From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat May 1 22:07:46 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (www.iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA06714 for ; Sat, 1 May 2004 22:07:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BK6Er-0004lJ-2M for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 01 May 2004 21:57:53 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i421vrZL018306 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 1 May 2004 21:57:53 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BK6CX-0003rg-8i for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 01 May 2004 21:55:29 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA06398 for ; Sat, 1 May 2004 21:55:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BK6CU-0002nW-Eq for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 01 May 2004 21:55:26 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BK6BZ-0002bB-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 01 May 2004 21:54:30 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BK6BB-0002Ou-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 01 May 2004 21:54:05 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BK5zU-0007C1-R3; Sat, 01 May 2004 21:42:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BJelA-0004rG-O3 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 30 Apr 2004 16:37:24 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA29641 for ; Fri, 30 Apr 2004 16:37:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BJel8-0004AW-GW for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 30 Apr 2004 16:37:22 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BJejs-0003su-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 30 Apr 2004 16:36:05 -0400 Received: from h210.c136.b246.tor.eicat.ca ([66.246.136.210] helo=shell.vex.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BJeio-0003fu-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 30 Apr 2004 16:34:58 -0400 Received: from smaug.vex.net (smaug.vex.net [66.246.136.211]) by shell.vex.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24332EC1A; Fri, 30 Apr 2004 16:34:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail.crlf.net (mail.crlf.net [216.126.92.195]) (using TLSv1 with cipher EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA (168/168 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smaug.vex.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB50735AD6; Fri, 30 Apr 2004 16:34:54 -0400 (EDT) From: David Maxwell To: John Levine Cc: asrg@ietf.org Message-ID: <20040430203457.GP22336@mail> References: <20040430152420.GN22336@mail> <20040430165518.4460.qmail@xuxa.iecc.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040430165518.4460.qmail@xuxa.iecc.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2i Subject: [Asrg] Re: Consent protocols - was E-postage Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 16:34:57 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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, 30 Apr 2004, John Levine wrote: > >> f. Sender pretends to be 300 other people and sends you buckets of spam. > Sorry, that was supposed to be: > f. Sender pretends to be 30,000 other people and sends you buckets of spam. Sure. You seem to be saying "Does this scale?". I suggest that it scales better than having to do content inspection, or manual filtering of spam from X hosts. > >Now, if you like, add greylisting for unknown senders, so that those > >300 msgs won't be accepted on the first try. Then, add a distributed > >blacklist which you check your mailqueue against before delivery to > >users' inboxes. Application of the blacklist can be part of whatever > >other content spam filters the user has. > > DCC already does that. It works reasonably well, with no need to > invent new consent protocols. DCC today, is used as a first line of defence. Your MTA needs to accept all X messages, and check a DCC for them. With the scheme I described, you make DCC the second line of defense, and save a lot of work in two out of three cases. Case one: For Sender IPs that you develop Trust for, you may choose not to bother checking the DCC. In my case, this would account for roughly half my mail (the non-spam half). Case two: For Sender IPs that you develop Distrust for, you may choose not to accept connections at all. Case three: For new Sender IPs, you do all the filtering you do now, _and_ you offer a chance for them to self-identify as spammers, by exceeding your specified rate limit. I realize that the argument about whether to give negative feedback to spammers is not a closed issue by any means, but I like that in Case two, you reduce bandwidth demands across the backbone by not letting the spam flow to you in the first place. -- David Maxwell, david@vex.net|david@maxwell.net --> Although some of you out there might find a microwave oven controlled by a Unix system an attractive idea, controlling a microwave oven is easily accomplished with the smallest of microcontrollers. - Russ Hersch - (Microcontroller primer and FAQ) _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun May 2 00:20:48 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA10788 for ; Sun, 2 May 2004 00:20:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BK8R0-0004z0-AU for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 02 May 2004 00:18:34 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i424IYlH019154 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 2 May 2004 00:18:34 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BK8HF-00007B-Lr for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 02 May 2004 00:08:29 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA08849 for ; Sat, 1 May 2004 23:18:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BK7Um-0004QK-Qk for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 01 May 2004 23:18:24 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BK7Tp-0004CX-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 01 May 2004 23:17:26 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BK7Sr-0003zx-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 01 May 2004 23:16:25 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BK7QY-0006AO-FO; Sat, 01 May 2004 23:14:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BK7JQ-00035j-Tr for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 01 May 2004 23:06:40 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA08425 for ; Sat, 1 May 2004 23:06:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BK7JM-0001rV-D5 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 01 May 2004 23:06:36 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BK7Ho-0001RY-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 01 May 2004 23:05:01 -0400 Received: from zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com ([47.129.242.57]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BK7Ga-00012c-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 01 May 2004 23:03:45 -0400 Received: from zcard309.ca.nortel.com (zcard309.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.69]) by zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.6/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id i42337911449 for ; Sat, 1 May 2004 23:03:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard309.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id JCT8NQZL; Sat, 1 May 2004 23:03:07 -0400 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (acart14u.ca.nortel.com [47.130.24.118]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id JM9FVATR; Sat, 1 May 2004 23:03:06 -0400 Message-ID: <409464E8.40705@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.5 (Windows/20040207) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-00 References: <200404301430.i3UEUVu24576@panix5.panix.com> <49E0F0F9-9AC2-11D8-BEA4-000A95AC67AA@messagelabs.com> In-Reply-To: <49E0F0F9-9AC2-11D8-BEA4-000A95AC67AA@messagelabs.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 01 May 2004 23:03:04 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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 Matt Sergeant wrote: > On 30 Apr 2004, at 15:30, Seth Breidbart wrote: > >>> Perhaps 2.2 should say "Failing to meet the criteria for listing MUST be >>> sufficient grounds for delisting". >> Why? I see no problem with a "sticky" list; for instance, to get >> listed an IP must send >X amount of spam in Y time, to get unlisted it >> must send <.1X in 10Y. > Because this is confusing. > However I don't think it's entirely incompatible with the BCP. The > listing criteria could be as simple as "We have detected spam coming > from this IP address". How you "detected" it (by spam levels exceeding a > threshold) and how you "undetect" it is up to you. I agree. The intent was to "frown" on delisting requirements orthogonal to the listing. Like payment of fees, or other things that had nothing to do with the listing. An element of hysteresis (ie: timewise or thresholdwise) is okay, IMO. I think I prefer Tony's wording. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun May 2 03:28:14 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (www.iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA01840 for ; Sun, 2 May 2004 03:28:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BKBJH-0003Lu-AG for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 02 May 2004 03:22:47 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i427Ml9I012886 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 2 May 2004 03:22:47 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BKBEH-000173-Ca for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 02 May 2004 03:17:37 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA01567 for ; Sun, 2 May 2004 03:17:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BKBEF-0002mb-8K for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 02 May 2004 03:17:35 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BKBDL-0002Zk-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 02 May 2004 03:16:39 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BKBCd-0002N1-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 02 May 2004 03:15:55 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BKB6y-0006wx-Es; Sun, 02 May 2004 03:10:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BKB2i-0005N2-Jy for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 02 May 2004 03:05:40 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA01247 for ; Sun, 2 May 2004 03:05:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BKB2e-0000Dt-MY for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 02 May 2004 03:05:36 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BKB1n-00000x-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 02 May 2004 03:04:44 -0400 Received: from mout.perfora.net ([217.160.230.40]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BKB1G-0007bS-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 02 May 2004 03:04:10 -0400 Received: from [217.160.230.52] (helo=smtp.perfora.net) by mout.perfora.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1BKB1G-0001xD-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 02 May 2004 03:04:10 -0400 Received: from [68.244.173.2] (helo=solidmatrix.com) by smtp.perfora.net with asmtp (TLSv1:RC4-MD5:128) (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1BKB1F-0007eT-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 02 May 2004 03:04:10 -0400 Message-ID: <40949D4F.9090707@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 X-Provags-ID: perfora.net abuse@perfora.net auth:7051a7fa85b96745770cd89fa6d27f10 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] 0. General - Chatroom information Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 02 May 2004 03:03:43 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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 added info on the ASRG chatroom to the homepage: http://asrg.sp.am/about/chatroom.shtml Schedule of chats is in the ASRG wiki: http://asrg.sp.am/wiki?ChatSchedule 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 Sun May 2 04:10:06 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA03403 for ; Sun, 2 May 2004 04:10:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BKC1r-0003cs-AT for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 02 May 2004 04:08:51 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4288poW013936 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 2 May 2004 04:08:51 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BKBxr-0001pe-97 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 02 May 2004 04:04:43 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA03211 for ; Sun, 2 May 2004 04:04:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BKBxo-0005Xp-Mj for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 02 May 2004 04:04:40 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BKBwt-0005Ke-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 02 May 2004 04:03:44 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BKBwd-00057T-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 02 May 2004 04:03:27 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BKBrO-0007nB-UZ; Sun, 02 May 2004 03:58:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BKBpH-0006s7-RL for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 02 May 2004 03:55:51 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA01298 for ; Sun, 2 May 2004 03:09:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BKB6V-000125-IU for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 02 May 2004 03:09:35 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BKB5Y-0000pd-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 02 May 2004 03:08:37 -0400 Received: from mout.perfora.net ([217.160.230.41]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BKB57-0000dK-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 02 May 2004 03:08:09 -0400 Received: from [217.160.230.52] (helo=smtp.perfora.net) by mout.perfora.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1BKB58-0008Rf-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 02 May 2004 03:08:10 -0400 Received: from [68.244.173.2] (helo=solidmatrix.com) by smtp.perfora.net with asmtp (TLSv1:RC4-MD5:128) (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1BKB57-0007jm-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 02 May 2004 03:08:10 -0400 Message-ID: <40949E47.2070408@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 X-Provags-ID: perfora.net abuse@perfora.net auth:7051a7fa85b96745770cd89fa6d27f10 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] 0. Administrative - Next ASRG meeting Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 02 May 2004 03:07:51 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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 We are planning on holding a physical meeting for the ASRG at the 60th IETF in San Diego, CA during the week of August 1-6, 2004. Information on the meeting will be posted here: http://asrg.sp.am/about/meetings.shtml Information on IETF's 60th meeting can be found here: http://www.ietf.org/meetings/IETF-60.html If you want to present, please contact the chairs at . 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 Sun May 2 05:39:14 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA06645 for ; Sun, 2 May 2004 05:39:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BKDP8-0002hV-AH for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 02 May 2004 05:36:58 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i429awD7010373 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 2 May 2004 05:36:58 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BKDNi-00020w-JG for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 02 May 2004 05:35:30 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA04510 for ; Sun, 2 May 2004 04:47:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BKCda-0007KM-IY for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 02 May 2004 04:47:50 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BKCcV-00074S-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 02 May 2004 04:46:44 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BKCbm-0006r8-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 02 May 2004 04:45:58 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BKCU5-0007HL-Iw; Sun, 02 May 2004 04:38:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BKCRJ-000684-5v for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 02 May 2004 04:35:09 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA02796 for ; Sun, 2 May 2004 03:49:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BKBjH-0002DW-SV for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 02 May 2004 03:49:39 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BKBiL-0001yt-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 02 May 2004 03:48:41 -0400 Received: from mout.perfora.net ([217.160.230.41]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BKBhT-0001jV-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 02 May 2004 03:47:47 -0400 Received: from [217.160.230.52] (helo=smtp.perfora.net) by mout.perfora.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1BKBhV-0003Gx-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 02 May 2004 03:47:49 -0400 Received: from [68.244.173.2] (helo=solidmatrix.com) by smtp.perfora.net with asmtp (TLSv1:RC4-MD5:128) (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1BKBhU-0008Q3-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 02 May 2004 03:47:49 -0400 Message-ID: <4094A793.8010805@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 X-Provags-ID: perfora.net abuse@perfora.net auth:7051a7fa85b96745770cd89fa6d27f10 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] 0. General - ASRG Wiki Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 02 May 2004 03:47:31 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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 There is a wiki now available at the ASRG site: http://asrg.sp.am/wiki Yakov -- Yakov Shafranovich / asrg shaftek.org SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / research solidmatrix.com "And this too shall come to pass" _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun May 2 12:23:58 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA21100 for ; Sun, 2 May 2004 12:23:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BKJjl-0006g1-Q7 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 02 May 2004 12:22:44 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i42GMfqI025665 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 2 May 2004 12:22:41 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BKJfI-0005OF-Lb for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 02 May 2004 12:18:04 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA20851 for ; Sun, 2 May 2004 12:18:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BKJfH-0005n1-9v for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 02 May 2004 12:18:03 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BKJeY-0005Vt-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 02 May 2004 12:17:19 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BKJdN-0005FD-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 02 May 2004 12:16:05 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BKJZT-0002KL-Nr; Sun, 02 May 2004 12:12:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BK7oU-0005IY-CL for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 01 May 2004 23:38:46 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA09436 for ; Sat, 1 May 2004 23:38:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BK7oS-0000xh-BU for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 01 May 2004 23:38:44 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BK7nU-0000jh-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 01 May 2004 23:37:44 -0400 Received: from sc1.scconsult.com ([66.73.230.190] helo=toaster.scconsult.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BK7mj-0000VH-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 01 May 2004 23:36:57 -0400 Received: from [192.168.254.12] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by toaster.scconsult.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CA96110E65 for ; Sat, 1 May 2004 23:36:54 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: bill@fireproof.scconsult.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <409464E8.40705@americasm01.nt.com> References: <200404301430.i3UEUVu24576@panix5.panix.com> <49E0F0F9-9AC2-11D8-BEA4-000A95AC67AA@messagelabs.com> <409464E8.40705@americasm01.nt.com> To: asrg@ietf.org From: Bill Cole Subject: Re: [Asrg] draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-00 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, 1 May 2004 23:36:49 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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 11:03 PM -0400 5/1/04, Chris Lewis wrote: >Matt Sergeant wrote: > >>On 30 Apr 2004, at 15:30, Seth Breidbart wrote: >> >>>>Perhaps 2.2 should say "Failing to meet the criteria for listing MUST be >>>>sufficient grounds for delisting". > >>>Why? I see no problem with a "sticky" list; for instance, to get >>>listed an IP must send >X amount of spam in Y time, to get unlisted it >>>must send <.1X in 10Y. > >>Because this is confusing. > >>However I don't think it's entirely incompatible with the BCP. The >>listing criteria could be as simple as "We have detected spam >>coming from this IP address". How you "detected" it (by spam levels >>exceeding a threshold) and how you "undetect" it is up to you. > >I agree. The intent was to "frown" on delisting requirements >orthogonal to the listing. Like payment of fees, or other things >that had nothing to do with the listing. > >An element of hysteresis (ie: timewise or thresholdwise) is okay, IMO. > >I think I prefer Tony's wording. I agree but it remains imperfect. It is a matter of phrasing of criteria to some extent. e.g. for the CBL, if you describe the condition for listing as "having acted like a compromised machine emitting spam within the timeout period and without having since requested removal" then failing to meet the listing criteria does effect a delisting. However, this sort of framing of criteria makes room for such things as the SORBS donation requirement. I'm not sure where a solution is. -- Bill Cole bill@scconsult.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun May 2 16:26:08 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 QAA01760 for ; Sun, 2 May 2004 16:26:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BKNR8-0006y5-DA for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 02 May 2004 16:19:45 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i42KJgb6026782 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 2 May 2004 16:19:42 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BKNPl-0006DK-4d for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 02 May 2004 16:18:17 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA01504 for ; Sun, 2 May 2004 16:18:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BKNPj-0002SV-Ej for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 02 May 2004 16:18:15 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BKNOm-0002Ee-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 02 May 2004 16:17:17 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BKNOU-00020Y-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 02 May 2004 16:16:58 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BKNLe-0003yG-Vx; Sun, 02 May 2004 16:14:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BKN6N-0008IZ-Vq for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 02 May 2004 15:58:16 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA00786 for ; Sun, 2 May 2004 15:58:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BKN6M-0005OQ-8F for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 02 May 2004 15:58:14 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BKN5O-00059N-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 02 May 2004 15:57:15 -0400 Received: from smtp-1.star.net.uk ([212.125.75.70]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BKN4X-0004tc-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 02 May 2004 15:56:21 -0400 Received: (qmail 12623 invoked from network); 2 May 2004 19:53:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO matt-dev.int.star.co.uk) (195.216.14.9) by smtp-1.star.net.uk with SMTP; 2 May 2004 19:53:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 22792 invoked from network); 1 May 2004 19:43:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?10.2.100.178?) (10.2.100.178) by matt?dev.int.star.co.uk with SMTP; 1 May 2004 19:43:24 -0000 From: Matt Sergeant X-X-Sender: matt@localhost.localdomain To: Bill Cole cc: "asrg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Asrg] draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-00 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 2 May 2004 20:56:17 +0100 (BST) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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, 1 May 2004, Bill Cole wrote: > It is a matter of phrasing of criteria to some extent. e.g. for the > CBL, if you describe the condition for listing as "having acted like > a compromised machine emitting spam within the timeout period and > without having since requested removal" then failing to meet the > listing criteria does effect a delisting. > > However, this sort of framing of criteria makes room for such things > as the SORBS donation requirement. In designing the BCP we didn't think something like SORBS donation requirement should be excluded, so long as this requirement is clearly listed on their web site. Matt. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun May 2 18:10:54 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (www.iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA06061 for ; Sun, 2 May 2004 18:10:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BKPA8-0008Qh-J5 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 02 May 2004 18:10:16 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i42MAGGj032399 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 2 May 2004 18:10:16 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BKP9D-0007iQ-E4 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 02 May 2004 18:09:19 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA05940 for ; Sun, 2 May 2004 18:09:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BKP9A-0004q2-K4 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 02 May 2004 18:09:16 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BKP8O-0004cq-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 02 May 2004 18:08:29 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BKP7t-0004OT-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 02 May 2004 18:07:57 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BKP62-0005kL-6p; Sun, 02 May 2004 18:06:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BKP1W-0002KG-FD for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 02 May 2004 18:01:22 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA05224 for ; Sun, 2 May 2004 18:01:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BKP1T-00032T-MH for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 02 May 2004 18:01:19 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BKP0W-0002oU-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 02 May 2004 18:00:21 -0400 Received: from [64.7.158.10] (helo=mail.worldline.ca) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BKOzr-0002aa-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 02 May 2004 17:59:39 -0400 Received: from waltdnes.org ([67.43.129.110]) by mail.worldline.ca (8.12.8/8.12.8) with SMTP id i42M8Nj7025881 for ; Sun, 2 May 2004 18:08:24 -0400 Received: by waltdnes.org (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Sun, 2 May 2004 17:59:08 -0400 From: "Walter Dnes" To: ASRG list Subject: Re: [Asrg] draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-00 Message-ID: <20040502215908.GA32116@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: Sun, 2 May 2004 17:59:08 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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, Apr 30, 2004 at 03:23:10PM +0100, Matt Sergeant wrote > Our aim with the BCP was not to fit it around _all_ current practices, > but to fit it around best practices. If you have good reasons for > going against the guidelines please state them and we can consider > the modification of the BCP. The BCP document assumes that people are nice, or at least polite. If they were, there wouldn't be a need for DNSbl's in the first place. In a "kinder gentler" world, paragraph 2.6 MUST-have-a-contact requirement would make sense. However, in real life, spammers aren't nice. Consider the following... - MAPS was sued into uselessness by a bunch of dot-coms flush with cash from IPO's who engaged in the lawsuit equivalent of a gang-rape - Felstein and company left a bunch of people out of pocket thousands of dollars in legal fees, even though the civil complaints were dropped and the case never got to trial - Scott Richter is currently suing SpamCop Unlike British Commonwealth countries (Britain, Canada, Australia, etc) the USA does *NOT* have an automatic "loser pays" clause for lawsuits. The USA gave the world SLAPP. Would you care to provide multi-million dollar funds in escrow to defend against such lawsuits and pay off any stupid judgements awarded by juries? And it's not merely a case of money. I wouldn't be surprised if the mobsters behind some of the spammers resorted to contract killings to shut down impediments to their "bizniss". In a climate like this, I understand why the principals behind SPEWS seek anonymity. Please understand that we're dealing with a bunch of thugs, hooligans, and criminals. If we get into a streetfight against them whilst restricting ourselves to Marquis of Queensbury rules, we're guaranteed to lose. If I sound passionate, it's because DNSbls help keep my email usable, which gives me a personal stake in the success/failure of DNSbls. If they go under, I'll either switch to whitelist-only, or possibly give up on email altogether. In terms of improvements to this BCP, I have an idea that would render the rest of the BCP moot... ==================================================================== Paragraph 0 Internet Service Providers who provide inbound email service to the public *MUST* allow individual customers to select which DNSbls and/or filters are applied to their incoming email, except as listed below. The only exceptions shall be... 1) When an incoming email is reliably confirmed to be a virus by a scanner, it may be either rejected at the SMTP stage with a 5xx message or diverted into a quarantined folder or dropped. It *MUST NOT* trigger a DSN to the alleged sender of the email, because email source info (both From: and Envelope-Sender) is usually forged by viruses. 2) IP addresses which launch Denial-Of-Service attacks or dictionary attacks on the ISP may be ignored by the mailserver or firewalled or null-routed or blocked via other purely defensive measures. ==================================================================== The real problem is ISPs who use the one-size-fits-all approach, and use the same DNSbl(s) for all their clients. Allow people to use which ever DNSbls they want, and the bad DNSbls lose users, and fade away. DNSbls with good reputations would have lots of users. This would also provide ISPs some protection against lawsuits by spammers, because the ISP would not be responsible for an individual user's choice of blocking criteria. -- Walter Dnes Email users are divided into two classes; 1) Those who have effective spam-blocking 2) Those who wish they did _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon May 3 13:34:43 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA15409 for ; Mon, 3 May 2004 13:34:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BKh3L-0001ZD-Mq for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 03 May 2004 13:16:27 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i43HGR7b006023 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 3 May 2004 13:16:27 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BKh0g-0000gJ-QT for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 03 May 2004 13:13:42 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA14563 for ; Mon, 3 May 2004 13:13:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BKh0e-0002ib-TC for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 03 May 2004 13:13:40 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BKgzg-0002cm-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 03 May 2004 13:12:41 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BKgyn-0002Y3-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 03 May 2004 13:11:45 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BKgmU-00055F-Af; Mon, 03 May 2004 12:59:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BKgdo-0002yn-5q for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 03 May 2004 12:50:04 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA12971 for ; Mon, 3 May 2004 12:50:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BKgdm-0007mc-Ck for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 03 May 2004 12:50:02 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BKgcR-0007Xr-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 03 May 2004 12:48:40 -0400 Received: from mout.perfora.net ([217.160.230.40]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BKgav-0007LP-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 03 May 2004 12:47:05 -0400 Received: from [217.160.230.50] (helo=smtp.perfora.net) by mout.perfora.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1BKgav-0007xy-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 03 May 2004 12:47:05 -0400 Received: from [68.246.190.141] (helo=solidmatrix.com) by smtp.perfora.net with asmtp (TLSv1:RC4-MD5:128) (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1BKgat-00050Z-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 03 May 2004 12:47:05 -0400 Message-ID: <409676EE.5000507@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 X-Provags-ID: perfora.net abuse@perfora.net auth:7051a7fa85b96745770cd89fa6d27f10 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] 0. General - UPDATE on "FCC soliciting comments on mobile spam" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 03 May 2004 12:44:30 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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 This was sent to me from the FCC. Yakov -------- Original Message -------- The initial Comment period for the FCC's wireless spam ruling making closed on April 30, and the FCC is now accepting Replies to those comments through May 17. The comments that were submitted can be reviewed by going to the FCC's Electronic Comment Filing System search page at http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/comsrch_v2.cgi and searching on the proceeding "04-53". General information about the subject of this rulemaking is available at http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/policy/canspam.html. This includes a summary of the questions of interpretation and technical solutions that have been addressed in the comments received to date. Individuals or groups interested in filing comments (e.g., in response to the Comments received to date) can find detailed instructions on how to file Reply comments in Paragraphs 56-60 on p. 23 of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-52A1.doc. Comments for this proceeding can also be easily filed using the FCC's ECFS Express option, at http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/ecfs/Upload/. -- 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 May 3 14:12:58 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 OAA17532 for ; Mon, 3 May 2004 14:12:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BKhha-0002h6-0z for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 03 May 2004 13:58:02 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i43Hw1lw010356 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 3 May 2004 13:58:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BKhZe-0000nw-DU for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 03 May 2004 13:49:50 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA16402 for ; Mon, 3 May 2004 13:49:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BKhZc-0006J4-8G for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 03 May 2004 13:49:48 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BKhYg-0006DW-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 03 May 2004 13:48:50 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BKhY4-00068I-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 03 May 2004 13:48:12 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BKhMK-0005iU-Nd; Mon, 03 May 2004 13:36:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BKh8R-0002S2-UU for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 03 May 2004 13:21:43 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA14935 for ; Mon, 3 May 2004 13:21:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BKh8P-0003Uk-VS for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 03 May 2004 13:21:42 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BKh7T-0003Pv-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 03 May 2004 13:20:43 -0400 Received: from aismtp4g.bellsouth.com ([139.76.165.194]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BKh6U-0003I5-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 03 May 2004 13:19:42 -0400 Received: from 01al10015010113.ad.bls.com ([90.152.52.35] [90.152.52.35]) by aismtp4g.bellsouth.com with ESMTP for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 3 May 2004 13:19:07 -0400 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Message-Id: <38363D9940D92A458010AAE24D162EB9021EDF0B@bremocog-55> Importance: normal Priority: normal Thread-Topic: News: Postini patents the relay server? Thread-Index: AcQxMKLICpxKkzRLRSe6NIjyD90TZgAAcwYQ From: "Sauer, Damon" To: "ASRG" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: [Asrg] News: Postini patents the relay server? Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 3 May 2004 12:19:03 -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=EXCUSE_16 autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1568961,00.asp ***** "The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity = to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, = and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination = or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this = information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is = prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender = and delete the material from all computers." 113 _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon May 3 15:37:49 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA24572 for ; Mon, 3 May 2004 15:37:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BKjBV-00067D-PK for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 03 May 2004 15:33:01 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i43JX1eh023506 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 3 May 2004 15:33:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BKix4-0002sf-Jk for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 03 May 2004 15:18:06 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA23070 for ; Mon, 3 May 2004 15:18:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BKix3-0001Cs-CN for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 03 May 2004 15:18:05 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BKiw5-00013O-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 03 May 2004 15:17:06 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BKivL-0000vt-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 03 May 2004 15:16:19 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BKijf-0006cI-Py; Mon, 03 May 2004 15:04:15 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BKiWs-0007D6-2u for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 03 May 2004 14:51:02 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA20071 for ; Mon, 3 May 2004 14:50:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BKiWp-0005Vj-9u for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 03 May 2004 14:50:59 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BKiVm-0005PB-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 03 May 2004 14:49:55 -0400 Received: from ms-smtp-03-qfe0.socal.rr.com ([66.75.162.135] helo=ms-smtp-03-eri0.socal.rr.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BKiVE-0005JM-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 03 May 2004 14:49:20 -0400 Received: from opendoors.com (dt0f6n52.san.rr.com [24.94.24.82]) by ms-smtp-03-eri0.socal.rr.com (8.12.10/8.12.7) with ESMTP id i43InGOD025796; Mon, 3 May 2004 11:49:17 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <409695CB.4060306@opendoors.com> From: Lane Sharman Reply-To: lane@opendoors.com User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Sauer, Damon" CC: ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] News: Postini patents the relay server? References: <38363D9940D92A458010AAE24D162EB9021EDF0B@bremocog-55> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: Symantec AntiVirus Scan Engine Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 03 May 2004 11:56:11 -0700 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,EXCUSE_16 autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I work with Postini every day. 7 days a week vending the solution to customers. I do not believe the patent can even closely be tied to a patent on the notion of a relay. What the patent does cover is processing, not relaying, at an intermediate point, prior to delivery. Reading the patent, not responding to this explanation is your best bet to decide if the patent has merit. My job is to protect users and organizations from SPAM in a constructive manner, not interpret the merit of the patent or patent law in general. Kindest, Lane Sauer, Damon wrote: >http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1568961,00.asp > >***** >"The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers." 113 > > >_______________________________________________ >Asrg mailing list >Asrg@ietf.org >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > > > -- Lane Sharman Providing Private and SPAM-Free Email http://www.opendoors.com 858-755-2868 _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon May 3 17:32:03 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (www.iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA03495 for ; Mon, 3 May 2004 17:32:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BKkcW-0002OM-34 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 03 May 2004 17:05:00 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i43L50UL009192 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 3 May 2004 17:05:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BKjlC-0000eq-JP for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 03 May 2004 16:09:54 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA26385 for ; Mon, 3 May 2004 16:09:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BKjlA-000754-Vq for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 03 May 2004 16:09:53 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BKjkR-0006zV-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 03 May 2004 16:09:08 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BKjjj-0006sp-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 03 May 2004 16:08:23 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BKjZk-0005m7-Nx; Mon, 03 May 2004 15:58:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BKjNw-0003Tj-FK for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 03 May 2004 15:45:52 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA25072 for ; Mon, 3 May 2004 15:45:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BKjNu-0004LI-W1 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 03 May 2004 15:45:51 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BKjMx-0004Fi-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 03 May 2004 15:44:51 -0400 Received: from [66.98.212.93] (helo=tin.nixcartel.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BKjMl-0004AY-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 03 May 2004 15:44:39 -0400 Received: from dvb.homelinux.org (unknown [202.88.170.34]) by tin.nixcartel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 255F91AC06B; Mon, 3 May 2004 14:50:45 -0500 (CDT) Received: by dvb.homelinux.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id 389AC34020; Tue, 4 May 2004 01:14:33 +0530 (IST) From: Devdas Bhagat To: Lane Sharman Cc: "Sauer, Damon" , ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] News: Postini patents the relay server? Message-ID: <20040504011433.A1182@evita.devdas.geek> Reply-To: Devdas Bhagat References: <38363D9940D92A458010AAE24D162EB9021EDF0B@bremocog-55> <409695CB.4060306@opendoors.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <409695CB.4060306@opendoors.com>; from lane@opendoors.com on Mon, May 03, 2004 at 11:56:11AM -0700 X-Message-Flag: Friends protect friends from Microsoft Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 4 May 2004 01:14:33 +0530 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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 03/05/04 11:56 -0700, Lane Sharman wrote: > I work with Postini every day. 7 days a week vending the solution to > customers. > > I do not believe the patent can even closely be tied to a patent on the > notion of a relay. What the patent does cover is processing, not > relaying, at an intermediate point, prior to delivery. Reading the "Processing at an intermediate point" also covers a server acting as an application level gateway filtering on content. > patent, not responding to this explanation is your best bet to decide if > the patent has merit. > > > My job is to protect users and organizations from SPAM in a constructive > manner, not interpret the merit of the patent or patent law in general. Protecting users from canned meat? :) Please respect Hormel's trademark. Devdas Bhagat _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon May 3 18:38:28 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 SAA09265 for ; Mon, 3 May 2004 18:38:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BKlyf-00010I-M1 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 03 May 2004 18:31:58 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i43MVvvD003858 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 3 May 2004 18:31:57 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BKlrt-0007pb-LW for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 03 May 2004 18:24:59 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA08566 for ; Mon, 3 May 2004 18:24:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BKlrq-0005Lb-Mn for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 03 May 2004 18:24:54 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BKlqu-0005Dp-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 03 May 2004 18:23:56 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BKlq2-00054f-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 03 May 2004 18:23:02 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BKlbW-0000vd-Bp; Mon, 03 May 2004 18:08:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BKlXo-0006tP-M1 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 03 May 2004 18:04:12 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA06588 for ; Mon, 3 May 2004 18:04:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BKlXm-0002ek-0Y for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 03 May 2004 18:04:10 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BKlWl-0002Wi-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 03 May 2004 18:03:07 -0400 Received: from pcls3.std.com ([192.74.137.143] helo=TheWorld.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BKlW1-0002Ot-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 03 May 2004 18:02:21 -0400 Received: from world.std.com (world-e.std.com [69.38.147.5]) by TheWorld.com (8.12.8p1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i43M2LtC012147; Mon, 3 May 2004 18:02:21 -0400 Received: (from bzs@localhost) by world.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA27750; Mon, 3 May 2004 18:02:20 -0400 (EDT) From: Barry Shein MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16534.49516.482100.934754@world.std.com> To: "Walter Dnes" Cc: ASRG list Subject: Re: [Asrg] draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-00 In-Reply-To: <20040502215908.GA32116@m450> References: <20040502215908.GA32116@m450> X-Mailer: VM 7.07 under Emacs 21.2.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 3 May 2004 18:02:20 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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 certainly agree with the spirit of what Walter Dnes is saying below. Looking at the BCP draft makes me feel like I'm watching a bunch of cub scouts propose how to deal with Al Qaeda. So if we're voting, in some sense, you can count my vote as "no, because this draft is embarrassingly naive". -b On May 2, 2004 at 17:59 waltdnes@waltdnes.org (Walter Dnes) wrote: > On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 03:23:10PM +0100, Matt Sergeant wrote > > > Our aim with the BCP was not to fit it around _all_ current practices, > > but to fit it around best practices. If you have good reasons for > > going against the guidelines please state them and we can consider > > the modification of the BCP. > > The BCP document assumes that people are nice, or at least polite. If > they were, there wouldn't be a need for DNSbl's in the first place. In > a "kinder gentler" world, paragraph 2.6 MUST-have-a-contact requirement > would make sense. However, in real life, spammers aren't nice. Consider > the following... > > - MAPS was sued into uselessness by a bunch of dot-coms flush with > cash from IPO's who engaged in the lawsuit equivalent of a gang-rape > > - Felstein and company left a bunch of people out of pocket thousands > of dollars in legal fees, even though the civil complaints were > dropped and the case never got to trial > > - Scott Richter is currently suing SpamCop > > Unlike British Commonwealth countries (Britain, Canada, Australia, > etc) the USA does *NOT* have an automatic "loser pays" clause for > lawsuits. The USA gave the world SLAPP. Would you care to provide > multi-million dollar funds in escrow to defend against such lawsuits and > pay off any stupid judgements awarded by juries? > > And it's not merely a case of money. I wouldn't be surprised if the > mobsters behind some of the spammers resorted to contract killings to > shut down impediments to their "bizniss". In a climate like this, I > understand why the principals behind SPEWS seek anonymity. Please > understand that we're dealing with a bunch of thugs, hooligans, and > criminals. If we get into a streetfight against them whilst restricting > ourselves to Marquis of Queensbury rules, we're guaranteed to lose. > > If I sound passionate, it's because DNSbls help keep my email usable, > which gives me a personal stake in the success/failure of DNSbls. If > they go under, I'll either switch to whitelist-only, or possibly give up > on email altogether. > > In terms of improvements to this BCP, I have an idea that would render > the rest of the BCP moot... > > ==================================================================== > Paragraph 0 > Internet Service Providers who provide inbound email service to the > public *MUST* allow individual customers to select which DNSbls and/or > filters are applied to their incoming email, except as listed below. > The only exceptions shall be... > > 1) When an incoming email is reliably confirmed to be a virus by a > scanner, it may be either rejected at the SMTP stage with a 5xx message > or diverted into a quarantined folder or dropped. It *MUST NOT* trigger > a DSN to the alleged sender of the email, because email source info > (both From: and Envelope-Sender) is usually forged by viruses. > > 2) IP addresses which launch Denial-Of-Service attacks or dictionary > attacks on the ISP may be ignored by the mailserver or firewalled or > null-routed or blocked via other purely defensive measures. > ==================================================================== > > The real problem is ISPs who use the one-size-fits-all approach, and > use the same DNSbl(s) for all their clients. Allow people to use which > ever DNSbls they want, and the bad DNSbls lose users, and fade away. > DNSbls with good reputations would have lots of users. This would also > provide ISPs some protection against lawsuits by spammers, because the > ISP would not be responsible for an individual user's choice of blocking > criteria. > > -- > Walter Dnes > Email users are divided into two classes; > 1) Those who have effective spam-blocking > 2) Those who wish they did > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon May 3 18:48:41 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 SAA09629 for ; Mon, 3 May 2004 18:48:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BKmCe-0004vd-5p for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 03 May 2004 18:46:24 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i43MkOjr018933 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 3 May 2004 18:46:24 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BKmAJ-0003qa-EL for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 03 May 2004 18:43:59 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA09412 for ; Mon, 3 May 2004 18:43:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BKmAG-0007gv-D9 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 03 May 2004 18:43:56 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BKm9L-0007am-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 03 May 2004 18:43:00 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BKm8U-0007Uc-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 03 May 2004 18:42:06 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BKlyn-00012y-7x; Mon, 03 May 2004 18:32:05 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BKlqE-0007LT-E6 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 03 May 2004 18:23:14 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA08457 for ; Mon, 3 May 2004 18:23:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BKlqB-00055m-Ez for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 03 May 2004 18:23:11 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BKlpO-0004xc-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 03 May 2004 18:22:23 -0400 Received: from out2.smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.26]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BKloo-0004o3-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 03 May 2004 18:21:46 -0400 X-Sasl-enc: LNubfkF7VB0GY5Qmm5pduw 1083622877 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 1B3BBAEB070; Mon, 3 May 2004 18:21:16 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4096C5DD.6030604@elvey.com> From: Matthew Elvey User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.7b) Gecko/20040421 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-00 References: <200404301430.i3UEUVu24576@panix5.panix.com> <49E0F0F9-9AC2-11D8-BEA4-000A95AC67AA@messagelabs.com> <409464E8.40705@americasm01.nt.com> In-Reply-To: X-Habeas-SWE-1: winter into spring X-Habeas-SWE-2: brightly anticipated X-Habeas-SWE-3: like Habeas SWE (tm) X-Habeas-SWE-4: Copyright 2002 Habeas (tm) X-Habeas-SWE-5: Sender Warranted Email (SWE) (tm). The sender of this X-Habeas-SWE-6: email in exchange for a license for this Habeas X-Habeas-SWE-7: warrant mark warrants that this is a Habeas Compliant X-Habeas-SWE-8: Message (HCM) and not spam. Please report use of this X-Habeas-SWE-9: mark in spam to . Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 03 May 2004 15:21:17 -0700 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-8.0 required=5.0 tests=HABEAS_SWE autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 5/1/04 8:36 PM, Bill Cole sent forth electrons to convey: > > However, this sort of framing of criteria makes room for such things > as the SORBS donation requirement. Which, IMO, is BCP. I like Walt's Paragraph 0! Specific comments: Abstract 1. Introduction 2. The Guidelines. 2.1. "Truth in Advertising". This should be expanded to a list of specific disclosures that MUST be disclosed [promptness, removal process,...], in addition to the general requirement that listing and delisting criteria be provided. 2.2. Same Criteria for Listing and Delisting. The discussion has made it clear to me that this is a meaningless entry; I can think of no blacklist policy that would and should be considered a violation. 2.3. Listing/Delisting Criteria MUST Be Easily Available. There needs to be some accomodation/clarification. Is http://www.spamcop.net/fom-serve/cache/297.html good enough for 2.1 and 2.3? I can't tell! This needs to be clear, e.g. is this ok?: "Some rules are spelled out in vague terms to slow down spammer adaptation." 2.4. Collateral Damage Only as a Measure of Last Resort. Some claim SPEWS violates this, but SPEWS itself disagrees (and seems to at times act specifically to avoid it) and as those parties will always disagree, I see no benefit to the entry. 2.5. Listings SHOULD Be Temporary. No. Location based RBLs are perfectly legitimate, useful, and there's no reason for them to be temporary. 2.6. MUST Have a Direct Non-Public Way to Request Removal. This is actually poor practice IMO. BCP would be to NOT have a non-public way to be contacted. Works well to prevent SLAPP suits. Requiring any contact attempt be via a public forum is BCP. 2.7. Removals MUST Be Prompt. This should be a matter of policy. "BLs _that claim to be prompt_ must be prompt" makes sense. 2.8. Removals MUST Be Possible in Absence of List Maintainer. 2.9. MUST Have an Audit Trail. No. BLs based on spamtraps are BCP. Many spammers listwash spamtraps if they can. NOT providing a full public audit trail is BCP! 2.10. Shutdowns MUST Be Done in a Graceful Fashion. I suggest a specific result code be codified to represent [urgent action needed by admin, e.g. this list has shut down, etc.] 3. Special Rules for Blacklists Listing Insecure Machines. See the SPEWS FAQ for why this is a bad idea. 3.1. No Automated Probes [Scanning or Probes? - inconsistent]. Scanning in response to an attempt to email a system for the first time seems reasonable to me. 3.2. Reasonable Re-scan Periods. In general, it seems like the authors don't have much respect for the tireless *volunteer* BL maintainers and need to spend more time thinking about things from the POV of the BL maintainers. It's surprising that we're spending time on this when there isn't even a current BCP for how abuse desks should be run. There's bestprac.org, but no IETF document, AFAIK. Cart before the horse if you ask me: most BLs are run responsibly; most abuse desks aren't. But a BCP is a good idea, so there are some ideas. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon May 3 19:10:05 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (www.iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA10742 for ; Mon, 3 May 2004 19:10:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BKmX0-0001Wx-HN for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 03 May 2004 19:07:26 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i43N7Q15005878 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 3 May 2004 19:07:26 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BKmSo-0000Js-UX for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 03 May 2004 19:03:07 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA10352 for ; Mon, 3 May 2004 19:03:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BKmSl-0002U4-RK for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 03 May 2004 19:03:03 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BKmRw-0002MV-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 03 May 2004 19:02:13 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BKmR7-0002EF-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 03 May 2004 19:01:21 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BKmNt-0007lc-8t; Mon, 03 May 2004 18:58:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BKmEE-0005Gb-31 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 03 May 2004 18:48:02 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA09569 for ; Mon, 3 May 2004 18:47:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BKmEA-0000Nh-RD for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 03 May 2004 18:47:58 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BKmD8-0000Ed-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 03 May 2004 18:46:55 -0400 Received: from imail.centuryc.net ([216.30.168.20]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BKmC8-00000c-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 03 May 2004 18:45:52 -0400 Received: from cybercominc.com [66.91.134.126] by imail.centuryc.net (SMTPD32-8.05) id ABFA11FD00CA; Mon, 03 May 2004 12:47:22 -1000 Received: from Internal (66.91.134.123) by cybercominc-zzt with SMTP; Mon, 03 May 2004 22:52:16 GMT X-Titankey-e_id: From: "Peter Kay" To: "ASRG" Subject: RE: [Asrg] News: Postini patents the relay server? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 Thread-Index: AcQxSrxYP+GSOGu2Qa+KrNjpGQXuzgAB+0RQ In-Reply-To: <20040504011433.A1182@evita.devdas.geek> Message-Id: <200405031247953.SM01976@cybercominc.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 3 May 2004 12:47:55 -1000 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 This will be quite interesting to see how this pans out. After reading the claims, a few potential holes in this patent could be: Is there a difference between "changing" a DNS entry and "adding" a DNS entry. Claim 1a specifically states "changing" a DNS entry. Well, if I don't change it, but rather add another one, one could make the argument that there is no infringement. Is there a difference between addressing email to a Domain vs. a destination email server? Claim 1b covers "..email message data addressed to the destination mail server...". Well, my email is never addressed to a destination mail server. It's addressed to a Domain. What does "processing" cover? Claim 1c talks about "processing the email data". Does relaying an email mean processing it? I did a quick search through their patent for the word "relay" and it does not show anywhere. If they have not shown how their invention is different from the prior art of an email relay, they might be very susceptible to an easy prior-art argument as mail relays are very well documented. Claim 1 is pretty general. One could make an argument that it is a description of an typical SMTP relay, which is obvious prior art. It would be interesting to see how the Patent Examiner forced them to differentiate that claim over a normal relay process. If their claims hold, there's a lot of MX routing antispam solutions out there that might be very concerned. They might also be able to go after anyone that relays email, at least according to Claims 1 & 19. Peter Kay President, Titan Key Software > -----Original Message----- > From: Devdas Bhagat [mailto:devdas@dvb.homelinux.org] > Sent: Monday, May 03, 2004 9:45 AM > To: Lane Sharman > Cc: Sauer, Damon; ASRG > Subject: Re: [Asrg] News: Postini patents the relay server? > > On 03/05/04 11:56 -0700, Lane Sharman wrote: > > I work with Postini every day. 7 days a week vending the > solution to > > customers. > > > > I do not believe the patent can even closely be tied to a patent on > > the notion of a relay. What the patent does cover is > processing, not > > relaying, at an intermediate point, prior to delivery. Reading the > "Processing at an intermediate point" also covers a server > acting as an application level gateway filtering on content. > > > patent, not responding to this explanation is your best bet > to decide > > if the patent has merit. > > > > > > My job is to protect users and organizations from SPAM in a > > constructive manner, not interpret the merit of the patent > or patent law in general. > Protecting users from canned meat? :) > Please respect Hormel's trademark. > > Devdas Bhagat > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing 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 May 4 00:39:47 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (www.iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA23761 for ; Tue, 4 May 2004 00:39:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BKrcl-0002oj-9g for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 00:33:45 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i444XhAW010829 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 May 2004 00:33:43 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BKrbL-0002Vb-Ms for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 00:32:15 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA23317 for ; Tue, 4 May 2004 00:32:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BKrbJ-0000H4-74 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 00:32:13 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BKraP-00008N-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 00:31:17 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BKrZY-0007nB-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 00:30:24 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BKrXG-0001Ed-H2; Tue, 04 May 2004 00:28:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BKrRf-00007x-OB for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 00:22:15 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA22917 for ; Tue, 4 May 2004 00:22:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BKrRd-0006YE-9x for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 00:22:13 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BKrQi-0006Pq-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 00:21:17 -0400 Received: from pcls1.std.com ([192.74.137.141] helo=TheWorld.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BKrQ2-0006HV-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 00:20:34 -0400 Received: from world.std.com (kingtut@world-e.std.com [69.38.147.5]) by TheWorld.com (8.12.8p1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i444G9m1025816; Tue, 4 May 2004 00:16:09 -0400 Received: (from bzs@localhost) by world.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA15699; Tue, 4 May 2004 00:16:09 -0400 (EDT) From: Barry Shein MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16535.6408.920278.560504@world.std.com> To: Matthew Elvey Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-00 In-Reply-To: <4096C5DD.6030604@elvey.com> References: <200404301430.i3UEUVu24576@panix5.panix.com> <49E0F0F9-9AC2-11D8-BEA4-000A95AC67AA@messagelabs.com> <409464E8.40705@americasm01.nt.com> <4096C5DD.6030604@elvey.com> X-Mailer: VM 7.07 under Emacs 21.2.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 4 May 2004 00:16:08 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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 May 3, 2004 at 15:21 matthew@elvey.com (Matthew Elvey) wrote: > In general, it seems like the authors don't have much respect for the > tireless *volunteer* BL maintainers and need to spend more time thinking > about things from the POV of the BL maintainers. I think one of the worst features of BLs are that they're often run by volunteers who can then feel sorry for themselves when they get in over their heads. But so long as that's disclosed I have no problem with volunteer BLs existing, per se, not my point. I just don't think the fact that they're (often) volunteer staffed should be grounds to give them a lot of slack on BCP. The problem is there's too much potential for damage and chaos, and being able to say "well we're not being paid anyhow" isn't really something very good to codify. Imagine if volunteer MD's said oh well, we weren't paid anyhow, sorry about the botched surgery, go warn your friends not to use us anymore... Free software is one thing, but something like a BL has some non-zero potential to do significant damage if poorly run, particularly if suddenly poorly run (it was great until finals week!) I'd've skipped saying something so obvious but there it was right in that message, "respect for the tireless *volunteer* BL maintainers". -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD The World | Public Access Internet | Since 1989 *oo* _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue May 4 07:14:25 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA24044 for ; Tue, 4 May 2004 07:14:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BKxk5-00008H-2f for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 07:05:41 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i44B5fDL000509 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 May 2004 07:05:41 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BKxh8-0007Pc-CN for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 07:02:38 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA23052 for ; Tue, 4 May 2004 07:02:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BKxh4-00015d-6Q for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 07:02:34 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BKxfr-0000hd-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 07:01:20 -0400 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BKxe2-0000AF-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 06:59:27 -0400 Received: from optimus22.ietf.org ([132.151.6.22] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by mx2.foretec.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1BKxe4-0005Pz-Lw for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 06:59:29 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BKxas-0005Eq-1T; Tue, 04 May 2004 06:56:10 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BKxOu-0001XN-Oy for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 06:43:49 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA21431 for ; Tue, 4 May 2004 06:43:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BKxOq-0004RU-Km for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 06:43:44 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BKxNx-0004E7-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 06:42:50 -0400 Received: from mail22.messagelabs.com ([62.231.131.211]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BKxMc-0003ok-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 06:41:26 -0400 X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: msergeant@messagelabs.com X-Msg-Ref: server-18.tower-22.messagelabs.com!1083667250!5658323 X-StarScan-Version: 5.2.10; banners=messagelabs.com,-,- X-Originating-IP: [212.125.75.70] Received: (qmail 11876 invoked from network); 4 May 2004 10:40:50 -0000 Received: from smtp-1.star.net.uk (212.125.75.70) by server-18.tower-22.messagelabs.com with SMTP; 4 May 2004 10:40:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 7066 invoked from network); 4 May 2004 10:38:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO matt-dev.int.star.co.uk) (195.216.14.9) by smtp-1.star.net.uk with SMTP; 4 May 2004 10:38:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 30031 invoked from network); 3 May 2004 10:27:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?10.2.100.139?) (10.2.100.139) by matt?dev.int.star.co.uk with SMTP; 3 May 2004 10:27:49 -0000 In-Reply-To: <4096C5DD.6030604@elvey.com> References: <200404301430.i3UEUVu24576@panix5.panix.com> <49E0F0F9-9AC2-11D8-BEA4-000A95AC67AA@messagelabs.com> <409464E8.40705@americasm01.nt.com> <4096C5DD.6030604@elvey.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v613) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <81C76EB8-9DB7-11D8-9BDB-000A95AC67AA@messagelabs.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: asrg@ietf.org From: Matt Sergeant Subject: Re: [Asrg] draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-00 To: Matthew Elvey X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.613) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 4 May 2004 11:40:48 +0100 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I'll address some specific points, and hope that Chris can comment on those I've avoided. On 3 May 2004, at 23:21, Matthew Elvey wrote: > 2.4. Collateral Damage Only as a Measure of Last Resort. > Some claim SPEWS violates this, but SPEWS itself disagrees (and seems > to at times act specifically to avoid it) and as those parties will > always disagree, I see no benefit to the entry. Because this is just a BCP, whether or not there's disagreement that SPEWS (or any other blocklist) complies is outside of the scope IMHO. > 2.5. Listings SHOULD Be Temporary. > No. Location based RBLs are perfectly legitimate, useful, and there's > no reason for them to be temporary. A valid point. I believe in an earlier draft we had a footnote about location based BLs, and it may got lost in the conversion to RFC format (which doesn't have footnotes). I think this can be covered in the verbiage for the rule. > 2.9. MUST Have an Audit Trail. > No. BLs based on spamtraps are BCP. Many spammers listwash spamtraps > if they can. NOT providing a full public audit trail is BCP! OK, this could be clarified to some extent. The authors took the examples of SPEWS, SBL and CBL as guidance here, which all have audit trails. However these audit trails don't include the spamtrap addresses used to generate the listings, so I can see that some clarification could help here in terms of what data is useful to display to the public if a public version of the audit trail is provided. > 2.10. Shutdowns MUST Be Done in a Graceful Fashion. > I suggest a specific result code be codified to represent [urgent > action needed by admin, e.g. this list has shut down, etc.] We tried to avoid codifying a specific shutdown procedure. We would hope to see that appear in an RFC, rather than in a BCP. If that happens we could reference said RFC. > 3. Special Rules for Blacklists Listing Insecure Machines. > See the SPEWS FAQ for why this is a bad idea. > 3.1. No Automated Probes [Scanning or Probes? - inconsistent]. > Scanning in response to an attempt to email a system for the first > time seems reasonable to me. And yet there is a lot of disagreement about this (see multiple discussions about RR doing this). > In general, it seems like the authors don't have much respect for the > tireless *volunteer* BL maintainers and need to spend more time > thinking about things from the POV of the BL maintainers. On the contrary, the authors have thought about this a great deal, and have discussed the issues here with blocklist maintainers to try and reach a reasonable level for the BCP that is both achievable, and also a high enough bar that the BCP is actually useful. If we set the rules so flexible that anything is possible then there would be little point in publishing it. Matt. ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email ______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue May 4 09:48:28 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 JAA01438 for ; Tue, 4 May 2004 09:48:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BL0Et-00042v-Pd for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 09:45:42 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i44DjdDx015553 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 May 2004 09:45:39 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BL0Cu-0003Lm-WE for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 09:43:37 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA00994 for ; Tue, 4 May 2004 09:43:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BL0Ct-0002qI-53 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 09:43:35 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BL0C2-0002mi-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 09:42:43 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BL0BD-0002je-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 09:41:51 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BL05b-0000mL-2K; Tue, 04 May 2004 09:36:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BKzxT-00072A-LS for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 09:27:39 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA00215 for ; Tue, 4 May 2004 09:27:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BKzxP-0001pX-Us for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 09:27:35 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BKzwX-0001n1-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 09:26:42 -0400 Received: from sc1.scconsult.com ([66.73.230.190] helo=toaster.scconsult.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BKzw1-0001kV-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 09:26:09 -0400 Received: from [192.168.254.12] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by toaster.scconsult.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C90A111CCE for ; Tue, 4 May 2004 09:26:00 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: bill@fireproof.scconsult.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <81C76EB8-9DB7-11D8-9BDB-000A95AC67AA@messagelabs.com> References: <200404301430.i3UEUVu24576@panix5.panix.com> <49E0F0F9-9AC2-11D8-BEA4-000A95AC67AA@messagelabs.com> <409464E8.40705@americasm01.nt.com> <4096C5DD.6030604@elvey.com> <81C76EB8-9DB7-11D8-9BDB-000A95AC67AA@messagelabs.com> To: asrg@ietf.org From: Bill Cole Subject: Re: [Asrg] draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-00 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, 4 May 2004 09:25:38 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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 11:40 AM +0100 5/4/04, Matt Sergeant wrote: [...] >> 2.10. Shutdowns MUST Be Done in a Graceful Fashion. >>I suggest a specific result code be codified to represent [urgent >>action needed by admin, e.g. this list has shut down, etc.] > >We tried to avoid codifying a specific shutdown procedure. We would >hope to see that appear in an RFC, rather than in a BCP. If that >happens we could reference said RFC. Do you mean a descendant of http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-irtf-asrg-dnsbl-00.txt or some additional RFC? Outlines for orderly shutdown of DNSBL's have been composed and posted publicly in 3 waves over the past 3 years (unfortunately in the first 2 cases, AFTER operators have listed the entire net to drive away users) and it is not a complicated matter or really a very controversial issue, it's just quite specific. It boils down to a method for shutting down any zone: add a long-TTL NS record for the zone into the parent zone with a RHS of either "." or a name in the parent zone with a long-TTL A record with a RHS of either '.' or to an address in 127/8 other than 127.0.0.1. The only reason that orderly shutdown has ever been an issue is that the most noisily terminated DNSBL's have been run by people who sadly have been clueless about DNS. There's no need for a complex dance of special entries in-zone alerting users to the death of a DNSBL, giving way to eventually just going dead or listing the entire net. >> 3. Special Rules for Blacklists Listing Insecure Machines. >>See the SPEWS FAQ for why this is a bad idea. >> 3.1. No Automated Probes [Scanning or Probes? - inconsistent]. >>Scanning in response to an attempt to email a system for the first >>time seems reasonable to me. > >And yet there is a lot of disagreement about this (see multiple >discussions about RR doing this). There are huge disagreements over when security probes without explicit permission might be acceptable. It is surprising to me that there is not already an RFC of some sort covering that, as it is an issue that extends far beyond the issue of spam. >>In general, it seems like the authors don't have much respect for >>the tireless *volunteer* BL maintainers and need to spend more time >>thinking about things from the POV of the BL maintainers. > >On the contrary, the authors have thought about this a great deal, >and have discussed the issues here with blocklist maintainers to try >and reach a reasonable level for the BCP that is both achievable, >and also a high enough bar that the BCP is actually useful. If we >set the rules so flexible that anything is possible then there would >be little point in publishing it. Do you consider technical best practices relevant to this BCP or not? I ask because it seems that the draft is focused on policy best practices, and while that is useful it is not the low-hanging fruit. A few tips for those well-meaning but not always technically adept volunteers would be good, and facilitate things like orderly shutdown. For example: MUST have NS records for the base zone and any sub-zone that represents a discrete list (this facilitates scalability and hence attack resistance of a list, as well as making orderly shutdown more orderly) MUST NOT make the availability of documentation of the list dependant on continued operation of DNS for the list's zone. (This keeps the documentation of a list out of the line of fire of attacks and allows for the continued existence of something like a web page saying "It's dead!" even after an orderly shutdown) SHOULD NOT have any records in the DNSBL zone other than DNSBL entries (again, this assists in orderly shutdown, because it makes the zone used fo0r the list disposable) MAY list loopback, RFC1918, LINK-LOCAL, class D/E, and any other permanently reserved or special-use IPv4 addresses and MUST publicly document any such listings. (It is a rare month when no one expresses shock in public that some address with purely local meaning is in some DNSBL. It has been suggested that some reserved address be used as a test for whether a list is alive. ) Those may be slightly debatable on strength, but it seems to me that if there is going to be a formal codification and documentation of DNSBL practice, it would be a good thing to at least alert people referring to the documents to some of the technical pitfalls hit by prior operators and how to avoid them. -- Bill Cole bill@scconsult.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue May 4 09:58:26 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 JAA01933 for ; Tue, 4 May 2004 09:58:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BL0Hd-0004nn-EU for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 09:48:29 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i44DmTiT018454 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 May 2004 09:48:29 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BL0F8-00043d-PO for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 09:45:54 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA01198 for ; Tue, 4 May 2004 09:45:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BL0F6-00031I-Uq for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 09:45:53 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BL0EI-0002wc-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 09:45:02 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BL0DZ-0002sJ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 09:44:17 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BL05b-0000mX-TM; Tue, 04 May 2004 09:36:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BKzyS-0007XF-Tj for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 09:28:40 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA00239 for ; Tue, 4 May 2004 09:28:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BKzyR-0001sR-7f for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 09:28:39 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BKzxQ-0001pk-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 09:27:37 -0400 Received: from sc1.scconsult.com ([66.73.230.190] helo=toaster.scconsult.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BKzwj-0001nF-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 09:26:53 -0400 Received: from [192.168.254.12] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by toaster.scconsult.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 596E1111CDB for ; Tue, 4 May 2004 09:26:52 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: bill@fireproof.scconsult.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <16535.6408.920278.560504@world.std.com> References: <200404301430.i3UEUVu24576@panix5.panix.com> <49E0F0F9-9AC2-11D8-BEA4-000A95AC67AA@messagelabs.com> <409464E8.40705@americasm01.nt.com> <4096C5DD.6030604@elvey.com> <16535.6408.920278.560504@world.std.com> To: asrg@ietf.org From: Bill Cole Subject: Re: [Asrg] draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-00 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, 4 May 2004 09:26:50 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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 12:16 AM -0400 5/4/04, Barry Shein wrote: >On May 3, 2004 at 15:21 matthew@elvey.com (Matthew Elvey) wrote: > > In general, it seems like the authors don't have much respect for the > > tireless *volunteer* BL maintainers and need to spend more time thinking > > about things from the POV of the BL maintainers. > > >I think one of the worst features of BLs are that they're often run by >volunteers who can then feel sorry for themselves when they get in >over their heads. > >But so long as that's disclosed I have no problem with volunteer BLs >existing, per se, not my point. I just don't think the fact that >they're (often) volunteer staffed should be grounds to give them a lot >of slack on BCP. Absolutely correct, indeed the reason there needs to be a BCP is that there is an established history of some of those amateur volunteers (including one owner of a small ISP) doing spectacularly bad things with their DNSBL's. Draft 00 doesn't cover the most common and easiest to avoid technical sloppiness of DNSBL's. I hope that is going to be fixed. -- Bill Cole bill@scconsult.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue May 4 11:29:06 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 LAA08320 for ; Tue, 4 May 2004 11:29:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BL1nK-0003HX-T1 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 11:25:19 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i44FPIKg012615 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 May 2004 11:25:18 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BL1jj-0001v2-VS for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 11:21:36 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA07839 for ; Tue, 4 May 2004 11:21:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BL1jj-0002ZT-40 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 11:21:35 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BL1iq-0002Tg-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 11:20:41 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BL1hm-0002Ov-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 11:19:34 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BL1dP-0000Gl-4P; Tue, 04 May 2004 11:15:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BL1Z8-0007yY-C2 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 11:10:38 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA07200 for ; Tue, 4 May 2004 11:10:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BL1Z5-0001cR-Lp for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 11:10:35 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BL1Y5-0001WZ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 11:09:33 -0400 Received: from mail22.messagelabs.com ([62.231.131.211]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BL1Wa-0001Ky-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 11:09:15 -0400 X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: msergeant@messagelabs.com X-Msg-Ref: server-17.tower-22.messagelabs.com!1083682808!8329746 X-StarScan-Version: 5.2.10; banners=messagelabs.com,-,- X-Originating-IP: [212.125.75.70] Received: (qmail 16993 invoked from network); 4 May 2004 15:00:08 -0000 Received: from smtp-1.star.net.uk (212.125.75.70) by server-17.tower-22.messagelabs.com with SMTP; 4 May 2004 15:00:08 -0000 Received: (qmail 9203 invoked from network); 4 May 2004 14:57:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO matt-dev.int.star.co.uk) (195.216.14.9) by smtp-1.star.net.uk with SMTP; 4 May 2004 14:57:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 30588 invoked from network); 3 May 2004 14:47:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?10.2.100.139?) (10.2.100.139) by matt?dev.int.star.co.uk with SMTP; 3 May 2004 14:47:04 -0000 In-Reply-To: References: <200404301430.i3UEUVu24576@panix5.panix.com> <49E0F0F9-9AC2-11D8-BEA4-000A95AC67AA@messagelabs.com> <409464E8.40705@americasm01.nt.com> <4096C5DD.6030604@elvey.com> <81C76EB8-9DB7-11D8-9BDB-000A95AC67AA@messagelabs.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v613) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: asrg@ietf.org From: Matt Sergeant Subject: Re: [Asrg] draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-00 To: Bill Cole X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.613) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 4 May 2004 16:00:04 +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=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 4 May 2004, at 14:25, Bill Cole wrote: > Do you consider technical best practices relevant to this BCP or not? I'd like input from Chris on this question as I had not really considered technical best practices. Matt. ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email ______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue May 4 12:54:39 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 MAA12318 for ; Tue, 4 May 2004 12:54:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BL3AV-0001zF-Ic for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 12:53:19 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i44GrJL8007633 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 May 2004 12:53:19 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BL2zC-0007t5-Ix for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 12:41:38 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA11919 for ; Tue, 4 May 2004 12:41:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BL2zA-0001RY-Up for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 12:41:37 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BL2yD-0001NZ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 12:40:38 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BL2xN-0001JZ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 12:39:45 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BL2vh-0006bj-IL; Tue, 04 May 2004 12:38:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BL2of-0004XL-NS for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 12:30:45 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA11481 for ; Tue, 4 May 2004 12:30:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BL2oe-0000VZ-6j for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 12:30:44 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BL2nc-0000PV-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 12:29:41 -0400 Received: from zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com ([47.129.242.57]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BL2mm-0000F9-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 12:28:48 -0400 Received: from zcard309.ca.nortel.com (zcard309.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.69]) by zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.6/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id i44GSBL28859 for ; Tue, 4 May 2004 12:28:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard309.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id JCT83PGM; Tue, 4 May 2004 12:28:12 -0400 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (clewis-2.ca.nortel.com [47.129.150.65]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id JM9FVCNF; Tue, 4 May 2004 12:28:11 -0400 Message-ID: <4097C49A.70109@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.5 (Windows/20040207) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-00 References: <200404301430.i3UEUVu24576@panix5.panix.com> <49E0F0F9-9AC2-11D8-BEA4-000A95AC67AA@messagelabs.com> <409464E8.40705@americasm01.nt.com> <4096C5DD.6030604@elvey.com> In-Reply-To: <4096C5DD.6030604@elvey.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 04 May 2004 12:28:10 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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: > 2.2. Same Criteria for Listing and Delisting. > The discussion has made it clear to me that this is a meaningless entry; > I can think of no blacklist policy that would and should be considered a > violation. I can think of a couple. Here's one: a blacklist entry that was created solely on the existance of an open proxy, yet delisting required that the system owner provided rDNS and postmaster accessibility IN ADDITION to fixing the proxy. Desirable yes, but, this goes beyond the BLs stated purpose, and unnecessarily conflates anti-spam with non-spam issues. rDNS/postmaster were irrelevant to the original listing, they should remain irrelevant to a subsequent delisting. > 2.3. Listing/Delisting Criteria MUST Be Easily Available. > There needs to be some accomodation/clarification. Is > http://www.spamcop.net/fom-serve/cache/297.html good enough for 2.1 and > 2.3? I can't tell! This needs to be clear, e.g. is this ok?: "Some > rules are spelled out in vague terms to slow down spammer adaptation." That was deliberately somewhat vague, rather than requiring explicit details, for precisely the reasons you indicate. For example, the CBL does not enumerate exact detection heuristics, but does provide what its criteria is: "exhibits symptoms of being compromised by a spam trojan or open proxy". The degree to which its divulged its criteria hasn't affected its effectiveness - probably the most effective/FP-averse blacklist ever built [It blocks something on the order of 70-75% of all of our spam all by itself, with almost indetectable FPs. The next best public BL we use is the SBL at 16%. SORBSproxy would be around 40%, but we don't use it because of its very high overlap with the CBL and the storage requirements of using it.] > 2.4. Collateral Damage Only as a Measure of Last Resort. > Some claim SPEWS violates this, but SPEWS itself disagrees (and seems to > at times act specifically to avoid it) and as those parties will always > disagree, I see no benefit to the entry. It provides general guidance. This is a BCP, not a RFC. It is intended to forestall "blacklist an entire country because of one spam". Some may claim that SPEWS violates this, but not me - it's abundantly clear that SPEWS follows an escalation path. The fact that someone might disagree whether a given BL complies is the simple nature of BCPs. > 2.5. Listings SHOULD Be Temporary. > No. Location based RBLs are perfectly legitimate, useful, and there's no > reason for them to be temporary. Good point. > 2.6. MUST Have a Direct Non-Public Way to Request Removal. > This is actually poor practice IMO. BCP would be to NOT have a > non-public way to be contacted. Works well to prevent SLAPP suits. > Requiring any contact attempt be via a public forum is BCP. It's least commonly used practise. Almost all BLs maintain a contact email address or web site of some sort. The BCP doesn't require the operators of the BL to identify themselves. Eg: the CBL is in compliance. So is ORDB. SPEWS could, if they wished to, implement a non-public channel of some sort without exposing themselves. Even by anonymizing relays. Unfortunately, their policy of "replies by NANAE/NANAB" unnecessarily politicizes the process, and results in a very large number of sites simply ignoring them altogether. Few ISPs dare the wrath of NANAE, much as we would wish otherwise. [This is my only BCP-derived criticism of SPEWS btw.] > 2.7. Removals MUST Be Prompt. > This should be a matter of policy. "BLs _that claim to be prompt_ must > be prompt" makes sense. I think this may be a good change. > 2.8. Removals MUST Be Possible in Absence of > List Maintainer. > 2.9. MUST Have an Audit Trail. > No. BLs based on spamtraps are BCP. Many spammers listwash spamtraps if > they can. NOT providing a full public audit trail is BCP! We didn't say what the "audit trail" was. A date stamp (perturbed if you wish) of detection would be adequate. CBL does that. > 2.10. Shutdowns MUST Be Done in a Graceful Fashion. > I suggest a specific result code be codified to represent [urgent action > needed by admin, e.g. this list has shut down, etc.] We'd like to, unfortunately, this isn't backwards compatible - most implementations would treat "a specific result code" as being "listed", resulting in "block the world". I've seen some proposals for DNS server tricks that would serve the dual purpose of decommissioning the blacklists and getting the queries _off_ the no-longer-BL server. But we thought that would take to long to codify. If someone wants to propose something, it would be good. > 3. Special Rules for Blacklists Listing Insecure Machines. > See the SPEWS FAQ for why this is a bad idea. Which section? > 3.1. No Automated Probes [Scanning or Probes? - inconsistent]. > Scanning in response to an attempt to email a system for the first time > seems reasonable to me. Not to me, because it's too far along the line of "we scan 0/0"). Scanning/probing them in response to an email they try to send you is different. > 3.2. Reasonable Re-scan Periods. > In general, it seems like the authors don't have much respect for the > tireless *volunteer* BL maintainers and need to spend more time thinking > about things from the POV of the BL maintainers. You're making at least three huge assumptions here, and I assure you, all are incorrect. Unfortunately, aside from suggesting you google for my name on Usenet (eg: NANA.bulletins) in the 1994-2000 period, answering this directly would have you holding me to a higher standard than our proposed BCP would. In other words, what makes you think I'm not running a public BL and know full well that POV? ;-) _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue May 4 13:18:33 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 NAA13847 for ; Tue, 4 May 2004 13:18:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BL3Qm-0007yR-UK for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 13:10:08 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i44HA8w5030635 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 May 2004 13:10:08 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BL3Kw-0005F5-44 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 13:04:06 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA12840 for ; Tue, 4 May 2004 13:04:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BL3Ku-0003QC-BQ for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 13:04:04 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BL3Js-0003IZ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 13:03:01 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BL3Ii-0003A7-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 13:01:48 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BL3BF-0002XT-VA; Tue, 04 May 2004 12:54:05 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BL346-0000aS-QI for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 12:46:42 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA12069 for ; Tue, 4 May 2004 12:46:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BL345-0001pk-4f for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 12:46:41 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BL33B-0001lr-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 12:45:46 -0400 Received: from zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com ([47.129.242.57]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BL32k-0001hB-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 12:45:18 -0400 Received: from zcard307.ca.nortel.com (zcard307.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.67]) by zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.6/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id i44GikL00516 for ; Tue, 4 May 2004 12:44:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard307.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id J6NPG35M; Tue, 4 May 2004 12:44:46 -0400 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (clewis-2.ca.nortel.com [47.129.150.65]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id JM9FVCN4; Tue, 4 May 2004 12:44:46 -0400 Message-ID: <4097C87D.8000108@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.5 (Windows/20040207) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: ASRG list Subject: Re: [Asrg] draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-00 References: <20040502215908.GA32116@m450> <16534.49516.482100.934754@world.std.com> In-Reply-To: <16534.49516.482100.934754@world.std.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 04 May 2004 12:44:45 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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 Barry Shein wrote: > I certainly agree with the spirit of what Walter Dnes is saying below. > > Looking at the BCP draft makes me feel like I'm watching a bunch of > cub scouts propose how to deal with Al Qaeda. I had to deal with the GruBourVulis - you remember that, don't you? I assure you, I know rather more about this than a cub scout... > On May 2, 2004 at 17:59 waltdnes@waltdnes.org (Walter Dnes) wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 03:23:10PM +0100, Matt Sergeant wrote > > > Our aim with the BCP was not to fit it around _all_ current practices, > > > but to fit it around best practices. If you have good reasons for > > > going against the guidelines please state them and we can consider > > > the modification of the BCP. > > The BCP document assumes that people are nice, or at least polite. If > > they were, there wouldn't be a need for DNSbl's in the first place. In > > a "kinder gentler" world, paragraph 2.6 MUST-have-a-contact requirement > > would make sense. However, in real life, spammers aren't nice. Consider > > the following... We're well aware of them. Amongst other things, Matt and I were physically present when Felstein went after Alan Murphy of SpamHaus (and the FTC commissioner ;-) You're presupposing the BCP requires BL operators to identify themselves. It does not. ORDB, CBL and many other BLs do not. Just a non-public contact address or web site. Via anonymizing relays if desired. > > If I sound passionate, it's because DNSbls help keep my email usable, > > which gives me a personal stake in the success/failure of DNSbls. If > > they go under, I'll either switch to whitelist-only, or possibly give up > > on email altogether. Put me in for a big ditto on that. This BCP should have almost zero effect on current useful BLs. Furthermore, I suspect that this will encourage more large sites to use BLs. Which is a huge win for BLs and anti-spam. > > In terms of improvements to this BCP, I have an idea that would render > > the rest of the BCP moot... The primary intent behind the BCP was to give BL operators an understanding that they should formalize their operations well enough to allow ISPs (or individuals) to make informed choices on what BL they use. To make it clear to them, for example, whether spite listings were to be expected, or whether you could rely on the BL's "reasonably timely" response to problem reports. In other words, accurate depictions of what the BL does, how well they're run, to help a site or user determine how much trust to place in the BL. Sites and users need to know these things in order to make informed choices. I don't think BCP'ing a requirement that ISPs permit their users choice as to which BL to use is practical, desirable or even useful. Indeed, such a BCP would be a complete waste of time for _us_, because our users (employees) don't get that option by policy. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue May 4 13:39:36 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 NAA14969 for ; Tue, 4 May 2004 13:39:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BL3rW-00073V-K4 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 13:37:46 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i44HbkOr027110 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 May 2004 13:37:46 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BL3jn-0004x3-RS for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 13:29:47 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA14600 for ; Tue, 4 May 2004 13:29:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BL3jl-0006Ha-R9 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 13:29:45 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BL3is-0006BG-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 13:28:51 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BL3i2-00065r-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 13:27:58 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BL3ZV-0001vc-5Y; Tue, 04 May 2004 13:19:09 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BL3XO-0000og-9p for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 13:16:58 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA13750 for ; Tue, 4 May 2004 13:16:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BL3XM-0004wd-2g for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 13:16:56 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BL3WX-0004qb-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 13:16:05 -0400 Received: from zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com ([47.129.242.57]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BL3Vo-0004jr-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 13:15:20 -0400 Received: from zcard309.ca.nortel.com (zcard309.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.69]) by zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.6/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id i44HEmC09054 for ; Tue, 4 May 2004 13:14:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard309.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id JCT83QM3; Tue, 4 May 2004 13:14:49 -0400 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (clewis-2.ca.nortel.com [47.129.150.65]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id JM9FVCPC; Tue, 4 May 2004 13:14:49 -0400 Message-ID: <4097CF87.2040204@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.5 (Windows/20040207) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-00 References: <200404301430.i3UEUVu24576@panix5.panix.com> <49E0F0F9-9AC2-11D8-BEA4-000A95AC67AA@messagelabs.com> <409464E8.40705@americasm01.nt.com> <4096C5DD.6030604@elvey.com> <81C76EB8-9DB7-11D8-9BDB-000A95AC67AA@messagelabs.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 04 May 2004 13:14:47 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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 Matt Sergeant wrote: > On 4 May 2004, at 14:25, Bill Cole wrote: >> Do you consider technical best practices relevant to this BCP or not? > I'd like input from Chris on this question as I had not really > considered technical best practices. Technical best practises are best suited for John Levine's DNSBL RFC. Most of the things you'd want to be there should be elevated to RFC "MUST"s or "SHOULD"s, because that is what DNSBL "client" implementations need to program to. I've always considered our BCP to be a "policy" BCP, not a technical one. An operational guide. That being said, John Levine and I debated whether "DNSBL shutdown" should be documented in his RFC or our BCP. I _personally_ would have preferred it being in the RFC. However, the "implementations" of high-volume DNSBL shutdown we've seen heretofore have all been, um, "suboptimal" ;-) [+], and I as yet haven't seen a "reasonable" one yet (at least one that I understood. I know someone who has commented at length on "how to do this right", perhaps I can get a detailed explanation. I talked to Yakov and John about this and they both suggested we leave this undefined in this draft rather than expend time trying to invent a wholly new procedure. [+] In some cases I can't say that I blame them... But it would be nice to have a suggested method so that BL operators don't find themselves in a bind later. As one possible example: _don't_ use a BL domain name you wouldn't mind deregistering later. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue May 4 13:43:26 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 NAA15248 for ; Tue, 4 May 2004 13:43:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BL3v6-0000CJ-Uf for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 13:41:29 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i44HfSwC000751 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 May 2004 13:41:28 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BL3tc-00088e-QQ for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 13:39:56 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA15017 for ; Tue, 4 May 2004 13:39:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BL3ta-0007BN-LX for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 13:39:54 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BL3sa-000747-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 13:38:53 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BL3s6-0006yJ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 13:38:22 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BL3kz-0005PT-2g; Tue, 04 May 2004 13:31:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BL3dy-0002yO-Lj for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 13:23:46 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA14194 for ; Tue, 4 May 2004 13:23:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BL3dw-0005f1-LZ for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 13:23:44 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BL3cz-0005a1-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 13:22:46 -0400 Received: from mail3.panix.com ([166.84.1.74]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BL3cE-0005VR-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 13:21:58 -0400 Received: from panix5.panix.com (panix5.panix.com [166.84.1.5]) by mail3.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC44098323 for ; Tue, 4 May 2004 13:21:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from sethb@localhost) by panix5.panix.com (8.11.6p2-a/8.8.8/PanixN1.1) id i44HLvj14625; Tue, 4 May 2004 13:21:57 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200405041721.i44HLvj14625@panix5.panix.com> From: Seth Breidbart To: asrg@ietf.org In-reply-to: <4097C87D.8000108@americasm01.nt.com> (clewis@nortelnetworks.com) Subject: Re: [Asrg] draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-00 References: <20040502215908.GA32116@m450> <16534.49516.482100.934754@world.std.com> <4097C87D.8000108@americasm01.nt.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, 4 May 2004 13:21:57 -0400 (EDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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 Chris Lewis wrote: > I don't think BCP'ing a requirement that ISPs permit their users choice > as to which BL to use is practical, desirable or even useful. I think that is the best commercial practice; however, it's for ISPs, not the lists themselves. Is there any way that a list can either aid or prevent an ISP if the ISP wishes (not) to provide such granularity? I think the point is moot wrt lists. > Indeed, such a BCP would be a complete waste of time for _us_, because > our users (employees) don't get that option by policy. You're a company, not an ISP. (Even an ISP's practies wrt its employees might well differ from those wrt its customers.) Seth _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue May 4 14:22:46 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 OAA17614 for ; Tue, 4 May 2004 14:22:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BL4QS-0003B0-3u for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 14:13:52 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i44IDqsf012210 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 May 2004 14:13:52 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BL4Id-0000Pa-TI for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 14:05:48 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA16411 for ; Tue, 4 May 2004 14:05:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BL4Ib-000269-Kk for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 14:05:45 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BL4He-0001zr-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 14:04:47 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BL4Gk-0001uV-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 14:03:50 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BL4B8-0006XT-0B; Tue, 04 May 2004 13:58:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BL41E-0001h6-Jx for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 13:47:48 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA15500 for ; Tue, 4 May 2004 13:47:46 -0400 (EDT) From: gep2@terabites.com Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BL41C-0000FM-C2 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 13:47:46 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BL40I-00009i-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 13:46:51 -0400 Received: from sccrmhc13.comcast.net ([204.127.202.64]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BL3zP-0007m4-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 13:45:55 -0400 Received: from WinProxy.anywhere (c-67-164-154-5.client.comcast.net[67.164.154.5]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc13) with SMTP id <2004050417451901600d41j2e>; Tue, 4 May 2004 17:45:20 +0000 Received: from 192.168.0.30 by 192.168.0.1 (WinProxy); Tue, 4 May 2004 12:45:44 -0600 Received: from 192.168.0.240 (unverified [192.168.0.240]) by nts1.terabites.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Tue, 04 May 2004 12:55:40 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Asrg] draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-00 To: asrg@ietf.org Cc: mswish@microsoft.com In-Reply-To: <20040503160007.21250.13167.Mailman@www1.ietf.org> X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 04 May 2004 12:55:40 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,NO_REAL_NAME,RATWARE_EMWAC autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit [snip] > Unlike British Commonwealth countries (Britain, Canada, Australia, etc) the USA does *NOT* have an automatic "loser pays" clause for lawsuits. The USA gave the world SLAPP. Would you care to provide multi-million dollar funds in escrow to defend against such lawsuits and pay off any stupid judgements awarded by juries? The problem of "fat cat" lawsuits is because of there being "fat cats" to sue. One more of the (numerous) advantages of my fine-grained permissions-based recipient-established sender whitelist is that there are no global decisions being made which create any "fat cat" targets for lawsuits. The decisions to not accept E-mails from any given sender come by definition from the recipient, and I think it's VERY clear that recipients have the ABSOLUTE right to read or reject or simply ignore anything at all, for any reason that makes sense to them. What's a spammer going to do, sue his targets because they choose to not read his stuff he sends them? I think not! :-) > And it's not merely a case of money. I wouldn't be surprised if the mobsters behind some of the spammers resorted to contract killings to shut down impediments to their "bizniss". In a climate like this, I understand why the principals behind SPEWS seek anonymity. Please understand that we're dealing with a bunch of thugs, hooligans, and criminals. If we get into a streetfight against them whilst restricting ourselves to Marquis of Queensbury rules, we're guaranteed to lose. Good point. And again, my proposal (I feel) provides a definitive solution to this problem, too. Recipients of the spam/virus/worm simply drop it immediately, quietly, automatically, and with near-universal certainty straight into the trash. Nothing goes back to the spammer (nor anybody else, thus preventing "joe jobs"). Blacklists have the problem of (again) "joe jobbing" someone; my solution doesn't require (or allow!) that. Things that come in that are unwanted (dangerous attachments, unwanted or dangerous HTML, message too large from unknown sender, etc) simply go unceremoniously into the trash. If EVERYONE had that, spammers (like virus/worm authors) would simply end up having to find a new way of pursuing their "bizness" since E-mail simply wouldn't work for them anymore. OK, yeah, they'd probably move next to "malicious Web sites" as their primary vector for phishing and such, but at least (1) that's not a "push" technology, and (2) we'd have pretty well solved the E-mail problem. Then maybe we can next rendezvous on the IETF's new "anti-malicious-Website Research Group" (remember, you heard it here first). ;-) But at least WE would have pretty well accomplished OUR goal HERE. :-) Anyhow, back to the point... when RECIPIENTS have an easy, simple, fast, straightforward way to establish a fine-grained mesh filtering what they will and will not accept, and from who (and when there is no way for a spammer to INQUIRE to help them find out "open" victims) then spammers simply have no practical way to "guess" who will receive their stuff. Since almost nobody will (in practice) enable anybody to send them executable stuff (or tightly sealed archives, equally dangerous) we've virtually eliminated the E-mail propagation vector by which spambot zombies (or other spyware/malware/viruses) are established. Since unknown senders who send HTML have (by default) their messages filtered out, nearly every trick used by spammers and abusers to conceal the real content of their messages are suddenly denied to them. The result is limited-size plain ASCII text E-mail messages, which can generally be pretty well dealt with via good antispam content filtering (SpamAssassin or its followers). > If I sound passionate, it's because DNSbls help keep my email usable, which gives me a personal stake in the success/failure of DNSbls. It's only one of many approaches, although I agree it's a nice one. One of the (many) things that my present mail filter does is to T-can any incoming E-mail message which references domains that I've seen been hawked in previously received E-mail messages (and presently I add those to my personal list manually, so joe-jobbing isn't an issue). Presently I use the same HOSTS list as Windows uses for its DNS, so that even non-obvious cross-domain references from Web sites I might visit that point to those disreputable sites are similarly automatically and permanently disabled. > If they go under, I'll either switch to whitelist-only, or possibly give up on email altogether. Whitelist-only can, I believe, work **extremely** well if it's based on a finely grained set of permissions established for each given sender, and with a suitable default action that permits some (limited size, safe, HTML-free, attachment-free, don't "look like" spam) messages to arrive from previously unknown senders. [snip] > The real problem is ISPs who use the one-size-fits-all approach, and use the same DNSbl(s) for all their clients. Allow people to use which ever DNSbls they want, and the bad DNSbls lose users, and fade away. The problem with approaches like this is that the time constants that seem to be associated with such "free market" market corrections seem to be very, very slow when viewed on a human time scale. One might think that "market forces" would eventually force disreputable/dishonest/biased news media off the market too, but it doesn't seem to be happening (not in the USA, at least) and instead we're seeing more and more concentration of the press (tv/radio/newspaper) in the hands of those folks more interested in their own profits and agenda than in reporting the news. In the case of DNSbls we're likely to see increasing concentration in the hands of companies who (like those who make those offensive "Web content filters" imposed on libraries and such, which claim to make the Web "protected" for kids and against kiddie porn and the like, but which upon further inspection) seem to have much more troubling political/social agendas as well. I think that the solution for this, again, is to have the list of who people trust be largely managed by THEM, THEMSELF, and modifiable at will whenever they feel appropriate (both additions and removals). > DNSbls with good reputations would have lots of users. That's like saying that "radio stations which report the news honestly and without bias will have lots of listeners" but in fact, experience suggests that it's rather more the case that those who reinforce existing biases and prejudices get listeners and those who challenge their preconceptions aren't trusted (and especially when "most" sources seem to pander to their preconceptions). I don't like the idea of extending the "media monopoly" model to the Internet... it's a big enough problem already! > This would also provide ISPs some protection against lawsuits by spammers, because the ISP would not be responsible for an individual user's choice of blocking criteria. Good point, although I think that my proposal (a recipient-controlled fine-grained permissions list, based on who sent the message) is ultimately a better way of achieving the goal, and of dealing with the (very valid!) concern you've expressed. Gordon Peterson http://personal.terabites.com/ 1977-2002 Twenty-fifth anniversary year of Local Area Networking! Support free and fair US elections! http://stickers.defend-democracy.org 12/19/98: Partisan Republicans scornfully ignore the voters they "represent". 12/09/00: the date the Republican Party took down democracy in America. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue May 4 14:23:26 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 OAA17733 for ; Tue, 4 May 2004 14:23:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BL4QZ-0003JM-Nf for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 14:13:59 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i44IDxLO012724 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 May 2004 14:13:59 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BL4Li-0001wk-QN for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 14:08:58 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA16689 for ; Tue, 4 May 2004 14:08:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BL4Lg-0002Vl-EE for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 14:08:56 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BL4Ky-0002Q0-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 14:08:13 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BL4KA-0002II-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 14:07:22 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BL4BD-0006da-7T; Tue, 04 May 2004 13:58:07 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BL450-0002cG-Et for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 13:51:42 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA15653 for ; Tue, 4 May 2004 13:51:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BL44y-0000dM-5D for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 13:51:40 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BL440-0000Wo-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 13:50:41 -0400 Received: from zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com ([47.129.242.57]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BL433-0000NE-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 13:49:41 -0400 Received: from zcard307.ca.nortel.com (zcard307.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.67]) by zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.6/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id i44Hn8q13436 for ; Tue, 4 May 2004 13:49:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard307.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id J6NPGXGF; Tue, 4 May 2004 13:49:09 -0400 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (clewis-2.ca.nortel.com [47.129.150.65]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id JM9FVCQK; Tue, 4 May 2004 13:49:09 -0400 Message-ID: <4097D794.405@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.5 (Windows/20040207) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-00 References: <20040502215908.GA32116@m450> <16534.49516.482100.934754@world.std.com> <4097C87D.8000108@americasm01.nt.com> <200405041721.i44HLvj14625@panix5.panix.com> In-Reply-To: <200405041721.i44HLvj14625@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, 04 May 2004 13:49:08 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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 wrote: > Chris Lewis wrote: > > >>I don't think BCP'ing a requirement that ISPs permit their users choice >>as to which BL to use is practical, desirable or even useful. > I think that is the best commercial practice; however, it's for ISPs, > not the lists themselves. Is there any way that a list can either aid > or prevent an ISP if the ISP wishes (not) to provide such granularity? > I think the point is moot wrt lists. Exactly. This BCP is about lists, not list users, yet, this BCP is intended to give the information that an ISP or user would want to know in order to make informed choices if such granularity was available, or even if it wasn't. >>Indeed, such a BCP would be a complete waste of time for _us_, because >>our users (employees) don't get that option by policy. > You're a company, not an ISP. (Even an ISP's practies wrt its > employees might well differ from those wrt its customers.) That's why I said that ;-) _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue May 4 16:38:23 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (www.iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA27902 for ; Tue, 4 May 2004 16:38:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BL6e1-0007Mk-1i for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 16:36:01 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i44Ka1Ta028314 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 May 2004 16:36:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BL6d1-000742-44 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 16:34:59 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA27645 for ; Tue, 4 May 2004 16:34:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BL6cz-0004AI-2s for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 16:34:57 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BL6c1-00043x-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 16:33:58 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BL6bm-0003xt-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 16:33:42 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BL6VJ-000573-Ip; Tue, 04 May 2004 16:27:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BL6RS-00043z-8K for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 16:23:02 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA27013 for ; Tue, 4 May 2004 16:22:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BL6RQ-0002hK-FK for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 16:23:00 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BL6QU-0002aN-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 16:22:02 -0400 Received: from pcls1.std.com ([192.74.137.141] helo=TheWorld.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BL6Q2-0002TF-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 16:21:34 -0400 Received: from world.std.com (root@world-e.std.com [69.38.147.5]) by TheWorld.com (8.12.8p1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i44KKnhQ010262; Tue, 4 May 2004 16:20:49 -0400 Received: (from bzs@localhost) by world.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA18120; Tue, 4 May 2004 16:20:49 -0400 (EDT) From: Barry Shein MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16535.64289.339558.154137@world.std.com> To: "Chris Lewis" Cc: ASRG list Subject: Re: [Asrg] draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-00 In-Reply-To: <4097C87D.8000108@americasm01.nt.com> References: <20040502215908.GA32116@m450> <16534.49516.482100.934754@world.std.com> <4097C87D.8000108@americasm01.nt.com> X-Mailer: VM 7.07 under Emacs 21.2.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 4 May 2004 16:20:49 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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 May 4, 2004 at 12:44 clewis@nortelnetworks.com (Chris Lewis) wrote: > Barry Shein wrote: > > > I certainly agree with the spirit of what Walter Dnes is saying below. > > > > Looking at the BCP draft makes me feel like I'm watching a bunch of > > cub scouts propose how to deal with Al Qaeda. > > I had to deal with the GruBourVulis - you remember that, don't you? I > assure you, I know rather more about this than a cub scout... To be perfectly honest, not really, tho I know the word is a combination of two or three names one of which is Steve Boursy and another is a guy named Grubor and I assume another Vulis. Did they ever shoot at you? -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD The World | Public Access Internet | Since 1989 *oo* _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue May 4 16:48:35 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (www.iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA28362 for ; Tue, 4 May 2004 16:48:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BL6oN-0001rw-Pi for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 16:46:44 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i44Kkh0h007179 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 May 2004 16:46:43 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BL6mX-0001Qy-DV for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 16:44:49 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA28172 for ; Tue, 4 May 2004 16:44:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BL6mV-0005JL-F4 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 16:44:47 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BL6lW-0005CD-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 16:43:47 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BL6kX-00053s-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 16:42:45 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BL6hw-0000B8-02; Tue, 04 May 2004 16:40:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BL6ex-0007cX-5O for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 16:36:59 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA27847 for ; Tue, 4 May 2004 16:36:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BL6ev-0004PL-5f for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 16:36:57 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BL6e7-0004JT-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 16:36:07 -0400 Received: from pigeon.verisign.com ([65.205.251.71]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BL6di-0004CF-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 16:35:42 -0400 Received: from mou1wnexc01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.53]) by pigeon.verisign.com (8.12.11/) with ESMTP id i44KZccv009673; Tue, 4 May 2004 13:35:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mou1wnexc01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) id ; Tue, 4 May 2004 13:35:38 -0700 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Barry Shein'" , Walter Dnes Cc: ASRG list Subject: RE: [Asrg] draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-00 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: Tue, 4 May 2004 13:35:36 -0700 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 > Looking at the BCP draft makes me feel like I'm watching a bunch of > cub scouts propose how to deal with Al Qaeda. It is not clear to me whether you mean that the cub scouts are the blacklists and the spammers Al Qaeda or the cub scouts are the ASRG and the blacklists are Al Qaeda. Hyperbole asside, either could be justified. One of the most depressing things about the current situation is the posturing of people who think that their macho attitudes make them hawks. The point about 'collateral damage' is not that it serves any strategic purpose, it does not, all it does is to feed the egos of the people who engage in it. It fails in the spam context for the same reason that it failled in the military context. Collateral damage forces parties who are natural allies to treat you as the enemy. There is a utility in certain very narrowly tailored blacklists. But they should never attempt to list any address for any other reason than it is a source of spam. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue May 4 17:33:53 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (www.iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA00634 for ; Tue, 4 May 2004 17:33:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BL7La-0002Dt-SI for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 17:21:03 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i44LL2ZE008534 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 May 2004 17:21:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BL7Hi-00013U-5i for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 17:17:02 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA00042 for ; Tue, 4 May 2004 17:16:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BL7Hf-0001fc-Uc for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 17:17:00 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BL7Gj-0001YH-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 17:16:02 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BL7Ft-0001RN-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 17:15:09 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BL781-0006bi-L1; Tue, 04 May 2004 17:07:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BL725-00052a-2X for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 17:00:53 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA29007 for ; Tue, 4 May 2004 17:00:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BL722-0007Ev-R5 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 17:00:50 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BL717-00078Y-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 16:59:53 -0400 Received: from zcars04e.nortelnetworks.com ([47.129.242.56]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BL70L-0006w6-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 16:59:05 -0400 Received: from zcard307.ca.nortel.com (zcard307.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.67]) by zcars04e.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.6/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id i44KwXk24806 for ; Tue, 4 May 2004 16:58:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard307.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id J6NPH301; Tue, 4 May 2004 16:58:33 -0400 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (clewis-2.ca.nortel.com [47.129.150.65]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id JM9FVCWH; Tue, 4 May 2004 16:58:33 -0400 Message-ID: <409803F9.6080908@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.5 (Windows/20040207) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: ASRG list Subject: Re: [Asrg] draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-00 References: <20040502215908.GA32116@m450> <16534.49516.482100.934754@world.std.com> <4097C87D.8000108@americasm01.nt.com> <16535.64289.339558.154137@world.std.com> In-Reply-To: <16535.64289.339558.154137@world.std.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 04 May 2004 16:58:33 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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 Barry Shein wrote: > On May 4, 2004 at 12:44 clewis@nortelnetworks.com (Chris Lewis) wrote: > > Barry Shein wrote: > > > I certainly agree with the spirit of what Walter Dnes is saying below. > > > Looking at the BCP draft makes me feel like I'm watching a bunch of > > > cub scouts propose how to deal with Al Qaeda. > > I had to deal with the GruBourVulis - you remember that, don't you? I > > assure you, I know rather more about this than a cub scout... > To be perfectly honest, not really, tho I know the word is a > combination of two or three names one of which is Steve Boursy and > another is a guy named Grubor and I assume another Vulis. > Did they ever shoot at you? Just about everything short of that, including death threats, $50K "rewards" for my demise, and bogus police complaints (about stealing > $500,000 worth of Suns on other people's credit cards) etc. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue May 4 17:38:23 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (www.iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA00921 for ; Tue, 4 May 2004 17:38:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BL7Y1-0006Gb-8W for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 17:33:53 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i44LXr8o024081 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 May 2004 17:33:53 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BL7MN-0002ZN-Uq for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 17:21:51 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA00240 for ; Tue, 4 May 2004 17:21:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BL7ML-0002Dn-Mh for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 17:21:49 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BL7LS-00026g-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 17:20:54 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BL7Kb-00020j-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 17:20:01 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BL7Bs-0007qz-Hl; Tue, 04 May 2004 17:11:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BL76G-0006Dg-Eh for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 17:05:12 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA29208 for ; Tue, 4 May 2004 17:05:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BL76E-0007ln-9L for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 17:05:10 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BL75P-0007dv-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 17:04:20 -0400 Received: from mail.salmark.net ([64.23.85.10]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BL74e-0007W9-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 17:03:32 -0400 Received: from [212.158.247.25] (helo=pbdesktop) by mail.salmark.net with asmtp (Exim 3.33 #2) id 1BL74b-00023i-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 17:03:29 -0400 Message-ID: <086101c4321b$4a045440$0a46a8c0@pbdesktop> From: "Peter Bowyer" To: "ASRG list" References: Subject: Re: [Asrg] draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-00 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 4 May 2004 22:03:41 +0100 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > > > There is a utility in certain very narrowly tailored blacklists. > But they should never attempt to list any address for any other > reason than it is a source of spam. No - there's room for blacklists with differing policies. What's important is for those policies to be published and adhered to, so that users can choose which ones they want to use. Which is where we came in, I think..... Peter -- Peter Bowyer - Freelance Technical Architect and Writer peter bowyer.org _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue May 4 17:43:33 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (www.iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA01194 for ; Tue, 4 May 2004 17:43:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BL7d6-0007ot-EG for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 17:39:08 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i44Ld8g8030054 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 May 2004 17:39:08 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BL7Z4-0006XX-JX for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 17:34:58 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA00772 for ; Tue, 4 May 2004 17:34:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BL7Z2-0003Yf-5Q for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 17:34:56 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BL7Y4-0003Q2-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 17:33:57 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BL7X4-0003HX-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 17:32:54 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BL7La-0002CA-2O; Tue, 04 May 2004 17:21:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BL7CH-00082F-DD for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 17:11:25 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA29797 for ; Tue, 4 May 2004 17:11:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BL7CF-0000yt-5y for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 17:11:23 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BL7BZ-0000or-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 17:10:42 -0400 Received: from [66.98.212.93] (helo=tin.nixcartel.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BL7AB-0000YB-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 17:09:15 -0400 Received: from dvb.homelinux.org (unknown [202.88.170.34]) by tin.nixcartel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A55101AC06B for ; Tue, 4 May 2004 16:15:36 -0500 (CDT) Received: by dvb.homelinux.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id 8F4DE34020; Wed, 5 May 2004 02:39:00 +0530 (IST) From: Devdas Bhagat To: ASRG list Subject: Re: [Asrg] draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-00 Message-ID: <20040505023900.A7859@evita.devdas.geek> Reply-To: Devdas Bhagat References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: ; from pbaker@verisign.com on Tue, May 04, 2004 at 01:35:36PM -0700 X-Message-Flag: Friends protect friends from Microsoft Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 02:39:00 +0530 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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 04/05/04 13:35 -0700, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > The point about 'collateral damage' is not that it serves any > strategic purpose, it does not, all it does is to feed the egos > of the people who engage in it. It fails in the spam context > for the same reason that it failled in the military context. > Collateral damage forces parties who are natural allies to treat > you as the enemy. Collateral damage is a bad choice of terms. DNSBLs are *passive* systems. Choosing to block mail from any system based on a random criterion is the choice of the administrator of the blocking system. Rather than trying to stop the spammer, people using the escalated blocks are trying to stop the spam supporting ISP from sending them email. Rather than allowing the ISP to keep the spammers money as well as that of the legitimate users, the people using escalated listings are forcing a choice of what customers the ISP wishes to keep. "We aren't blocking you, we are blocking your spammer supporting ISP" is a rather frequent refrain among SPEWS users (to take an extreme example), or among users of blackholes.us (yet another extreme example). By funding the spammer supporting ISP, those people being termed as collateral damage are showing an opinion in favour of the ISPs behaviour. Other administrators choose to disapprove of this and boycott those email originators until they fix their problems. > > There is a utility in certain very narrowly tailored blacklists. > But they should never attempt to list any address for any other > reason than it is a source of spam. What happens when the ISP in question refuses to remove the spammer(s) and you keep getting hit by their traffic? Think of it as a trade embargo, and it makes a lot more sense. Devdas Bhagat _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue May 4 17:43:33 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (www.iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA01193 for ; Tue, 4 May 2004 17:43:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BL7d5-0007oE-G8 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 17:39:07 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i44Ld7Yj030014 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 May 2004 17:39:07 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BL7YJ-0006VA-5G for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 17:34:11 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA00686 for ; Tue, 4 May 2004 17:34:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BL7YG-0003RZ-PN for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 17:34:08 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BL7XK-0003JI-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 17:33:11 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BL7WW-0003BX-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 17:32:20 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BL7LY-0002Ap-OA; Tue, 04 May 2004 17:21:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BL7By-00081x-EE for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 17:11:06 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA29749 for ; Tue, 4 May 2004 17:11:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BL7Bw-0000wn-2M for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 17:11:04 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BL7As-0000jE-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 17:09:59 -0400 Received: from out2.smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.26]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BL794-0000ON-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 17:08:06 -0400 Received: from server2.messagingengine.com (server2.internal [10.202.2.133]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5C71AFA2C3; Tue, 4 May 2004 17:03:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: by server2.messagingengine.com (Postfix, from userid 99) id 38A00715C2; Tue, 4 May 2004 17:03:42 -0400 (EDT) Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME::Lite 1.3 (F2.71; T1.001; A1.51; B2.12; Q2.03) From: "Matthew Elvey" To: "Matt Sergeant" , asrg@ietf.org X-Sasl-Enc: vFOV8pq0LYTJB+F9GBnEZg 1083704622 Message-Id: <1083704622.5031.185641498@webmail.messagingengine.com> Subject: Re: [Asrg] draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-00 References: <200404301430.i3UEUVu24576@panix5.panix.com> <49E0F0F9-9AC2-11D8-BEA4-000A95AC67AA@messagelabs.com> <409464E8.40705@americasm01.nt.com> <4096C5DD.6030604@elvey.com> <81C76EB8-9DB7-11D8-9BDB-000A95AC67AA@messagelabs.com> In-Reply-To: <81C76EB8-9DB7-11D8-9BDB-000A95AC67AA@messagelabs.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 04 May 2004 14:03:42 -0700 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Tue, 4 May 2004 11:40:48 +0100, "Matt Sergeant" said: > I'll address some specific points, and hope that Chris can comment on > those I've avoided. > > On 3 May 2004, at 23:21, Matthew Elvey wrote: > > > 2.4. Collateral Damage Only as a Measure of Last Resort. > > Some claim SPEWS violates this, but SPEWS itself disagrees (and seems > > to at times act specifically to avoid it) and as those parties will > > always disagree, I see no benefit to the entry. > > Because this is just a BCP, whether or not there's disagreement that > SPEWS (or any other blocklist) complies is outside of the scope IMHO. Ok. > > > 2.5. Listings SHOULD Be Temporary. > > No. Location based RBLs are perfectly legitimate, useful, and there's > > no reason for them to be temporary. > > A valid point. I believe in an earlier draft we had a footnote about > location based BLs, and it may got lost in the conversion to RFC format > (which doesn't have footnotes). I think this can be covered in the > verbiage for the rule. Groovy. > > > 2.9. MUST Have an Audit Trail. > > No. BLs based on spamtraps are BCP. Many spammers listwash spamtraps > > if they can. NOT providing a full public audit trail is BCP! > > OK, this could be clarified to some extent. The authors took the > examples of SPEWS, SBL and CBL as guidance here, which all have audit > trails. However these audit trails don't include the spamtrap addresses > used to generate the listings, so I can see that some clarification > could help here in terms of what data is useful to display to the > public if a public version of the audit trail is provided. Groovier. > > > 2.10. Shutdowns MUST Be Done in a Graceful Fashion. > > I suggest a specific result code be codified to represent [urgent > > action needed by admin, e.g. this list has shut down, etc.] > > We tried to avoid codifying a specific shutdown procedure. We would > hope to see that appear in an RFC, rather than in a BCP. If that > happens we could reference said RFC. Bummer. > > > 3. Special Rules for Blacklists Listing Insecure Machines. > > See the SPEWS FAQ for why this is a bad idea. > > 3.1. No Automated Probes [Scanning or Probes? - inconsistent]. > > Scanning in response to an attempt to email a system for the first > > time seems reasonable to me. > > And yet there is a lot of disagreement about this (see multiple > discussions about RR doing this). Then the BCP, IMO, shouldn't be that it not be done. Perhaps the BCP could be narrowed. I'll review the RR discussions. I recall discussion of broken Notes installs... > > The authors have thought about this a great deal, and > have discussed the issues here with blocklist maintainers to try and > reach a reasonable level for the BCP that is both achievable, and also > a high enough bar that the BCP is actually useful. If we set the rules > so flexible that anything is possible then there would be little point > in publishing it. Sorry, that's true, a point Barry further drove home. I think when it's clearer where the BCP is drawing the lines it draws, this will be a bit clearer. Optimist and pessimist listers and listees are currently able to interpret the BCP rather differently. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue May 4 17:59:40 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (www.iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA01799 for ; Tue, 4 May 2004 17:59:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BL7q9-0002de-9y for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 17:52:37 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i44LqbBr010134 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 May 2004 17:52:37 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BL7pX-0002Pq-Bb for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 17:51:59 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA01487 for ; Tue, 4 May 2004 17:51:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BL7pU-0005SO-QK for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 17:51:56 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BL7od-0005Lp-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 17:51:03 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BL7oF-0005FG-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 17:50:39 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BL7in-0000k9-FX; Tue, 04 May 2004 17:45:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BL7hg-0000Va-UU for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 17:43:52 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA01231 for ; Tue, 4 May 2004 17:43:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BL7he-0004Y5-DW for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 17:43:50 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BL7gj-0004Sm-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 17:42:54 -0400 Received: from zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com ([47.129.242.57]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BL7gP-0004NK-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 17:42:33 -0400 Received: from zcard307.ca.nortel.com (zcard307.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.67]) by zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.6/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id i44Lg1w03654 for ; Tue, 4 May 2004 17:42:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard307.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id J6NPH44F; Tue, 4 May 2004 17:42:01 -0400 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (clewis-2.ca.nortel.com [47.129.150.65]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id JM9FVCX1; Tue, 4 May 2004 17:42:01 -0400 Message-ID: <40980E28.6070802@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.5 (Windows/20040207) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-00 References: <200404301430.i3UEUVu24576@panix5.panix.com> <49E0F0F9-9AC2-11D8-BEA4-000A95AC67AA@messagelabs.com> <409464E8.40705@americasm01.nt.com> <4096C5DD.6030604@elvey.com> <81C76EB8-9DB7-11D8-9BDB-000A95AC67AA@messagelabs.com> <1083704622.5031.185641498@webmail.messagingengine.com> In-Reply-To: <1083704622.5031.185641498@webmail.messagingengine.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, 04 May 2004 17:42:00 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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 Tue, 4 May 2004 11:40:48 +0100, "Matt Sergeant" > said: >>> 3.1. No Automated Probes [Scanning or Probes? - inconsistent]. >>>Scanning in response to an attempt to email a system for the first >>>time seems reasonable to me. >>And yet there is a lot of disagreement about this (see multiple >>discussions about RR doing this). > Then the BCP, IMO, shouldn't be that it not be done. > Perhaps the BCP could be narrowed. > I'll review the RR discussions. I recall discussion of broken Notes > installs... RR took the position that "if you expect us to accept your email, you shouldn't quibble about us making sure that your system is secure". These were "email in hand" scans, not unprovoked. Most "vulnerability" blacklists are at least "email in hand". I can't think of anybody doing unprovoked scanning now. I think the wording is poor. It should be "No unprovoked scanning or probing". Where "mere existance" shouldn't be considered sufficient provocation ;-) Mebe we should be much more specific and decide whether we want to say "email in hand" or "spam in hand" (from this IP). _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue May 4 18:00:42 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (www.iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA01921 for ; Tue, 4 May 2004 18:00:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BL7ww-0004Rd-NH for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 17:59:38 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i44LxcwT017080 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 May 2004 17:59:38 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BL7sV-0003FJ-Am for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 17:55:03 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA01641 for ; Tue, 4 May 2004 17:54:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BL7sS-0005oP-O8 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 17:55:00 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BL7rY-0005hk-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 17:54:05 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BL7qk-0005ac-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 17:53:14 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BL7pZ-0002Q0-3P; Tue, 04 May 2004 17:52:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BL7jk-0000x9-5o for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 17:46:00 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA01308 for ; Tue, 4 May 2004 17:45:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BL7jh-0004mu-Ku for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 17:45:57 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BL7ip-0004gO-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 17:45:04 -0400 Received: from peacock.verisign.com ([65.205.251.73]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BL7iK-0004ZY-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 17:44:32 -0400 Received: from mou1wnexc02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.54]) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.11/) with ESMTP id i44LiPFt004980; Tue, 4 May 2004 14:44:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mou1wnexc02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) id ; Tue, 4 May 2004 14:44:25 -0700 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Devdas Bhagat'" , ASRG list Subject: RE: [Asrg] draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-00 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: Tue, 4 May 2004 14:44:25 -0700 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 > On 04/05/04 13:35 -0700, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > > > The point about 'collateral damage' is not that it serves any > > strategic purpose, it does not, all it does is to feed the egos > > of the people who engage in it. It fails in the spam context > > for the same reason that it failled in the military context. > > Collateral damage forces parties who are natural allies to treat > > you as the enemy. > Collateral damage is a bad choice of terms. DNSBLs are *passive* > systems. Choosing to block mail from any system based on a random > criterion is the choice of the administrator of the blocking system. Paul Vixie used the term, and he used it in the context of using the MAPS blacklist to coerce others into complying with his idea of acceptable use policies - ideas that go far beyond what is currently considered spam. > Rather than trying to stop the spammer, people using the escalated > blocks are trying to stop the spam supporting ISP from sending them > email. Rather than allowing the ISP to keep the spammers money as well > as that of the legitimate users, the people using escalated > listings are > forcing a choice of what customers the ISP wishes to keep. That is an aggressive action, not a passive one. In international law a blockade is sufficient cause for war. > > There is a utility in certain very narrowly tailored blacklists. > > But they should never attempt to list any address for any other > > reason than it is a source of spam. > What happens when the ISP in question refuses to remove the spammer(s) > and you keep getting hit by their traffic? If I know the IP address of the spammer and I am successfully blocking their messages why should I care? > Think of it as a trade embargo, and it makes a lot more sense. Again, trade embargos are the cause of a large number of wars. The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was retaliation for a blockade. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue May 4 18:12:07 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (www.iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA03084 for ; Tue, 4 May 2004 18:12:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BL87m-0002Wx-KF for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 18:10:50 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i44MAoDd009719 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 May 2004 18:10:50 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BL84x-0000pE-QB for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 18:07:55 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA02620 for ; Tue, 4 May 2004 18:07:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BL84u-0007Nx-SF for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 18:07:52 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BL842-0007I5-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 18:06:59 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BL83K-0007Br-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 18:06:14 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BL7xN-0004Ws-87; Tue, 04 May 2004 18:00:05 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BL7tI-0003Mk-QO for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 17:55:52 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA01659 for ; Tue, 4 May 2004 17:55:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BL7tG-0005tv-5I for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 17:55:50 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BL7sO-0005nl-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 17:54:57 -0400 Received: from smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net ([207.172.4.61]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BL7rW-0005hH-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 17:54:02 -0400 Received: from 209-6-102-148.c3-0.smr-ubr1.sbo-smr.ma.cable.rcn.com ([209.6.102.148] helo=600x--hd3.WorkGroup) by smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #4) id 1BL7rW-0003uA-00; Tue, 04 May 2004 17:54:02 -0400 From: "Dr. Jeffrey Race" To: "Walter Dnes" Cc: "ASRG list" Reply-To: "Dr. Jeffrey Race" Priority: Normal X-Mailer: PMMail 2000 Standard (2.20.2475) For Windows 98 (4.10.2222) In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: RE: [Asrg] draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-00 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: Tue, 04 May 2004 16:54:10 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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 Tue, 4 May 2004 13:35:36 -0700, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: >But they should never attempt to list any address for any other >reason than it is a source of spam. This is perfectly stated if "address" is replaced by "address range of a spam-enabler". The record clearly shows that many, even most, internet participants voluntarily cooperate in preventing pollution. However there are some operators who profit from pollution and will only be moved by being hurt. See Jeffrey Race _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue May 4 18:17:44 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (www.iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA03614 for ; Tue, 4 May 2004 18:17:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BL892-0003b8-2I for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 18:12:08 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i44MC89V013822 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 May 2004 18:12:08 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BL87v-0002a7-AV for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 18:10:59 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA02948 for ; Tue, 4 May 2004 18:10:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BL87s-0007j5-A0 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 18:10:56 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BL86z-0007cf-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 18:10:01 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BL86S-0007W4-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 18:09:28 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BL7xO-0004Y9-2L; Tue, 04 May 2004 18:00:06 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BL7vE-0003mH-ET for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 17:57:52 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA01710 for ; Tue, 4 May 2004 17:57:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BL7vB-00067V-Ou for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 17:57:49 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BL7uD-00060N-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 17:56:49 -0400 Received: from pigeon.verisign.com ([65.205.251.71]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BL7tH-0005u1-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 17:55:51 -0400 Received: from mou1wnexc01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.53]) by pigeon.verisign.com (8.12.11/) with ESMTP id i44Ltn9D010387; Tue, 4 May 2004 14:55:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mou1wnexc01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) id ; Tue, 4 May 2004 14:55:49 -0700 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Chris Lewis'" Cc: ASRG list Subject: RE: [Asrg] draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-00 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: Tue, 4 May 2004 14:55:42 -0700 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 > You're presupposing the BCP requires BL operators to identify > themselves. It does not. ORDB, CBL and many other BLs do > not. Just a > non-public contact address or web site. Via anonymizing > relays if desired. Best Practices require that any party that seeks to hold the Internet community accountable should itself accept accountability. If the BCP does not require identification of BL maintainers it is not acceptable. > > Put me in for a big ditto on that. This BCP should have almost zero > effect on current useful BLs. If this is going to be an input requirement better to kill the idea now. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue May 4 18:22:15 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (www.iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA04026 for ; Tue, 4 May 2004 18:22:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BL8Eq-0006kG-0d for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 18:18:08 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i44MI7Xo025922 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 May 2004 18:18:07 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BL8Dk-0005yZ-SY for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 18:17:00 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA03550 for ; Tue, 4 May 2004 18:16:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BL8Di-0000eO-21 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 18:16:58 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BL8D4-0000YA-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 18:16:19 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BL8CE-0000RU-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 18:15:26 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BL882-0002ky-2y; Tue, 04 May 2004 18:11:06 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BL86s-0001vd-PZ for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 18:09:54 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA02800 for ; Tue, 4 May 2004 18:09:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BL86p-0007bO-Vy for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 18:09:52 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BL85v-0007Uv-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 18:08:55 -0400 Received: from mail1.panix.com ([166.84.1.72]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BL854-0007PB-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 18:08:02 -0400 Received: from panix5.panix.com (panix5.panix.com [166.84.1.5]) by mail1.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7133C48B2C for ; Tue, 4 May 2004 18:08:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from sethb@localhost) by panix5.panix.com (8.11.6p2-a/8.8.8/PanixN1.1) id i44M83426299; Tue, 4 May 2004 18:08:03 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200405042208.i44M83426299@panix5.panix.com> From: Seth Breidbart To: asrg@ietf.org In-reply-to: (pbaker@verisign.com) Subject: Re: [Asrg] draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-00 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: Tue, 4 May 2004 18:08:03 -0400 (EDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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: [blocklists escalating] > That is an aggressive action, not a passive one. It's still passive: you don't get an answer unless you ask. > If I know the IP address of the spammer and I am successfully blocking > their messages why should I care? If you don't want to care, then you shouldn't use a blocklist that expands listings. If you want to help others, then you'd want to encourage ISPs to kick off their spammers, even the spammers who aren't currently hurting you. >> Think of it as a trade embargo, and it makes a lot more sense. > > Again, trade embargos are the cause of a large number of wars. And blocklists are the "cause" of DDOS attacks. That doesn't mean the felonious DDOS attacks are justified, or the blocklists improper. Seth _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue May 4 18:25:52 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (www.iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA04163 for ; Tue, 4 May 2004 18:25:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BL8Je-0000Tu-Je for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 18:23:06 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i44MN6Qr001846 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 May 2004 18:23:06 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BL8IY-0008VP-Rs for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 18:22:01 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA04018 for ; Tue, 4 May 2004 18:21:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BL8IV-0001DK-T9 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 18:21:55 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BL8Hb-000178-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 18:21:00 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BL8Gm-00010f-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 18:20:08 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BL8Ej-0006Vf-2t; Tue, 04 May 2004 18:18:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BL88w-0003Oi-Gy for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 18:12:02 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA03064 for ; Tue, 4 May 2004 18:11:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BL88t-00002e-Cn for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 18:11:59 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BL87y-0007k2-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 18:11:03 -0400 Received: from pcls3.std.com ([192.74.137.143] helo=TheWorld.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BL87J-0007dP-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 18:10:21 -0400 Received: from world.std.com (root@world-e.std.com [69.38.147.5]) by TheWorld.com (8.12.8p1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i44MAKjb022417; Tue, 4 May 2004 18:10:20 -0400 Received: (from bzs@localhost) by world.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA10537; Tue, 4 May 2004 18:10:19 -0400 (EDT) From: Barry Shein MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16536.5323.408781.74981@world.std.com> To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" Cc: "'Barry Shein'" , Walter Dnes , ASRG list Subject: RE: [Asrg] draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-00 In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: VM 7.07 under Emacs 21.2.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 4 May 2004 18:10:19 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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 Well, Phillip, you're fine until you mistake moral confusion for moral superiority; tolerating the intolerant is not noble. On May 4, 2004 at 13:35 pbaker@verisign.com (Hallam-Baker, Phillip) wrote: > > > Looking at the BCP draft makes me feel like I'm watching a bunch of > > cub scouts propose how to deal with Al Qaeda. > > It is not clear to me whether you mean that the cub scouts are > the blacklists and the spammers Al Qaeda or the cub scouts are > the ASRG and the blacklists are Al Qaeda. Hyperbole asside, > either could be justified. > > One of the most depressing things about the current situation > is the posturing of people who think that their macho attitudes > make them hawks. > > The point about 'collateral damage' is not that it serves any > strategic purpose, it does not, all it does is to feed the egos > of the people who engage in it. It fails in the spam context > for the same reason that it failled in the military context. > Collateral damage forces parties who are natural allies to treat > you as the enemy. > > > There is a utility in certain very narrowly tailored blacklists. > But they should never attempt to list any address for any other > reason than it is a source of spam. > > Phill -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD The World | Public Access Internet | Since 1989 *oo* _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue May 4 19:12:59 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 TAA06613 for ; Tue, 4 May 2004 19:12:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BL94O-0003BB-HB for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 19:11:24 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i44NBOP7012221 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 May 2004 19:11:24 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BL8uT-0000u5-I0 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 19:01:09 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA05905 for ; Tue, 4 May 2004 19:01:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BL8uQ-0005qT-Bl for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 19:01:06 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BL8tU-0005h4-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 19:00:09 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BL8sj-0005XX-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 18:59:21 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BL8nZ-0007X3-V1; Tue, 04 May 2004 18:54:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BL8jb-0006bL-Qu for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 18:49:55 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA05224 for ; Tue, 4 May 2004 18:49:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BL8jY-0004R8-I3 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 18:49:52 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BL8ic-0004L9-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 18:48:55 -0400 Received: from pcls4-e.std.com ([192.74.137.144] helo=TheWorld.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BL8hl-0004FF-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 18:48:01 -0400 Received: from world.std.com (root@world-e.std.com [69.38.147.5]) by TheWorld.com (8.12.8p1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i44Mm04c002996 for ; Tue, 4 May 2004 18:48:00 -0400 Received: (from bzs@localhost) by world.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA04867; Tue, 4 May 2004 18:48:00 -0400 (EDT) From: Barry Shein MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16536.7584.125828.108810@world.std.com> To: "ASRG list" Subject: Re: [Asrg] draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-00 In-Reply-To: <086101c4321b$4a045440$0a46a8c0@pbdesktop> References: <086101c4321b$4a045440$0a46a8c0@pbdesktop> X-Mailer: VM 7.07 under Emacs 21.2.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 4 May 2004 18:48:00 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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 The more I think about it the more I consider any codification of blacklists into an IETF-blessed document as questionable. I think of blacklists more like random, desparate acts by desparate people than a technology. There's just something so institutionalizing about producing a best common practices document around blacklists. Ok let's back up a bit. If we think of them as reputation systems, like credit agencies, then there's a lot of liability implied by codifying them. Suddenly there's a checklist to compare against for acceptable behavior. If we think of them as a kind of centrally administered boycott then it's practically a grassroots political kind of activity. Is that kind of thing often codified in IETF docs? Would the IETF produce, e.g., BCPs for running Wikis or Blogs? But more to the first point, is there any opportunity to run something like this BCP past a knowledgeable lawyer for some reaction in the context I'm raising? I dunno, what happens when one of these spambags does sue and then uses this BCP document to argue that the blacklist operator harmed him/her/it by their egregiously unprofessional behavior as defined by the IETF? Is this document really meant to be used like that? Isn't that a potential use of any BCP? Does anyone worry about this kind of thing? I do. In the same vein, I'm having a lot of trouble understanding what good it does anyone (other than perhaps a plaintiff against a blacklist operator) since it mostly just codifies "be excellent to each other!" in a sort of idealistic way. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD The World | Public Access Internet | Since 1989 *oo* _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue May 4 19:26:33 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 TAA07273 for ; Tue, 4 May 2004 19:26:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BL9Du-00065h-UC for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 19:21:15 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i44NLEqs023408 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 May 2004 19:21:14 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BL960-0003nr-Be for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 19:13:04 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA06636 for ; Tue, 4 May 2004 19:13:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BL95y-0007Kv-VG for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 19:13:02 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BL956-0007De-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 19:12:09 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BL94f-000760-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 19:11:41 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BL8vJ-0000vT-6S; Tue, 04 May 2004 19:02:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BL8uI-0000h5-4g for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 19:00:58 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA05868 for ; Tue, 4 May 2004 19:00:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BL8uE-0005oZ-S5 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 19:00:54 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BL8tQ-0005gJ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 19:00:04 -0400 Received: from peacock.verisign.com ([65.205.251.73]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BL8sX-0005WT-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 18:59:09 -0400 Received: from mou1wnexc02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.54]) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.11/) with ESMTP id i44Mx8ZK025559; Tue, 4 May 2004 15:59:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mou1wnexc02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) id ; Tue, 4 May 2004 15:59:08 -0700 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Barry Shein'" , "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" Cc: Walter Dnes , ASRG list Subject: RE: [Asrg] draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-00 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: Tue, 4 May 2004 15:59:07 -0700 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Barry, I still don't know whether you are refering to the spammers or the blacklists. Delphic utterances may have been mistaken for profundity by the ancient greeks but in this forum clarity is more highly valued. > -----Original Message----- > From: Barry Shein [mailto:bzs@world.std.com] > Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2004 6:10 PM > To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip > Cc: 'Barry Shein'; Walter Dnes; ASRG list > Subject: RE: [Asrg] draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-00 > > > > Well, Phillip, you're fine until you mistake moral confusion for moral > superiority; tolerating the intolerant is not noble. > > > > On May 4, 2004 at 13:35 pbaker@verisign.com (Hallam-Baker, > Phillip) wrote: > > > > > Looking at the BCP draft makes me feel like I'm watching > a bunch of > > > cub scouts propose how to deal with Al Qaeda. > > > > It is not clear to me whether you mean that the cub scouts are > > the blacklists and the spammers Al Qaeda or the cub scouts are > > the ASRG and the blacklists are Al Qaeda. Hyperbole asside, > > either could be justified. > > > > One of the most depressing things about the current situation > > is the posturing of people who think that their macho attitudes > > make them hawks. > > > > The point about 'collateral damage' is not that it serves any > > strategic purpose, it does not, all it does is to feed the egos > > of the people who engage in it. It fails in the spam context > > for the same reason that it failled in the military context. > > Collateral damage forces parties who are natural allies to treat > > you as the enemy. > > > > > > There is a utility in certain very narrowly tailored blacklists. > > But they should never attempt to list any address for any other > > reason than it is a source of spam. > > > > Phill > > -- > -Barry Shein > > Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD The World | Public Access Internet | Since 1989 *oo* _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue May 4 19:27:33 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 TAA07340 for ; Tue, 4 May 2004 19:27:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BL9Ia-0007Cs-FM for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 19:26:04 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i44NQ4dx027696 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 May 2004 19:26:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BL9Cg-0005gV-Ch for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 19:19:58 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA06991 for ; Tue, 4 May 2004 19:19:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BL9Ce-0000SU-ND for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 19:19:56 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BL9Bo-0000LC-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 19:19:04 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BL9Ay-0000EE-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 19:18:12 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BL95w-0003gd-SQ; Tue, 04 May 2004 19:13:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BL935-0002kX-7F for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 19:10:03 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA06442 for ; Tue, 4 May 2004 19:09:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BL931-0006ve-Qx for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 19:09:59 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BL928-0006oW-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 19:09:05 -0400 Received: from pcls1.std.com ([192.74.137.141] helo=TheWorld.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BL912-0006hQ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 19:07:56 -0400 Received: from world.std.com (root@world-e.std.com [69.38.147.5]) by TheWorld.com (8.12.8p1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i44N7NdW017540 for ; Tue, 4 May 2004 19:07:23 -0400 Received: (from bzs@localhost) by world.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA18701; Tue, 4 May 2004 19:07:23 -0400 (EDT) From: Barry Shein MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16536.8746.772782.844587@world.std.com> To: ASRG list Subject: RE: [Asrg] draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-00 In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: VM 7.07 under Emacs 21.2.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 4 May 2004 19:07:22 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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 FWIW I never bought the idea that blacklists were passive and therefore completely the act of the person using them. I think that's facile and disingenuous. Consider other reputation systems, such as credit agencies. Sure, a lender chooses to use information provided by a credit agency so why blame the credit agency in any case? -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD The World | Public Access Internet | Since 1989 *oo* _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue May 4 19:43:09 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 TAA08226 for ; Tue, 4 May 2004 19:43:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BL9Sr-0001GS-WA for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 19:36:42 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i44Nafrc004853 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 May 2004 19:36:41 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BL9OG-0000Cl-JZ for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 19:31:56 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA07590 for ; Tue, 4 May 2004 19:31:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BL9OF-0001xs-0a for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 19:31:55 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BL9NF-0001oz-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 19:30:53 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BL9MF-0001db-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 19:29:51 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BL9JX-0007Pq-7Q; Tue, 04 May 2004 19:27:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BL9GZ-0006lD-IY for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 19:23:59 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA07191 for ; Tue, 4 May 2004 19:23:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BL9GX-0000xv-Sz for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 19:23:57 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BL9Fh-0000rQ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 19:23:06 -0400 Received: from mail1.nber.org ([207.113.108.7]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BL9FF-0000kA-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 19:22:37 -0400 Received: from mail1 (root@localhost) by mail1.nber.org (8.12.8/8.12.8) with SMTP id i44NMYeD030560 for ; Tue, 4 May 2004 19:22:34 -0400 Received: from nber1.nber.org (nber1.nber.org [207.113.108.252]) by mail1.nber.org (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i44NMXgs030546; Tue, 4 May 2004 19:22:33 -0400 From: Daniel Feenberg To: Barry Shein cc: ASRG list Subject: Re: [Asrg] draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-00 In-Reply-To: <16536.7584.125828.108810@world.std.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 4 May 2004 19:22:33 -0400 (EDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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 Essentially everyting in the BCP is a quality issue addressing concerns of senders that mail might be blocked. There are few/no issues of interoperability/protocol addressed which might require a standards document beyond the description of host name formation, and IP address flags returned. It isn't clear to me why sender concerns are the only quality issues addressed. If the BCP states that listings "MUST" be removed promptly, shouldn't it also state that spammers "MUST" be added to the list promptly? That is a similar issue with respect to the quality of a blacklist, yet it goes unmentioned. Or perhaps quality issues should be left to users to evaluate with respect to their own needs. If the document is to be used as evidence of trade practice in court, it might be nice if it included rationales for common practices such as failure to consult the sender, or give him time to respond, to blocking nearby addresses, to skepticism about claims of "opt-in" or "opt-out". If the document does not mention, explain and endorse those procedures necessary to run an effective blocklist, it plays into the hands of the spammer population. Daniel Feenberg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue May 4 19:53:44 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 TAA08773 for ; Tue, 4 May 2004 19:53:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BL9cu-0004JT-8J for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 19:47:04 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i44Nl4x0016575 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 May 2004 19:47:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BL9Yy-0003FQ-9n for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 19:43:00 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA08183 for ; Tue, 4 May 2004 19:42:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BL9Yw-0003OQ-JY for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 19:42:58 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BL9Y1-0003G2-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 19:42:01 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BL9XA-000393-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 19:41:08 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BL9RF-0000wB-Mu; Tue, 04 May 2004 19:35:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BL9KX-0007iD-OP for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 19:28:05 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA07418 for ; Tue, 4 May 2004 19:28:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BL9KW-0001S4-0Y for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 19:28:04 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BL9JZ-0001KN-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 19:27:06 -0400 Received: from mail1.nber.org ([207.113.108.7]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BL9It-0001Cq-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 19:26:23 -0400 Received: from mail1 (root@localhost) by mail1.nber.org (8.12.8/8.12.8) with SMTP id i44NQNYS031566 for ; Tue, 4 May 2004 19:26:24 -0400 Received: from nber1.nber.org (nber1.nber.org [207.113.108.252]) by mail1.nber.org (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i44NQNgs031552; Tue, 4 May 2004 19:26:23 -0400 From: Daniel Feenberg To: Barry Shein cc: ASRG list Subject: RE: [Asrg] draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-00 In-Reply-To: <16536.8746.772782.844587@world.std.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 4 May 2004 19:26:23 -0400 (EDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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, 4 May 2004, Barry Shein wrote: > > FWIW I never bought the idea that blacklists were passive and > therefore completely the act of the person using them. I think that's > facile and disingenuous. > > Consider other reputation systems, such as credit agencies. > > Sure, a lender chooses to use information provided by a credit agency > so why blame the credit agency in any case? > Law and custom with respect to consumer credit reporting developed during a long period in which there was only a single such agency. That naturally colored consumer (and legislative) views on the matter. The operator of an MTA has enough choice of BL to assume some responsibility. Daniel Feenberg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue May 4 19:56:32 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA08938 for ; Tue, 4 May 2004 19:56:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BL9js-0005x9-6t for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 19:54:16 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i44NsGps022878 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 May 2004 19:54:16 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BL9gj-0004yR-3T for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 19:51:01 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA08554 for ; Tue, 4 May 2004 19:50:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BL9gh-0004QB-5c for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 19:50:59 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BL9fm-0004JS-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 19:50:03 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BL9f4-0004Ce-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 19:49:18 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BL9Zx-0003Yd-BV; Tue, 04 May 2004 19:44:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BL9V2-0001oZ-KY for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 19:38:56 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA07988 for ; Tue, 4 May 2004 19:38:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BL9V0-0002sA-SX for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 19:38:54 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BL9U5-0002le-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 19:37:57 -0400 Received: from mout.perfora.net ([217.160.230.41]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BL9TF-0002fT-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 19:37:05 -0400 Received: from [217.160.230.50] (helo=smtp.perfora.net) by mout.perfora.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1BL9TE-0001Vb-00; Tue, 04 May 2004 19:37:04 -0400 Received: from [68.246.119.97] (helo=solidmatrix.com) by smtp.perfora.net with asmtp (TLSv1:RC4-MD5:128) (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1BL9TD-0005HF-00; Tue, 04 May 2004 19:37:04 -0400 Message-ID: <40982917.2080706@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: Barry Shein CC: ASRG list Subject: Re: [Asrg] draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-00 References: <086101c4321b$4a045440$0a46a8c0@pbdesktop> <16536.7584.125828.108810@world.std.com> In-Reply-To: <16536.7584.125828.108810@world.std.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 X-Provags-ID: perfora.net abuse@perfora.net auth:7051a7fa85b96745770cd89fa6d27f10 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 04 May 2004 19:36:55 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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 Barry Shein wrote: > If we think of them as a kind of centrally administered boycott then > it's practically a grassroots political kind of activity. Is that kind > of thing often codified in IETF docs? Would the IETF produce, e.g., > BCPs for running Wikis or Blogs? > I am not addressing the political aspect of your question, only the blogs/wikis one. Blacklists are used on an Internet-wide scale between multiple systems, and can be within the scope of the IETF. Blogs and Wikis generally do not interoperate with other systems and are not necessarly in scope. However, the inter-system parts of the blogs such as RSS may be within IETF scope as demonstrated by the existance of the ATOM list at IMC. HOWEVER, in any case this document is not at IETF level at this point. Right now it is a research activity of the IRTF, and appears to be well within the charter of this group. Whether this document actually makes it to the IETF, and gets approved by the IESG is an entirely different story. At this time, it fits within the charter of the ASRG. 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 May 4 20:10:35 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 UAA09588 for ; Tue, 4 May 2004 20:10:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BL9tN-0000AO-4V for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 20:04:05 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i45045Ff000636 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 May 2004 20:04:05 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BL9rK-0007xR-Ok for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 20:01:58 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA09267 for ; Tue, 4 May 2004 20:01:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BL9rI-0005uf-Un for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 20:01:56 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BL9qP-0005oE-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 20:01:02 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BL9pk-0005hq-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 20:00:20 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BL9mY-0006Ys-5P; Tue, 04 May 2004 19:57:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BL9kY-0005z6-Vf for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 19:54:59 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA08828 for ; Tue, 4 May 2004 19:54:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BL9kW-00050F-UV for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 19:54:57 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BL9jZ-0004rt-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 19:53:58 -0400 Received: from out2.smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.26]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BL9ig-0004j4-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 19:53:02 -0400 X-Sasl-enc: QPjJzt2ebccXsbGSwU0Jtw 1083714518 Received: from elvey.com (ns.nextbus.com [64.164.28.194]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3678AFC8F5; Tue, 4 May 2004 19:48:36 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <40982BD5.5040901@elvey.com> From: Matthew Elvey User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.7b) Gecko/20040421 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bill Cole Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-00 References: <200404301430.i3UEUVu24576@panix5.panix.com> <49E0F0F9-9AC2-11D8-BEA4-000A95AC67AA@messagelabs.com> <409464E8.40705@americasm01.nt.com> <4096C5DD.6030604@elvey.com> <81C76EB8-9DB7-11D8-9BDB-000A95AC67AA@messagelabs.com> In-Reply-To: X-Habeas-SWE-1: winter into spring X-Habeas-SWE-2: brightly anticipated X-Habeas-SWE-3: like Habeas SWE (tm) X-Habeas-SWE-4: Copyright 2002 Habeas (tm) X-Habeas-SWE-5: Sender Warranted Email (SWE) (tm). The sender of this X-Habeas-SWE-6: email in exchange for a license for this Habeas X-Habeas-SWE-7: warrant mark warrants that this is a Habeas Compliant X-Habeas-SWE-8: Message (HCM) and not spam. Please report use of this X-Habeas-SWE-9: mark in spam to . Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 04 May 2004 16:48:37 -0700 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=AWL,HABEAS_SWE autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > >>> 2.10. Shutdowns MUST Be Done in a Graceful Fashion. >>> I suggest a specific result code be codified to represent [urgent >>> action needed by admin, e.g. this list has shut down, etc.] >> >> >> We tried to avoid codifying a specific shutdown procedure. We would >> hope to see that appear in an RFC, rather than in a BCP. If that >> happens we could reference said RFC. > > > Do you mean a descendant of > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-irtf-asrg-dnsbl-00.txt or > some additional RFC? > > Outlines for orderly shutdown of DNSBL's have been composed and posted > publicly in 3 waves over the past 3 years (unfortunately in the first > 2 cases, AFTER operators have listed the entire net to drive away > users) and it is not a complicated matter or really a very > controversial issue, it's just quite specific. It boils down to a > method for shutting down any zone: add a long-TTL NS record for the > zone into the parent zone with a RHS of either "." or a name in the > parent zone with a long-TTL A record with a RHS of either '.' or to an > address in 127/8 other than 127.0.0.1. > > The only reason that orderly shutdown has ever been an issue is that > the most noisily terminated DNSBL's have been run by people who sadly > have been clueless about DNS. There's no need for a complex dance of > special entries in-zone alerting users to the death of a DNSBL, giving > way to eventually just going dead or listing the entire net. Yes, I remember the long discussions well. This would be *great* to have in the BCP (or perhaps RC, perhaps better expressed: with [counter-]examples.) It would have saved a lot of grief, methinks. > > [And a bunch of other technical BCP that I (elvey) would also strongly > like to see added - good stuff.] _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue May 4 21:32:59 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA13535 for ; Tue, 4 May 2004 21:32:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLBAm-0002oM-VD for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 21:26:11 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i451Q8df010806 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 May 2004 21:26:08 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLB7q-00029o-LB for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 21:23:06 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA12943 for ; Tue, 4 May 2004 21:23:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLB7n-0000yy-UW for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 21:23:04 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLB6w-0000pL-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 21:22:10 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLB61-0000fD-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 21:21:13 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLB2y-0000gl-6p; Tue, 04 May 2004 21:18:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLB0E-0008Tx-1l for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 21:15:14 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA12552 for ; Tue, 4 May 2004 21:15:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLB0B-0007dr-BP for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 21:15:11 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLAzI-0007WQ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 21:14:16 -0400 Received: from mail3.panix.com ([166.84.1.74]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLAyq-0007O3-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 21:13:48 -0400 Received: from panix5.panix.com (panix5.panix.com [166.84.1.5]) by mail3.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 197A0983CD for ; Tue, 4 May 2004 21:13:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from sethb@localhost) by panix5.panix.com (8.11.6p2-a/8.8.8/PanixN1.1) id i451Dir11927; Tue, 4 May 2004 21:13:44 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200405050113.i451Dir11927@panix5.panix.com> From: Seth Breidbart To: asrg@ietf.org In-reply-to: <16536.8746.772782.844587@world.std.com> (message from Barry Shein on Tue, 4 May 2004 19:07:22 -0400) Subject: Re: [Asrg] draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-00 References: <16536.8746.772782.844587@world.std.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, 4 May 2004 21:13:44 -0400 (EDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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 Barry Shein wrote: > FWIW I never bought the idea that blacklists were passive and > therefore completely the act of the person using them. I think that's > facile and disingenuous. > > Consider other reputation systems, such as credit agencies. > > Sure, a lender chooses to use information provided by a credit agency > so why blame the credit agency in any case? I blame the credit agency if it _lies_. I blame ISPs who lie, too (such as claiming that the string ".cjb.net" is such a strong sign of spam that no message containing it can be delivered; you've lost two customers that I can name (and probably many more) over that sort of policy). Seth _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue May 4 21:44:44 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA13994 for ; Tue, 4 May 2004 21:44:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLBOS-0006eO-Kp for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 21:40:16 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i451eGkK025559 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 May 2004 21:40:16 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLBIT-0004nQ-A3 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 21:34:05 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA13616 for ; Tue, 4 May 2004 21:34:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLBIQ-0002li-Hl for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 21:34:02 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLBHV-0002cY-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 21:33:06 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLBGY-0002TE-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 21:32:06 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLB8n-0002MF-58; Tue, 04 May 2004 21:24:05 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLB79-0001uN-Mm for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 21:22:23 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA12898 for ; Tue, 4 May 2004 21:22:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLB76-0000qe-VN for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 21:22:21 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLB6B-0000go-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 21:21:25 -0400 Received: from out2.smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.26]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLB5g-0000Ws-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 21:20:52 -0400 X-Sasl-enc: 30tR17eRxRoWm4KCnq0lfQ 1083719908 Received: from elvey.com (ns.nextbus.com [64.164.28.194]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 136E7AFB5F2; Tue, 4 May 2004 21:18:26 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <409840E3.2020504@elvey.com> From: Matthew Elvey User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.7b) Gecko/20040421 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Chris Lewis , ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-00 References: <200404301430.i3UEUVu24576@panix5.panix.com> <49E0F0F9-9AC2-11D8-BEA4-000A95AC67AA@messagelabs.com> <409464E8.40705@americasm01.nt.com> <4096C5DD.6030604@elvey.com> <4097C49A.70109@americasm01.nt.com> In-Reply-To: <4097C49A.70109@americasm01.nt.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: Tue, 04 May 2004 18:18:27 -0700 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=AWL,HABEAS_SWE autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 5/4/04 9:28 AM, Chris Lewis sent forth electrons to convey: > Matthew Elvey wrote: > >> 2.2. Same Criteria for Listing and Delisting. >> The discussion has made it clear to me that this is a meaningless >> entry; I can think of no blacklist policy that would and should be >> considered a violation. > > > I can think of a couple. Here's one: a blacklist entry that was > created solely on the existance of an open proxy, yet delisting > required that the system owner provided rDNS and postmaster > accessibility IN ADDITION to fixing the proxy. Desirable yes, but, > this goes beyond the BLs stated purpose, and unnecessarily conflates > anti-spam with non-spam issues. rDNS/postmaster were irrelevant to > the original listing, they should remain irrelevant to a subsequent > delisting. That's not a valid example. If these additional requirements were not in the BL's stated delisting, then this issue was covered in 2.1. "Truth in Advertising". 2.2 is unnecessary and confusing. The BLs stated purpose could include enforcing these requirements on wannabe-former listees. I.e. it may be false that "this goes beyond the BLs stated purpose." > >> 2.3. Listing/Delisting Criteria MUST Be Easily Available. >> There needs to be some accomodation/clarification. Is >> http://www.spamcop.net/fom-serve/cache/297.html good enough for 2.1 >> and 2.3? I can't tell! This needs to be clear, e.g. is this ok?: >> "Some rules are spelled out in vague terms to slow down spammer >> adaptation." > > > That was deliberately somewhat vague, rather than requiring explicit > details, for precisely the reasons you indicate. For example, the CBL > does not enumerate exact detection heuristics, but does provide what > its criteria is: "exhibits symptoms of being compromised by a spam > trojan or open proxy". Vagueness here is undesirable. Here's my specific text suggestion: 2.3 would benefit from the addition of sentences like: The precise algorithms and data used for listing and delisting do not need to be disclosed. Some criteria may be vaguely defined to slow down spammer adaptation. > >> 2.4. Collateral Damage Only as a Measure of Last Resort. >> Some claim SPEWS violates this, but SPEWS itself disagrees (and seems >> to at times act specifically to avoid it) and as those parties will >> always disagree, I see no benefit to the entry. > > > It provides general guidance. This is a BCP, not a RFC. It is > intended to forestall "blacklist an entire country because of one > spam". Some may claim that SPEWS violates this, but not me - it's > abundantly clear that SPEWS follows an escalation path. The fact that > someone might disagree whether a given BL complies is the simple > nature of BCPs. Ok. > >> 2.5. Listings SHOULD Be Temporary. >> No. Location based RBLs are perfectly legitimate, useful, and there's >> no reason for them to be temporary. > > > Good point. > >> 2.6. MUST Have a Direct Non-Public Way to Request Removal. >> This is actually poor practice IMO. BCP would be to NOT have a >> non-public way to be contacted. Works well to prevent SLAPP suits. >> Requiring any contact attempt be via a public forum is BCP. > > > It's least commonly used practise. Almost all BLs maintain a contact > email address or web site of some sort. The BCP doesn't require the > operators of the BL to identify themselves. Eg: the CBL is in > compliance. So is ORDB. > > SPEWS could, if they wished to, implement a non-public channel of some > sort without exposing themselves. Even by anonymizing relays. > Unfortunately, their policy of "replies by NANAE/NANAB" unnecessarily > politicizes the process, and results in a very large number of sites > simply ignoring them altogether. Few ISPs dare the wrath of NANAE, > much as we would wish otherwise. I can't think of any benefit that 2.6 would provide. I claim that any question re. SPEWS is likely going to be answered faster and better via a nanae/nanabl posting. Please provide a specific counterexample, but I request that you assume that the folks who run SPEWS are as friendly as the posters on nanae/nanabl. Most any ISP that fears the wrath of NANAE probably already knows any info that a posting on NANAE, or a private inquiry to SPEWS would provide, and is choosing to ignore it. All those free, trusted, subpoena-proof, malicious-Tier1-ISP-proof anonymizing relays ... something many RBL maintainers probably don't know to be available; I don't. If the BCP is going to suggest this, links or some such to working mixmaster software/sites/RFCs would be appropriate (RFCs generally musn't have bare URLs in 'em; I forget what the workaround for that is.) > > [This is my only BCP-derived criticism of SPEWS btw.] > >> 2.7. Removals MUST Be Prompt. >> This should be a matter of policy. "BLs _that claim to be prompt_ >> must be prompt" makes sense. > > > I think this may be a good change. :) > >> 2.8. Removals MUST Be Possible in Absence of List Maintainer. >> 2.9. MUST Have an Audit Trail. >> No. BLs based on spamtraps are BCP. Many spammers listwash spamtraps >> if they can. NOT providing a full public audit trail is BCP! > > > We didn't say what the "audit trail" was. A date stamp (perturbed if > you wish) of detection would be adequate. CBL does that. Great, IF the BCP makes it clear that this is adequate. Currently, a claim that the BCP(-wannabe) requires a full unmunged copy of a spam causing a listing would be hard to argue against. Here's another specific text suggestion: 2.9 would benefit from the addition of a fragment like: "...SHOULD make [insert :part of ] it publically...". The precise data does not need to be disclosed. Some data provided from the audit trail may be hidden, removed or altered to slow down spammer adaptation. A full internal audit trail MUST be kept. Perhaps then the SHOULD could become a MUST. > >> 2.10. Shutdowns MUST Be Done in a Graceful Fashion. >> I suggest a specific result code be codified to represent [urgent >> action needed by admin, e.g. this list has shut down, etc.] > > > We'd like to, unfortunately, this isn't backwards compatible - most > implementations would treat "a specific result code" as being > "listed", resulting in "block the world". I've seen some proposals > for DNS server tricks that would serve the dual purpose of > decommissioning the blacklists and getting the queries _off_ the > no-longer-BL server. But we thought that would take to long to > codify. If someone wants to propose something, it would be good. > >> 3. Special Rules for Blacklists Listing Insecure Machines. >> See the SPEWS FAQ for why this is a bad idea. > > > Which section? From A45: Due to abuse by spammers, open email relays no longer have any place on the Internet. Some may want to debate this, we won't. It was 3.1's "spam in hand" requirement that prompted my comment. A BLs policy should state whether it will list w/o "spam in hand". > >> 3.1. No Automated Probes [Scanning or Probes? - inconsistent]. >> Scanning in response to an attempt to email a system for the first >> time seems reasonable to me. > > > Not to me, because it's too far along the line of "we scan 0/0"). > > Scanning/probing them in response to an email they try to send you is > different. It's not different from what the BCP as currently written prohibits. > >> 3.2. Reasonable Re-scan Periods. > > >> In general, it seems like the authors don't have much respect for the >> tireless *volunteer* BL maintainers and need to spend more time >> thinking about things from the POV of the BL maintainers. > > > You're making at least three huge assumptions here, and I assure you, > all are incorrect. Unfortunately, aside from suggesting you google > for my name on Usenet (eg: NANA.bulletins) in the 1994-2000 period, > answering this directly would have you holding me to a higher standard > than our proposed BCP would. In other words, what makes you think I'm > not running a public BL and know full well that POV? ;-) :) Call it a gut feeling. I suppose if you were behind a fabulous BL that was highly effective while remaining compliant with even the strictest interpretation of this draft, I wouldn't be surprised by the POV I discern in the draft. But I don't know of any such BL. E.g. I think even the CBL and SBL are not compliant with a strict interpretation, hence some of the suggestions I've made. I tend to read and write with a hat on. Apologies and thanks if you do. Some compromised machine BLs may well already be compliant... Oh, and good point in another email - the BCP should encourage BL usage. > > I don't think BCP'ing a requirement that ISPs permit their users > choice as to which BL to use is practical, desirable or even useful. > > Indeed, such a BCP would be a complete waste of time for _us_, because > our users (employees) don't get that option by policy. There are good arguments on both sides of this, e.g: Good argument: We block email from open proxies/relays. This is a security issue; we must protect ourselves from attack. Good argument: Some ISP or gov't agency has caused the machine of an org they don't like to be listed as open relay on some BL, even though it isn't an open relay, in order to suppress free speech. It is possible for a white hat BL operator to be an unwitting censor in this way. This is one more reason why I like SPEWS' use of nanabl. If a BL is allegedly misbehaving, I've always thought it should be the subject of a public discussion in a well defined forum. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue May 4 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 XAA17533 for ; Tue, 4 May 2004 23:13:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLCnj-00034B-HV for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 23:10:28 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i453ARL0011786 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 May 2004 23:10:27 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLCgf-00016d-9D for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 23:03:09 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA17113 for ; Tue, 4 May 2004 23:03:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLCgb-0007GZ-0X for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 23:03:05 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLCes-0006zp-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 23:01:19 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLCe6-0006qS-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 23:00:30 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLCbh-0008Nc-C9; Tue, 04 May 2004 22:58:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLCWz-0007AY-0s for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 22:53:09 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA16788 for ; Tue, 4 May 2004 22:53:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLCWv-0005ot-HA for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 22:53:05 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLCW1-0005hQ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 22:52:09 -0400 Received: from out2.smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.26]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLCVj-0005Zt-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 22:51:51 -0400 X-Sasl-enc: NBPS22XRVlfxUe3qOz782Q 1083723366 Received: from elvey.com (ns.nextbus.com [64.164.28.194]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DF07B0241D; Tue, 4 May 2004 22:16:04 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <40984E65.4020003@elvey.com> From: Matthew Elvey User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.7b) Gecko/20040421 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Chris Lewis , "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-00 References: <200404301430.i3UEUVu24576@panix5.panix.com> <49E0F0F9-9AC2-11D8-BEA4-000A95AC67AA@messagelabs.com> <409464E8.40705@americasm01.nt.com> <4096C5DD.6030604@elvey.com> <81C76EB8-9DB7-11D8-9BDB-000A95AC67AA@messagelabs.com> <1083704622.5031.185641498@webmail.messagingengine.com> <40980E28.6070802@americasm01.nt.com> In-Reply-To: <40980E28.6070802@americasm01.nt.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: Tue, 04 May 2004 19:16:05 -0700 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=AWL,HABEAS_SWE autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 5/4/04 2:42 PM, Chris Lewis sent forth electrons to convey: > Matthew Elvey wrote: > f > >>>> 3.1. No Automated Probes [Scanning or Probes? - inconsistent]. >>> > > > I think the wording is poor. It should be "No unprovoked scanning or > probing". Where "mere existance" shouldn't be considered sufficient > provocation ;-) Sounds good. > > Mebe we should be much more specific and decide whether we want to say > "email in hand" That would work too, IMO. > (from this IP). PHB: SpamSchool 101: BLs don't block (or embargo) anything. The users of BLs do. You say BLs (including RHSBLs, yes?) must not be anonymous, but provide no counterargument to my and others arguments for anonymity. >Best Practices require that any party that seeks to hold >the Internet community accountable should itself accept >accountability. > Says you. Besides, accountability and anonymity are not mutually exclusive. Part of the goal of the ASRG is to provide both at the same time. Perhaps the draft would benefit from a section pointing out that BL maintainers are merely expressing an opinion, and it is their absolute right to do so free of legal encumberance, and in violation of the BCP, but that by heeding the BCP they may gain the trust of their users. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue May 4 23:21:34 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 XAA17909 for ; Tue, 4 May 2004 23:21:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLCxi-0005Tg-S2 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 23:20:46 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i453Kkhg021057 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 May 2004 23:20:46 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLCrM-0004G2-Mw for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 23:14:12 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA17564 for ; Tue, 4 May 2004 23:14:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLCrK-0000x6-NF for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 23:14:10 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLCqO-0000o6-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 23:13:12 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLCpa-0000fW-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 23:12:22 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLCjR-0001e7-2B; Tue, 04 May 2004 23:06:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLCen-0000hX-Su for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 23:01:13 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA17055 for ; Tue, 4 May 2004 23:01:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLCek-0006yh-8X for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 23:01:10 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLCdr-0006pd-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 23:00:15 -0400 Received: from zcars0m9.nortelnetworks.com ([47.129.242.157]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLCcz-0006XZ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 22:59:21 -0400 Received: from zcard309.ca.nortel.com (zcard309.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.69]) by zcars0m9.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.6/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id i452wjU06872 for ; Tue, 4 May 2004 22:58:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard309.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id JCT83X9Y; Tue, 4 May 2004 22:58:45 -0400 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (acart0eq.ca.nortel.com [47.130.18.202]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id JM9FVC5X; Tue, 4 May 2004 22:58:43 -0400 Message-ID: <40985860.3050005@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.5 (Windows/20040207) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-00 References: <200404301430.i3UEUVu24576@panix5.panix.com> <49E0F0F9-9AC2-11D8-BEA4-000A95AC67AA@messagelabs.com> <409464E8.40705@americasm01.nt.com> <4096C5DD.6030604@elvey.com> <81C76EB8-9DB7-11D8-9BDB-000A95AC67AA@messagelabs.com> <1083704622.5031.185641498@webmail.messagingengine.com> <40980E28.6070802@americasm01.nt.com> <40984E65.4020003@elvey.com> In-Reply-To: <40984E65.4020003@elvey.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 04 May 2004 22:58:40 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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: > You say BLs (including RHSBLs, yes?) must not be anonymous, but provide > no counterargument to my and others arguments for anonymity. We're not arguing against (nor does the BCP) anonymity. Just saying that there should be a non-public contact mechanism. I'll amplify that in a reply to the comment about spews tomorrow morning. > Perhaps the draft would benefit from a section pointing out that BL > maintainers are merely expressing an opinion, and it is their absolute > right to do so free of legal encumberance, and in violation of the BCP, > but that by heeding the BCP they may gain the trust of their users. This'd probably be a good idea for the introduction. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed May 5 00:23:28 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (www.iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA21156 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 00:23:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLDu9-00054j-Rk for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 00:21:09 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i454L9KY019504 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 May 2004 00:21:09 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLDqM-00048f-Ic for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 00:17:14 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA20897 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 00:17:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLDqK-0002aD-4i for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 00:17:12 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLDpQ-0002Rj-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 00:16:17 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLDoi-0002JD-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 00:15:32 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLDmH-0002Sx-QF; Wed, 05 May 2004 00:13:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLDhe-0000uW-HS for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 00:08:14 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA20461 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 00:08:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLDhc-0001D0-1q for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 00:08:12 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLDgc-000146-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 00:07:10 -0400 Received: from [64.7.158.10] (helo=mail.worldline.ca) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLDfs-0000vQ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 00:06:24 -0400 Received: from waltdnes.org ([64.7.146.195]) by mail.worldline.ca (8.12.8/8.12.8) with SMTP id i454Foj7024637 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 00:15:50 -0400 Received: by waltdnes.org (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 5 May 2004 00:05:50 -0400 From: "Walter Dnes" To: ASRG list Subject: Re: [Asrg] draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-00 Message-ID: <20040505040550.GA2284@m450> References: <20040502215908.GA32116@m450> <16534.49516.482100.934754@world.std.com> <4097C87D.8000108@americasm01.nt.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4097C87D.8000108@americasm01.nt.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, 5 May 2004 00:05:50 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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, May 04, 2004 at 12:44:45PM -0400, Chris Lewis wrote > > > In terms of improvements to this BCP, I have an idea that > > > would render the rest of the BCP moot... > I don't think BCP'ing a requirement that ISPs permit their users > choice as to which BL to use is practical, desirable or even useful. > > Indeed, such a BCP would be a complete waste of time for _us_, > because our users (employees) don't get that option by policy. That's not what I meant. I specifically refered to clients. The employees are *NOT* your paying clients, so that requirement can not be read as applying to them. The ISP I use for my remote inbox has enduser-configurable blocking rulesets. I block Nigeria, most of non-English Asia, Isreal, chunks of Europe, and 200.0.0.0/7 (Latin America). People over there effectively see challenge/response from me. Before anyone starts ranting about "Challenge Response Authentication Protocol", my challenge is a 550 message issued right after the RCPT: stage of the SMTP transaction. It contains a URL pointing to my webpage which lists my current, temporary, unfiltered email address. Different people end up on different spam lists. And of course, someone who has business contacts, friends, and/or family in the above-mentioned countries would obviously not like my particular configuration. I see the biggest problem with DNSbl usage (and filter usage for that matter) as being the one-size-fits-all approach. People are different, and there email requirements are different. The document is about best practices with regards to DNSbls, and it should include ISPs' usage thereof. *THE* biggest problem associated with DNSbls today is that endusers often don't have a say about their usage (not even whitelisting ability). It's easy for many in the "NANAE elite" crowd to switch ISP and re-route incoming email addressed to a personal domain, without having to notify dozens or hundreds of contacts about a new email address. Joe average does not have that ability, and big corporations find ISP switchovers a painful experience. They are stuck with being blacklisted even if they personally don't spam. This creates lots of public resentment which the DMA will capitalize on. Failing to address that problem will give the DMA allies (like David Berlind) in their fight to outlaw DNSbls or at least ram ISP-wide whitelists down ISPs' throats. Making use-of-DNSbls an enduser decision will allow ISPs to point the finger at paying customers and say that they excercised freedom of choice. It will take away spammers' main argument in lawsuits and for anti-DNSbl legislation. -- 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 May 5 00:43:30 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (www.iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA21977 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 00:43:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLEEb-0001mY-Sh for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 00:42:18 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i454gHPo006851 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 May 2004 00:42:17 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLECd-0001JW-7d for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 00:40:15 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA21866 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 00:40:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLECa-0005xo-KS for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 00:40:12 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLEBe-0005pS-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 00:39:15 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLEAi-0005h8-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 00:38:16 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLE6b-0007u0-HJ; Wed, 05 May 2004 00:34:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLE1x-0006sT-UF for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 00:29:14 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA21354 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 00:29:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLE1v-0004JX-C9 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 00:29:11 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLE10-00049z-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 00:28:15 -0400 Received: from sc1.scconsult.com ([66.73.230.190] helo=toaster.scconsult.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLE05-0003zq-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 00:27:17 -0400 Received: from [192.168.254.12] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by toaster.scconsult.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8776E111F45; Wed, 5 May 2004 00:27:16 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: bill@fireproof.scconsult.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <4097CF87.2040204@americasm01.nt.com> References: <200404301430.i3UEUVu24576@panix5.panix.com> <49E0F0F9-9AC2-11D8-BEA4-000A95AC67AA@messagelabs.com> <409464E8.40705@americasm01.nt.com> <4096C5DD.6030604@elvey.com> <81C76EB8-9DB7-11D8-9BDB-000A95AC67AA@messagelabs.com> <4097CF87.2040204@americasm01.nt.com> To: asrg@ietf.org From: Bill Cole Subject: Re: [Asrg] draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-00 Cc: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 00:27:12 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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 1:14 PM -0400 5/4/04, Chris Lewis wrote: >Matt Sergeant wrote: > >>On 4 May 2004, at 14:25, Bill Cole wrote: > >>>Do you consider technical best practices relevant to this BCP or not? > >>I'd like input from Chris on this question as I had not really >>considered technical best practices. > >Technical best practises are best suited for John Levine's DNSBL >RFC. Most of the things you'd want to be there should be elevated to >RFC "MUST"s or "SHOULD"s, because that is what DNSBL "client" >implementations need to program to. > >I've always considered our BCP to be a "policy" BCP, not a technical >one. An operational guide. > >That being said, John Levine and I debated whether "DNSBL shutdown" >should be documented in his RFC or our BCP. I _personally_ would >have preferred it being in the RFC. However, the "implementations" >of high-volume DNSBL shutdown we've seen heretofore have all been, >um, "suboptimal" ;-) [+], and I as yet haven't seen a "reasonable" >one yet (at least one that I understood. I know someone who has >commented at length on "how to do this right", perhaps I can get a >detailed explanation. Well, I'm pretty sure that you've seen me and at least one other (probably more respected) DNS geek say approximately the same thing that I posted this morning, on the same day back when RFG was complaining about people continuing to query his dead lists. Others posted very similar (i.e. effectively identical) suggestions in response to RFG directly then. I'd very much appreciate some clue as to why it is suboptimal or unclear. Just to repeat for clarity, in excruciating detail: If a DNSBL had, when operating, entries of the form 1.0.0.127.dnsbl.example.com and the operator wishes to shut down the DNSBL, retaining the functionality of example.com as a working domain and minimizing queries from people who have not gotten the message yet about the shutdown, one of three sets of records should be added to the example.com zone (assuming BIND-like syntax and an $ORIGIN of example.com): Set 1: dnsbl 604800 IN NS . Set 2: dnsbl 604800 IN NS deadend deadend 604800 IN A . Set 3: dnsbl 604800 IN NS deadend deadend 604800 IN A 127.255.255.255 The three options break down pretty easily. #1 is simplest but I'm not sure that it is technically proper. #2 is probably technically proper, but the '.' RHS may be confusing for some people (or even resolvers) who see it. #3 seems to me the wisest choice, because it does not depend on a resolver understanding the '.' RHS and is likely to look clearly abnormal to any human likely to examine query results. Steve Atkins seems to like the '.' but it seems too cute to me. The effect of all of these, assuming sane resolver function, is that any resolver trying to query any of the now-dead DNSBL's records will be directed to ask the question of a nameserver that cannot exist. The long TTL (a week, which is the default maximum in BIND 9 and so is about as long as is useful) means that resolvers will query the nameserver for example.com, be told to ask the bogus nameserver for any DNSBL records, and cache that referral for a week. I personally prefer option #3 because it adds a bit of a twist that I think is useful. Most common (many? all?) IP implementations will not by default understand that an address in 127/8 other than the standard loopback of 127.0.0.1 is bogus, and so will query that address as if it were a normal IP address of a real nameserver. That means that queries against the DNSBL will each take the amount of time it takes the requester's resolver to time out on a query. This means that the people who continue to use the DNSBL after its demise will likely notice a problem, and on investigation will be able to discern that the list is dead, yet they will not be subject to the severe problems that come from the sadly customary practice of listing the whole world to get the attention of users who have not yet given up. >I talked to Yakov and John about this and they both suggested we >leave this undefined in this draft rather than expend time trying to >invent a wholly new procedure. It has to be done at some point, unless these drafts are intended to end their lives as drafts. >[+] In some cases I can't say that I blame them... But it would be >nice to have a suggested method so that BL operators don't find >themselves in a bind later. As one possible example: _don't_ use a >BL domain name you wouldn't mind deregistering later. I don't think that's necessary, and it's really rude to the registry-level nameservers. I think the rule along those lines should be that a DNSBL should be logically severable in all ways at a domain element boundary (aka: a dot) which is also a DNS zone cut (i.e. there are NS records for the severable domain name) and which is disposable in the event that the DNSBL is shut down. In short: a DNSBL should be within a DNS equivalent of an airplane 'comfort bag.' It should not be used to carry anything else that you might ever want to keep. I wrote the MUST's and SHOULD's a bit back in the thread. -- Bill Cole bill@scconsult.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed May 5 01:07:13 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (www.iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA22937 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 01:07:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLEV4-0005t6-Dc for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 00:59:18 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i454xIpm022627 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 May 2004 00:59:18 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLESK-0005KF-Kd for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 00:56:28 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA22513 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 00:56:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLESH-0000df-Qd for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 00:56:25 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLER9-0000UP-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 00:55:16 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLEQJ-0000Ln-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 00:54:23 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLEK9-0003CW-Ie; Wed, 05 May 2004 00:48:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLEFf-00021o-IQ for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 00:43:24 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA21975 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 00:43:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLEFc-0006Pj-Sf for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 00:43:20 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLEEd-0006GZ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 00:42:20 -0400 Received: from sparkle.rodents.montreal.qc.ca ([216.46.5.7] ident=wPztbn6ftikJniUTDiz3znbD6CAfjDWoWCJnRC7B7pQ) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLEE3-00067e-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 00:41:43 -0400 Received: (from mouse@localhost) by Sparkle.Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA (8.8.8/8.8.8) id AAA22390; Wed, 5 May 2004 00:41:12 -0400 (EDT) From: der Mouse Message-Id: <200405050441.AAA22390@Sparkle.Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Erik-Conspiracy: There is no Conspiracy - and if there were I wouldn't be part of it anyway. To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-00 In-Reply-To: References: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 00:35:17 -0400 (EDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit >> What happens when the ISP in question refuses to remove the >> spammer(s) and you keep getting hit by their traffic? > If I know the IP address of the spammer and I am successfully > blocking their messages why should I care? Because you probably won't continue to block their messages, once they (for example) start spewing through the zombie armies. As one simple example, I accept no mail from the great swaths of address space that have no rDNS - yet I still routinely have occasion to complain to the providers in question because they are supporting spammers whose spam I get through other routes. >> Think of it as a trade embargo, and it makes a lot more sense. > Again, trade embargos are the cause of a large number of wars. I think in this case, a better analogy is that the war has already started and we are trade-embargoing those friendly to the enemy. (Of course, like all analogies, this one is flawed; nevertheless, I think it is less flawed than the one implicit in the single-quoted comment.) /~\ The ASCII der Mouse \ / Ribbon Campaign X Against HTML mouse@rodents.montreal.qc.ca / \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed May 5 01:07:18 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (www.iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA22959 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 01:07:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLEV8-0005uh-Ug for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 00:59:22 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i454xMmo022725 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 May 2004 00:59:22 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLETI-0005YU-4E for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 00:57:28 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA22588 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 00:57:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLETF-0000p9-Dk for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 00:57:25 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLEST-0000fg-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 00:56:37 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLERv-0000VJ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 00:56:03 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLEKB-0003FO-Bl; Wed, 05 May 2004 00:48:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLEIL-0002ja-FV for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 00:46:09 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA22093 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 00:46:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLEII-0006mj-MO for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 00:46:06 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLEGe-0006aQ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 00:44:24 -0400 Received: from sparkle.rodents.montreal.qc.ca ([216.46.5.7] ident=CXAE11XxAvnZ4PnOHmEG2V4TpPFH7c9YS7JRtuUpU3C) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLEGA-0006R6-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 00:43:54 -0400 Received: (from mouse@localhost) by Sparkle.Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA (8.8.8/8.8.8) id AAA22406; Wed, 5 May 2004 00:43:26 -0400 (EDT) From: der Mouse Message-Id: <200405050443.AAA22406@Sparkle.Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Erik-Conspiracy: There is no Conspiracy - and if there were I wouldn't be part of it anyway. To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-00 In-Reply-To: References: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 00:41:30 -0400 (EDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > If the BCP does not require identification of BL maintainers it is > not acceptable. To whom? You? Then I declare that if the BCP permits "testing" without spam-in-hand it is not acceptable. ...and after a few more participants throw in their own versions, we'll have nothing left. /~\ The ASCII der Mouse \ / Ribbon Campaign X Against HTML mouse@rodents.montreal.qc.ca / \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed May 5 04:26:34 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (www.iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA29626 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 04:26:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLHWr-0008I7-6I for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 04:13:21 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i458DLm3031871 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 May 2004 04:13:21 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLHTJ-00070L-C9 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 04:09:41 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA28889 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 04:09:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLHTG-0003Nd-NX for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 04:09:38 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLHSJ-0003AI-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 04:08:40 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLHRX-0002x8-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 04:07:52 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLHKC-0004BH-3l; Wed, 05 May 2004 04:00:16 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLHFO-0002ke-Ir for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 03:55:18 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA28081 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 03:55:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLHFL-0000bN-Ux for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 03:55:16 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLHEN-0000PV-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 03:54:15 -0400 Received: from chiark.greenend.org.uk ([193.201.200.170] ident=mail) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLHDM-00004R-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 03:53:12 -0400 Received: by chiark.greenend.org.uk (Debian Exim 3.35 #1) with local id 1BLHD2-0005EK-00; Wed, 05 May 2004 08:52:52 +0100 To: grsa@billmail.scconsult.com From: Tony Finch Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-00 In-Reply-To: References: <200404301430.i3UEUVu24576@panix5.panix.com> <49E0F0F9-9AC2-11D8-BEA4-000A95AC67AA@messagelabs.com> <409464E8.40705@americasm01.nt.com> <4096C5DD.6030604@elvey.com> <81C76EB8-9DB7-11D8-9BDB-000A95AC67AA@messagelabs.com> <4097CF87.2040204@americasm01.nt.com> <4097CF87.2040204@americasm01.nt.com> Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 05 May 2004 08:52:52 +0100 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Bill Cole wrote: > >Set 1: > >dnsbl 604800 IN NS . > >Set 2: > >dnsbl 604800 IN NS deadend >deadend 604800 IN A . > >Set 3: > >dnsbl 604800 IN NS deadend >deadend 604800 IN A 127.255.255.255 > > >The three options break down pretty easily. #1 is simplest but I'm >not sure that it is technically proper. #2 is probably technically >proper, but the '.' RHS may be confusing for some people (or even >resolvers) who see it. #3 seems to me the wisest choice, because it >does not depend on a resolver understanding the '.' RHS and is likely >to look clearly abnormal to any human likely to examine query >results. #2 is a syntax error. The IP address on the RHS of an A record is not a domain so it must have four numerical parts separated by dots. Nothing else will do. Tony. -- f.a.n.finch http://dotat.at/ LANDS END TO ST DAVIDS HEAD INCLUDING THE BRISTOL CHANNEL: NORTHWEST 6 OR 7, DECREASING 5 IN THE EAST. SHOWERS. GOOD. MODERATE OR ROUGH, OCCASIONALLY VERY ROUGH AT FIRST IN THE WEST, BECOMING SLIGHT IN THE EAST. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed May 5 09:37:42 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA12739 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 09:37:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLMWq-00083i-E0 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 09:33:40 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i45DXepa030978 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 May 2004 09:33:40 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLMTx-0007Bb-8g for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 09:30:41 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA12406 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 09:30:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLMTv-0001cN-GH for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 09:30:39 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLMSx-0001OP-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 09:29:40 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLMSV-0001Ak-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 09:29:11 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLMMZ-0005MN-4y; Wed, 05 May 2004 09:23:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLMII-0003uM-4g for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 09:18:38 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA11921 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 09:18:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLMIG-0006Z2-Ev for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 09:18:36 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLMHX-0006LL-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 09:17:51 -0400 Received: from peacock.verisign.com ([65.205.251.73]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLMGc-000672-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 09:16:54 -0400 Received: from mou1wnexc02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.54]) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.11/) with ESMTP id i45DGrVh002820; Wed, 5 May 2004 06:16:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mou1wnexc02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) id ; Wed, 5 May 2004 06:16:53 -0700 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Barry Shein'" , ASRG list Subject: RE: [Asrg] draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-00 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, 5 May 2004 06:16:50 -0700 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 > FWIW I never bought the idea that blacklists were passive and > therefore completely the act of the person using them. I think that's > facile and disingenuous. > > Consider other reputation systems, such as credit agencies. > > Sure, a lender chooses to use information provided by a credit agency > so why blame the credit agency in any case? How many credit agencies would list every customer of Verizon because one customer of Verizon defaulted on a loan? How many credit agencies would list half the population of spain? Would a credit agency list Texas because of Enron? I think it is utterly ludicrous to expect that any document is going to make it through IESG review on this topic. Barry is right about plaintifs using the BCP in littigation, I would also expect to see the IETF drawn into littigation if it published a BCP that endorsed collateral damage or keeping the identity of a blacklist secret to avoid littigation. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed May 5 10:24:37 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA15785 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 10:24:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLNFz-0002B2-5T for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 10:20:19 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i45EKJrp008367 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 May 2004 10:20:19 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLN9l-0007H1-Ns for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 10:13:53 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA14913 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 10:13:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLN9j-0003rq-IO for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 10:13:51 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLN8j-0003X7-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 10:12:50 -0400 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLN7V-00031T-01 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 10:11:33 -0400 Received: from optimus22.ietf.org ([132.151.6.22] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by mx2.foretec.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1BLMuc-0003BQ-MG for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 09:58:15 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLMsS-00068l-N1; Wed, 05 May 2004 09:56:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLMpA-0005Hx-2B for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 09:52:36 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA13422 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 09:52:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLMp8-0006qY-57 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 09:52:34 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLMoA-0006cE-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 09:51:35 -0400 Received: from mout.perfora.net ([217.160.230.40]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLMnC-0006NP-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 09:50:34 -0400 Received: from [217.160.230.50] (helo=smtp.perfora.net) by mout.perfora.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1BLMn6-0006Ik-00; Wed, 05 May 2004 09:50:28 -0400 Received: from [68.246.144.135] (helo=solidmatrix.com) by smtp.perfora.net with asmtp (TLSv1:RC4-MD5:128) (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1BLMn5-0006h3-00; Wed, 05 May 2004 09:50:28 -0400 Message-ID: <4098F119.50602@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: "'Barry Shein'" , ASRG list Subject: Re: [Asrg] draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-00 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 X-Provags-ID: perfora.net abuse@perfora.net auth:7051a7fa85b96745770cd89fa6d27f10 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 05 May 2004 09:50:17 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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: > Barry is right about plaintifs using the BCP in littigation, > I would also expect to see the IETF drawn into littigation if > it published a BCP that endorsed collateral damage or keeping > the identity of a blacklist secret to avoid littigation. > Can you give an example of any other IETF BCP or any other IETF document used in litigation? For example was any ISP ever sued for not following guidelines in RFC 3013 (BCP 46) - "Recommended Internet Service Provider Security Services and Procedures"? In any case, at this time this is a research document within the scope of the ASRG's charter. 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 May 5 10:43:19 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA17057 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 10:43:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLNVO-0007H4-Pn for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 10:36:14 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i45EaEnJ027958 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 May 2004 10:36:14 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLNQy-0005Vf-0b for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 10:31:40 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA16234 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 10:31:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLNQv-0000NN-6R for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 10:31:37 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLNPw-00008L-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 10:30:36 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLNOr-0007Td-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 10:29:29 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLNGk-0002UW-OO; Wed, 05 May 2004 10:21:06 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLN9u-0007Jv-Mt for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 10:14:02 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA14978 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 10:13:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLN9s-0003ss-FI for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 10:14:00 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLN8t-0003Yg-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 10:12:59 -0400 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLN7X-00031T-03 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 10:11:35 -0400 Received: from peacock.verisign.com ([65.205.251.73]) by mx2.foretec.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1BLMt0-0003A5-LR for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 09:56:34 -0400 Received: from mou1wnexc02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.54]) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.11/) with ESMTP id i45DuVmH018564; Wed, 5 May 2004 06:56:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mou1wnexc02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) id ; Wed, 5 May 2004 06:56:31 -0700 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Yakov Shafranovich'" , "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" Cc: "'Barry Shein'" , ASRG list Subject: RE: [Asrg] draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-00 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, 5 May 2004 06:56:25 -0700 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 > Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > > Barry is right about plaintifs using the BCP in littigation, > > I would also expect to see the IETF drawn into littigation if > > it published a BCP that endorsed collateral damage or keeping > > the identity of a blacklist secret to avoid littigation. > > > > Can you give an example of any other IETF BCP or any other > IETF document > used in litigation? For example was any ISP ever sued for not > following > guidelines in RFC 3013 (BCP 46) - "Recommended Internet > Service Provider > Security Services and Procedures"? Can you think of any other instance where vexatious lawsuits have been started so freely? Having the law on your side does not mean that it will not cost a huge sum to defend. The IETF cannot afford $500,000 defending itself in an unnecessary lawsuit. > In any case, at this time this is a research document within > the scope of the ASRG's charter. I will still strongly advise that it be suppressed, regardless of the contents. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed May 5 10:56:15 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA17952 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 10:56:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLNZE-00006B-57 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 10:40:12 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i45EeCc5000375 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 May 2004 10:40:12 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLNSx-0006JB-UP for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 10:33:43 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA16378 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 10:33:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLNSv-0000qz-Lz for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 10:33:41 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLNRz-0000cx-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 10:32:44 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLNRW-0000P3-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 10:32:14 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLNGp-0002VA-0T; Wed, 05 May 2004 10:21:11 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLNCT-0008I9-3r for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 10:16:41 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA15352 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 10:16:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLNCQ-0004c2-Le for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 10:16:38 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLNBP-0004N0-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 10:15:36 -0400 Received: from smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net ([207.172.4.61]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLNAT-00047w-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 10:14:37 -0400 Received: from 209-6-102-148.c3-0.smr-ubr1.sbo-smr.ma.cable.rcn.com ([209.6.102.148] helo=600x--hd3.WorkGroup) by smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #4) id 1BLNAS-0000d3-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 10:14:36 -0400 From: "Dr. Jeffrey Race" To: "ASRG list" Reply-To: "Dr. Jeffrey Race" Priority: Normal X-Mailer: PMMail 2000 Standard (2.20.2475) For Windows 98 (4.10.2222) In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: RE: [Asrg] draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-00 Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 05 May 2004 09:14:44 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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 See inline comments On Wed, 5 May 2004 06:16:50 -0700, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: >How many credit agencies would list every customer of Verizon >because one customer of Verizon defaulted on a loan? The analogy is inapt. As for loans, Verizon is not an enabler of the damages caused by its customers' loan defaults. It IS an enabler of their spamming. > >How many credit agencies would list half the population of spain? >Would a credit agency list Texas because of Enron? This type of wholesale response is valid and often done even by government agencies in order to bring pressure on a jurisdiction to clean up its act. For example, stringent visa requirements for nationals of countries lax against terror--essentially a form of whitelisting. Indeed your examples seem to support rather than oppose blacklisting. Jeffrey Race _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed May 5 10:59:19 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA18212 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 10:59:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLNaz-0000k8-Jo for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 10:42:01 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i45Eg1Ya002852 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 May 2004 10:42:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLNUn-00071H-Uc for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 10:35:37 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA16561 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 10:35:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLNUl-0001MH-F3 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 10:35:35 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLNTm-00015q-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 10:34:35 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLNSk-0000h3-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 10:33:30 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLNGq-0002VI-Up; Wed, 05 May 2004 10:21:12 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLNDj-0000aL-0Q for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 10:17:59 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA15512 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 10:17:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLNDc-0004sO-LX for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 10:17:52 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLNCc-0004dn-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 10:16:50 -0400 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLNBx-0004Oj-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 10:16:09 -0400 Received: from peacock.verisign.com ([65.205.251.73]) by mx2.foretec.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1BLNBy-0003pV-7V for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 10:16:10 -0400 Received: from mou1wnexc02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.54]) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.11/) with ESMTP id i45EG78q027172 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 07:16:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mou1wnexc02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) id ; Wed, 5 May 2004 07:16:06 -0700 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-00 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, 5 May 2004 07:16:04 -0700 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 > Because you probably won't continue to block their messages, once they > (for example) start spewing through the zombie armies. It is completely illogical to block mail from a provider because they have a zombie on their net. There is not a single ISP in this country who could guarantee that they did not have any. The way to deal with zombies is to have a better response protocol to put ISPs on notice that they have a problem with a particular address. Most ISPs do not want to be hosting zombies on their net and they will kill them the moment they find out about them. That is if the comunication reaches the right part of the company. Blacklisting zombies is certainly legit. But blacklisting every other user of that ISP is not. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed May 5 11:23:29 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA20546 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 11:23:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLO4W-0006p3-Ez for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 11:12:36 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i45FCWUX026221 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 May 2004 11:12:32 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLNvO-0000rx-Mv for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 11:03:06 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA18662 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 11:03:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLNvM-0001CS-4L for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 11:03:04 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLNuM-0000up-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 11:02:02 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLNtR-0000cK-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 11:01:05 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLNfq-0002Nj-01; Wed, 05 May 2004 10:47:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLNWq-0007bk-1u for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 10:37:44 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA16699 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 10:37:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLNWn-0001si-B0 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 10:37:41 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLNVy-0001dX-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 10:36:51 -0400 Received: from mail22.messagelabs.com ([62.231.131.211]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLNV3-00019Y-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 10:35:54 -0400 X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: msergeant@messagelabs.com X-Msg-Ref: server-23.tower-22.messagelabs.com!1083767719!8379841 X-StarScan-Version: 5.2.10; banners=messagelabs.com,-,- X-Originating-IP: [212.125.75.70] Received: (qmail 29812 invoked from network); 5 May 2004 14:35:19 -0000 Received: from smtp-1.star.net.uk (212.125.75.70) by server-23.tower-22.messagelabs.com with SMTP; 5 May 2004 14:35:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 6152 invoked from network); 5 May 2004 14:35:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO matt-dev.int.star.co.uk) (195.216.14.9) by smtp-1.star.net.uk with SMTP; 5 May 2004 14:35:29 -0000 Received: (qmail 327 invoked from network); 4 May 2004 14:22:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?10.2.100.139?) (10.2.100.139) by matt?dev.int.star.co.uk with SMTP; 4 May 2004 14:22:12 -0000 In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v613) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <6E11BDAC-9EA1-11D8-9BDB-000A95AC67AA@messagelabs.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "'Barry Shein'" , ASRG list From: Matt Sergeant To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.613) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] Analogies Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 15:35:18 +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 On 5 May 2004, at 14:16, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > How many credit agencies would list every customer of Verizon > because one customer of Verizon defaulted on a loan? > > How many credit agencies would list half the population of spain? > Would a credit agency list Texas because of Enron? Can we (as a group - I don't intend to single Phillip out) stop with the bad analogies? We seem to keep filling this list with awful analogies to the real world that make no sense whatsoever. The internet email system is different. Examples of bad analogies seen here: - SMTP compared to the postal system - The internet email system compared to the telephone network - Sender-pays compared to cars that run on water - Blacklists compared to credit agencies - Blacklists compared to restaurant critics I could probably go on... Analogies have ceased to be a useful tool, especially on this list. Can we stick to reality? Matt. ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email ______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed May 5 11:35:53 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (www.iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA21383 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 11:35:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLOFL-0002fz-F3 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 11:23:43 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i45FNhLQ010283 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 May 2004 11:23:43 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLO7r-0007xZ-Cc for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 11:15:59 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA20193 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 11:15:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLO7q-00053T-IR for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 11:15:58 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLO6l-0004nj-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 11:14:52 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLO68-0004YX-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 11:14:12 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLNxJ-0001NL-10; Wed, 05 May 2004 11:05:05 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLNoP-0005si-7J for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 10:55:53 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA17917 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 10:55:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLNoM-0006nx-OV for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 10:55:50 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLNnJ-0006J4-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 10:54:46 -0400 Received: from smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net ([207.172.4.61]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLNm4-0005vW-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 10:53:28 -0400 Received: from 209-6-102-148.c3-0.smr-ubr1.sbo-smr.ma.cable.rcn.com ([209.6.102.148] helo=600x--hd3.WorkGroup) by smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #4) id 1BLNm3-0007AN-00; Wed, 05 May 2004 10:53:27 -0400 From: "Dr. Jeffrey Race" To: "Jeffrey Race" Cc: "ASRG list" Reply-To: "Dr. Jeffrey Race" Priority: Normal X-Mailer: PMMail 2000 Standard (2.20.2475) For Windows 98 (4.10.2222) In-Reply-To: <4098F119.50602@solidmatrix.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Asrg] draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-00 Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 05 May 2004 09:53:35 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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, 05 May 2004 09:50:17 -0400, Yakov Shafranovich wrote: >Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: >> Barry is right about plaintifs using the BCP in littigation, >> I would also expect to see the IETF drawn into littigation if >> it published a BCP that endorsed collateral damage or keeping >> the identity of a blacklist secret to avoid littigation. >Can you give an example of any other IETF BCP or any other IETF document >used in litigation? For example was any ISP ever sued for not following >guidelines in RFC 3013 (BCP 46) - "Recommended Internet Service Provider >Security Services and Procedures"? It is to desireable and to be expected that courts will in due course rely on industry practices and standards in adjudicating acceptable behavior. We should not be shy of it but instead encourage it. Approved and deprecated practices are what we need to encourage and eventually get into the judicial system. Every industry does this and it is long past time for ours. It is nothing to fear. Regarding 'collateral damage': while the reality of its usefulness is clear, this discussion usefully points to the possible injurious emotive overtones. A more useful phraseology might be that employed (with a long legal history) in the environmental pollution field. Stringent measures against polluters (which is what spam-enablers are) are well received in public and legally sanctioned. (See some possible wording at ). Please let everyone be clear that a blacklist does not prevent anyone from receiving service. A blacklist USER prevents service. A blacklist author is not injuring anyone. This extremely important legal point may have to be highlighted in our documentation. It is one reason (among others) why the author of a blacklist standard is not vulnerable to a claim for damages. Jeffrey Race _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed May 5 11:49:38 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (www.iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA22034 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 11:49:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLOWC-00010i-1t for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 11:41:08 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i45Ff85L003872 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 May 2004 11:41:08 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLOJL-0004Pg-1v for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 11:27:51 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA20866 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 11:27:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLOJK-0000KZ-3o for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 11:27:50 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLOIS-00004w-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 11:26:57 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLOHk-0007cV-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 11:26:12 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLOEi-0002R3-HQ; Wed, 05 May 2004 11:23:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLO1M-0005Xp-D1 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 11:09:16 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA19066 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 11:09:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLO1J-0002x9-OD for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 11:09:13 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLNyi-0002B4-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 11:06:33 -0400 Received: from [66.98.212.93] (helo=tin.nixcartel.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLNxR-0001mK-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 11:05:13 -0400 Received: from dvb.homelinux.org (unknown [202.88.170.34]) by tin.nixcartel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F27A11AC06B for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 10:11:47 -0500 (CDT) Received: by dvb.homelinux.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id 0BE2234020; Wed, 5 May 2004 20:34:54 +0530 (IST) From: Devdas Bhagat To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-00 Message-ID: <20040505203454.A8948@evita.devdas.geek> Reply-To: Devdas Bhagat References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: ; from pbaker@verisign.com on Wed, May 05, 2004 at 07:16:04AM -0700 X-Message-Flag: Friends protect friends from Microsoft Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 20:34:54 +0530 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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 05/05/04 07:16 -0700, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > > > Because you probably won't continue to block their messages, once they > > (for example) start spewing through the zombie armies. > > It is completely illogical to block mail from a provider because > they have a zombie on their net. There is not a single ISP in this > country who could guarantee that they did not have any. Practically no one does that. Responsive ISPs are whitelisted, or at least not blackholed. > The way to deal with zombies is to have a better response protocol > to put ISPs on notice that they have a problem with a particular > address. Most ISPs do not want to be hosting zombies on their net abuse@example.com is designated for that purpose. > and they will kill them the moment they find out about them. That > is if the comunication reaches the right part of the company. A lot of ISPs do not kill infected PCs. That is the part of the fundamental problem with zombies. > Blacklisting zombies is certainly legit. But blacklisting every other > user of that ISP is not. With dynamic IPs, I don't know what IP the zombie has next time. So I just hit the /24. It seems to work quite well. (And I whitelist my frequent senders so that there are no DNSBL lookups done for those hosts). Would you rather that the smarthosts provided by the ISPs be blacklisted? Devdas Bhagat _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed May 5 12:31:46 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (www.iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA23989 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 12:31:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLPBs-0000iA-KD for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 12:24:12 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i45GOCfS002734 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 May 2004 12:24:12 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLOu5-0001Lw-RH for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 12:05:49 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA22845 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 12:05:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLOu4-0002PX-IE for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 12:05:48 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLOt8-00029Y-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 12:04:51 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLOsO-0001uG-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 12:04:04 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLOkd-0006Ab-Rs; Wed, 05 May 2004 11:56:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLOY8-0001en-26 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 11:43:08 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA21815 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 11:43:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLOY7-0004MI-3A for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 11:43:07 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLOXC-00045D-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 11:42:11 -0400 Received: from pigeon.verisign.com ([65.205.251.71]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLOWU-0003n0-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 11:41:26 -0400 Received: from mou1wnexc01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.53]) by pigeon.verisign.com (8.12.11/) with ESMTP id i45FfOp5020644; Wed, 5 May 2004 08:41:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mou1wnexc01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) id ; Wed, 5 May 2004 08:41:24 -0700 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Dr. Jeffrey Race'" Cc: ASRG list Subject: RE: [Asrg] draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-00 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, 5 May 2004 08:41:19 -0700 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 The point I am making here is that any BCP that is issued should ensure that any blacklist following the practices described would be operating in compliance with existing criminal and civil law. Not only do I doubt this is the case, I don't think that there is the expertise in this group to know whether or not it is the case. The only lawyer in the group does have relevant expertise and is currently attempting to set up a whitelist. Worst of all, I don't think that there is the intention on the part of the blacklist operators to operate within the law. The idea behind this BCP appears to be to provide a safe harbor for their existing practices without the need to change any of the practices that are likely torts. > It is to desireable and to be expected that courts will in > due course rely > on industry practices and standards in adjudicating acceptable > behavior. We should not be shy of it but instead encourage it. > Approved and deprecated practices are what we need to encourage > and eventually get into the judicial system. Every industry does this > and it is long past time for ours. It is nothing to fear. I agree with the sentiment, but this is not the pace to do that. I do not beleive that this group is equiped to decide on what best industry practices are. It does not have a mandate from the industry. I agree with Barry that someone who wanted to sue a blacklist could certainly use the BCP draft as evidence of malpractice. I do not agree that a blacklist could claim that compliance with the BCP provided a safe harbor. This group is simply not representative of the parties who are harmed by incompetent, vindictive or outright malicious blacklists. In addition the statements made on this list would be admissible if there was any attempt to rely on the BCP as safe harbor. I think it is amply clear that this does not constitute a good faith effort to describe best practices that protect the interests of all the parties. > Regarding 'collateral damage': while the reality of its usefulness is > clear, this discussion usefully points to the possible > injurious emotive > overtones. A more useful phraseology might be that employed > (with a long legal history) in the environmental pollution field. > Stringent measures against polluters (which is what spam-enablers > are) are well received in public and legally sanctioned. (See > some possible wording at ). The term was coined by Vixie to describe listing a known innocent party in order to apply pressure on another party. I don't think you will find a legitimate analogy for this, certainly not the environmental one you cite where the real analogy would be for private parties to organize measures against customers of the polluters who had no part in the pollution. Attempting to compare the actions of blacklists who wont give their names to court actions does not work. The reason you will not find a legitimate analogy is that collateral damage is very clearly a tortious interference with contract. If you doubt me on this look at the cases where MAPS has been taken to court on this one, they have settled every single time. In the cases where we know what the terms were MAPS clearly surrendered. > Please let everyone be clear that a blacklist does not prevent anyone > from receiving service. That is not the case at all. > A blacklist USER prevents service. An ISP using a blacklist prevents service, it is not the decision of the end user. > A blacklist author is not injuring anyone. The cases against MAPS clearly show that the courts did not accept this argument. Publishing information with the intention that it be used to block mail can constitute a tort. > This extremely important > legal point may have to be highlighted in our documentation. It > is one reason (among others) why the author of a blacklist > standard is not vulnerable to a claim for damages. If you think that it is an important legal point perhaps you could cite a case where a court has made a favorable decision? The cases I have read lead me to the opposite conclusion. In the US you can be vulnerable for a claim for damages for walking down the street. In this case it is the claim alone that would result in crippling legal fees. There are certainly ways that a blacklist can be operated within the boundaries of the criminal and civil law. In the antiphishing WG we are actually discussing what it would take to set up a blacklist to block out phishing capture sites. It will surprise many here probably to know that I originated that idea. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed May 5 12:31:50 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (www.iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA24012 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 12:31:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLPCc-00016K-AC for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 12:24:58 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i45GOwtG004227 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 May 2004 12:24:58 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLOvG-0001fg-9a for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 12:07:02 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA22919 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 12:06:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLOvE-0002ie-Vr for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 12:07:01 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLOuV-0002S4-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 12:06:15 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLOte-0002Aj-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 12:05:22 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLOkh-0006Br-HJ; Wed, 05 May 2004 11:56:07 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLOdh-00038Y-9G for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 11:48:53 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA22010 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 11:48:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLOdg-0005pj-3d for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 11:48:52 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLOcn-0005ad-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 11:47:58 -0400 Received: from pigeon.verisign.com ([65.205.251.71]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLOcK-0005Ka-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 11:47:28 -0400 Received: from mou1wnexc01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.53]) by pigeon.verisign.com (8.12.11/) with ESMTP id i45FlOa6023422; Wed, 5 May 2004 08:47:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mou1wnexc01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) id ; Wed, 5 May 2004 08:47:24 -0700 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Dr. Jeffrey Race'" , ASRG list Subject: RE: [Asrg] draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-00 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, 5 May 2004 08:47:21 -0700 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 > On Wed, 5 May 2004 06:16:50 -0700, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > >How many credit agencies would list every customer of Verizon > >because one customer of Verizon defaulted on a loan? > > The analogy is inapt. As for loans, Verizon is not an enabler of > the damages caused by its customers' loan defaults. It IS an > enabler of their spamming. OK, Anderson accounting enabled Enron, does that mean that it is legitimate to sanction every customer of Anderson? > >How many credit agencies would list half the population of spain? > >Would a credit agency list Texas because of Enron? > > This type of wholesale response is valid and often done even > by government agencies in order to bring pressure on a jurisdiction > to clean up its act. For example, stringent visa requirements for > nationals of countries lax against terror--essentially a form of > whitelisting. The fact that a government can do something that a blacklist cannot does not support your argument. Blacklists are not governments, they are not accountable to any party. Governments are defined by their ability to hold a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. Saying that governments have the right to police the Internet is not inconsistent with saying that private individuals do not. > Indeed your examples seem to support rather than oppose > blacklisting. Your attempts to rebutt them fail totally. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed May 5 12:44:57 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 MAA24999 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 12:44:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLPRN-0006V1-D1 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 12:40:13 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i45GeDgP024982 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 May 2004 12:40:13 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLPEd-0001Q5-Er for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 12:27:03 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA23621 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 12:27:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLPEc-000011-11 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 12:27:02 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLPDZ-0007Vc-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 12:25:58 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLPCd-0007DT-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 12:24:59 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLOuK-0001T3-Pn; Wed, 05 May 2004 12:06:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLOpF-0007BZ-Uh for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 12:00:49 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA22698 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 12:00:47 -0400 (EDT) From: gep2@terabites.com Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLOpE-000198-NZ for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 12:00:48 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLOoK-0000tq-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 11:59:53 -0400 Received: from sccrmhc11.comcast.net ([204.127.202.55]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLOnT-0000PQ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 11:58:59 -0400 Received: from WinProxy.anywhere (c-67-164-154-5.client.comcast.net[67.164.154.5]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc11) with SMTP id <2004050515582901100d4vgne>; Wed, 5 May 2004 15:58:29 +0000 Received: from 192.168.0.30 by 192.168.0.1 (WinProxy); Wed, 5 May 2004 10:58:17 -0600 Received: from 192.168.0.240 (unverified [192.168.0.240]) by nts1.terabites.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Wed, 05 May 2004 11:09:09 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Asrg] draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-00 To: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 05 May 2004 11:09:09 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.8 required=5.0 tests=NO_REAL_NAME,RATWARE_EMWAC autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > I blame the credit agency if it _lies_. > I blame ISPs who lie, too (such as claiming that the string ".cjb.net" is such a strong sign of spam that no message containing it can be delivered; you've lost two customers that I can name (and probably many more) over that sort of policy). Here is just one more advantage of my own proposal... no ISP will lose customers (recipients, anyhow) due to their unhappiness about settings if the RECIPIENT CONTROLS THOSE SETTINGS! The OWNER OF THE INBOX is the person who controls policy regarding what mail is allowed into it, based on the content and size of the E-mail, and who sent it. It's like the (costumed/themed) waiters here at the Magic Time Machine (restaurant) who come around and ask you how you like your salad; then they jokingly comment that you SHOULD like the way it was made, since you made it yourself (from their salad bar!). The choices were YOURS so of course they should reflect your personal tastes. Gordon Peterson http://personal.terabites.com/ 1977-2002 Twenty-fifth anniversary year of Local Area Networking! Support free and fair US elections! http://stickers.defend-democracy.org 12/19/98: Partisan Republicans scornfully ignore the voters they "represent". 12/09/00: the date the Republican Party took down democracy in America. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed May 5 12:52:43 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 MAA25330 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 12:52:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLPTx-00081Z-VZ for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 12:42:54 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i45GgrD4030830 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 May 2004 12:42:53 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLPM5-0004Ui-B9 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 12:34:45 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA24399 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 12:34:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLPM3-0002PP-U5 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 12:34:43 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLPL4-000277-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 12:33:42 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLPK2-0001iN-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 12:32:38 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLPCk-0001D7-RS; Wed, 05 May 2004 12:25:06 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLOt8-0000mF-P7 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 12:04:50 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA22818 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 12:04:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLOt7-00029M-CW for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 12:04:49 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLOsB-0001ty-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 12:03:52 -0400 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLOrX-0001eX-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 12:03:12 -0400 Received: from peacock.verisign.com ([65.205.251.73]) by mx2.foretec.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1BLOrZ-0005I5-8l for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 12:03:13 -0400 Received: from MOU1WNEXC03.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.55]) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.11/) with ESMTP id i45G36KX010991; Wed, 5 May 2004 09:03:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mou1wnexc03.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) id ; Wed, 5 May 2004 09:03:06 -0700 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Matt Sergeant'" , "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" Cc: "'Barry Shein'" , ASRG list MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: [Asrg] RE: Analogies Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 09:03:06 -0700 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 > Can we (as a group - I don't intend to single Phillip out) stop with > the bad analogies? We seem to keep filling this list with awful > analogies to the real world that make no sense whatsoever. > The internet email system is different. The human mind works by analogy. If you believe Lakoff every argument including mathematics is by analogy. so it is not a very useful request. > Examples of bad analogies seen here: > > - SMTP compared to the postal system > - The internet email system compared to the telephone network > - Sender-pays compared to cars that run on water > - Blacklists compared to credit agencies > - Blacklists compared to restaurant critics All analogies are bad. The question is whether the applicability of the analogy is understood or not. The comparison of blacklists and credit agencies is being raised by the blacklist side. I was pointing out that it is a falacious argument because the analogy does not hold. In fact if you look at the credit agency analogy you can see the reason that a blacklist has a problem re tortious interference. Credit agencies do not release information about a consumer without the express consent of the consumer given in advance. That consent is set out in the form of a contract. Sure you can do some Napster style lawyering and argue that these differences are immaterial, that the fact credit agencies exist and operate in a highly restrictive manner under regulations that grant safe harbor means that blacklists have carte-blanche. But in the real world those arguments do not hold water [and if they did you still could not run your car on it]. The best analogy for blacklists is probably restaurant critics. And in that world there is definitely serious liability. A critic is unlikely to be sued over anything as subjective as awarding three or five stars. But a critic who posted 'food was inedible, sanitary conditions dangerous' could be sued in a heartbeat. Blanket analogies such as those made by blacklist proponents fail because they are of the form 'X is legal, blacklists are like an X, therefore blacklists are legal'. I am pointing out that to operate within the law X has to observe some very basic legal principals that the blaclists appear intent on ignoring. One of the most basic principles is providing a registered business address. If blacklists want to take advantage of any form of limited liability this requirement applies to them. > I could probably go on... > > Analogies have ceased to be a useful tool, especially on this > list. Can we stick to reality? There is very little case law that relates to blacklists, and that which does exist is constructed on the basis of analogy. If you follow the early cases in almost any Internet related field you will see arguments over what the correct analogy should be. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed May 5 13:10:52 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 NAA26679 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 13:10:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLPnQ-0006YM-Pd for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 13:03:00 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i45H30cp025191 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 May 2004 13:03:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLPcn-00038y-Gy for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 12:52:01 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA25260 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 12:51:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLPcl-0006ve-P7 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 12:51:59 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLPbh-0006dP-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 12:50:54 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLPbK-0006Nb-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 12:50:30 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLPT7-0007VR-IA; Wed, 05 May 2004 12:42:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLPHE-0002Aq-GK for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 12:29:44 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA23748 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 12:29:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLPHC-0000nt-UC for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 12:29:43 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLPGE-0000Y7-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 12:28:43 -0400 Received: from mail1.panix.com ([166.84.1.72]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLPFL-0000HR-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 12:27:47 -0400 Received: from panix5.panix.com (panix5.panix.com [166.84.1.5]) by mail1.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15BBD4895C for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 12:27:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from sethb@localhost) by panix5.panix.com (8.11.6p2-a/8.8.8/PanixN1.1) id i45GRfS11209; Wed, 5 May 2004 12:27:41 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200405051627.i45GRfS11209@panix5.panix.com> From: Seth Breidbart To: asrg@ietf.org In-reply-to: (pbaker@verisign.com) Subject: Re: [Asrg] draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-00 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: Wed, 5 May 2004 12:27:41 -0400 (EDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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: > How many credit agencies would list every customer of Verizon > because one customer of Verizon defaulted on a loan? Credit agencies don't "list", they provide information. If the correlation between "customer of Verizon" and "defaulted" were high enough, they'd all mention being such a customer. If it were considered irrelevant, they wouldn't. > How many credit agencies would list half the population of spain? How many insurance companies charge different amounts based on neighborhood? > Would a credit agency list Texas because of Enron? Credit for companies depends on the sovereign, not subdivision. > I think it is utterly ludicrous to expect that any document is > going to make it through IESG review on this topic. Then why are you wasting your time trying to stop it? > Barry is right about plaintifs using the BCP in littigation, How about defendants using it? > I would also expect to see the IETF drawn into littigation if > it published a BCP that endorsed collateral damage or keeping > the identity of a blacklist secret to avoid littigation. There's a difference between "not mentioning" and "endorsing". Seth _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed May 5 13:17:02 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 NAA27072 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 13:17:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLPpf-0007D9-6z for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 13:05:19 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i45H5JoQ027715 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 May 2004 13:05:19 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLPