tags or text that's the same color as the background. Its called "word salad" and is a common technique to confuse signature systems like DCC, razor and Brightmail. John Graham-Cumming showed (in his talk at the MIT conference) that the technique isn't very effective at defeating personalized bayes spam filters as the randomness becomes noise in the background. It also isn't as effective at beating more heuristics based systems (and can become a potential spam sign as well). _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Feb 16 17:21:57 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA02452 for ; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 17:21:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Asr6g-0003Pg-3b for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 17:21:30 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1GMKn4V013110 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 17:20:49 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Asr6e-0003PI-5y for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 17:20:48 -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 RAA02265 for ; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 17:20:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Asr6b-00011J-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 17:20:46 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Asr3d-0000QW-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 17:17:41 -0500 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Asr1m-00003E-01 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 17:15:46 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by mx2.foretec.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1AsquU-0004qE-OP for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 17:08:15 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AsquH-0002gG-G9; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 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 1Asqtq-0002Zg-4b for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 17:07:34 -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 RAA00958 for ; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 17:07:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Asqtn-0006yj-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 17:07:32 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Asqsy-0006tO-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 17:06:40 -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 1Asqs6-0006nc-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 17:05:46 -0500 Received: from [192.168.254.12] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by toaster.scconsult.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B715FE70A2 for ; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 17:05:45 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: bill@fireproof.scconsult.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <1076936118.27204.7.camel@ariel.sovam.com> References: <20040216104514.94DB641A0@z.spamhaus.org> <1076936118.27204.7.camel@ariel.sovam.com> To: asrg@ietf.org From: Bill Cole Subject: Re: [Asrg] Meaningless words in spams 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, 16 Feb 2004 17:05:43 -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 4:48 PM +0300 2/16/04, Eugene Crosser wrote: >On Mon, 2004-02-16 at 13:45, Matt Schneider wrote: >> Yes, it's a "hash buster" to make each spam slightly different than each >> other, so they can get around filters i.e. Brightmail. >> >> - Matt > >Also, the maningful but unrelated text, as I understand, is a way to get >through Bayesian filters... This is quite amusing, as I just found your message, the one you are replying to, and another reply to it in my Junk box because my Bayesian filters gagged on the quoted garbage. As has been stated here, content filters suck. However, auto-trained Bayesian filters do well enough (provided one doesn't get too much quoted spam...) to be the last line of defense for rough cut sorting of mail into 'probably spam' and 'probably not spam' piles for the user to pick through. -- Bill Cole bill@scconsult.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Feb 16 18:09:37 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA07791 for ; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 18:09:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AsrrS-0002QK-H0 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 18:09:10 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1GN9AdM009304 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 18:09:10 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AsrrS-0002Pf-7e for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 18:09:10 -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 SAA07669 for ; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 18:09:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AsrrP-0007jO-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 18:09:07 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Asrps-0007Po-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 18:07:33 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Asroa-0007DJ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 18:06:12 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AsroQ-0001EW-Rh; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 18:06:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Asro2-00016R-4C for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 18:05:38 -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 SAA07127 for ; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 18:05:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Asrnz-00078G-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 18:05:35 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AsrnB-00071Z-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 18:04:46 -0500 Received: from smtp.everyone.net ([216.200.145.17] helo=rmta04.mta.everyone.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AsrmI-0006sg-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 18:03:50 -0500 Received: from sohonotebook (ip68-100-37-118.dc.dc.cox.net [68.100.37.118]) by rmta04.mta.everyone.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6359DDE11E; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 15:02:12 -0800 (PST) From: "Eric Dean" To: "'Bill Cole'" , Subject: RE: [Asrg] Meaningless words in spams Message-ID: <014601c3f4e0$f14a35d0$6401a8c0@sohonotebook> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 18:02:24 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit They do well enough today...but it's quite evident that they will have a tough time surviving the spamorphosis...even in the ensuing weeks. It seems that only sender whitelisting is stopping my current barrage...I use Bayesian just to auto-drop...not to permit. I can't wait for some permutation software to start trying to guess my whitelists > As has been stated here, content filters suck. However, auto-trained > Bayesian filters do well enough (provided one doesn't get too much > quoted spam...) to be the last line of defense for rough cut sorting > of mail into 'probably spam' and 'probably not spam' piles for the > user to pick through. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Feb 17 10:06:08 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA01767 for ; Tue, 17 Feb 2004 10:06:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1At6n6-0001so-O7 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 17 Feb 2004 10:05:41 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1HF5eLU007229 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 17 Feb 2004 10:05:40 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1At6n6-0001sU-2s for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 17 Feb 2004 10:05:40 -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 KAA01674 for ; Tue, 17 Feb 2004 10:05:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1At6n4-00064l-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 17 Feb 2004 10:05:38 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1At6m6-0005tm-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 17 Feb 2004 10:04:39 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1At6kd-0005eu-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 17 Feb 2004 10:03:07 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1At6ib-0007LX-Hq; Tue, 17 Feb 2004 10:01:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1At6hi-0006gV-RA for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 17 Feb 2004 10:00:07 -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 KAA01043 for ; Tue, 17 Feb 2004 10:00:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1At6hg-0005Jb-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 17 Feb 2004 10:00:04 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1At6gk-0005FM-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 17 Feb 2004 09:59:07 -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 1At6fr-0005Ae-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 17 Feb 2004 09:58:11 -0500 Received: from newgiles.nitros9.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.nitros9.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6699170F5 for ; Tue, 17 Feb 2004 10:00:53 -0500 (EST) From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spooked mail addresses In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 04 Feb 2004 16:23:38 GMT." <20040204162338.GB31706@linuxufo.com> Message-Id: <20040217150054.C6699170F5@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, 17 Feb 2004 10:00:53 -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 Peter Sergeant wrote: > Assuming that I'm using a web-based email system that ties me > inextricably to their email address. I happen to access my email via a > web-system when travelling, where normally I access it through an MUA on > my machine - in this case, and in the case where I ask a third party to > send an invite or an article in my name, the software sitting on the > web-server is acting as an MUA. I do not see where the distinction > between 'normal' and web-based MUA lies that makes email originating > from one spam, and not the other. It doesn't. > > The site offering 'send a friend this link' allows you to type in any > > >From address, and forges a message from you. > > You say 'forges', but isn't this exactly what any MUA does? I can > configure 'mutt' to send email from you - this doesn't mean that > legitimate mail I send from 'mutt' is also by definition spam. Most MUAs can send mail "from" anyone. But since that mail goes through an MTA, that MTA can control, validate, or accept responsibility for the "from" line. If your MTA is "example.com", and your MTA is sending as "user@example.com", it's trivial for the recipient to tell that the mail is probably authorized. If your MUA is sending as "user@hotmail.com", then the recipient *cannot* tell if it was authorized. > > Since there is no technical way for the recipient to verify that you > > authorized that message, there is no technical difference between it, > > and simple forged spam. > > Where does this assumption come from? Many online content providers > these days require you to log in. So? How the heck does the recipient know that a message from "user@example.com", which came through the MTA for "cnn.com", is actually associated with that user? Even CNN may not know it. > > Either the web site should produce an email that's easy for the end-user > > to send, or the source address should belong to the source of the email > > - the website. > > I believe this conclusion is based on flawed logic. I don't see why. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Feb 17 10:17:33 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA03355 for ; Tue, 17 Feb 2004 10:17:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1At6yA-0005j2-MJ for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 17 Feb 2004 10:17:06 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1HFH63A022001 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 17 Feb 2004 10:17:06 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1At6yA-0005im-GU for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 17 Feb 2004 10:17:06 -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 KAA03282 for ; Tue, 17 Feb 2004 10:17:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1At6y8-0007Bg-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 17 Feb 2004 10:17:04 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1At6xA-00075c-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 17 Feb 2004 10:16:05 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1At6wI-0006z6-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 17 Feb 2004 10:15:10 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1At6wB-00056R-4H; Tue, 17 Feb 2004 10:15:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1At6vJ-0004nP-9y for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 17 Feb 2004 10:14:09 -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 KAA02884 for ; Tue, 17 Feb 2004 10:14:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1At6vH-0006sT-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 17 Feb 2004 10:14:07 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1At6uR-0006mu-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 17 Feb 2004 10:13:15 -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 1At6tS-0006iz-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 17 Feb 2004 10:12:14 -0500 Received: from newgiles.nitros9.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.nitros9.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CD4D16E14 for ; Tue, 17 Feb 2004 10:14:59 -0500 (EST) From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Fwd: [Asrg] Re: Documents for LMAP BOF] In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 09 Feb 2004 14:08:38 EST." <4027DAB6.5000806@solidmatrix.com> Message-Id: <20040217151500.0CD4D16E14@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, 17 Feb 2004 10:14:59 -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 A week ago, Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > What I find problematic is that there is an existing identity in email - > IP addresses. If blacklists are made to be more feature rich, possibly > becoming reputation services, that might help. So I am not sure why > going to domain identity or sender identity makes a difference. IP addresses are short-lived, and machines at an IP are being hijacked to send spam. You can't have a blacklist if one IP sends 10 spam in 5 minutes, and then disappears for a week. > One compelling argument made so far is that IP owners do not care if > their identity gets stolen, but domain owners and senders do. IF you > raise the cost for IP owners, they will start to care. It has nothing to do with identity. It has everything to do with accountability. Temporary IP addresses are not accountable, and in many cases, cannot practically be made accountable for the small amounts of spam they send. But there are tens of millions of such systems, resulting in huge volumes of spam. > My second problem, is that there are multiple ways to introduce sender > identity into email. We should stop back for a second, and look at the > problem from a bird's eye view. If we were to be designed the email > system from scratch, how would sender identity be implemented? Would > spam still exist in such system? Personally, I wouldn't introduce sender identity. I would introduce long-term accountability. I don't care who sent the message, so long as someone is willing to take the blame when something goes wrong. If the accountable party doesn't stick around long enough to be held accountable, then they're not an accountable party. e.g. A whitelist could state "this IP has been an MTA for a year", and a blacklist could state "this IP sent lots of spam in the past week". The combination of the two will mean that most legitimate mail from the whitelisted IP's will get through to the recipients, but legitimate email from *non* white-listed IP's may get put into the "maybe spam: do content filter" bucket. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Feb 17 11:01:57 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA09478 for ; Tue, 17 Feb 2004 11:01:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1At7f8-0005Xy-Iy for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 17 Feb 2004 11:01:30 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1HG1UWn021316 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 17 Feb 2004 11:01:30 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1At7f6-0005Xf-UB for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 17 Feb 2004 11:01:30 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA09353 for ; Tue, 17 Feb 2004 11:01:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1At7f4-0004qS-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 17 Feb 2004 11:01:26 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1At7cI-0004Is-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 17 Feb 2004 10:58:35 -0500 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1At7b1-00047a-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 17 Feb 2004 10:57:16 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by mx2.foretec.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1At7W2-0003pA-Rh for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 17 Feb 2004 10:52:07 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1At7Vz-0004HZ-16; Tue, 17 Feb 2004 10:52:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1At7Vi-0004Gn-Jn for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 17 Feb 2004 10:51:46 -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 KAA08488 for ; Tue, 17 Feb 2004 10:51:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1At7Vg-0003c9-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 17 Feb 2004 10:51:44 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1At7Ud-0003Qy-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 17 Feb 2004 10:50:39 -0500 Received: from mail1.nber.org ([207.113.108.7]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1At7TD-0003BB-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 17 Feb 2004 10:49:11 -0500 Received: from mail1 (root@localhost) by mail1.nber.org (8.12.8/8.12.8) with SMTP id i1HFnBpG014888 for ; Tue, 17 Feb 2004 10:49:11 -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 i1HFnAbO014865; Tue, 17 Feb 2004 10:49:11 -0500 From: Daniel Feenberg To: Alan DeKok cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Fwd: [Asrg] Re: Documents for LMAP BOF] In-Reply-To: <20040217151500.0CD4D16E14@mail.nitros9.org> 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: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 10:49:10 -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 On Tue, 17 Feb 2004, Alan DeKok wrote: > A week ago, Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > > What I find problematic is that there is an existing identity in email - > > IP addresses. If blacklists are made to be more feature rich, possibly > > becoming reputation services, that might help. So I am not sure why > > going to domain identity or sender identity makes a difference. > > IP addresses are short-lived, and machines at an IP are being > hijacked to send spam. You can't have a blacklist if one IP sends 10 > spam in 5 minutes, and then disappears for a week. > But what is the harm in leaving the IP address in the database? If tomorrow it isn't a spammer, it is still a dynamic IP address, and I don't want mail from that address, do I? And tomorrow its new address goes on the list. The difficult decisions in refusing mail come from IP addresses that send both spam and legitimate mail, such as major ISP mail servers. A dynamic IP address will hardly ever be the source of legitimate mail, so it isn't a hard decision. Furthermore, an individual operating an MTA on a dynamic address doesn't have much ability to pressure you to accept his mail. He is clearly capable of using mailertable to divert mail to you through his ISP, or he wouldn't be able to install Sendmail in the first place. And if he brings up confidentiality concerns, you can decide for yourself if they are relevant. I am aware that many people feel that RBLs can't do a good job on hijacked PCs, but I haven't seen a convincing explanation yet. It may be that they haven't done a good job yet, because not all the dynamic addresses are on the RBLs yet. But it only takes time. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Feb 17 11:02:16 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA09576 for ; Tue, 17 Feb 2004 11:02:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1At7fQ-0005ZP-Rz for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 17 Feb 2004 11:01:50 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1HG1mhK021405 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 17 Feb 2004 11:01:48 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1At7fQ-0005ZA-M8 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 17 Feb 2004 11:01:48 -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 LAA09440 for ; Tue, 17 Feb 2004 11:01:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1At7fO-0004v5-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 17 Feb 2004 11:01:46 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1At7cj-0004N4-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 17 Feb 2004 10:59:01 -0500 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1At7bC-00047B-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 17 Feb 2004 10:57:26 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by mx2.foretec.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1At7SK-0003jk-2Z for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 17 Feb 2004 10:48:16 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1At7S7-0003nh-6W; Tue, 17 Feb 2004 10:48:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1At7Rl-0003n8-FE for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 17 Feb 2004 10:47:42 -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 KAA07836 for ; Tue, 17 Feb 2004 10:47:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1At7Ri-0002ru-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 17 Feb 2004 10:47:39 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1At7Px-0002Uq-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 17 Feb 2004 10:45:50 -0500 Received: from amber.ccs.neu.edu ([129.10.116.51]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1At7Ns-00024H-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 17 Feb 2004 10:43:40 -0500 Received: from RASPUTIN.ccs.neu.edu (jmarshall.ccs.neu.edu [129.10.115.140]) by amber.ccs.neu.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53640541C8; Tue, 17 Feb 2004 10:43:38 -0500 (EST) To: Eugene Crosser Cc: Matt Schneider , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Meaningless words in spams From: Joe Marshall In-Reply-To: <1076936118.27204.7.camel@ariel.sovam.com> (Eugene Crosser's message of "Mon, 16 Feb 2004 16:33:39 +0300") References: <20040216104514.94DB641A0@z.spamhaus.org> <1076936118.27204.7.camel@ariel.sovam.com> Message-ID: <65e5g18v.fsf@ccs.neu.edu> User-Agent: Gnus/5.1002 (Gnus v5.10.2) XEmacs/21.4 (Rational FORTRAN, windows-nt) 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, 17 Feb 2004 10:43:44 -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 Eugene Crosser writes: > On Mon, 2004-02-16 at 13:45, Matt Schneider wrote: >> Yes, it's a "hash buster" to make each spam slightly different than each >> other, so they can get around filters i.e. Brightmail. >> >> - Matt > > Also, the maningful but unrelated text, as I understand, is a way to get > through Bayesian filters... The statistics of the pile of words at the end makes it less likely to defeat Bayesian filters. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Feb 17 21:58:00 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA24805 for ; Tue, 17 Feb 2004 21:57:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AtHu0-0003aP-RJ for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 17 Feb 2004 21:57:32 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1I2vWEV013779 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 17 Feb 2004 21:57:32 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AtHu0-0003aA-MU for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 17 Feb 2004 21:57:32 -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 VAA24799 for ; Tue, 17 Feb 2004 21:57:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AtHtx-0001uY-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 17 Feb 2004 21:57:29 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AtHt1-0001s4-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 17 Feb 2004 21:56:32 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AtHsa-0001pl-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 17 Feb 2004 21:56:04 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AtHrb-0003QN-KE; Tue, 17 Feb 2004 21:55:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AtHoL-00032r-4u for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 17 Feb 2004 21:51:41 -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 VAA24648 for ; Tue, 17 Feb 2004 21:51:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AtHoI-0001WQ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 17 Feb 2004 21:51:38 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AtHnO-0001SV-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 17 Feb 2004 21:50:43 -0500 Received: from mout.perfora.net ([217.160.230.40]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AtHmM-0001OW-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 17 Feb 2004 21:49:39 -0500 Received: from [217.160.230.50] (helo=smtp.perfora.net) by mout.perfora.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1AtHmN-0008QR-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 17 Feb 2004 21:49:39 -0500 Received: from [68.29.167.231] (helo=solidmatrix.com) by smtp.perfora.net with asmtp (TLSv1:RC4-MD5:128) (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1AtHmK-0001P4-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 17 Feb 2004 21:49:39 -0500 Message-ID: <4032D2B8.10303@solidmatrix.com> From: Yakov Shafranovich Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, he, ru MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ASRG X-Enigmail-Version: 0.83.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] 1c. Analysis of Spam - Request for Data Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 21:49:28 -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 Terry asked me to forward this to the main list, since he is not subscribed to it. Please reply off-list to Terry directly. Yakov ===== CUT HERE ===== I think I might just have stumbled upon a way to identify the spammer-behind-the-spam. Preliminary indications are all *very* encouraging. But what I lack is a definitive, defensible answer, based on spam KNOWN to have come from one (or more) specific, particular spammer(s). I wonder if anyone on this list might have, or know where I can locate, even a small collection of such spam? I want to be clear, I am NOT looking for multiple copies of a single spam: I'm looking for a corpus (it doesn't have to be big) of *different* spams where the identity of the spammer(s) is known (personal intuition/opinion do NOT count as "knowledge"). If anyone can help me locate such a corpus, please reply off-list to terry@pantos.org. ------- 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 Feb 17 23:54:03 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA28761 for ; Tue, 17 Feb 2004 23:54:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AtJiK-0002S3-7v for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 17 Feb 2004 23:53:36 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1I4rarm009417 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 17 Feb 2004 23:53:36 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AtJiK-0002Ro-1r for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 17 Feb 2004 23:53:36 -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 XAA28703 for ; Tue, 17 Feb 2004 23:53:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AtJiH-0001pT-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 17 Feb 2004 23:53:33 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AtJhL-0001n3-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 17 Feb 2004 23:52:36 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AtJh1-0001kf-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 17 Feb 2004 23:52:15 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AtJgm-0002Fy-Lr; Tue, 17 Feb 2004 23:52:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AtJgL-0002FU-RV for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 17 Feb 2004 23:51:36 -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 XAA28661 for ; Tue, 17 Feb 2004 23:51:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AtJgJ-0001jr-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 17 Feb 2004 23:51:31 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AtJfP-0001hi-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 17 Feb 2004 23:50:36 -0500 Received: from sccrmhc12.comcast.net ([204.127.202.56]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AtJf2-0001ea-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 17 Feb 2004 23:50:12 -0500 Received: from fda.zemos.net ([68.38.12.170]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc12) with ESMTP id <2004021804493801200j7ende>; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 04:49:38 +0000 Received: from zemos.net (phil [10.0.0.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by fda.zemos.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8988B186A2; Tue, 17 Feb 2004 23:49:37 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <4032EEE0.6000607@zemos.net> From: Philip Miller User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040122 Debian/1.6-1 X-Accept-Language: en, en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Feenberg Cc: Alan DeKok , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Fwd: [Asrg] Re: Documents for LMAP BOF] References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 23:49:36 -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 Daniel Feenberg wrote: > On Tue, 17 Feb 2004, Alan DeKok wrote: >>A week ago, Yakov Shafranovich wrote: >>>What I find problematic is that there is an existing identity in email - >>>IP addresses. If blacklists are made to be more feature rich, possibly >>>becoming reputation services, that might help. So I am not sure why >>>going to domain identity or sender identity makes a difference. >> >> IP addresses are short-lived, and machines at an IP are being >>hijacked to send spam. You can't have a blacklist if one IP sends 10 >>spam in 5 minutes, and then disappears for a week. > > But what is the harm in leaving the IP address in the database? If > tomorrow it isn't a spammer, it is still a dynamic IP address, and I don't > want mail from that address, do I? And tomorrow its new address goes on > the list. The harm in leaving it in the database depends on the stated policies of the database operator. If the users of that list know that known dynamic addresses are being left on after they have been used and discarded, and still want to use it, that's fine. If users are told or assume that the database lists known currently-spamming addresses, then leaving dynamic addresses lying around would be bad. > The difficult decisions in refusing mail come from IP addresses that send > both spam and legitimate mail, such as major ISP mail servers. A dynamic > IP address will hardly ever be the source of legitimate mail, so it isn't > a hard decision. > > Furthermore, an individual operating an MTA on a dynamic address doesn't > have much ability to pressure you to accept his mail. He is clearly > capable of using mailertable to divert mail to you through his ISP, or he > wouldn't be able to install Sendmail in the first place. And if he brings > up confidentiality concerns, you can decide for yourself if they are > relevant. Confidentiality is not the only possible concern when dealing with ISP mail servers. My provider's outgoing servers occasionally experience unacceptable delays, and have occasionally been blacklisted. I'm here because I want to push forward a standard that will allow me to claim accountability for what my server sends, so that mail form it will be accepted, as it often isn't now by certain large ISPs unless I relay through my ISP's server. > I am aware that many people feel that RBLs can't do a good job on hijacked > PCs, but I haven't seen a convincing explanation yet. It may be that they > haven't done a good job yet, because not all the dynamic addresses are on > the RBLs yet. But it only takes time. RBLs should never have to list dynamic addresses. Think about the term "real-time blackhole list". I doubt there are many addresses that shift between dynamic and static allocation, considering that that would make them dynamic by definition. All dynamic addresses belong not on RBL lists, unless they are in the middle of a spam run, but on DUL and equivalent lists. Perhaps when we have lists of likely hijacking targets, some MTA vendor might implement security scanning against connecting clients to test for obvious signs of hijacking. Philip Miller _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Feb 18 14:11:02 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA10027 for ; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 14:11:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AtX5d-0008IN-CE for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 14:10:34 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1IJAXV0031883 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 14:10:33 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AtX5d-0008IA-8J for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 14:10:33 -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 OAA09876 for ; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 14:10:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AtX5a-00033M-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 14:10:30 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AtX3N-0002ZH-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 14:08:16 -0500 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AtX1z-0002LN-05 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 14:06:48 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by mx2.foretec.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1AtWrP-0001dy-PS for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 13:55:51 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AtWqd-0006ve-4X; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 13:55:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AtWpn-0006lu-Pe for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 13:54:12 -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 NAA08537 for ; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 13:54:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AtWpl-00016R-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 13:54:09 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AtWoP-0000r2-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 13:52:46 -0500 Received: from grou.ch ([193.201.200.130] helo=linuxufo.com ident=mail) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AtWn5-0000eF-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 13:51:24 -0500 Received: from sheriff by linuxufo.com with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1AtWmp-0003iq-00 for ; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 18:51:07 +0000 From: Peter Sergeant To: asrg@ietf.org Message-ID: <20040218185107.GD12454@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 - Mailing list summary... Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 18:51:07 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.9 required=5.0 tests=ADULT_SITE,AWL,HABEAS_SWE autolearn=no version=2.60 This month's summary (up to today, since a month ago today) of ASRG is included. Non-technical spelling errors will be caught by the editor - but I'd like to know if you feel I've misrepresented you, made a factual error, or missed out a Really Important And Interesting thread. I'd also like to BEG people on this list who are using mail clients that are somehow destroying or not setting 'In-reply-to' or 'References' headers (this group of people noticably overlaps with people called 'Fridrik' and people who mis-spelled 'referrer' in a widely-used protocol) to find a slightly more recipient-friendly MUA, and remind people that replying to an existing message to start a new thread also causes problems for those of us using MUAs that will nicely thread emails (like mutt). So it begins: Yakov posted a link to a draft submitted to IETF entitled 'A No Soliciting SMTP Service Extension', which would basically require senders to define their email with certain keywords. Phillip Miller was not impressed, saying that work on consent frameworks was specifically in order to avoid "content-specific solutions that are open to definition wars, redefinition, and even worse, cross-border legal wrangling", and suggesting that implementation of said standard would lead to the "[requirement] that senders, to be compliant with every possible national law, check their mail against each and every registered keyword." John Levine thought that the alternative would be that "each country [would] make up its own rules", many of which would be contradictory, pointing out that UCE in Korea has to start with the Korean word for advertisment, where the US rules will probably require 'ADV' - "the same subject can't simultaneously be in Korean and English." Phillip Hallam-Baker decided it was "all over for challenge-response" as spammers were now allegedly asking visitors to free 'adult' websites to 'solve' the non-machine-readable images that challenge-response systems use to verify a human sent the originating message. Yakov pointed out that this would require spammers to provide a working return address to their spam - essentially dooming the scheme. There was some debate as to how cost-effective this method would be, but as no-one had any figures, the thread floundered. It was suggested that this would be most useful for setting up 'free' webmail accounts en-masse, for use by spammers. Walter Dnes, in a later thread, suggested that all it would take would be one visually-disabled person with a good lawyer to get 'Turing test' schemes based on graphical recognition to become illegal anyway - this spawned a discussion on 'multi-modal' tests. He also painted a rather dystopian future, suggesting that there were 'legitimate' spammers who "do not want to see spamming made totally illegal, because they want to get in on the act once the 'bad' spammers are shut down ... the main difference between them is that 'bad spammers' break the law, while 'legitimate spammers' buy politicians to rewrite the law ... if technical solutions do succeed in stopping spam, mark my word, you *will* see 'must carry' legislation for 'legitimate marketing email.'" A large thread kicked off on the subject of websites sending email on behalf of a user - such as the 'Email this article' to a friend feature that many online publications have. This was decried as being 'forged spam' by Alan DeKok - the upshot seemed to be that some people believed that any email you couldn't be absolutely sure came from a given sender was 'forged spam', and others didn't - no particularly compelling solutions were suggested. The FTC sought comments (by way of Yakov) on their proposal to require those sending sexually-explicit UCE to label their email subject line with 'SEXUALLY-EXPLICIT-CONTENT', and making this phrase the only thing a user would see when they first opened such an email. The deadline for feedback has passed, but you can see the original proposal here: Fridrik Skulason requested a summary of 'RMX, DMP, SPF, LMAP, etc', and was rewarded by Yakov's breakdown: "The basic concept of LMAP is to publish in DNS a list of IPsthat are authorized to use the domain name in the MAIL FROM or HELO arguments of the SMTP transaction. The technical differences between RMX, SPF, and DMP is how this data is stored in DNS, how it is parsed, extensibility, and whether [the] HELO parameter is addressed" There was some discussion on requiring originators to specify the size of their message at the SMTP level, so as to allow throttling of connections from potential spammers, and so on. Peter Holzer was not convinced that size was a good indicator of how likely a message was to be spam: "My users complain if they get a single 1k spam message per day and they complain if they don't those 67 40MB PowerPoint presentations that someone sent them in an hour". Yakov claimed that the FTC had estimated that 70% of spam is fradulent and could be 'enforced' under existing laws. He lamented that while politicians are willing to talk about the problem, very few are willing to give 'cold hard cash' to the enforcement agencies to allow them to do this. Harry Tabak followed up with the insight that most spammers tend to be using zombies, making this process hard, and offered the insight, based on his filtering attempts, that "the cost to spammers of a failed delivery must be cheaper than the cost of pruning a mailing list" - zombie hosts with the same IP would keep trying to deliver to an email address that had rejected their emails before. ==END== +Pete -- B: Pinky, Are you pondering what I'm pondering? P: Wuh, I think so, Brain, but isn't Regis Philbin already married? -- Pinky and Brain _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Feb 18 14:35:50 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA12865 for ; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 14:35:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AtXTe-000285-Pu for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 14:35:23 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1IJZM4L008179 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 14:35:22 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AtXTe-00027q-K8 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 14:35:22 -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 OAA12756 for ; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 14:35:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AtXTb-0006ug-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 14:35:19 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AtXR2-0006Ok-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 14:32:41 -0500 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AtXPs-0006De-01 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 14:31:29 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by mx2.foretec.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1AtXNe-0002dM-Hf for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 14:29:11 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AtXNV-0001l7-3x; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 14:29:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AtX6p-0008Sk-Va for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 14:11:53 -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 OAA10213 for ; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 14:11:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AtX6n-0003Jr-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 14:11:45 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AtX4i-0002qT-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 14:09:37 -0500 Received: from mout.perfora.net ([217.160.230.40]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AtX2c-0002Py-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 14:07:26 -0500 Received: from [217.160.230.51] (helo=smtp.perfora.net) by mout.perfora.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1AtX2W-00010v-00; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 14:07:20 -0500 Received: from [68.29.201.20] (helo=solidmatrix.com) by smtp.perfora.net with asmtp (TLSv1:RC4-MD5:128) (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1AtX2V-00019l-00; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 14:07:20 -0500 Message-ID: <4033B7DC.1070303@solidmatrix.com> From: Yakov Shafranovich Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, he, ru MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Philip Miller CC: Daniel Feenberg , Alan DeKok , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Fwd: [Asrg] Re: Documents for LMAP BOF] References: <4032EEE0.6000607@zemos.net> In-Reply-To: <4032EEE0.6000607@zemos.net> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.83.2.0 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: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 14:07:08 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Philip Miller wrote: > Daniel Feenberg wrote: > >> On Tue, 17 Feb 2004, Alan DeKok wrote: >> >>> A week ago, Yakov Shafranovich wrote: >>> >>>> What I find problematic is that there is an existing identity in >>>> email - IP addresses. If blacklists are made to be more feature >>>> rich, possibly becoming reputation services, that might help. So I >>>> am not sure why going to domain identity or sender identity makes a >>>> difference. >>> >>> >>> IP addresses are short-lived, and machines at an IP are being >>> hijacked to send spam. You can't have a blacklist if one IP sends 10 >>> spam in 5 minutes, and then disappears for a week. >> >> >> But what is the harm in leaving the IP address in the database? If >> tomorrow it isn't a spammer, it is still a dynamic IP address, and I >> don't >> want mail from that address, do I? And tomorrow its new address goes on >> the list. > > > The harm in leaving it in the database depends on the stated policies of > the database operator. If the users of that list know that known dynamic > addresses are being left on after they have been used and discarded, and > still want to use it, that's fine. If users are told or assume that the > database lists known currently-spamming addresses, then leaving dynamic > addresses lying around would be bad. > The same would apply for expired domains as well - if a domain blacklist is maintained and the domain is seized or expired, and then someone else registers it, the new owner will be stuck with the listing. Although this is less likely with domains than IP addresses. The bottom line is that the main problem with any kind of blacklist - IP, domain, sender, etc. is the humans maintaining it. "Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it" - if we ignore the problems with current IP blacklists then we will repeat the same problems with other kind of blacklists like domain lists. 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 Feb 18 14:36:31 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA13099 for ; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 14:36:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AtXUI-0002Ah-Hn for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 14:36:03 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1IJa2Lf008341 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 14:36:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AtXUI-0002AL-5O for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 14:36:02 -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 OAA12928 for ; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 14:35:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AtXUF-000732-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 14:35:59 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AtXRu-0006Yo-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 14:33:35 -0500 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AtXQ7-0006Gw-01 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 14:31:43 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by mx2.foretec.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1AtXIm-0002RJ-7T for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 14:24:08 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AtXIf-0001Q2-Ja; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 14:24:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AtXIM-0001Pj-Hm for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 14:23:42 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA11998 for ; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 14:23:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AtXIK-0005dt-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 14:23:40 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AtXHB-0005Rx-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 14:22:30 -0500 Received: from joy.songbird.com ([208.184.79.7]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AtXG5-00058z-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 14:21:21 -0500 Received: from bbprime (jay.songbird.com [208.184.79.253]) by joy.songbird.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i1IJTMd28448 for ; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 11:29:22 -0800 From: Dave Crocker Reply-To: Dave Crocker Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <1633392508.20040218112047@brandenburg.com> To: asrg@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] Patrik Falstrom's mailflow chart Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 11:20:47 -0800 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,PRIORITY_NO_NAME autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I don't remember seeing this mentioned, but think it worth highlighting for folks: Patrik Falstrom did a mail flow control chart that is _extremely_ detailed. I've been doing a simplistic one, for easy discussion, but his is very thorough. It is at 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 Feb 18 14:42:38 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA13872 for ; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 14:42:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AtXaE-0002yE-U0 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 14:42:10 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1IJgAhU011412 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 14:42:10 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AtXaE-0002xz-Jz for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 14:42:10 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA13807 for ; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 14:42:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AtXaB-0000C0-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 14:42:08 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AtXZJ-00006Q-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 14:41:14 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AtXYU-00001v-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 14:40:22 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AtXYH-0002io-Dr; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 14:40:09 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AtXXY-0002gu-92 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 14:39:24 -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 OAA13620 for ; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 14:39:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AtXXV-0007ip-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 14:39:21 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AtXWO-0007X0-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 14:38:13 -0500 Received: from joy.songbird.com ([208.184.79.7]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AtXUh-00072W-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 14:36:27 -0500 Received: from bbprime (jay.songbird.com [208.184.79.253]) by joy.songbird.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i1IJiSd30261; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 11:44:28 -0800 From: Dave Crocker Reply-To: Dave Crocker Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <885286751.20040218113554@brandenburg.com> To: Yakov Shafranovich CC: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Patrik Falstrom's mailflow chart In-Reply-To: <4033BCA1.4040901@solidmatrix.com> References: <1633392508.20040218112047@brandenburg.com> <4033BCA1.4040901@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, 18 Feb 2004 11:35:54 -0800 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,PRIORITY_NO_NAME autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Yakov, I should comment that I think that the slide has far too much detail, for most discussions. Most of the time, folks are not bothering to look at _any_ of the tradeoffs, so a diagram that detailed can get distracting. On the other hand, I think it is useful for helping people to see just how complicated email can be. With luck, this will reduce the tendency to treat it simplistically. 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 Feb 18 14:58:34 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA14900 for ; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 14:58:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AtXpf-0004GT-DZ for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 14:58:07 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1IJw7DV016386 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 14:58:07 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AtXpf-0004GD-9X for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 14:58:07 -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 OAA14892 for ; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 14:58:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AtXpc-0001fu-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 14:58:04 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AtXoi-0001dX-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 14:57:09 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AtXoD-0001b8-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 14:56:37 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AtXmh-000401-5h; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 14:55:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AtXNY-0001lo-6d for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 14:29:04 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA12352 for ; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 14:29:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AtXNV-00064i-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 14:29:01 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AtXMa-00062e-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 14:28:04 -0500 Received: from mout.perfora.net ([217.160.230.40]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AtXMF-00060b-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 14:27:43 -0500 Received: from [217.160.230.51] (helo=smtp.perfora.net) by mout.perfora.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1AtXMF-0002t0-00; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 14:27:43 -0500 Received: from [68.29.201.20] (helo=solidmatrix.com) by smtp.perfora.net with asmtp (TLSv1:RC4-MD5:128) (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1AtXMD-0001au-00; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 14:27:43 -0500 Message-ID: <4033BCA1.4040901@solidmatrix.com> From: Yakov Shafranovich Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, he, ru MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dave Crocker CC: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Patrik Falstrom's mailflow chart References: <1633392508.20040218112047@brandenburg.com> In-Reply-To: <1633392508.20040218112047@brandenburg.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.83.2.0 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: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 14:27:29 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dave Crocker wrote: > I don't remember seeing this mentioned, but think it worth highlighting > for folks: > > Patrik Falstrom did a mail flow control chart that is _extremely_ > detailed. I've been doing a simplistic one, for easy discussion, but > his is very thorough. > > It is at > > It was also used in the slides as part of his NIST presentation yesterday. As soon as NIST posts copies of the slides, I will post a link here. 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 Wed Feb 18 15:43:46 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA19330 for ; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 15:43:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AtYXN-00024B-Hp for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 15:43:17 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1IKhHFC007937 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 15:43:17 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AtYXN-00023w-B5 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 15:43:17 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA19302 for ; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 15:43:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AtYXL-00068I-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 15:43:16 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AtYWN-00063c-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 15:42:15 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AtYVR-0005y8-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 15:41:17 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AtYVD-0001mg-PN; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 15:41:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AtYUQ-0001dA-Co for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 15:40:14 -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 PAA19071 for ; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 15:40:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AtYUO-0005sE-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 15:40:13 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AtYTR-0005of-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 15:39:13 -0500 Received: from pigeon.verisign.com ([65.205.251.71]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AtYSd-0005lu-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 15:38:23 -0500 Received: from mou1wnexc01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.53]) by pigeon.verisign.com (8.12.11/) with ESMTP id i1IKcMsj026398; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 12:38:22 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) id ; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 12:38:22 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Yakov Shafranovich'" , Dave Crocker Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] Patrik Falstrom's mailflow chart MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) 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, 18 Feb 2004 12:38:19 -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 > It was also used in the slides as part of his NIST presentation > yesterday. As soon as NIST posts copies of the slides, I will post a > link here. I think that equally useful was the commentary. Basically there are flows that are currently used that are likely to break. Some, like open relays should be broken, others there will be discussion on. I don't think we necessarily need to worry about breaking some of the flows. Breaking the ability to achieve a particular (desirable) outcome is a problem. Breaking a particular means of achieving it is not. The object here is to break the Internet for spammers and to break it as little as possible for the rest of us. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Feb 18 16:07:10 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA20653 for ; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 16:07:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AtYu2-0004aF-7g for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 16:06:42 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1IL6glP017613 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 16:06:42 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AtYu2-0004a0-3L for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 16:06:42 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA20649 for ; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 16:06:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AtYu0-0007ZM-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 16:06:40 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AtYt7-0007Xa-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 16:05:46 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AtYsc-0007V3-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 16:05:14 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AtYsR-0004LK-Gc; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 16:05:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AtYs5-0004KH-3R for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 16:04:41 -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 QAA20603 for ; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 16:04:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AtYs3-0007Ta-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 16:04:39 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AtYrC-0007QI-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 16:03:46 -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 1AtYqM-0007K1-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 16:02:54 -0500 Received: from newgiles.nitros9.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.nitros9.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7F8B170BA for ; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 16:05:26 -0500 (EST) From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - Mailing list summary... In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 18 Feb 2004 18:51:07 GMT." <20040218185107.GD12454@linuxufo.com> Message-Id: <20040218210526.D7F8B170BA@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, 18 Feb 2004 16:05:26 -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=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Peter Sergeant wrote: > A large thread kicked off on the subject of websites sending email on > behalf of a user - such as the 'Email this article' to a friend feature > that many online publications have. This was decried as being 'forged > spam' by Alan DeKok - the upshot seemed to be that some people believed > that any email you couldn't be absolutely sure came from a given sender > was 'forged spam', That is an intentional mischaracterization of my position. I have never talked about "absolute" ways of deciding a message isn't spam. What I have said repeatedly, and you have obviously not understood, is that if the recipient cannot tell the difference between "legitimate" messages matching a particular characteristic, and "spam" messages with the same characteristics, then the recipient cannot tell the two classes of messages apart. The recipient may well then decide to treat *all* such messages as spam. So two key points: a) lack of information means that decisions becomes more difficult b) the recipient makes its own decisions about what to do You are characterizing my position as: a) if you can't make a perfect decision, then none is possible b) the recipient must label spam what Alan says is spam Nothing could be further from the truth. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Feb 18 16:37:16 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA23217 for ; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 16:37:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AtZNA-0000bT-So for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 16:36:48 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1ILamO7002313 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 16:36:48 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AtZNA-0000bE-Om for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 16:36:48 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA23200 for ; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 16:36:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AtZN8-0002Nq-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 16:36:46 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AtZMG-0002L2-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 16:35:53 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AtZLZ-0002HM-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 16:35:09 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AtZLS-0000Lc-Cz; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 16:35:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AtZL6-0000KJ-Q2 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 16:34:40 -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 QAA23001 for ; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 16:34:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AtZL4-0002EJ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 16:34:38 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AtZKB-0002Aq-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 16:33:43 -0500 Received: from mail3.panix.com ([166.84.1.74]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AtZJM-00024S-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 16:32:52 -0500 Received: from panix5.panix.com (panix5.panix.com [166.84.1.5]) by mail3.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BCE69857F for ; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 16:32:48 -0500 (EST) Received: (from sethb@localhost) by panix5.panix.com (8.11.6p2-a/8.8.8/PanixN1.1) id i1ILWgK00512; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 16:32:42 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200402182132.i1ILWgK00512@panix5.panix.com> From: Seth Breidbart To: asrg@ietf.org In-reply-to: <20040218210526.D7F8B170BA@mail.nitros9.org> (aland@ox.org) Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - Mailing list summary... References: <20040218210526.D7F8B170BA@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, 18 Feb 2004 16:32:42 -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 "Alan DeKok" wrote: > What I have said repeatedly, and you have obviously not understood, > is that if the recipient cannot tell the difference between > "legitimate" messages matching a particular characteristic, and > "spam" messages with the same characteristics, then the recipient > cannot tell the two classes of messages apart. You mean, if someone can't tell the difference between non-spam and spam then he can't tell the difference between non-spam and spam? How is that a useful observation? > The recipient may well then decide > to treat *all* such messages as spam. The recipient *may* decide _anything_. > a) lack of information means that decisions becomes more difficult Of course. > b) the recipient makes its own decisions about what to do Not a new observation, either. The question is whether or not a particular characteristic may be _useful_ to a recipient. That characteristic might be "I have reason to believe the From: header is not forged" or "I have reason to believe the MAIL FROM argument is not forged" or "I have reason to believe the HELO argument is not forged" or "The body of the text contains 27 words or phrases I've seen in Nigerian spam and not in other email". All of those _can be useful_. None of them is determinative. (For instance, the latter might be a procmail recipe to eliminate Nigerian spam.) Going back to the original question of maybe-forged-From vs. known-not-forged-From, the former is much more likely to be spam; but most of my legitimate email is in the latter category, so treating it all as spam would be foolish. Seth _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Feb 18 19:07:30 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA03399 for ; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 19:07:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Atbia-0005Xs-Cd for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 19:07:04 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1J0731D021310 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 19:07:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AtbiZ-0005Xd-Hp for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 19:07:03 -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 TAA03293 for ; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 19:06:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AtbiW-0003z9-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 19:07:00 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AtbhS-0003o8-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 19:05:55 -0500 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Atbgl-0003kj-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 19:05:11 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by mx2.foretec.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1Atbcw-0007nI-Ta for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 19:01:15 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Atbcj-0004m8-UM; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 19:01:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AtbGD-0003RM-Rl for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 18:37:45 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA01942 for ; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 18:37:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AtbGA-0002Gd-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 18:37:42 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AtbFF-0002FA-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 18:36:45 -0500 Received: from mout.perfora.net ([217.160.230.41]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AtbF2-0002DX-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 18:36:32 -0500 Received: from [217.160.230.51] (helo=smtp.perfora.net) by mout.perfora.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1AtbF2-0003vV-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 18:36:32 -0500 Received: from [68.29.175.174] (helo=solidmatrix.com) by smtp.perfora.net with asmtp (TLSv1:RC4-MD5:128) (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1AtbF1-00083i-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 18:36:32 -0500 Message-ID: <4033F6F5.5010609@solidmatrix.com> From: Yakov Shafranovich Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, he, ru MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ASRG X-Enigmail-Version: 0.83.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] 0. General - New RFCs on IPR issues in the IETF Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 18:36:21 -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 The RFC Editor has published three new RFCs on IPR issues within the IETF. While the IRTF does not have a set IPR policy and the ASRG is operating with an interim IPR policy, this information is useful to ASRG since part of what we do is pre-standards work for the IETF. Many of you who plan to propose solutions, should be aware of the IPR policies of the IETF if you are hoping to standardize your solutions. The list is as follows: RFC 3667 / BCP 78, S. Bradner, "IETF Rights in Contributions" RFC 3668 / BCP 79, S. Bradner, "Intellectual Property Rights in IETF Technology" RFC 3669, S. Brim, "Guidelines for Working Groups on Intellectual Property Issues" Links are as follows: ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc3667.txt ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc3668.txt ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc3669.txt 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 Wed Feb 18 19:54:52 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA04724 for ; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 19:54:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AtcSN-0000Gl-57 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 19:54:23 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1J0sNEu001032 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 19:54:23 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AtcSM-0000GZ-TF for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 19:54:22 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA04640 for ; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 19:54:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AtcSL-0005l3-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 19:54:21 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AtcR0-0005bG-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 19:52:59 -0500 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AtcQc-0005XS-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 19:52:34 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by mx2.foretec.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1AtcLM-000070-5v for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 19:47:08 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AtcLF-0008D3-9F; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 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 1AtcKv-0008Cj-Sq for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 19:46:41 -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 TAA04516 for ; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 19:46:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AtcKu-0005Pz-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 19:46:40 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AtcJv-0005Ov-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 19:45:40 -0500 Received: from tipjar.com ([128.121.115.38]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AtcIz-0005NA-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 19:44:41 -0500 Received: from pay2send.com (adsl-66-143-48-169.dsl.ksc2mo.swbell.net [66.143.48.169]) by tipjar.com id i1J0iaBf094681; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 17:44:36 -0700 (MST) X-Received-From: davidnicol@pay2send.com X-Received-For: Message-ID: <403406F5.2060603@pay2send.com> From: david User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6b) Gecko/20031205 Thunderbird/0.4 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ASRG Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] 3c: *MX through extended ESMTP VRFY extenstion Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 18:44:37 -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 Proposal: define an ESMTP extension that allows the VRFY command to accept additional information -- a host address -- and defines responses. Instead of using DNS for distributing this information. The MX hosts for your domain would need to be aware of where you are when you roam -- but that is between you and your domain and could be resovled as part of your e-mail service. Information about how long to cache a result would be included in the responses MTAs might become caching verifiers just like DNS servers? I imagine a new EHLO heyword VRFYVIA which would extend VRFY so that you can ask example.com's MX VRFY username@example.com VIA 134.193.4.60 and mx.example.com will reply with one of the following extended list of response codes 250 (good user, good path, we would accept and deliver to them) 251 (good user, good path, but not local) 253 (good user, they have path-checking turned off so we reccommend optimism) 453 (good user, they might be roaming, we're checking with them about the path) 504 I cannot understand the path parameter 550 (bad user, don't care about the path) 551 not our user 553 problem with mailbox name 554 (good user, bad path: do not accept) 555 (good user, known to roam, but query about this path has expired so we reccommend pessimism) and NOT one of these keywords listed in rfc 2821 252 "Cannot VRFY user, but will accept message and attempt delivery" 502 not implemented. We lied when we listed VRFYVIA in our capbilities list. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Feb 18 20:30:13 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA06175 for ; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 20:30:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Atd0b-0002Zk-1n for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 20:29:45 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1J1TjK2009894 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 20:29:45 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Atd0a-0002ZV-Tr for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 20:29:44 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA06116 for ; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 20:29:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Atd0Y-0007dj-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 20:29:42 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Atczi-0007bz-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 20:28:51 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Atcz1-0007Zw-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 20:28:07 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Atcyv-0002QD-8j; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 20:28:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Atcyo-0002PV-Ew for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 20:27:54 -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 UAA06044 for ; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 20:27:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Atcym-0007Yj-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 20:27:52 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Atcxq-0007VK-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 20:26:54 -0500 Received: from tipjar.com ([128.121.115.38]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Atcx4-0007Sz-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 20:26:06 -0500 Received: from pay2send.com (adsl-66-143-48-169.dsl.ksc2mo.swbell.net [66.143.48.169]) by tipjar.com id i1J1Q6GH003179; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 18:26:06 -0700 (MST) X-Received-From: davidnicol@pay2send.com X-Received-For: Message-ID: <403410AF.6000203@pay2send.com> From: David Nicol Organization: tipjar LLC User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6b) Gecko/20031205 Thunderbird/0.4 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] 3c: *MX through extended ESMTP VRFY extenstion References: <403406F5.2060603@pay2send.com> In-Reply-To: <403406F5.2060603@pay2send.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 19:26:07 -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 Whoops, left out non-local cases and the whole caching concept. Any VRFYVIA response can contain a CACHEFOR [number] keyword, which indicates how many seconds to cache the result. Participating MTAs are responsible for caching CACHEFOR information in terms of an expiration time and including propoerly adjusted CACHEFOR numbers in non-local replies. > Client asks: VRFY username@example.com VIA 134.193.4.60 > and mx.example.com replies with one of the following extended list of > response codes > 250 (good user, good path, we would accept and deliver to them) > 251 (good user, good path, but not local) <-- (possibly cached > non-local 250 response) > 253 (good user, they have path-checking turned off so we reccommend > optimism) 254 possibly cached non-local 253 response 255 the mx that handles the recipient of this message does not do VRFYVIA > 453 (good user, they might be roaming, we're checking with them > about the path) 454 possibly cached non-local 453 response > 504 I cannot understand the path parameter > 550 (bad user, don't care about the path) > 551 not our user (implies that we don't do recursive queries) > 553 problem with mailbox name > 554 (good user, bad path: do not accept) > 555 (good user, known to roam, but query about this path has > expired so we reccommend pessimism) 505 possibly cached non-local 504 556 possibly cached non-local 550 557 possibly cached non-local 553 558 possibly cached non-local 554 559 possibly cached non-local 555 > > and NOT one of these keywords listed in rfc 2821 > 252 "Cannot VRFY user, but will accept message and attempt delivery" > 502 not implemented. We lied when we listed VRFYVIA in our > capbilities list. Better still, we could allow 502 and use reply code 502 as a signal for indicating which MX (other than us) is the designated VRFYVIA host for a domain: c: VRFY tuco.ramirez@example.com VIA 134.193.4.60 s: 502 mta3.example.com CACHEFOR 2419200 then client would have to disconnect from wherever they are connected to (mta1.example.com perhaps) and connect to mta3.example.com instead to get VRFYVIA data. Implementing for receiving MTAs: Choose a participating r3-type box to be the main VRFYVIA cache for your network or ISP, and consult with it before accepting any mail. When the machine is heavily loaded it might start fail gracefully by issuing 551 codes so we have to watch for the 551 code and do our own recursive VRFYVIA queries when we see one, otherwise we can accept or not based on the possibly cached data. Also have to watch for 502 and go ask elsewhere when we see that too. Comments, please? _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Feb 18 20:42:16 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA06516 for ; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 20:42:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AtdCF-0003RG-KV for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 20:41:47 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1J1fl8G013215 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 20:41:47 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AtdCE-0003R4-Sj for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 20:41:46 -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 UAA06496 for ; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 20:41:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AtdCC-0000Jx-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 20:41:44 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AtdBF-0000I7-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 20:40:46 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AtdAd-0000Ga-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 20:40:07 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AtdAY-0003Gc-HN; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 20:40:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AtdAJ-0003Fm-Oh for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 20:39:47 -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 UAA06461 for ; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 20:39:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AtdAH-0000Fe-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 20:39:45 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Atd9P-0000Dz-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 20:38:52 -0500 Received: from bsdsgr04.sagres.com.br ([200.140.134.134]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Atd96-0000Be-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 20:38:32 -0500 Received: from ntsgr07.sagres.com.br (NTsgr07.sagres.com.br [10.0.17.7]) by BSDsgr04.sagres.com.br (8.12.8p1/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i1J1c7Gb058517; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 01:38:07 GMT (envelope-from saurwein@uniwares.com) Received: from leonone.uniwares.com ([200.163.1.42]) by ntsgr07.sagres.com.br (Lotus Domino Release 5.0.12) with ESMTP id 2004021822461154:28138 ; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 22:46:11 -0300 Message-Id: <6.0.3.0.0.20040218223541.01d97640@mail.uniwares.com> X-Sender: saurwein.uniwares@mail.uniwares.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.3.0 To: David Nicol , asrg@ietf.org From: Andreas Saurwein Subject: Re: [Asrg] 3c: *MX through extended ESMTP VRFY extenstion In-Reply-To: <403410AF.6000203@pay2send.com> References: <403406F5.2060603@pay2send.com> <403410AF.6000203@pay2send.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on ntsgr07/SAGRES(Release 5.0.12 |February 13, 2003) at 18/02/2004 22:46:11, Serialize by Router on ntsgr07/SAGRES(Release 5.0.12 |February 13, 2003) at 18/02/2004 22:46:13, Serialize complete at 18/02/2004 22:46:13 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, 18 Feb 2004 22:37:56 -0300 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=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 At 18/2/2004 22:26 Wednesday, you wrote: >Comments, please? Only one: Which halfway sane mail administrator has VRFY enabled nowadays? Are you trying to introduce better address harvesting support for ESMTP or what? Sorry, I dont get it. Andreas _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Feb 18 20:53:23 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA07105 for ; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 20:53:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AtdN1-0004CU-3x for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 20:52:55 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1J1qtVH016140 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 20:52:55 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AtdN0-0004CF-Ux for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 20:52:54 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA07069 for ; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 20:52:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AtdMy-0000qI-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 20:52:52 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AtdM0-0000lA-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 20:51:53 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AtdLF-0000hF-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 20:51:05 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AtdLB-0003yk-B6; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 20:51:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AtdKu-0003xi-ID for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 20:50:44 -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 UAA06777 for ; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 20:50:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AtdKs-0000fm-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 20:50:42 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AtdJv-0000eO-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 20:49:43 -0500 Received: from tipjar.com ([128.121.115.38]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AtdJA-0000d7-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 20:48:56 -0500 Received: from pay2send.com (adsl-66-143-48-169.dsl.ksc2mo.swbell.net [66.143.48.169]) by tipjar.com id i1J1mtEA007578; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 18:48:56 -0700 (MST) X-Received-From: davidnicol@pay2send.com X-Received-For: asrg@ietf.org Message-ID: <40341609.9080401@pay2send.com> From: David Nicol Organization: tipjar LLC User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6b) Gecko/20031205 Thunderbird/0.4 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andreas Saurwein CC: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 3c: *MX through extended ESMTP VRFY extenstion References: <403406F5.2060603@pay2send.com> <403410AF.6000203@pay2send.com> <6.0.3.0.0.20040218223541.01d97640@mail.uniwares.com> In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.0.20040218223541.01d97640@mail.uniwares.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 19:48:57 -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 Andreas Saurwein wrote: > At 18/2/2004 22:26 Wednesday, you wrote: > >> Comments, please? > > > Only one: Which halfway sane mail administrator has VRFY enabled > nowadays? > > > Are you trying to introduce better address harvesting support for > ESMTP or what? > Sorry, I dont get it. > > Andreas the proposed VRFYVIA does not imply VRFY. Does LMAP etc. have a response to the "it would facilitate harvesting" argument? That would apply here too. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Feb 18 22:05:22 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA10171 for ; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 22:05:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AteUh-0002Ih-C9 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 22:04:55 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1J34th9008842 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 22:04:55 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AteUh-0002IX-5I for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 22:04:55 -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 WAA10167 for ; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 22:04:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AteUe-0005GT-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 22:04:52 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AteTp-0005EP-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 22:04:02 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AteT5-0005BO-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 22:03:15 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AteSr-00026n-5m; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 22:03:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AteSc-00025u-EY for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 22:02:46 -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 WAA10095 for ; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 22:02:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AteSZ-00058Y-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 22:02:43 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AteRa-00053s-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 22:01:43 -0500 Received: from rwcrmhc11.comcast.net ([204.127.198.35]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AteQf-0004xW-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 22:00:45 -0500 Received: from fda.zemos.net ([68.38.12.170]) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc11) with ESMTP id <20040219030010013007ncooe>; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 03:00:10 +0000 Received: from zemos.net (phil [10.0.0.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by fda.zemos.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD080186A2; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 22:00:08 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <403426B7.5040801@zemos.net> From: Philip Miller User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040122 Debian/1.6-1 X-Accept-Language: en, en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Nicol Cc: Andreas Saurwein , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 3c: *MX through extended ESMTP VRFY extenstion References: <403406F5.2060603@pay2send.com> <403410AF.6000203@pay2send.com> <6.0.3.0.0.20040218223541.01d97640@mail.uniwares.com> <40341609.9080401@pay2send.com> In-Reply-To: <40341609.9080401@pay2send.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 22:00:07 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit David Nicol wrote: > Andreas Saurwein wrote: >> At 18/2/2004 22:26 Wednesday, you wrote: >>> Comments, please? >> >> Only one: Which halfway sane mail administrator has VRFY enabled >> nowadays? >> >> Are you trying to introduce better address harvesting support for >> ESMTP or what? >> Sorry, I dont get it. > > the proposed VRFYVIA does not imply VRFY. > > Does LMAP etc. have a response to the "it would facilitate harvesting" > argument? > That would apply here too. I think Andreas was keying on the subject line you used and the way you phrased your proposal. This has disadvantages similar to VRFY, in that it could potentially be used to verify the authenticity of addresses if one isn't careful with the responses. On the other hand, we've seen that spammers have little to no motivation to prune invalid addresses from their lists, as they have little cost either in sending or in dealing with bounces. LMAP has no response to 'it would facilitate harvesting' because anyone who reads the discussion document (not sure about the specific implementations) can see that it doesn't. It gives no information about any specific mailbox specification, only the relationship between an IP and a domain. I'll comment on your proposal separately. Philip Miller _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Feb 18 22:25:18 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA10737 for ; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 22:25:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Atenz-0003xr-Hs for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 22:24:51 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1J3Opqa015233 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 22:24:51 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ateny-0003xc-Pn for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 22:24:50 -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 WAA10723 for ; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 22:24:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Atenv-00063x-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 22:24:47 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Aten0-00061o-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 22:23:51 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AtemS-00060C-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 22:23:16 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AtemD-0003gW-1l; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 22:23:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AteYR-0002lT-US for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 22:08:47 -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 WAA10283 for ; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 22:08:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AteYO-0005Px-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 22:08:44 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AteXX-0005Ou-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 22:07:52 -0500 Received: from mout.perfora.net ([217.160.230.40]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AteWi-0005NF-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 22:07:00 -0500 Received: from [217.160.230.50] (helo=smtp.perfora.net) by mout.perfora.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1AteWf-00045a-00; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 22:06:57 -0500 Received: from [68.29.142.168] (helo=solidmatrix.com) by smtp.perfora.net with asmtp (TLSv1:RC4-MD5:128) (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1AteWZ-0003d7-00; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 22:06:57 -0500 Message-ID: <4034283B.80808@solidmatrix.com> From: Yakov Shafranovich Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, he, ru MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Nicol CC: Andreas Saurwein , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 3c: *MX through extended ESMTP VRFY extenstion References: <403406F5.2060603@pay2send.com> <403410AF.6000203@pay2send.com> <6.0.3.0.0.20040218223541.01d97640@mail.uniwares.com> <40341609.9080401@pay2send.com> In-Reply-To: <40341609.9080401@pay2send.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.83.2.0 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: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 22:06:35 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit David Nicol wrote: > Andreas Saurwein wrote: > >> At 18/2/2004 22:26 Wednesday, you wrote: >> >>> Comments, please? >> >> Only one: Which halfway sane mail administrator has VRFY enabled >> nowadays? >> >> Are you trying to introduce better address harvesting support for >> ESMTP or what? >> Sorry, I dont get it. > > the proposed VRFYVIA does not imply VRFY. > > Does LMAP etc. have a response to the "it would facilitate harvesting" > argument? > That would apply here too. > There is a key difference between LMAP and your proposal: LMAP only deals with domains, not individual senders. This is why harvesting would be a bigger issue with your proposal rather than LMAP. However, the same exact issue applies with any kind of SMTP-based challenge response system like Verizon uses. So far we haven't seen any facts on whether it has facilitated harvesting. The following presentation might be useful, since it looks like the same thing as you are trying to do: http://www.elan.net/~william/asrg-emailpathverification-presentation.pdf In general, it is a good idea to consider other means of authentication and identification aside from STMP. The key question is to decide which do we care to identify and authenticate: IP address, domain or individual sender. There is still significant disagreement on that. 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 Feb 18 23:19:26 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA12068 for ; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 23:19:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AtfeM-0000yc-2C for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 23:18:58 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1J4Iwa6003748 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 23:18:58 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AtfeL-0000yN-SR for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 23:18:57 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA12058 for ; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 23:18:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AtfeK-0000VE-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 23:18:56 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AtfdT-0000SM-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 23:18:04 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Atfcf-0000Oq-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 23:17:13 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AtfcU-0000L1-Bv; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 23:17:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AtfcJ-0000KT-5D for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 23:16:51 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA11942 for ; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 23:16:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AtfcH-0000M5-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 23:16:49 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AtfbL-0000Jm-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 23:15:51 -0500 Received: from mail016.syd.optusnet.com.au ([211.29.132.167]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AtfaU-0000FS-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 23:14:58 -0500 Received: from zen.fernhaven (c211-30-104-42.carlnfd1.nsw.optusnet.com.au [211.30.104.42]) by mail016.syd.optusnet.com.au (8.11.6p2/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i1J4ELw00694 for ; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 15:14:22 +1100 Received: from [172.16.0.129] (helo=fred.fernhaven) by zen.fernhaven with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1AtfZi-0005AU-00 for ; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 15:14:10 +1100 From: Brett Watson Organization: PhD Student, Macquarie University To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - Mailing list summary... User-Agent: KMail/1.5.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200402191514.08763.famous-asrg@nutters.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 15:14:08 +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=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Peter Sergeant said: > I'd also like to BEG people on this list who are using mail clients that > are somehow destroying or not setting 'In-reply-to' or 'References' Like me? A consequence of the fact that I prefer to read the mailing list from its web archive, I'm afraid -- a mode in which it is currently impossible to comply with your otherwise quite reasonable request. Regards, TFBW _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Feb 18 23:20:21 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA12115 for ; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 23:20:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AtffF-00019c-6H for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 23:19:53 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1J4Jrkn004430 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 23:19:53 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AtffF-00019M-1T for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 23:19:53 -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 XAA12097 for ; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 23:19:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AtffD-0000Xo-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 23:19:51 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AtfeI-0000Uw-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 23:18:54 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AtfdS-0000S4-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 23:18:02 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AtfdS-0000j3-8f; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 23:18:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AtfdO-0000iI-Me for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 23:17:58 -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 XAA11993 for ; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 23:17:56 -0500 (EST) From: paul.judge@ciphertrust.com Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AtfdM-0000R9-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 23:17:56 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AtfcU-0000OA-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 23:17:02 -0500 Received: from dhcp64-134-68-47.shic.chi.wayport.net ([64.134.68.47] helo=taddeus) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Atfc2-0000L3-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 23:16:34 -0500 To: asrg@ietf.org Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="--------562166282061518" Subject: [Asrg] ID owxmc... thanks Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 23:15:32 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,NO_REAL_NAME autolearn=no version=2.60 ----------562166282061518 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ------------------ Virus Warning Message (on ietf-mx) Found virus WORM_BAGLE.B in file lck.exe The file is deleted. --------------------------------------------------------- ----------562166282061518 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Yours ID oct -- Thank ----------562166282061518 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ------------------ Virus Warning Message (on ietf-mx) lck.exe is removed from here because it contains a virus. --------------------------------------------------------- ----------562166282061518-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Feb 19 06:08:37 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA14062 for ; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 06:08:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Atm2M-0007mP-1u for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 06:08:10 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1JB89dQ029891 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 06:08:09 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Atm2L-0007m2-K6 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 06:08:09 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA14056 for ; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 06:08:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Atm2H-00064F-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 06:08:05 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Atm1H-000629-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 06:07:03 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Atm0X-00060M-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 06:06:17 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Atm0I-0007Gd-MA; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 06:06:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AtlzU-0007FC-TT for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 06:05:12 -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 GAA13984 for ; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 06:05:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AtlzR-0005xP-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 06:05:09 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AtlyZ-0005uF-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 06:04:16 -0500 Received: from smtp.rol.ru ([194.67.21.9]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Atlxt-0005p2-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 06:03:33 -0500 Received: from ariel.sovam.com ([194.67.3.216]:65171 "EHLO ariel.sovam.com" smtp-auth: "egc@online.ru" TLS-CIPHER: "DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA keybits 256/256 version TLSv1/SSLv3" TLS-PEER-CN1: ) by gnome07.net.rol.ru with ESMTP id S9747863AbUBSLDA (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Feb 2004 14:03:00 +0300 From: Eugene Crosser To: asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Sovintel Message-Id: <1077188390.9849.68.camel@ariel.sovam.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.5 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] 1c. Analysis of Spam - biological approach Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 13:59:50 +0300 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 Gentlemen, I was wondering if it could be useful to take a somewhat unorthodox view at the problem of spam (for a change). Consider the multipliciy of Internet email users ("email system") as a biological organism. Look at spammers as parasites (or bacteria, or cancer cells). Like parasites/bacteria, spammers support their life by sucking resources from the hosting organizm, and possibly poison it with toxic output. Now, in the biological world, there can be several scenarios of relationship between the host and parasites: A. parasites have negligible or positive effect on the host's health. (in this case, they are called symbionts). B. parasites have negative impact on the host's health (the host suffers from a desease). B.1. The host gets active defense against parasites and eliminates them (gets well himself, or thanks to medical treatment). Parasites die. B.2. The host gets passive defense against parasites and do not suffer anymore, while the parasites stay alive (scenario turns to 'A'). B.3. The host continues to suffer but stays alive, feeding parasytes (chronic disease). B.4. The host eventually dies, bringing parasites to death as well (terminal desease). Now, it could be interesting to learn which conditions define the choice of scenario in the biological world, and try to translate them to the "world of email". This way, we can hope to get: - prognosis for the further development of spam "desease" - estimation of potential effect of various proposed "medecines" - clues on where to look for the best remedies Anyone with a degree in bioscience here? Or willing to bring in someone knowledgeble? Any previous works in this area? Eugene _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Feb 19 08:30:40 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA17882 for ; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 08:30:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AtoFo-0001Gx-49 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 08:30:12 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1JDUCOm004880 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 08:30:12 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AtoFm-0001Gd-W3 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 08:30:11 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA17873 for ; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 08:30:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AtoFl-0004J1-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 08:30:09 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AtoEl-0004Hl-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 08:29:08 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AtoDz-0004Fz-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 08:28:19 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AtoDi-000159-LA; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 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 1AtoCp-00011j-IF for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 08:27:07 -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 IAA17835 for ; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 08:27:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AtoCo-0004DX-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 08:27:06 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AtoBu-0004Bp-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 08:26:11 -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 1AtoBK-0004A1-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 08:25:35 -0500 Received: from newgiles.nitros9.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.nitros9.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22A78170D3 for ; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 08:28:23 -0500 (EST) From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - Mailing list summary... In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 18 Feb 2004 16:32:42 EST." <200402182132.i1ILWgK00512@panix5.panix.com> Message-Id: <20040219132823.22A78170D3@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, 19 Feb 2004 08:28:23 -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=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Seth Breidbart wrote: > You mean, if someone can't tell the difference between non-spam and > spam then he can't tell the difference between non-spam and spam? How > is that a useful observation? For one, many people don't get that. See previous discussions I had with you, where you claimed that forged mail sent on your behalf by a news service was "legitimate". When I responded that it was difficult to impossible for the recipient to tell this, you re-iterated your belief that the recipient should treat the message as legitimate, but did not describe any method an MTA could use to make that decision. Many people have a blind spot, that the messages *they* believe to be spam can be treated as spam by all MTA's, and the messages *they* believe to be legitimate can be treated as legitimate by all MTA's... just because they say so. That's nice, but I'm interested in things I can implement on the network. Random messages on mailing lists saying CNN is a "legitimate" source of mail are irrelevant. > The recipient *may* decide _anything_. See the previous comment on blind spots. Many people believe that *their* criteria for distinguishing spam from non-spam is the *only* criteria, and that everyone should use it, and nothing else. My position is that I have my personal beliefs, but I'm trying to work with others to design a system where each recipient can make their own decisions, based on their own policy. Yet most of the time I say that, I get responses like "Your criteria are wrong! You're trying to force everyone to use *your* system! I don't like that. Everyone should be forced to use *my* system!" As Spock says, "Fascinating." > Going back to the original question of maybe-forged-From > vs. known-not-forged-From, the former is much more likely to be spam; > but most of my legitimate email is in the latter category, so treating > it all as spam would be foolish. If you know it's not forged, then treating it as spam would be idiotic. I find it interesting that you're implying I've proposed such idiocy. Once again: HOW do you know it's not spam? If you can't find the relevant information and use it in your MTA, then it can't make that spam/non-spam decision. We can use the following information, for example: a) whitelisted IP's b) whitelisted domains (accept messages from any MX in that domain) c) whitelisted mailing lists (domain, and/or body to:) d) content filters e) etc. It's trivially obvious that if a "forged" message comes from a whitelisted IP, then the recipient MAY choose to treat it as non-spam, even though it appears to be forged. In this case, the recipient has information: the whitelist, which allows it to make the "non-spam" determination. For other messages, which fall into the "swamp", where MAIL FROM doesn't match a whitelist, source IP is not a recognizable MX, body FROM doesn't correspond to MAIL FROM or rDNS of the source IP, then there is often NO WAY to tell if that message is legitimate or not. Sure, you can pass it through a content filter, but magic filters aside, what content filter is perfect? At best, you've just spent a lot of CPU time and memory to do content filtering, and then determined that the message, like 99.99% of such messages, was spam. What's your incentive now to keep performing the content filtering? What's your incentive to continue accepting such forged messages? What's your incentive to design a system where people can more easily discover such forgeries? I've been a proponent of systems like RMX or LMAP, which allow domains to publish information that gives a recipient sufficient information to determine that a "forged" message from a roaming user is, in fact, legitimate. Such information is often impossible to find on the network today. I've been a proponent of such systems because I want to KNOW that a message isn't spam. I want to design a protocol so that my MTA can make an informed decision that a message was legitimate, just like you claim you want to do, too. And despite my public position being in *favour* of such systems, I *still* get accused of wanting to forbid that behaviour. I'm amazed and appalled at the simple inability to read what I've wrote, and to remember it from day to day. I'm amazed that the people making such accusations aren't proposing *any* way for an MTA to make those decisions itself. I'm amazed that they think that statements on mailing lists about "legitimate" messages matter somehow to an MTA. MTA's don't read mailing lists. To quote Spock again, "Fascinating." Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Feb 19 08:32:37 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA17923 for ; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 08:32:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AtoHh-0001S4-7k for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 08:32:09 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1JDW9f9005574 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 08:32:09 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AtoHh-0001Rp-2N for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 08:32:09 -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 IAA17913 for ; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 08:32:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AtoHf-0004N7-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 08:32:07 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AtoGi-0004LE-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 08:31:09 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AtoGc-0004Jf-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 08:31:02 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AtoGb-0001IS-Hs; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 08:31:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AtoFn-0001Gk-M3 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 08:30:11 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA17876 for ; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 08:30:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AtoFm-0004J6-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 08:30:10 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AtoEm-0004Hx-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 08:29:09 -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 1AtoE6-0004G2-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 08:28:26 -0500 Received: from newgiles.nitros9.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.nitros9.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14996170D3 for ; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 08:31:16 -0500 (EST) From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 3c: *MX through extended ESMTP VRFY extenstion In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 18 Feb 2004 19:48:57 CST." <40341609.9080401@pay2send.com> Message-Id: <20040219133116.14996170D3@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, 19 Feb 2004 08:31:16 -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=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 David Nicol wrote; > Does LMAP etc. have a response to the "it would facilitate harvesting" > argument? > That would apply here too. Not for email addresses, because LMAP doesn't publish information about email addresses. LMAP does have a statement about the records it does publish. All such information is already public in one form or another. Read the document for more details. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Feb 19 14:01:50 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA28989 for ; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 14:01:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AttQG-0007xp-9u for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 14:01:23 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1JJ1KD4030613 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 14:01:20 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AttQG-0007xg-27 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 14:01:20 -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 OAA28310 for ; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 14:01:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AttQD-0000sN-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 14:01:17 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AttPK-0000ql-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 14:00:23 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AttOv-0000om-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 13:59:57 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AttO0-0007eA-Mh; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 13:59:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AttNV-0007cP-BL for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 13:58:29 -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 NAA25193 for ; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 13:58:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AttNS-0000iX-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 13:58:26 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AttMb-0000dc-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 13:57:34 -0500 Received: from pop19.ucdavis.edu ([169.237.105.29]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AttLp-0000YY-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 13:56:46 -0500 Received: from cs.ucdavis.edu (nat6-182.cs.ucdavis.edu [169.237.6.182]) by pop19.ucdavis.edu (8.12.10/8.12.9/it-std-5.2.0) with ESMTP id i1JIuimR015600; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 10:56:44 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <403506E7.3030805@cs.ucdavis.edu> From: Greg Wittel User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.5 (Windows/20040207) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org CC: crosser@rol.ru Subject: Re: [Asrg] 1c. Analysis of Spam - biological approach Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 10:56:39 -0800 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit [Note: I am not a biologist by training, but a CS person who has an interest in it.] Eugene Crosser Wrote: > A. parasites have negligible or positive effect on the host's health. > (in this case, they are called symbionts). > B. parasites have negative impact on the host's health (the host > suffers from a desease). These points somewhat depend on what one is viewing as the 'host'. That is, are we thinking of the host as the entire mail system, or an end user? (A) From the end-user point of view, the relationship can be thought of as loosely symbiotic (but the effect is neither negligible nor positive for the host). If one takes an economic view, a spammer _needs_ some people to respond to their messages whether it means visiting a web site or making a purchase. (B) The general state of the mail system today. Unhappy end users, mail providers requiring additional infrastructure, etc. > B.1. The host gets active defense against parasites and eliminates > them (gets well himself, or thanks to medical treatment). Parasites > die. The end result of an ideal spam-proof system (or working legal solution). In context of current solutions, this direction is perhaps when messages are dropped at the MTA by filtering or host blacklist matching. When the response is inaccurate we have unwanted side effects. In a biological sense, this might be when the immune system makes a recognition error attacking its own cells or a treatment affects more than the targeted cells. > B.2. The host gets passive defense against parasites and do not > suffer anymore, while the parasites stay alive (scenario turns to > 'A'). Perhaps closest to a widespread application of effective filtering solutions at the ISP level where spams are marked but not destroyed by the ISP or always filtered out by the end users. The burden caused by the parasite is still there, but masked. > B.3. The host continues to suffer but stays alive, feeding parasytes > (chronic disease). Same as B.? > B.4. The host eventually dies, bringing parasites to death as well > (terminal desease). Our worst case scenario. End user: Where they find the signal to noise ratio too high rendering e-mail unusable. Broader sense: When the amount of spam far outweighs that of legitimate e-mail such that ISPs or end users en-masse abandon e-mail altogether for something else. One may lead to the other. For example consider Usenet. Relatively few people use it, but the cost of running the service is very high in terms of bandwidth and storage. To this end some ISPs no longer offer access or use an outside company to supply the feed. If few people used e-mail anymore due to spam, would ISPs still offer it? (I realize the two systems are vastly different in requirements so this probably wouldn't happen due to spam anyway). > Anyone with a degree in bioscience here? Or willing to bring in > someone knowledgeble? Any previous works in this area? I do not think this view has been taken before with spam (in terms of a research paper at least). Though it's a very interesting idea. The general concept bringing in ideas from biological systems (in particular, immune systems) and computing has been drawn before. In systems security, Stephanie Forrest has done a fair amount of work on this (http://www.cs.unm.edu/~forrest/). Her paper "A sense of self for Unix processes" (Under the 'Computer security...' publication section) is a good starter. An expansion on your general view of the relationship between biology, us, and spammers might be: Legitimate e-mail: Our 'good' cells Spam: Our 'bad' cells Host: End users, ISPs, MTAs, Internet itself (?). Immune system: Anti-spam software (new protocols too), aggressive laws/lawyers. Energy source: Money direct or indirect (web site hits) Parasites: a) Spammers, "marketing" organizations, etc. b) Symbiotes: i) Bimodal: open relays ('good' as a mail server for the authorized users, bad for others). ii) Spammers: they need us for energy Viruses: Compromised systems sending out spam by proxy, or compromising other systems. [Below is some expanded biology stuff, feel free to correct me as it has been a few years since I've studied the immune system.] In biology terms, the immune system can recognize 'bad' from 'good' by recognizing specific protein sequences (binding sites). Generally the cells can recognize multiple sequences. Hence, vaccines to train the immune system. Mutations occur during replication via various 'errors' in the reproductive process. Mutant cells are similar, but the binding sites may be different such that the immune system cannot recognize the 'bad' cell. A spam filtering parallel might be hashes or 'loose' hashes or spams that can recognize a family of messages. Our mutations are the randomized messages that try to break hashes or skew word frequency statistics. A lower level view that might also be useful is to draw parallels between spam and single stranded DNA (ssDNA). Consider the sequence of 'good' cells versus 'bad' cells. Broadly there are coding and non-coding regions in ssDNA. What parts of e-mail could be described as such? Other relevant areas: transcription (tRNA), etc. This is getting really long so I'll stop now =) -Greg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Feb 19 15:23:51 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA22953 for ; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 15:23:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Atuhc-0005dX-8f for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 15:23:22 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1JKNKXg021666 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 15:23:20 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Atuhc-0005dN-2T for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 15:23:20 -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 PAA22547 for ; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 15:23:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Atuha-0005i1-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 15:23:18 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Atugb-0005fh-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 15:22:18 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Atufg-0005dX-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 15:21:20 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AtufM-00055I-RM; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 15:21:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Atuek-0004yo-QG for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 15:20:25 -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 PAA20813 for ; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 15:20:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Atuej-0005ax-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 15:20:21 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Atudq-0005YC-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 15:19:26 -0500 Received: from tipjar.com ([128.121.115.38]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Atuct-0005TD-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 15:18:27 -0500 Received: from pay2send.com (adsl-66-143-48-169.dsl.ksc2mo.swbell.net [66.143.48.169]) by tipjar.com id i1JKIF3J033157; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 13:18:18 -0700 (MST) X-Received-From: davidnicol@pay2send.com X-Received-For: asrg@ietf.org Message-ID: <40351A07.1030207@pay2send.com> From: David Nicol Organization: tipjar LLC User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6b) Gecko/20031205 Thunderbird/0.4 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alan DeKok CC: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 1c: approach to allowing "good forgery" References: <20040219132823.22A78170D3@mail.nitros9.org> In-Reply-To: <20040219132823.22A78170D3@mail.nitros9.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 14:18:15 -0600 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Alan DeKok wrote: >... forged mail sent on your behalf by a news service ... >... the recipient should treat the message as legitimate, but >[no] method an MTA could use to make that decision [has been described]. > > The system I would be better using my time coding on instead of writing this, in the event of a message arriving from a envelope return address (MAIL FROM command) that has registered an IP list from an IP that is not on the list, issues a temporary failure code and notifies the alleged sender about the message so they can issue a one-time pass or add the IP to their list. It remains to be seen how much of a headache this is going to be. >MTA's don't read mailing lists. -- Alan DeKok > > the above line would be a good signature file quote David Nicol _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Feb 19 15:36:50 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA04065 for ; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 15:36:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AtuuD-0007mK-LR for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 15:36:22 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1JKaLfw029899 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 15:36:21 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AtuuD-0007mA-Gb for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 15:36:21 -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 PAA03766 for ; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 15:36:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AtuuC-0006Cx-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 15:36:20 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AtutG-0006B4-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 15:35:23 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Atut9-00069O-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 15:35:15 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Atusv-0007RE-FY; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 15:35:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AtusH-0007Ol-EW for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 15:34:21 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA01767 for ; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 15:34:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AtusG-00068h-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 15:34:20 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AturJ-00066v-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 15:33:21 -0500 Received: from bsdsgr04.sagres.com.br ([200.140.134.134]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Atur5-00065I-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 15:33:07 -0500 Received: from ntsgr07.sagres.com.br (NTsgr07.sagres.com.br [10.0.17.7]) by BSDsgr04.sagres.com.br (8.12.8p1/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i1JKWjGb075685; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 20:32:45 GMT (envelope-from saurwein@uniwares.com) Received: from leonone.uniwares.com ([200.163.1.42]) by ntsgr07.sagres.com.br (Lotus Domino Release 5.0.12) with ESMTP id 2004021917404454:32619 ; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 17:40:44 -0300 Message-Id: <6.0.3.0.0.20040219172859.01b34ec0@mail.uniwares.com> X-Sender: saurwein.uniwares@mail.uniwares.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.3.0 To: David Nicol From: Andreas Saurwein Subject: Re: [Asrg] 1c: approach to allowing "good forgery" Cc: asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <40351A07.1030207@pay2send.com> References: <20040219132823.22A78170D3@mail.nitros9.org> <40351A07.1030207@pay2send.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on ntsgr07/SAGRES(Release 5.0.12 |February 13, 2003) at 19/02/2004 17:40:44, Serialize by Router on ntsgr07/SAGRES(Release 5.0.12 |February 13, 2003) at 19/02/2004 17:40:46, Serialize complete at 19/02/2004 17:40:46 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 17:32:29 -0300 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=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 At 19/2/2004 17:18 Thursday, David Nicol wrote: The system I would be better using my time coding on instead of writing this, >in the event of a message arriving from a envelope return address (MAIL >FROM command) >that has registered an IP list from an IP that is not on the list, issues >a temporary >failure code and notifies the alleged sender about the message so they can >issue >a one-time pass or add the IP to their list. It remains to be seen how >much of a headache >this is going to be. So one receives 100 notifications every day, that someone wants to send spam instead of receiving 100 spams directly. Seems not a big improvement. I think this would open some more cans of worms. Too much potential for DDoS attacks. Andreas _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Feb 19 15:55:56 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA21370 for ; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 15:55:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AtvCh-0000cI-SE for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 15:55:27 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1JKtRES002364 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 15:55:27 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AtvCh-0000c3-Mu for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 15:55:27 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA20887 for ; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 15:55:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AtvCg-00077l-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 15:55:26 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AtvBq-00075L-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 15:54:34 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AtvBV-00071w-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 15:54:13 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AtvBJ-0000NT-JG; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 15:54:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AtvAj-0000LP-BV for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 15:53:25 -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 PAA19308 for ; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 15:53:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AtvAh-0006zv-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 15:53:23 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Atv9m-0006xq-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 15:52:26 -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 1Atv90-0006vX-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 15:51:38 -0500 Received: from newgiles.nitros9.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.nitros9.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D95F170D5 for ; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 15:54:28 -0500 (EST) From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 1c: approach to allowing "good forgery" In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 19 Feb 2004 14:18:15 CST." <40351A07.1030207@pay2send.com> Message-Id: <20040219205428.0D95F170D5@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, 19 Feb 2004 15:54:28 -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=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 David Nicol wrote: > The system I would be better using my time coding on instead of > writing this, in the event of a message arriving from a envelope > return address (MAIL FROM command) that has registered an IP list > from an IP that is not on the list, issues a temporary failure code > and ... Sounds a lot like greylisting. > >MTA's don't read mailing lists. -- Alan DeKok > > the above line would be a good signature file quote Yeah, it would seem to be obvious, but then again... Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Feb 19 21:28:04 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA12195 for ; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 21:28:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Au0O8-0007NF-P3 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 21:27:36 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1K2Rakk028339 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 21:27:36 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Au0O8-0007N0-Ka for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 21:27:36 -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 VAA12192 for ; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 21:27:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Au0O5-0007Xw-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 21:27:34 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Au0ND-0007VU-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 21:26:39 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Au0Mn-0007SX-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 21:26:13 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Au0Mb-0007Bk-NB; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 21:26:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Au0MM-0007Aj-F7 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 21:25:46 -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 VAA12123 for ; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 21:25:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Au0MJ-0007Rd-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 21:25:43 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Au0LO-0007O6-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 21:24:47 -0500 Received: from smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net ([207.172.4.60]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Au0L0-0007K2-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 21:24:22 -0500 X-Info: This message was accepted for relay by smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net as the sender used SMTP authentication X-Trace: UmFuZG9tSVY6dc4y9e5B20Q7AROAfXSs94wBbMR9uc5bl3qK1h294DEjH22NE8wA Received: from dpvc-68-161-247-52.ny325.east.verizon.net ([68.161.247.52] helo=verizon.net) by smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net with asmtp (Exim 3.35 #4) id 1Au0L0-0006dq-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 21:24:22 -0500 Message-ID: <40356F73.7060102@verizon.net> From: Bruce Lilly Reply-To: blilly@verizon.net Organization: Bruce Lilly User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - Mailing list summary... References: <20040219170014.29958.56516.Mailman@www1.ietf.org> In-Reply-To: <20040219170014.29958.56516.Mailman@www1.ietf.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.83.1.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 21:22:43 -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 > From: Brett Watson > Organization: PhD Student, Macquarie University > Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 15:14:08 +1100 > > Peter Sergeant said: > >>> I'd also like to BEG people on this list who are using mail clients that >>> are somehow destroying or not setting 'In-reply-to' or 'References' > > > Like me? A consequence of the fact that I prefer to read the mailing list from > its web archive, I'm afraid -- a mode in which it is currently impossible to > comply with your otherwise quite reasonable request. Ditto for those of us who receive the list as a digest. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Feb 19 21:38:12 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA12635 for ; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 21:38:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Au0Xw-0008Ft-Q5 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 21:37:44 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1K2binH031727 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 21:37:44 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Au0Xw-0008FV-37 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 21:37:44 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA12632 for ; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 21:37:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Au0Xt-0000QC-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 21:37:41 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Au0X2-0000N6-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 21:36:48 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Au0WJ-0000J8-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 21:36:03 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Au0WI-0007up-De; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 21:36:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Au0Vz-0007uX-09 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 21:35:43 -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 VAA12549 for ; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 21:35:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Au0Vw-0000Ho-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 21:35:40 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Au0V1-0000EX-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 21:34:44 -0500 Received: from smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net ([207.172.4.60]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Au0Um-0000BV-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 21:34:28 -0500 X-Info: This message was accepted for relay by smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net as the sender used SMTP authentication X-Trace: UmFuZG9tSVawjKIgRiXlSsKRMBa7g8uO8Amp5xvxqVtP8Yv3OwiPhGmerLTuNY1b Received: from dpvc-68-161-247-52.ny325.east.verizon.net ([68.161.247.52] helo=verizon.net) by smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net with asmtp (Exim 3.35 #4) id 1Au0Ul-00020d-00; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 21:34:27 -0500 Message-ID: <403571D0.4030500@verizon.net> From: Bruce Lilly Reply-To: blilly@verizon.net Organization: Bruce Lilly User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org CC: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Patrik_F=E4ltstr=F6m?= Subject: [Asrg] Patrik Falstrom's mailflow chart References: <20040219170014.29958.56516.Mailman@www1.ietf.org> In-Reply-To: <20040219170014.29958.56516.Mailman@www1.ietf.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.83.1.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 21:32:48 -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=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 11:20:47 -0800 > From: Dave Crocker > I don't remember seeing this mentioned, but think it worth highlighting > for folks: > > Patrik Falstrom did a mail flow control chart that is _extremely_ > detailed. I've been doing a simplistic one, for easy discussion, but > his is very thorough. > > It is at Great! A couple of nits: 1. The description of flows 14 and 16 appear to be transposed 2. it is of course possible to have multiple .forward/mailing list expansions _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Feb 19 23:48:10 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA16823 for ; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 23:48:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Au2Zi-0000EY-Se for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 23:47:43 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1K4lgPH000897 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 23:47:42 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Au2Zi-0000EO-HT for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 23:47:42 -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 XAA16820 for ; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 23:47:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Au2Zg-0000dx-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 23:47:40 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Au2Yu-0000bV-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 23:46:53 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Au2YR-0000XH-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 23:46:23 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Au2Y6-0008Oc-T1; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 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 1Au2Xn-0008Ml-J1 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 23:45:43 -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 XAA16721 for ; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 23:45:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Au2Xl-0000UY-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 23:45:41 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Au2Wv-0000Pf-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 23:44:50 -0500 Received: from mail1.panix.com ([166.84.1.72]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Au2Vz-0000JT-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 23:43:51 -0500 Received: from panix5.panix.com (panix5.panix.com [166.84.1.5]) by mail1.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53C4F48897 for ; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 23:43:46 -0500 (EST) Received: (from sethb@localhost) by panix5.panix.com (8.11.6p2-a/8.8.8/PanixN1.1) id i1K4hjS27840; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 23:43:45 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200402200443.i1K4hjS27840@panix5.panix.com> From: Seth Breidbart To: asrg@ietf.org In-reply-to: <20040219132823.22A78170D3@mail.nitros9.org> (aland@ox.org) Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - Mailing list summary... References: <20040219132823.22A78170D3@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, 19 Feb 2004 23:43:45 -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 "Alan DeKok" wrote: > Seth Breidbart wrote: >> You mean, if someone can't tell the difference between non-spam and >> spam then he can't tell the difference between non-spam and spam? How >> is that a useful observation? > > For one, many people don't get that. See previous discussions I had > with you, where you claimed that forged mail sent on your behalf by a > news service was "legitimate". If I authorize (or request) the use of my email address, then that use is legitimate, no scare quotes necessary. > When I responded that it was difficult > to impossible for the recipient to tell this, you re-iterated your > belief that the recipient should treat the message as legitimate, but > did not describe any method an MTA could use to make that decision. Your inability to determine that the usage was legitimate does not affect its legitimacy, although it can affect your behavior. > Many people have a blind spot, that the messages *they* believe to > be spam can be treated as spam by all MTA's, and the messages *they* > believe to be legitimate can be treated as legitimate by all > MTA's... just because they say so. That's nice, but I'm interested in > things I can implement on the network. There are lots of ways to implement things. > Random messages on mailing > lists saying CNN is a "legitimate" source of mail are irrelevant. For instance, the domain owner can specify (e.g. using SPF) that mail claiming to be from a particular subdomain can legitimately be emitted by cnn.com. >> The recipient *may* decide _anything_. > > See the previous comment on blind spots. Many people believe that > *their* criteria for distinguishing spam from non-spam is the *only* > criteria, and that everyone should use it, and nothing else. I believe that only the recipient's criteria for _determining what to do_ matter in _what the recipient does_. That does NOT affect whether or not a message _actually is_ spam. >> Going back to the original question of maybe-forged-From >> vs. known-not-forged-From, the former is much more likely to be spam; >> but most of my legitimate email is in the latter category, so treating >> it all as spam would be foolish. > > If you know it's not forged, then treating it as spam would be > idiotic. What if it actually _is_ spam? If I know it's not forged (e.g. actually comes from hotmail's IP space with a hotmail address) but I also know it's spam (because it _is_ Nigerian spam), treating it as spam is the correct thing to do. > Once again: HOW do you know it's not spam? If you can't find the > relevant information and use it in your MTA, then it can't make that > spam/non-spam decision. That's right; but the issue is spam, not forgery or froggery. > It's trivially obvious that if a "forged" message comes from a > whitelisted IP, then the recipient MAY choose to treat it as non-spam, > even though it appears to be forged. The recipient MAY do whatever he damn-well pleases. His toys, his rules. > For other messages, which fall into the "swamp", where MAIL FROM > doesn't match a whitelist, source IP is not a recognizable MX, body > FROM doesn't correspond to MAIL FROM or rDNS of the source IP, then > there is often NO WAY to tell if that message is legitimate or not. > Sure, you can pass it through a content filter, but magic filters > aside, what content filter is perfect? None, but at least it gives you more information than you had before. > At best, you've just spent a lot of CPU time and memory to do > content filtering, and then determined that the message, like 99.99% > of such messages, was spam. What's your incentive now to keep > performing the content filtering? The .01% (or higher, in my case) of such messages that _are_ legitimate and that I want to receive. > What's your incentive to continue accepting such forged messages? Who said it was forged? All I observed was that my MTA could not determine that it was not forged. > What's your incentive to design a > system where people can more easily discover such forgeries? It's information they can use. > And despite my public position being in *favour* of such systems, I > *still* get accused of wanting to forbid that behaviour. I haven't accused you of that, only of apparent confusion. Seth _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Feb 20 08:46:25 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA22017 for ; Fri, 20 Feb 2004 08:46:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AuAyb-0002pV-F4 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Feb 2004 08:45:57 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1KDjvQB010876 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Feb 2004 08:45:57 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AuAyb-0002pL-Ah for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Feb 2004 08:45:57 -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 IAA22004 for ; Fri, 20 Feb 2004 08:45:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AuAya-00012s-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Feb 2004 08:45:56 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AuAxj-0000zq-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Feb 2004 08:45:04 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AuAwz-0000w9-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Feb 2004 08:44:17 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AuAwj-0002do-23; Fri, 20 Feb 2004 08:44:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AuAwg-0002dd-RC for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Feb 2004 08:43:58 -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 IAA21919 for ; Fri, 20 Feb 2004 08:43:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AuAwf-0000uY-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Feb 2004 08:43:57 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AuAvh-0000r6-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Feb 2004 08:42:57 -0500 Received: from smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net ([207.172.4.60]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AuAun-0000oR-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Feb 2004 08:42:01 -0500 X-Info: This message was accepted for relay by smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net as the sender used SMTP authentication X-Trace: UmFuZG9tSVapxZJjQ2dusNfbEVUuJd8TmbLNKxevw64Yftod9ITG4eKqsfa+zMoz Received: from dpvc-68-161-247-52.ny325.east.verizon.net ([68.161.247.52] helo=verizon.net) by smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net with asmtp (Exim 3.35 #4) id 1AuAum-0006iT-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Feb 2004 08:42:01 -0500 Message-ID: <40360E3E.3040505@verizon.net> From: Bruce Lilly Reply-To: asrg@ietf.org Organization: Bruce Lilly User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Patrik_F=E4ltstr=F6m?= 's mailflow chart References: <20040219170014.29958.56516.Mailman@www1.ietf.org> In-Reply-To: <20040219170014.29958.56516.Mailman@www1.ietf.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.83.1.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 08:40:14 -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 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 11:35:54 -0800 > From: Dave Crocker > I should comment that I think that the slide has far too much detail, > for most discussions. Most of the time, folks are not bothering to > look at _any_ of the tradeoffs, so a diagram that detailed can get > distracting. > > On the other hand, I think it is useful for helping > people to see just how complicated email can be. With luck, this will > reduce the tendency to treat it simplistically. Also on the other hand, the chart omits some detail that is critical to some discussions. For example, there have been some recent discussions elsewhere regarding DSNs and bounces provoked by some of the recent worms (http://www.imc.org/ietf-smtp/mail-archive/msg01062.html http://www.dshield.org/pipermail/list/2004-February/subject.php (Subject "[Dshield] SPF is fundamentally flawed" (it's not primarily about SPF) (the links were broken when I tried them this morning)). As I understand it, the "Bagle" worm used an internal SMTP engine to send directly to the recipient's MX host (flow 1 in Patrik's diagram). In the case of a non-existent recipient in that domain, the MTA (presumably MTA(r1) in Patrik's diagram) would send a 5yz response and there would be no bounce or DSN. However, it appears that a number of sites use a "perimeter" MTA which does not check for recipient validity, but instead stores and forwards to another MTA in the recipient's domain which does perform such a check, and which is then responsible for a DSN or bounce (which goes to the forged sender envelope address). _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Feb 20 10:06:33 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA25422 for ; Fri, 20 Feb 2004 10:06:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AuCEA-0003Jl-K7 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Feb 2004 10:06:07 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1KF66o6012747 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Feb 2004 10:06:06 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AuCEA-0003JW-EQ for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Feb 2004 10:06:06 -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 KAA25360 for ; Fri, 20 Feb 2004 10:06:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AuCE8-0006Ok-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Feb 2004 10:06:04 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AuCDD-0006K4-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Feb 2004 10:05:07 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AuCCE-0006FD-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Feb 2004 10:04:06 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AuCBB-0001jp-NV; Fri, 20 Feb 2004 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 1AuCAL-00012t-Sq for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Feb 2004 10:02:09 -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 KAA24982 for ; Fri, 20 Feb 2004 10:02:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AuCAJ-00067R-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Feb 2004 10:02:07 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AuC9U-00063g-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Feb 2004 10:01:17 -0500 Received: from mail010.syd.optusnet.com.au ([211.29.132.56]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AuC8v-0005yB-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Feb 2004 10:00:41 -0500 Received: from zen.fernhaven (c211-30-104-42.carlnfd1.nsw.optusnet.com.au [211.30.104.42]) by mail010.syd.optusnet.com.au (8.11.6p2/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i1KF09l22609 for ; Sat, 21 Feb 2004 02:00:09 +1100 Received: from [172.16.0.129] (helo=fred.fernhaven) by zen.fernhaven with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1AuC8N-0006pk-00 for ; Sat, 21 Feb 2004 02:00:07 +1100 From: Brett Watson Organization: PhD Student, Macquarie University To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Patrik =?iso-8859-1?q?F=E4ltstr=F6m=20's=20mailflow?= chart User-Agent: KMail/1.5.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200402210200.05892.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: Sat, 21 Feb 2004 02:00:05 +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=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bruce Lilly wrote: > Also on the other hand, the chart omits some detail that is critical to > some discussions. For example, there have been some recent... By my understanding of the mailflow chart there are no "bounce" scenarios at all; only what you might call "forward delivery". You'd have to make the chart significantly more complex to show the bounce cases, especially given the instances of forwarding and envelope rewriting. Not to mention complexity introduced by the lack of essential relationship between the sender and the bounce address (at the core of so many of our problems). Regards, TFBW _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Feb 20 15:35:43 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA12758 for ; Fri, 20 Feb 2004 15:35:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AuHMh-0007EH-CZ for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Feb 2004 15:35:15 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1KKZFiD027785 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Feb 2004 15:35:15 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AuHMh-0007E4-7M for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Feb 2004 15:35:15 -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 PAA12752 for ; Fri, 20 Feb 2004 15:35:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AuHMf-0007M7-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Feb 2004 15:35:13 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AuHLt-0007Ix-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Feb 2004 15:34:26 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AuHL6-0007ET-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Feb 2004 15:33:36 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AuHKW-0006y0-Iw; Fri, 20 Feb 2004 15:33:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AuHJj-0006vx-Nx for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Feb 2004 15:32:11 -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 PAA12608 for ; Fri, 20 Feb 2004 15:32:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AuHJi-00077S-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Feb 2004 15:32:10 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AuHIp-00074i-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Feb 2004 15:31:16 -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 1AuHId-00071J-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Feb 2004 15:31:03 -0500 Received: from newgiles.nitros9.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.nitros9.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90522170E5 for ; Fri, 20 Feb 2004 15:33:52 -0500 (EST) From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - Mailing list summary... In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 19 Feb 2004 23:43:45 EST." <200402200443.i1K4hjS27840@panix5.panix.com> Message-Id: <20040220203353.90522170E5@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, 20 Feb 2004 15:33:52 -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 Seth Breidbart wrote: > Your inability to determine that the usage was legitimate does not > affect its legitimacy, although it can affect your behavior. If my MTA can't tell it's legitimate, then I don't really care about statements you make on a mailing list claiming that such messages are legitimate. Those statements are irrelevant, unimportant, and completely pointless. To re-iterate: I'm interested in what information MTA's can use, and what decisions they can come to. Theoretical issues of legitimacy are a waste of time. You're stuck on the idea that I've somehow labelled your messages illegitimate, and you feel bad that I've made a value judgement about your mail. I haven't. I've explained why I haven't. Get over it. I've labelled those messages as "my MTA can't tell they're legitimate", and I don't really care about your opinion, unless you're willing to publish your opinions in a form my MTA can use. Get it? > I believe that only the recipient's criteria for _determining what to > do_ matter in _what the recipient does_. That does NOT affect whether > or not a message _actually is_ spam. To quote someone else: That depends on what the meaning of "is" is. You're interested in philosophical discussions, and steadfastly refuse to address the only issue: what information is available in the network. MTA's don't read mailing lists. Nothing else is relevant. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Feb 21 20:26:39 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA24252 for ; Sat, 21 Feb 2004 20:26:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AuiNi-0000g6-Dx for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 21 Feb 2004 20:26:11 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1M1Q6HD002600 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 21 Feb 2004 20:26:06 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AuiNi-0000fr-4y for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 21 Feb 2004 20:26:06 -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 UAA24236 for ; Sat, 21 Feb 2004 20:26:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AuiNg-0007IR-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 21 Feb 2004 20:26:04 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AuiMi-0007FL-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 21 Feb 2004 20:25:05 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AuiMC-0007Ce-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 21 Feb 2004 20:24:32 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AuiLh-0000V6-Nx; Sat, 21 Feb 2004 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 1AuiHw-0000QK-9y for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 21 Feb 2004 20:20:08 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA24124 for ; Sat, 21 Feb 2004 20:20:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AuiHu-0006zS-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 21 Feb 2004 20:20:06 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AuiGx-0006wi-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 21 Feb 2004 20:19:07 -0500 Received: from mout.perfora.net ([217.160.230.41]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AuiGb-0006tp-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 21 Feb 2004 20:18:45 -0500 Received: from [217.160.230.52] (helo=smtp.perfora.net) by mout.perfora.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1AuiGQ-0008Uq-00; Sat, 21 Feb 2004 20:18:34 -0500 Received: from [66.114.67.39] (helo=solidmatrix.com) by smtp.perfora.net with asmtp (TLSv1:RC4-MD5:128) (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1AuiGQ-0005EA-00; Sat, 21 Feb 2004 20:18:34 -0500 Message-ID: <40380368.6090103@solidmatrix.com> From: Yakov Shafranovich Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, he, ru MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Greg Wittel CC: asrg@ietf.org, crosser@rol.ru Subject: Re: [Asrg] 1c. Analysis of Spam - biological approach References: <403506E7.3030805@cs.ucdavis.edu> In-Reply-To: <403506E7.3030805@cs.ucdavis.edu> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.83.2.0 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: Sat, 21 Feb 2004 20:18:32 -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 Greg Wittel wrote: > >> Anyone with a degree in bioscience here? Or willing to bring in >> someone knowledgeble? Any previous works in this area? > > > I do not think this view has been taken before with spam (in terms of a > research paper at least). Though it's a very interesting idea. > I would add to this that this is similar in many ways to the analogies drawn between real-world viruses/worms and computers viruses. Perhaps this can be extended to spam. Another interesting point, is that in spam machines are fighting machines - spam is sent by spam programs, not humans; and is fought via spam filters, not humans. 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 Feb 24 02:23:22 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA04107 for ; Tue, 24 Feb 2004 02:23:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AvWu5-0002z1-0W for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 24 Feb 2004 02:22:53 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1O7Mqgv011458 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 24 Feb 2004 02:22:52 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AvWu3-0002yZ-Ao for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 24 Feb 2004 02:22:51 -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 CAA04064 for ; Tue, 24 Feb 2004 02:22:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AvWtz-0004D5-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 24 Feb 2004 02:22:47 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AvWt8-00048r-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 24 Feb 2004 02:21:54 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AvWsD-00044B-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 24 Feb 2004 02:20:57 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AvWrL-0002H8-IN; Tue, 24 Feb 2004 02:20:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AvWrE-0002Eo-4p for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 24 Feb 2004 02:19:57 -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 CAA03824 for ; Tue, 24 Feb 2004 02:19:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AvWrA-0003yC-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 24 Feb 2004 02:19:52 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AvWqG-0003tO-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 24 Feb 2004 02:18:57 -0500 Received: from tipjar.com ([128.121.115.38]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AvWpO-0003oA-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 24 Feb 2004 02:18:02 -0500 Received: from CPE-65-28-14-235.kc.rr.com (IDENT:pFgPCUCjnR5TUOqfqEy7VZRs1CRdjbah@CPE-65-28-14-235.kc.rr.com [65.28.14.235]) by tipjar.com id i1O7HqtF075288; Tue, 24 Feb 2004 00:17:54 -0700 (MST) X-Received-From: whatever@davidnicol.com X-Received-For: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Patrik =?ISO-8859-1?Q?F=E4ltstr=F6m?= 's mailflow chart From: david nicol To: Brett Watson Cc: anti-spam research group In-Reply-To: <200402210200.05892.famous-asrg@nutters.org> References: <200402210200.05892.famous-asrg@nutters.org> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1077607070.1034.184.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: 24 Feb 2004 01:17:51 -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, 2004-02-20 at 09:00, Brett Watson wrote: > Not to mention complexity > introduced by the lack of essential relationship between the sender and the > bounce address (at the core of so many of our problems). The system I'm supposed to be working on instead of writing to this list only accepts bounce messages when it recognizes the message-ID or the bounce-message is otherwise acceptable to the recipient to whom it is bouncing. -- david nicol War is hell. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Feb 24 14:03:43 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA04243 for ; Tue, 24 Feb 2004 14:03:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Avhpp-0007YM-JL for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 24 Feb 2004 14:03:14 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1OJ3DmH029028 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 24 Feb 2004 14:03:13 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Avhpp-0007Y7-Ei for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 24 Feb 2004 14:03:13 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA04203 for ; Tue, 24 Feb 2004 14:03:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Avhpn-0006EP-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 24 Feb 2004 14:03:11 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Avhov-0006Ac-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 24 Feb 2004 14:02:18 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Avhoh-00066E-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 24 Feb 2004 14:02:03 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Avhng-0007Gt-S5; Tue, 24 Feb 2004 14:01:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Avhmr-0007Dk-D8 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 24 Feb 2004 14:00:09 -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 OAA03968 for ; Tue, 24 Feb 2004 14:00:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Avhmo-0005vw-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 24 Feb 2004 14:00:06 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Avhls-0005om-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 24 Feb 2004 13:59:08 -0500 Received: from moebius2.space.net ([195.30.1.100]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Avhkv-0005hp-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 24 Feb 2004 13:58:09 -0500 Received: (qmail 4048 invoked by uid 1013); 24 Feb 2004 18:58:07 -0000 From: Markus Stumpf To: Andreas Saurwein Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0. General - Spamming on QMTP? Message-ID: <20040224185807.GA99659@Space.Net> References: <6.0.3.0.0.20040208011534.01b2eec0@mail.uniwares.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.0.20040208011534.01b2eec0@mail.uniwares.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Organization: SpaceNet AG, Muenchen, Germany X-PGP-Fingerprint: 66 F3 75 79 01 D0 B8 5F 1A C7 77 88 4A B6 70 DF Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 19:58:07 +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=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 On Sun, Feb 08, 2004 at 01:17:46AM -0200, Andreas Saurwein wrote: > Just wondering if there are any (more) occurances of spamming using QMTP? > If so, would it be reasonable to address QMTP in this group? > > Maex? I think you have some experience with that. Sorry for the long delay, I have been rather busy on other topics and try to catch up with this group now. We currently only publish the QMTP MXPS record and I haven't seen any spam coming in for the last two weeks (I have checked the logfiles right now). IIRC execpt for one incident alle the spam via QMTP was through QMTP enabled qmail servers that acted as a relay for customers that got their hosts abused. As QMTP doesn't provide any more or less authentication and authorization mechanisms than SMTP does I don't think it is necessary to make any differences or special treatment. \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 Feb 24 14:18:43 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA04911 for ; Tue, 24 Feb 2004 14:18:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Avi4N-0000uz-54 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 24 Feb 2004 14:18:15 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1OJIFS1003520 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 24 Feb 2004 14:18:15 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Avi4M-0000uh-WD for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 24 Feb 2004 14:18:15 -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 OAA04908 for ; Tue, 24 Feb 2004 14:18:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Avi4K-0007fy-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 24 Feb 2004 14:18:12 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Avi3U-0007bw-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 24 Feb 2004 14:17:20 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Avi32-0007X5-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 24 Feb 2004 14:16:52 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Avi2D-0000d0-Eq; Tue, 24 Feb 2004 14:16:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Avi1R-0000R4-0N for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 24 Feb 2004 14:15:13 -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 OAA04799 for ; Tue, 24 Feb 2004 14:15:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Avi1O-0007PM-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 24 Feb 2004 14:15:10 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Avi0U-0007Jo-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 24 Feb 2004 14:14:14 -0500 Received: from bay2-f81.bay2.hotmail.com ([65.54.247.81] helo=hotmail.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Avhzq-0007AZ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 24 Feb 2004 14:13:34 -0500 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 24 Feb 2004 11:13:03 -0800 Received: from 192.85.16.3 by by2fd.bay2.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 24 Feb 2004 19:13:03 GMT X-Originating-IP: [192.85.16.3] X-Originating-Email: [kmn_asgr@hotmail.com] X-Sender: kmn_asgr@hotmail.com From: "Kurt Magnusson" To: asrg@ietf.org Cc: research@solidmatrix.com Subject: Re: [Asrg] 1c. Analysis of Spam - biological approach Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Feb 2004 19:13:03.0501 (UTC) FILETIME=[39D4FBD0:01C3FB0A] Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 16:13:03 -0300 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: >>Greg Wittel wrote: >> >>Anyone with a degree in bioscience here? Or willing to bring in someone >>knowledgeble? Any previous works in this area. > >I do not think this view has been taken before with spam (in ...... >I would add to this that this is similar in many ways to the analogies >drawn between real-world viruses/worms and computers viruses. Perhaps this >can be extended to spam. Would oppose to that. Mainly because that viruses have a self-interest in expand to get control over it's environment, like an automata. I.e. the basic biological survival process. Som digital viruses and worms have the same functions, but a spam is totaly devoid of it. Spam simply can't "self-propagation" as a virus. It is dependent on the "work-order" of its creator. The virus doesn't care. Spam is basically a economic function, i.e. to earn money to it's sender, not to dominate a ecological niche. Therefore spam in itself have today (except as a DoS function) no own interest or any internal function to take over the environment it thrives on, while the virus have. It is just a distributed "paper", with a content. Even if economy may look like viruses at times, there is significant differences. No, I would look at basic economic drivers as a model, something that is supported by those articles and interviews we have seen with spammers the last year. The virus mutates to counteract environmental changes, while spam don't. All spams are still the same "paper" as on Spamfords time, a sellable content (a hoax is to sell something that don't exist :-) and a communication interface (usually a url/phone no). OK, we might persive them as changed over time because they are camouflaged nowerdays, but it is still the same active package in the center. A virus can change to something completely different, change ecological niches and so on. Regards Kurt Magnusson _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Feb 24 15:26:49 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA09323 for ; Tue, 24 Feb 2004 15:26:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Avj8G-0007jH-Qr for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 24 Feb 2004 15:26:21 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1OKQKMj029705 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 24 Feb 2004 15:26:20 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Avj8G-0007j2-K0 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 24 Feb 2004 15:26:20 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA09307 for ; Tue, 24 Feb 2004 15:26:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Avj8F-0006Vp-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 24 Feb 2004 15:26:19 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Avj7O-0006QD-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 24 Feb 2004 15:25:27 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Avj6p-0006KK-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 24 Feb 2004 15:24:51 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Avj62-0007Vj-KV; Tue, 24 Feb 2004 15:24:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Avj5M-0007OD-KY for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 24 Feb 2004 15:23:20 -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 PAA09193 for ; Tue, 24 Feb 2004 15:23:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Avj5L-0006Cp-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 24 Feb 2004 15:23:19 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Avj4W-000681-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 24 Feb 2004 15:22:29 -0500 Received: from fe02.axelero.hu ([195.228.240.90] helo=digpala.axelero.hu) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Avj47-000620-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 24 Feb 2004 15:22:03 -0500 Received: from digpala (localhost-02 [127.0.2.1]) by digpala.axelero.hu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with SMTP id i1OKM2uf027528 for ; Tue, 24 Feb 2004 21:22:02 +0100 (CET) Received: from fe02.axelero.hu [127.0.2.1] via SMTP gateway by digpala [195.228.240.90]; id A06B8534DD4 at Tue, 24 Feb 2004 21:22:02 +0100 Received: from axelero.hu (117.169-182-adsl-pool.axelero.hu [81.182.169.117]) by fe02.axelero.hu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i1OKM103027494 for ; Tue, 24 Feb 2004 21:22:01 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <403BB268.1000206@axelero.hu> From: "Za'mbori, Zolta'n" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113 X-Accept-Language: hu, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ASRG Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] 3. SMTP Session/Message Verification - competitive methods Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 21:22:00 +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 think there will be implemented some competitive SMTP level session/message/address verification methods. Cooperativity between the different anti-worm, anti-forgery, anti-spam methods is a question for me. For example implementing more than one SMTP session verification method into an MX is lead to a problem: how to select the proper method? z2 _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Feb 24 15:34:50 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA09716 for ; Tue, 24 Feb 2004 15:34:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AvjG1-0008LF-Ht for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 24 Feb 2004 15:34:21 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1OKYLk7032059 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 24 Feb 2004 15:34:21 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AvjG1-0008Kx-DJ for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 24 Feb 2004 15:34:21 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA09700 for ; Tue, 24 Feb 2004 15:34:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AvjFz-0007Ht-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 24 Feb 2004 15:34:20 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AvjF3-0007Cs-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 24 Feb 2004 15:33:21 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AvjEW-00077f-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 24 Feb 2004 15:32:48 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AvjDm-00082U-Hn; Tue, 24 Feb 2004 15:32:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AvjB0-0007uK-6E for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 24 Feb 2004 15:29:10 -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 PAA09454 for ; Tue, 24 Feb 2004 15:29:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AvjAy-0006pL-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 24 Feb 2004 15:29:08 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AvjA1-0006jA-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 24 Feb 2004 15:28:09 -0500 Received: from mout.perfora.net ([217.160.230.40]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Avj95-0006br-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 24 Feb 2004 15:27:11 -0500 Received: from [217.160.230.50] (helo=smtp.perfora.net) by mout.perfora.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1Avj95-0006YL-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 24 Feb 2004 15:27:11 -0500 Received: from [68.29.167.31] (helo=solidmatrix.com) by smtp.perfora.net with asmtp (TLSv1:RC4-MD5:128) (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1Avj93-0000TN-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 24 Feb 2004 15:27:11 -0500 Message-ID: <403BB399.1040804@solidmatrix.com> From: Yakov Shafranovich Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, he, ru MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ASRG X-Enigmail-Version: 0.83.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] 3b. SMTP Session Verification - MSFT's Caller ID proposal 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, 24 Feb 2004 15:27:05 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Microsoft has posted publicly copies of their Caller ID proposal, a proposal very similar to LMAP proposals. It is available here: http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/twc/privacy/spam_callerid.mspx Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Feb 24 15:55:45 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA10699 for ; Tue, 24 Feb 2004 15:55:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AvjaG-0001Rz-PK for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 24 Feb 2004 15:55:17 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1OKtGkW005569 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 24 Feb 2004 15:55:16 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AvjaG-0001Rk-L8 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 24 Feb 2004 15:55:16 -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 PAA10686 for ; Tue, 24 Feb 2004 15:55:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AvjaF-0001Ur-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 24 Feb 2004 15:55:15 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AvjZN-0001QO-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 24 Feb 2004 15:54:22 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AvjYq-0001LR-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 24 Feb 2004 15:53:48 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AvjY5-0001Hs-82; Tue, 24 Feb 2004 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 1AvjXY-0001HS-Ta for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 24 Feb 2004 15:52:28 -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 PAA10603 for ; Tue, 24 Feb 2004 15:52:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AvjXX-0001Ep-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 24 Feb 2004 15:52:27 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AvjWd-00018Y-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 24 Feb 2004 15:51:31 -0500 Received: from [131.107.8.3] (helo=exchange.microsoft.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AvjVs-0000yZ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 24 Feb 2004 15:50:44 -0500 Received: from DF-VRS-01.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.4.14]) by exchange.microsoft.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1069); Tue, 24 Feb 2004 12:50:13 -0800 Received: from 10.197.0.83 by DF-VRS-01.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (InterScan E-Mail VirusWall NT); Tue, 24 Feb 2004 12:50:12 -0800 Received: from DF-CHOPPER.platinum.corp.microsoft.com ([10.197.0.82]) by DF-BEG.platinum.corp.microsoft.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Tue, 24 Feb 2004 12:50:12 -0800 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7165.0 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] 3b. SMTP Session Verification - MSFT's Caller ID proposal posted Message-ID: <27C4E14288DB344FBA10705D57A9BB04017AFD11@DF-CHOPPER.platinum.corp.microsoft.com> Thread-Topic: [Asrg] 3b. SMTP Session Verification - MSFT's Caller ID proposal posted Thread-Index: AcP7FXa4Z8bns86bQVq9i6xHHVeEnwAAikXQ From: "Bob Atkinson" To: "Yakov Shafranovich" , "ASRG" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Feb 2004 20:50:12.0678 (UTC) FILETIME=[CC4ACE60:01C3FB17] 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, 24 Feb 2004 12:50:05 -0800 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable This is also just one part of the larger Coordinated Spam Reduction Initiative, which builds on Caller ID for E-mail. www.microsoft.com/spam is probably the best place to start navigating from. Bob > -----Original Message----- > From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Yakov > Shafranovich > Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 12:27 PM > To: ASRG > Subject: [Asrg] 3b. SMTP Session Verification - MSFT's Caller ID proposal > posted >=20 > Microsoft has posted publicly copies of their Caller ID proposal, a > proposal very similar to LMAP proposals. It is available here: >=20 > http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/twc/privacy/spam_callerid.mspx >=20 > Yakov >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Feb 24 16:46:45 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA12996 for ; Tue, 24 Feb 2004 16:46:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AvkNd-0004gg-D2 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 24 Feb 2004 16:46:17 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1OLkHfs018011 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 24 Feb 2004 16:46:17 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AvkNc-0004gQ-Qr for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 24 Feb 2004 16:46:16 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA12922 for ; Tue, 24 Feb 2004 16:46:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AvkNa-0006Gd-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 24 Feb 2004 16:46:14 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AvkMZ-0006AT-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 24 Feb 2004 16:45:11 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AvkLc-00064b-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 24 Feb 2004 16:44:12 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AvkKT-0004Nk-D9; Tue, 24 Feb 2004 16:43:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AvkJr-0004LY-Sh for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 24 Feb 2004 16:42:23 -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 QAA12775 for ; Tue, 24 Feb 2004 16:42:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AvkJp-0005ru-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 24 Feb 2004 16:42:21 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AvkJ0-0005nK-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 24 Feb 2004 16:41:31 -0500 Received: from tipjar.com ([128.121.115.38]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AvkI6-0005hg-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 24 Feb 2004 16:40:34 -0500 Received: from pay2send.com (adsl-66-143-48-169.dsl.ksc2mo.swbell.net [66.143.48.169]) by tipjar.com id i1OLeIqN091791; Tue, 24 Feb 2004 14:40:20 -0700 (MST) X-Received-From: davidnicol@pay2send.com X-Received-For: asrg@ietf.org Message-ID: <403BC4C8.7040708@pay2send.com> From: David Nicol Organization: tipjar LLC User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6b) Gecko/20031205 Thunderbird/0.4 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Za'mbori, Zolta'n" CC: ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] 3. SMTP Session/Message Verification - competitive methods References: <403BB268.1000206@axelero.hu> In-Reply-To: <403BB268.1000206@axelero.hu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 15:40:24 -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 Za'mbori, Zolta'n wrote: > For example implementing more than one SMTP session verification > method into an MX is lead to a problem: how to select the proper method? I'm keeping a database of all senders and asking each and every one of them how they wish to be identified. But that's just me. -- davidnicol@pay2send.com. Include phrase "cat and buttered toast" to get through my filter _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Feb 25 01:55:06 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA01418 for ; Wed, 25 Feb 2004 01:55:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AvswH-0002BM-ND for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 25 Feb 2004 01:54:37 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1P6sbPJ008378 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 25 Feb 2004 01:54:37 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AvswH-0002B3-BX for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 25 Feb 2004 01:54:37 -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 BAA01329 for ; Wed, 25 Feb 2004 01:54:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AvswE-0005DR-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 25 Feb 2004 01:54:34 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AvsvJ-00052i-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 25 Feb 2004 01:53:37 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AvsuG-0004qy-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 25 Feb 2004 01:52:32 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Avstk-0001hW-Kc; Wed, 25 Feb 2004 01:52:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AvstM-0001ff-0a for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 25 Feb 2004 01:51:36 -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 BAA01088 for ; Wed, 25 Feb 2004 01:51:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AvstG-0004hU-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 25 Feb 2004 01:51:30 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AvssH-0004bb-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 25 Feb 2004 01:50:30 -0500 Received: from mail010.syd.optusnet.com.au ([211.29.132.56]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AvsrO-0004Sz-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 25 Feb 2004 01:49:34 -0500 Received: from zen.fernhaven (c211-30-104-42.carlnfd1.nsw.optusnet.com.au [211.30.104.42]) by mail010.syd.optusnet.com.au (8.11.6p2/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i1P6mtl22766 for ; Wed, 25 Feb 2004 17:48:57 +1100 Received: from [172.16.0.129] (helo=fred.fernhaven) by zen.fernhaven with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1Avsqj-0004B8-00 for ; Wed, 25 Feb 2004 17:48:53 +1100 From: Brett Watson Organization: PhD Student, Macquarie University To: asrg@ietf.org User-Agent: KMail/1.5.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200402251748.51560.famous-asrg@nutters.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] 1c. Analysis of Spam - casual observations from my log files Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 17:48:51 +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=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Folks, Nothing Earth-shattering here, but I found it mildly interesting. I've noticed a number of failed attempts to spam me at my ASRG-specific address, and also my mail-ng-specific address. My current convention for specific addresses is famous-@nutters.org -- a common enough approach. (I don't much use the "base" address of "famous" anymore, since it has degenerated into a spam-trap over time.) The first and foremost reason that these spam attempts have failed is because they fail to recognise the "dash" characters as part of the email address, and thus send to "asrg@..." rather than "famous-asrg@...". This also suggests that they were scraped out of an HTML page, either directly from the web, or in the cache of a compromised host. There's also a possibility that they were encountered in a plain message/rfc822 file on a compromised host. Available data relating to these incidents follows. [Date: 2004-02-21 05:04:44 +0000; Peer: 218.54.209.137] helo mail2.naool.com mail from: rcpt to: + [Date: 2004-02-25 02:38:42 +0000; Peer: 64.173.9.239] helo adsl-64-173-9-239.dsl.sntc01.pacbell.net mail from: rcpt to: + [Date: 2004-02-25 04:18:09 +0000; Peer: 83.154.201.104] helo dyn-83-154-201-104.ppp.tiscali.fr mail from: rcpt to: The first instance originates in Korea and has no in-addr.arpa PTR record, but mail2.naool.com does resolve to the address in question, and that host is an MX for naool.com, so I conclude that it was an open relay. Note that the second and third instances are relatively close together (less than 2 hours difference) and originate from a PacBell DSL account and a French PPP account respectively: almost certainly zombies. The "helo" argument in both cases is consistent with the in-addr.arpa PTR records for the originating IP. The spamware tool is randomly forging return path addresses with a local part matching /[A-Z]{9,11}/ and well-known freemail domains. I have two similar records of spam attempts to "ng@..." which are almost certainly mis-parsed from "famous-mail-ng@....". The only noteworthy difference is that the return path has a lower case local part, but is otherwise similar: a string of random letters at yahoo.com. Probably a different spammer, though. I also have one curious mis-send to "3dtfbw@nutters.org", which is probably a mis-parse of a quoted-printable rendition of "=tfbw@..." (and I can only speculate where that may have been encountered). "tfbw@..." is another valid address for me. I surmise that the current practice in address-scraping is to find things which match @, where is a routable mail domain, and matches /[[:alnum:]]+/. It seems probable that spamware authors will wise up to the use of "dash" in email addresses sooner or later, if it has good enough payoff. They may even wise up to the plethora of other legal but obscure local-part productions. For the moment, however, a simple non-alphanumeric character is enough to make an address harvest-proof -- or so it seems. Regards, TFBW _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Feb 25 02:40:19 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA01204 for ; Wed, 25 Feb 2004 02:40:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Avte2-0005nm-QF for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 25 Feb 2004 02:39:50 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1P7dolR022284 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 25 Feb 2004 02:39:50 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Avte0-0005nA-Qa for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 25 Feb 2004 02:39:48 -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 CAA01157 for ; Wed, 25 Feb 2004 02:39:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Avtdw-0002pB-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 25 Feb 2004 02:39:45 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Avtd8-0002jP-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 25 Feb 2004 02:38:55 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Avtcf-0002cW-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 25 Feb 2004 02:38:25 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AvtcI-0005P6-My; Wed, 25 Feb 2004 02:38:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AvtbK-0005Fm-6m for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 25 Feb 2004 02:37:02 -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 CAA01050 for ; Wed, 25 Feb 2004 02:36:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AvtbG-0002Sf-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 25 Feb 2004 02:36:58 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AvtaN-0002Jl-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 25 Feb 2004 02:36:04 -0500 Received: from mail010.syd.optusnet.com.au ([211.29.132.56]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AvtZS-00023f-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 25 Feb 2004 02:35:06 -0500 Received: from zen.fernhaven (c211-30-104-42.carlnfd1.nsw.optusnet.com.au [211.30.104.42]) by mail010.syd.optusnet.com.au (8.11.6p2/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i1P7Yal05700 for ; Wed, 25 Feb 2004 18:34:36 +1100 Received: from [172.16.0.129] (helo=fred.fernhaven) by zen.fernhaven with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1AvtYy-0004Nw-00 for ; Wed, 25 Feb 2004 18:34:36 +1100 From: Brett Watson Organization: PhD Student, Macquarie University To: asrg@ietf.org User-Agent: KMail/1.5.4 References: <200402251748.51560.famous-asrg@nutters.org> In-Reply-To: <200402251748.51560.famous-asrg@nutters.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200402251834.35132.famous-asrg@nutters.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] Re: 1c. Analysis of Spam - casual observations from my log files Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 18:34:35 +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=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 17:48, Brett Watson wrote: > The first and foremost reason that these spam attempts have failed is > because they fail to recognise the "dash" characters as part of the email > address, and thus send to "asrg@..." rather than "famous-asrg@...". This Of course, no sooner do I send the message, than I receive actual spam to my actual asrg address. Looks like it came through a cable modem account in Israel. Selected headers follow. Return-Path: Received: from [80.230.181.208] (helo=cable-181-208.inter.net.il) by randall.nutters.org with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1AvsBv-00014F-00 for ; Wed, 25 Feb 2004 06:06:44 +0000 Message-ID: From: "Dixie Koch" To: famous-asrg@nutters.org Subject: Buy watches lennox Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 23:06:48 -0700 So, was this a more intelligent instance of web-scraping, or is our dear spammer obtaining addresses via direct subscription to the list? Regards, TFBW _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Feb 25 14:47:40 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA07985 for ; Wed, 25 Feb 2004 14:47:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aw4zx-00087W-4k for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 25 Feb 2004 14:47:13 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1PJlDWW031208 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 25 Feb 2004 14:47:13 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aw4zx-00087H-00 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 25 Feb 2004 14:47:13 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA07973 for ; Wed, 25 Feb 2004 14:47:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aw4zu-0002UX-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 25 Feb 2004 14:47:10 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Aw4z5-0002OF-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 25 Feb 2004 14:46:20 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aw4yI-0002Gs-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 25 Feb 2004 14:45:30 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aw4xq-0007u6-5l; Wed, 25 Feb 2004 14:45:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aw4ww-0007aB-Mn for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 25 Feb 2004 14:44:06 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA07822 for ; Wed, 25 Feb 2004 14:44:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aw4wt-00028o-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 25 Feb 2004 14:44:04 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Aw4vy-00023R-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 25 Feb 2004 14:43:06 -0500 Received: from fe07.axelero.hu ([195.228.240.95]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aw4vF-0001y5-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 25 Feb 2004 14:42:21 -0500 Received: from fe07 (localhost-02 [127.0.2.1]) by fe07.axelero.hu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with SMTP id i1PJgKW0022209 for ; Wed, 25 Feb 2004 20:42:20 +0100 (CET) Received: from fe07.axelero.hu [127.0.2.1] via SMTP gateway by fe07 [195.228.240.95]; id A056B5EC461 at Wed, 25 Feb 2004 20:42:19 +0100 Received: from axelero.hu (96.170-182-adsl-pool.axelero.hu [81.182.170.96]) by fe07.axelero.hu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i1PJgE5l022081 for ; Wed, 25 Feb 2004 20:42:19 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <403CFA95.9000000@axelero.hu> From: =?ISO-8859-2?Q?=22Z=E1mbori=2C_Zolt=E1n=22?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113 X-Accept-Language: hu, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] 3. SMTP Session/Message Verification - competitive methods References: <403BB268.1000206@axelero.hu> <403BC4C8.7040708@pay2send.com> In-Reply-To: <403BC4C8.7040708@pay2send.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-RAVMilter-Version: 8.4.3(snapshot 20030217) (fe07.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: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 20:42:13 +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 David Nicol wrote: > Za'mbori, Zolta'n wrote: > >> For example implementing more than one SMTP session verification >> method into an MX is lead to a problem: how to select the proper method? > > I'm keeping a database of all senders and asking each and every one of > them how they wish to > be identified. But that's just me. Yes, caching is better than reloading. But why not the SMTP client announce the possibilities? For example: "mtamark info is avialable and the Trusted Forwarders Association registered us". Or: "Delete this and this part from our email addresses before you publish the email address or you query your white-list. VRFY callback is avialable. This is a ticket to do the callback". I think opening the horizont for future steps may a good tactic in the spam-war. There are a mechanism for servers announcing SMTP extensions but there are no mechanism for clients to do some announcing. Maybe i am too idealistic. z2 _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Feb 25 22:06:47 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA01765 for ; Wed, 25 Feb 2004 22:06:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AwBqu-0007RV-3g for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 25 Feb 2004 22:06:20 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1Q36Kn0028608 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 25 Feb 2004 22:06:20 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AwBqt-0007RL-IG for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 25 Feb 2004 22:06:19 -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 WAA01754 for ; Wed, 25 Feb 2004 22:06:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AwBqq-0001VA-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 25 Feb 2004 22:06:16 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AwBpy-0001PC-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 25 Feb 2004 22:05:23 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AwBpD-0001JY-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 25 Feb 2004 22:04:35 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AwBoe-00079r-UV; Wed, 25 Feb 2004 22:04:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AwBlz-0006ka-Uc for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 25 Feb 2004 22:01:15 -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 WAA01566 for ; Wed, 25 Feb 2004 22:01:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AwBlw-00012q-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 25 Feb 2004 22:01:13 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AwBl4-0000xl-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 25 Feb 2004 22:00:19 -0500 Received: from mout.perfora.net ([217.160.230.41]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AwBkh-0000sf-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 25 Feb 2004 21:59:55 -0500 Received: from [217.160.230.50] (helo=smtp.perfora.net) by mout.perfora.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1AwBkh-0007W6-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 25 Feb 2004 21:59:55 -0500 Received: from [68.24.239.37] (helo=solidmatrix.com) by smtp.perfora.net with asmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1AwBkg-00019F-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 25 Feb 2004 21:59:55 -0500 Message-ID: <403D6120.5030406@solidmatrix.com> From: Yakov Shafranovich Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040116 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ASRG Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by ietf.org id WAA01567 Subject: [Asrg] 3b. SMTP Session Verification - Updated agenda for MARID Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 21:59:44 -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: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Updated agenda for MARID Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 20:13:04 +0100 From: Patrik F=E4ltstr=F6m To: agenda@ietf.org CC: Ted Hardie , smtp-verify@asrg.sp.am [What has been updated is the list of I-D's so it matches what actually has been sent to the I-D archive. Thanks to Yakov for keeping track of the list of documents. /paf] MTA Authorization Records in DNS (marid) Thursday, March 4 at 0900-1130 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D CHAIRS: Patrik Faltstrom Ted Hardie DESCRIPTION: This meeting will review a set of related proposals for the DNS publication of data which authorizes SMTP senders within a specific domain. The proposals to be discussed vary in the proposed resource record type, syntax, and operation, but all include DNS publication of data intended to allow validation of IP address, envelope, or originator header data for SMTP MTAs. This BoF will be strictly limited to measures related to MTA authentication; no other anti-spam measures or topics will be considered. The BoF will explicitly consider how DNS-based MTA authentication mechanisms would be implemented and deployed, and it will consider the impact on the overall DNS infrastructure of this deployment. This meeting will discuss whether or not an IETF working group is needed to continue work on this topic. AGENDA: Agenda Bashing 5 Problem Overview 35 Taking draft-irtf-asrg-lmap-discussion-01.txt as a starting point, this discussion will focus on the problem these proposals attempt to solve, the broad outlines of the solution space proposed, and the constraints implied by that solution space. Current Proposals (1 hour together) MTAMARK - draft-stumpf-dns-mtamark-01.txt DRIP - draft-brand-drip-02.txt RMX - draft-danisch-dns-rr-smtp-03.txt DMP - draft-fecyk-dmp-01.txt SPF - draft-mengwong-spf-00.txt FSV - draft-levine-fsv-00.txt Implications for the DNS 15 Based on the current proposals, the BoF will discuss how this approach generally and each proposal specifically interacts with the DNS. Implications for SMTP 15 Based on the current proposals, the BoF will discuss how this approach generally and each proposal specifically interacts with existing and proposed mechanisms for mail transfer. Discussion of scope for IETF work 20 _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Feb 26 02:45:54 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA25668 for ; Thu, 26 Feb 2004 02:45:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AwGD0-0004FC-Ld for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Feb 2004 02:45:26 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1Q7jQ5Y016283 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Feb 2004 02:45:26 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AwGCy-0004EX-3P for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Feb 2004 02:45:24 -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 CAA25655 for ; Thu, 26 Feb 2004 02:45:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AwGCu-0003qa-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Feb 2004 02:45:20 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AwGBz-0003m1-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Feb 2004 02:44:23 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AwGBH-0003hX-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Feb 2004 02:43:39 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AwGAj-0003kx-KG; Thu, 26 Feb 2004 02:43:05 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AwG8O-0003Jc-Tz for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Feb 2004 02:40:40 -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 CAA25497 for ; Thu, 26 Feb 2004 02:40:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AwG8L-0003QF-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Feb 2004 02:40:37 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AwG7d-0003Jd-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Feb 2004 02:39:53 -0500 Received: from mout.perfora.net ([217.160.230.40]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AwG6u-0003BQ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Feb 2004 02:39:08 -0500 Received: from [217.160.230.50] (helo=smtp.perfora.net) by mout.perfora.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1AwG6v-0001rm-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Feb 2004 02:39:09 -0500 Received: from [68.24.239.37] (helo=solidmatrix.com) by smtp.perfora.net with asmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1AwG6t-0006vF-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Feb 2004 02:39:08 -0500 Message-ID: <403DA293.8080308@solidmatrix.com> From: Yakov Shafranovich Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040116 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ASRG Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] 3b. SMTP Session Verification - Request for testing data Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 02:38:59 -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=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit We would like to encourage those of you who are publishing LMAP records and/or using LMAP proposals to collect testing data. This can be anything ranging from which proposal is faster or easier to deal with, or just straight statistics. Testing of these proposals can help the community figure out which things work and which do not, what breaks, and what needs further work. Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Feb 28 20:43:00 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA15216 for ; Sat, 28 Feb 2004 20:43:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AxFyS-0007yJ-SC for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Feb 2004 20:42:32 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1T1gWkx030639 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Feb 2004 20:42:32 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AxFyS-0007y2-KG for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Feb 2004 20:42:32 -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 UAA15063 for ; Sat, 28 Feb 2004 20:42:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AxFyQ-0006E8-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 28 Feb 2004 20:42:30 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AxFx5-0005tx-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 28 Feb 2004 20:41:08 -0500 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AxFvZ-0005iV-02 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 28 Feb 2004 20:39:33 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by mx2.foretec.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1AxFk5-00089I-JW for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 28 Feb 2004 20:27:41 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AxFjS-0006jz-NL; Sat, 28 Feb 2004 20:27:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AxFOo-0004NQ-5m for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Feb 2004 20:05:42 -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 UAA13821 for ; Sat, 28 Feb 2004 20:05:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AxFOm-0002JL-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 28 Feb 2004 20:05:40 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AxFNl-0002Cg-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 28 Feb 2004 20:04:38 -0500 Received: from mout.perfora.net ([217.160.230.40]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AxFNG-00026g-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 28 Feb 2004 20:04:06 -0500 Received: from [217.160.230.52] (helo=smtp.perfora.net) by mout.perfora.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1AxFNH-0001jj-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 28 Feb 2004 20:04:07 -0500 Received: from [68.24.198.140] (helo=solidmatrix.com) by smtp.perfora.net with asmtp (TLSv1:RC4-MD5:128) (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1AxFNG-0002om-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 28 Feb 2004 20:04:07 -0500 Message-ID: <40413A7A.3060006@solidmatrix.com> From: Yakov Shafranovich Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, he, ru MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org X-Enigmail-Version: 0.83.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] 3b. SMTP Session Verification - Reminder on the LMAP BoF Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2004 20:03:54 -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 The LMAP BoF (called MARID by the IETF) will take place this week on Thursday morning at 9 AM at the IETF's Seoul meeting. The current agenda is here: http://www.ietf.org/ietf/04mar/marid.txt The BoF is being multicasted, those who want to watch can find the instructions here: http://www.ietf.org/meetings/multicast_59.html Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Feb 28 23:23:09 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA20174 for ; Sat, 28 Feb 2004 23:23:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AxITR-00008E-Vf for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Feb 2004 23:22:41 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1T4Mf45000503 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Feb 2004 23:22:41 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AxITR-000082-Q5 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Feb 2004 23:22:41 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA20171 for ; Sat, 28 Feb 2004 23:22:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AxITP-0005YS-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 28 Feb 2004 23:22:40 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AxISW-0005TX-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 28 Feb 2004 23:21:44 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AxIS4-0005Nk-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 28 Feb 2004 23:21:16 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AxIRq-0008Lx-I4; Sat, 28 Feb 2004 23:21:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AxINX-0008FG-HG for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Feb 2004 23:16:35 -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 XAA20052 for ; Sat, 28 Feb 2004 23:16:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AxINV-00053j-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 28 Feb 2004 23:16:33 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AxIMe-0004zP-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 28 Feb 2004 23:15:41 -0500 Received: from mout.perfora.net ([217.160.230.41]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AxIM1-0004uQ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 28 Feb 2004 23:15:01 -0500 Received: from [217.160.230.50] (helo=smtp.perfora.net) by mout.perfora.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1AxIM2-00074P-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 28 Feb 2004 23:15:02 -0500 Received: from [68.244.239.148] (helo=solidmatrix.com) by smtp.perfora.net with asmtp (TLSv1:RC4-MD5:128) (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1AxIM0-0008Iv-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 28 Feb 2004 23:15:02 -0500 Message-ID: <40416725.8090601@solidmatrix.com> From: Yakov Shafranovich Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, he, ru MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ASRG X-Enigmail-Version: 0.83.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] 2a. BCP on dealing with hijacked machines Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2004 23:14:29 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The message below is from the SMTP-VERIFY subgroup. Would it would be useful to document this procedure? Can anyone provide data on effectiveness of this technique? Yakov -------- Original Message -------- Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2004 20:25:22 -0800 (PST) From: William Leibzon CC: smtp-verify@asrg.sp.am On 29 Feb 2004, John Levine wrote: > ISPs that care have been dealing with this all along. You count the > messages from each host, and if you see a big spike, you either > suspend the account or confine the host to a web jail that tells them > to disinfect their computer and call in to get out of jail after they > do. The jail's like the one you're in when you connect to a hotel > network and haven't agreed to pay the ten bucks yet. The mail spikes > are not subtle. Hosts that normally send five messages a day start > sending blasts of thousands. The above "jail" system is not as widely used. More common is simply redirection of port25 to main ISP mail server relay and calculating how much traffic is coming from specific user/port. > This is not a research topic, since ISPs > do this in production now and the techniques are well known. That particular anti-spam technique is done in production does not mean it should not be an issue for ASRG. ASRG should still research how effective the technique both currently and towards the future and compare it to any other proposals that are being made. Additionally since this has not been documented by IETF it maybe good idea to work towards BCP document for mail setup for ISPs that service dial/dsl/cable customers. It does not mean that ISPs will necessarily follow it, but it might still improve the situation with availability of hijacked PCs. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Feb 29 00:17:44 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA22219 for ; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 00:17:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AxJKH-0003qf-GT for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 00:17:17 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1T5HHQk014787 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 00:17:17 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AxJKH-0003qQ-Az for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 00:17:17 -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 AAA22087 for ; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 00:17:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AxJKF-00037u-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 00:17:15 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AxJJ0-0002t2-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 00:15:58 -0500 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AxJI9-0002kT-03 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 00:15:06 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by mx2.foretec.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1AxJ7g-0004tK-T4 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 00:04:17 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AxJ7T-0002WH-16; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 00:04:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AxJ72-0002VI-64 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 00:03:36 -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 AAA21734 for ; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 00:03:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AxJ6z-0001wg-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 00:03:33 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AxJ60-0001mE-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 00:02:33 -0500 Received: from sccrmhc13.comcast.net ([204.127.202.64]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AxJ4a-0001S9-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 00:01:04 -0500 Received: from fda.zemos.net ([68.38.12.170]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc13) with ESMTP id <200402290500270160058qe3e>; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 05:00:31 +0000 Received: from zemos.net (phil [10.0.0.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by fda.zemos.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 228EA186A2 for ; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 00:00:23 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <404171E6.5000000@zemos.net> From: Philip Miller User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040122 Debian/1.6-1 X-Accept-Language: en, en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ASRG Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] Sendmail CEO Backs Yahoo DK and MS CID Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 29 Feb 2004 00:00:22 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Publication looks to be yesterday. I guess this means that we either need to come up with something better really soon, or we're going to be getting Yahoo or MS "real soon now"TM Philip Miller _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Feb 29 00:55:06 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA24003 for ; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 00:55:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AxJuS-0007PJ-8S for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 00:54:40 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1T5sesS028467 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 00:54:40 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AxJuS-0007P4-4b for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 00:54:40 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA24000 for ; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 00:54:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AxJuP-00079C-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 00:54:37 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AxJtR-00074g-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 00:53:38 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AxJsy-00070G-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 00:53:08 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AxJsq-0007Di-L7; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 00:53:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AxJsb-0007CX-Ok for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 00:52:45 -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 AAA23972 for ; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 00:52:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AxJsZ-0006zp-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 00:52:43 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AxJrg-0006ul-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 00:51:49 -0500 Received: from peacock.verisign.com ([65.205.251.73]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AxJr2-0006ok-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 00:51:08 -0500 Received: from mou1wnexc02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.54]) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.11/) with ESMTP id i1T5p9uu014166; Sat, 28 Feb 2004 21:51:09 -0800 (PST) Received: by mou1wnexc02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) id ; Sat, 28 Feb 2004 21:51:08 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Philip Miller'" , ASRG Subject: RE: [Asrg] Sendmail CEO Backs Yahoo DK and MS CID MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2004 21:51:06 -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 > pcmag_040227.html> > > Publication looks to be yesterday. > > I guess this means that we either need to come up with > something better > really soon, or we're going to be getting Yahoo or MS "real > soon now"TM I don't see why. If the problem is already solved there is no need to spend time working on it. If the problem is not solved or the solution is imperfect there will be need to improve. Although CallerID and DK are presented as competitors they are actually very different. DK does not define a policy component and so it is still necessary to use CallerId or SPF to state that the sending policy of the domain is to sign emails. CallerID is an IP based authenticator and a cryptographic authenticator would make a good compliment. What is very clear is that the gate for entry of new proposals in the RMX family is essentially closed as far as the market is concerned. That is a good thing. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Feb 29 02:06:18 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA02813 for ; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 02:06:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AxL1H-0006WJ-Tg for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 02:05:50 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1T75laq024984 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 02:05:47 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AxL1E-0006Ub-Ew for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 02:05:44 -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 CAA02218 for ; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 02:05:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AxL1A-00067k-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 02:05:41 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AxL0F-00063M-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 02:04:44 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AxKzr-0005yi-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 02:04:19 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AxKze-0005ph-2W; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 02:04:06 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AxKzP-0005lD-F4 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 02:03:51 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA00099 for ; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 02:03:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AxKzL-0005xo-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 02:03:48 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AxKye-0005rW-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 02:03:05 -0500 Received: from sc1.scconsult.com ([66.73.230.190] helo=toaster.scconsult.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AxKxj-0005gm-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 02:02:07 -0500 Received: from [192.168.254.12] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by toaster.scconsult.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B733EF1B7E for ; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 02:01:59 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: bill@fireproof.scconsult.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: To: ASRG From: Bill Cole Subject: RE: [Asrg] Sendmail CEO Backs Yahoo DK and MS CID 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, 29 Feb 2004 02:01:53 -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 9:51 PM -0800 2/28/04, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: >> > pcmag_040227.html> >> >> Publication looks to be yesterday. >> >> I guess this means that we either need to come up with >> something better >> really soon, or we're going to be getting Yahoo or MS "real >> soon now"TM > >I don't see why. If the problem is already solved there is no need to >spend time working on it. If the problem is not solved or the solution >is imperfect there will be need to improve. Any solution that is not in the public domain is a problem. If Joe User (including Joe Domain-Owner) cannot implement the 'solution' without *thinking* about the IP issues, there is no solution. Any patented 'solution' is intrinsically imperfect. I lean towards SPF only because no one seems to be trying to patent it... >Although CallerID and DK are presented as competitors they are actually >very different. DK does not define a policy component and so it is still >necessary to use CallerId or SPF to state that the sending policy of the >domain is to sign emails. CallerID is an IP based authenticator and a >cryptographic authenticator would make a good compliment. > >What is very clear is that the gate for entry of new proposals in the RMX >family is essentially closed as far as the market is concerned. That is >a good thing. Yes. SPF, DK, and CID do a decent job of filling the logical space. (Note that I first publicly discussed something SPF-like in 2000 but have had almost no involvement in SPF itself. I'm actually less optimistic today about the 'RMX' class of approaches than I was in 2000) -- Bill Cole bill@scconsult.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Feb 29 05:38:27 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA15408 for ; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 05:38:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AxOKc-0004vg-1a for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 05:37:59 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1TAbvGM018945 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 05:37:57 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AxOKb-0004vF-HR for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 05:37:57 -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 FAA15405 for ; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 05:37:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AxOKY-0000r7-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 05:37:54 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AxOJg-0000m3-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 05:37:01 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AxOJ0-0000fq-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 05:36:18 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AxOIk-0004UW-Qr; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 05:36:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AxOIa-0004TU-40 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 05:35:53 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA15357 for ; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 05:35:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AxOIW-0000ef-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 05:35:48 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AxOHc-0000Zn-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 05:34:53 -0500 Received: from mail.chariot.net.au ([203.87.95.38]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AxOGu-0000Un-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 05:34:08 -0500 Received: from localhost (avs1.sa.chariot.net.au [203.87.94.5]) by mail.chariot.net.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AC0C60736; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 21:04:06 +1030 (CST) Received: from mail.chariot.net.au ([203.87.95.38]) by localhost (avs1.sa.chariot.net.au [203.87.94.5]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 27572-03-7; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 21:04:06 +1030 (CST) Received: from wanderer (ppp-221.cust203-87-116.ghr.chariot.net.au [203.87.116.221]) by mail.chariot.net.au (Postfix) with SMTP id 0AA44607A2; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 21:04:05 +1030 (CST) From: "Chris" To: "Brett Watson" , Subject: RE: [Asrg] Re: 1c. Analysis of Spam - casual observations from my log files Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <200402251834.35132.famous-asrg@nutters.org> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at chariot.net.au Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 29 Feb 2004 21:02:49 +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 I've been getting spam almost since I signed up Annoying that an anti spam group could not have avoided this problem. I assumed the email address was scraped from the archives Chris > -----Original Message----- > From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of Brett > Watson > Sent: 25 February 2004 6:05 PM > To: asrg@ietf.org > Subject: [Asrg] Re: 1c. Analysis of Spam - casual observations from my > log files > > > On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 17:48, Brett Watson wrote: > > The first and foremost reason that these spam attempts have failed is > > because they fail to recognise the "dash" characters as part of > the email > > address, and thus send to "asrg@..." rather than "famous-asrg@...". This > > Of course, no sooner do I send the message, than I receive actual > spam to my > actual asrg address. Looks like it came through a cable modem account in > Israel. Selected headers follow. > > Return-Path: > Received: from [80.230.181.208] (helo=cable-181-208.inter.net.il) > by randall.nutters.org with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) > id 1AvsBv-00014F-00 > for ; Wed, 25 Feb 2004 06:06:44 +0000 > Message-ID: > From: "Dixie Koch" > To: famous-asrg@nutters.org > Subject: Buy watches lennox > Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 23:06:48 -0700 > > So, was this a more intelligent instance of web-scraping, or is our dear > spammer obtaining addresses via direct subscription to the list? > > Regards, > TFBW > > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Feb 29 07:15:25 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA18473 for ; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 07:15:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AxPqR-00043f-OF for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 07:14:55 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1TCEtXT015593 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 07:14:55 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AxPqR-00043Q-JI for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 07:14:55 -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 HAA18453 for ; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 07:14:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AxPqR-0002ZD-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 07:14:55 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AxPp6-0002DF-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 07:13:33 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AxPmo-0001dx-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 07:11:10 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AxPmh-0003gb-8a; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 07:11:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AxPlp-0003e6-QY for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 07:10:09 -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 HAA18039 for ; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 07:10:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AxPll-0001RK-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 07:10:05 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AxPkZ-0001KT-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 07:08:52 -0500 Received: from mail4.speakeasy.net ([216.254.0.204]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AxPkG-0001GC-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 07:08:32 -0500 Received: (qmail 1543 invoked from network); 29 Feb 2004 12:08:32 -0000 Received: from dsl081-214-187.nyc2.dsl.speakeasy.net (HELO elliot) (lseltzer@[64.81.214.187]) (envelope-sender ) by mail4.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 29 Feb 2004 12:08:32 -0000 From: "Larry Seltzer" To: "'ASRG'" Subject: RE: [Asrg] Sendmail CEO Backs Yahoo DK and MS CID Message-ID: <005e01c3febc$87aa0840$5b00005a@moregarlic.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4510 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 In-Reply-To: <404171E6.5000000@zemos.net> Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 29 Feb 2004 07:06:47 -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: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable My impression, from talking to Sendmail, is that they have focused their = work on Caller ID and Domain Keys because the SPF community has already written a = Milter. It's definitely not fair to say that they have endorsed one or others above = the rest. I do think we're almost at the point where this is for the market to = determine, and standards bodies will have to wait for the results. Larry Seltzer eWEEK.com Security Center Editor http://security.eweek.com/ larryseltzer@ziffdavis.com=20 _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Feb 29 14:23:45 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA06114 for ; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 14:23:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AxWWx-0000Ag-VI for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 14:23:17 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1TJNFmq000655 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 14:23:15 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AxWWx-0000AU-Mu for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 14:23:15 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA06108 for ; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 14:23:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AxWWv-0007h2-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 14:23:13 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AxWVy-0007bm-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 14:22:15 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AxWVN-0007WC-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 14:21:37 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AxWUo-0008RH-G6; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 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 1AxVyv-0006q7-VD for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 13:48:07 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA05327 for ; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 13:48:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AxVyt-000526-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 13:48:03 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AxVxx-0004y1-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 13:47:05 -0500 Received: from mout.perfora.net ([217.160.230.40]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AxVxj-0004u4-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 13:46:51 -0500 Received: from [217.160.230.50] (helo=smtp.perfora.net) by mout.perfora.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1AxVxD-0002UZ-00; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 13:46:19 -0500 Received: from [68.244.153.112] (helo=solidmatrix.com) by smtp.perfora.net with asmtp (TLSv1:RC4-MD5:128) (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1AxVxC-000384-00; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 13:46:19 -0500 Message-ID: <40423369.8020408@solidmatrix.com> From: Yakov Shafranovich Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, he, ru MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Chris CC: Brett Watson , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 1c. Analysis of Spam - casual observations from my log files References: In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 0.83.2.0 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: Sun, 29 Feb 2004 13:46:01 -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 Chris wrote: > I've been getting spam almost since I signed up > > Annoying that an anti spam group could not have avoided this problem. > I assumed the email address was scraped from the archives I have been talking to the IETF Secretariat about the need to reconfigure their archiver to hide email addresses, but so far no success. Yakov _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Feb 29 16:04:37 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA10360 for ; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 16:04:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AxY6a-0007Em-I7 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 16:04:08 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1TL48Eo027814 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 16:04:08 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AxY6a-0007EX-CW for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 16:04:08 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA10351 for ; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 16:04:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AxY6Y-0000zn-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 16:04:06 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AxY5e-0000vJ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 16:03:11 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AxY4i-0000qd-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 16:02:12 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AxY4X-00074n-Rd; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 16:02:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AxY3m-00073T-1V for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 16:01:14 -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 QAA10296 for ; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 16:01:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AxY3k-0000lZ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 16:01:12 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AxY2r-0000h1-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 16:00:18 -0500 Received: from plounts.uits.indiana.edu ([129.79.1.73]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AxY2R-0000bl-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 15:59:51 -0500 Received: from logchain.uits.indiana.edu (logchain.uits.indiana.edu [129.79.1.77]) by plounts.uits.indiana.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10/IUPO) with ESMTP id i1TKxjxI021275 for ; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 15:59:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from [10.0.2.2] (dial-64-151-128-156.bton.kiva.net [64.151.128.156]) (authenticated bits=0) by logchain.uits.indiana.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10/IUPO) with ESMTP id i1TKxghS014345 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 15:59:44 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v612) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <325C3A68-6AFA-11D8-BA7B-000393DC31DA@bloomington.in.us> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed To: asrg@ietf.org From: Jim Witte X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.612) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] Re: Sendmail backs Yahoo DK, MS CID Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 29 Feb 2004 15:59:42 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From the article: > "Caller ID looks at the IP address of the sending mail servers, and > the sender's post in DNS what the legitimate IP addresses of the > sending servers are," says Sendmail's Anderson. "So the IP address of > sending machines would be listed in DNS. A receiving mail server can > go check DNS for the legitimate IP addresses that the mail should be > coming from, and can determine whether the mail has come from the > right domain." I assume this would refer to ISP's mail relays, not individual end-users of ISPs (of course, ISP mail-relays *should* already be either locked down to the IPs of their dial-in customers, or password autenticated). Would this do anything about "spam worms" that are unwittingly opened by (authentic) users, and then are used as bots to send spam, like what (I think) happened at Indiana University the last couple weeks - they just updated the SMTP servers to require SSL authentication) Jim Witte jswitte@bloomington.in.us Indiana University CS _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Feb 29 16:12:35 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA10515 for ; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 16:12:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AxYEJ-00085O-HB for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 16:12:07 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1TLC74r031076 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 16:12:07 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AxYEJ-000859-CU for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 16:12:07 -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 QAA10488 for ; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 16:12:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AxYEH-0001Y7-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 16:12:05 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AxYDL-0001SZ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 16:11:08 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AxYCL-0001O5-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 16:10:05 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AxYCJ-0007nv-BU; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 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 1AxYBP-0007lM-GQ for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 16:09:07 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA10424 for ; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 16:09:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AxYBN-0001Jh-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 16:09:05 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AxYAT-0001GF-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 16:08:10 -0500 Received: from anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net ([194.217.242.90]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AxY9t-0001CT-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 16:07:33 -0500 Received: from scot.demon.co.uk ([158.152.23.217] helo=siliconglen.com) by anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1AxY9r-000E2g-0W for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 21:07:33 +0000 Message-ID: To: asrg@ietf.org From: Craig Cockburn Subject: Re: [Asrg] Sendmail CEO Backs Yahoo DK and MS CID References: <404171E6.5000000@zemos.net> In-Reply-To: <404171E6.5000000@zemos.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=us-ascii;format=flowed User-Agent: Turnpike/6.02-U () Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 29 Feb 2004 19:36:40 +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 In message <404171E6.5000000@zemos.net>, Philip Miller writes >27.html> > >Publication looks to be yesterday. > >I guess this means that we either need to come up with something better >really soon, or we're going to be getting Yahoo or MS "real soon now"TM > Whatever is implemented I hope it works... :-) http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/8026783.htm -- Craig Cockburn ("coburn"). SiliconGlen.com Ltd. http://SiliconGlen.com Home to the first online guide to Scotland, founded 1994. Scottish FAQ, wedding info, website design, stop spam and more! _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Feb 29 18:10:39 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA15063 for ; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 18:10:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Axa4Z-0002Al-Qs for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 18:10:12 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1TNAB8R008348 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 18:10:11 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Axa4Z-0002AZ-L3 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 18:10:11 -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 SAA15002 for ; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 18:10:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Axa4W-0003yc-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 18:10:08 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Axa3Y-0003tn-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 18:09:08 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Axa2c-0003pJ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 18:08:10 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Axa2T-0001WW-Pq; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 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 1Axa1j-0001DA-35 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 18:07:15 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA14740 for ; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 18:07:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Axa1g-0003kY-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 18:07:12 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Axa0n-0003gK-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 18:06:18 -0500 Received: from mail.chariot.net.au ([203.87.95.38]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Axa04-0003bn-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 18:05:32 -0500 Received: from localhost (avs1.sa.chariot.net.au [203.87.94.5]) by mail.chariot.net.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E5EB60C22; Mon, 1 Mar 2004 09:35:26 +1030 (CST) Received: from mail.chariot.net.au ([203.87.95.38]) by localhost (avs1.sa.chariot.net.au [203.87.94.5]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 03751-04-4; Mon, 1 Mar 2004 09:35:26 +1030 (CST) Received: from rebel (ppp-123.cust203-87-125.ghr.chariot.net.au [203.87.125.123]) by mail.chariot.net.au (Postfix) with SMTP id DFC486277B; Mon, 1 Mar 2004 09:35:15 +1030 (CST) From: "Chris" To: "Philip Miller" , "ASRG" Subject: RE: [Asrg] Sendmail CEO Backs Yahoo DK and MS CID 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: <404171E6.5000000@zemos.net> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at chariot.net.au Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 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 Mar 2004 09:34:15 +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 The proposed methods I believe will tackle a percentage of the spam mail problem but it certainly won't eliminate it. Spammers wont quit. it's not in their nature so we must look at ways they will try to come up with to get around sender authentication. obvious ones are... Trojaned machines - by their nature authenticated Uncloseted spammers - eg sheck-buy, authenticated cause they don't care Third world spammers - sender authenticated but legally out of reach Open Scripts - Authenticated by the insecure server (sendmail) Any more to throw into the mix? we should be putting methods into place before spammers can think of and implement them. In other words be proactive not reactive. It is my firm belief that no single system will do the job, a toolkit is required each tool tackling a different type of spam source. Regards Chris > -----Original Message----- > From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of > Philip Miller > Sent: Sunday, 29 February 2004 3:30 PM > To: ASRG > Subject: [Asrg] Sendmail CEO Backs Yahoo DK and MS CID > > > g_040227.html> > > Publication looks to be yesterday. > > I guess this means that we either need to come up with something better > really soon, or we're going to be getting Yahoo or MS "real soon now"TM > > 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 Sun Feb 29 18:17:49 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA15724 for ; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 18:17:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AxaBW-0004Kj-H8 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 18:17:22 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1TNHMcg016651 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 18:17:22 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AxaBW-0004KU-DQ for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 18:17:22 -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 SAA15670 for ; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 18:17:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AxaBT-0004Vg-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 18:17:19 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AxaAU-0004R0-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 18:16:19 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Axa9W-0004N6-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 18:15:18 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Axa9G-0003bd-1M; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 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 1Axa8S-0003OW-SZ for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 18:14:12 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA15399 for ; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 18:14:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Axa8Q-0004HX-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 18:14:10 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Axa7W-0004Da-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 18:13:14 -0500 Received: from mail.chariot.net.au ([203.87.95.38]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Axa75-00049Z-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 18:12:47 -0500 Received: from localhost (avs1.sa.chariot.net.au [203.87.94.5]) by mail.chariot.net.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFD506008D for ; Mon, 1 Mar 2004 09:42:46 +1030 (CST) Received: from mail.chariot.net.au ([203.87.95.38]) by localhost (avs1.sa.chariot.net.au [203.87.94.5]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 10387-04-5 for ; Mon, 1 Mar 2004 09:42:46 +1030 (CST) Received: from rebel (ppp-123.cust203-87-125.ghr.chariot.net.au [203.87.125.123]) by mail.chariot.net.au (Postfix) with SMTP id 187345F946 for ; Mon, 1 Mar 2004 09:42:46 +1030 (CST) From: "Chris" To: "ASRG" Subject: RE: [Asrg] Sendmail CEO Backs Yahoo DK and MS CID 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: <404171E6.5000000@zemos.net> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at chariot.net.au Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 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 Mar 2004 09:41:45 +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 The proposed methods I believe will tackle a percentage of the spam mail problem but it certainly won't eliminate it. Spammers wont quit. it's not in their nature so we must look at ways they will try to come up with to get around sender authentication. obvious ones are... Trojaned machines - by their nature authenticated Uncloseted spammers - eg sheck-buy, authenticated cause they don't care Third world spammers - sender authenticated but legally out of reach Open Scripts - Authenticated by the insecure server (sendmail) Any more to throw into the mix? we should be putting methods into place before spammers can think of and implement them. In other words be proactive not reactive. It is my firm belief that no single system will do the job, a toolkit is required each tool tackling a different type of spam source. Regards Chris > -----Original Message----- > From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of > Philip Miller > Sent: Sunday, 29 February 2004 3:30 PM > To: ASRG > Subject: [Asrg] Sendmail CEO Backs Yahoo DK and MS CID > > > g_040227.html> > > Publication looks to be yesterday. > > I guess this means that we either need to come up with something better > really soon, or we're going to be getting Yahoo or MS "real soon now"TM > > 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 Sun Feb 29 21:43:50 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA26155 for ; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 21:43:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AxdOs-0007AU-Ah for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 21:43:22 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i212hMjG027548 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 21:43:22 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AxdOs-0007AF-6D for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 21:43:22 -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 VAA26123 for ; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 21:43:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AxdOp-0001tn-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 21:43:19 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AxdNt-0001kK-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 21:42:22 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AxdN0-0001Yz-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 21:41:26 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AxdMc-0006t3-ND; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 21:41:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AxdMV-0006s7-Ud for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 21:41:00 -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 VAA25780 for ; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 21:40:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AxdMT-0001SK-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 21:40:53 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AxdLS-0001IV-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 21:39:51 -0500 Received: from mail6.speakeasy.net ([216.254.0.206]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AxdKg-0001AB-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 21:39:02 -0500 Received: (qmail 18856 invoked from network); 1 Mar 2004 02:39:02 -0000 Received: from dsl081-214-187.nyc2.dsl.speakeasy.net (HELO elliot) (lseltzer@[64.81.214.187]) (envelope-sender ) by mail6.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 1 Mar 2004 02:39:02 -0000 From: "Larry Seltzer" To: "'Chris'" , "'ASRG'" Subject: RE: [Asrg] Sendmail CEO Backs Yahoo DK and MS CID Message-ID: <019e01c3ff36$212b7980$5b00005a@moregarlic.com> 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 10.0.4510 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 29 Feb 2004 21:36:50 -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 >>Trojaned machines - by their nature authenticated No, not actually. The authentication process is SMTP server to server, so unless the trojaned system has access to an open relay which is, nevertheless, properly accounted for in the SPF/Caller ID DNS entries, the trojan will need to have proper SMTP AUTH credentials to some server. They don't currently work this way, and it seems unlikely that an administrator would leave relays open but implement domain-level SMTP authentication. >>Uncloseted spammers - eg sheck-buy, authenticated cause they don't care >>Third world spammers - sender authenticated but legally out of reach Yes, definitely, and this is why blacklists (or the new PC term "blocklists") are important in an SMTP authenticated world. Unlike now, such lists could be accurate and authoritative. It's possible that spammers could buy and use large numbers of throwaway domains, but there would still be IP-based blacklisting and the fact that would have to operate out in the open. >>Open Scripts - Authenticated by the insecure server (sendmail) See first answer Larry Seltzer eWEEK.com Security Center Editor http://security.eweek.com/ larryseltzer@ziffdavis.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg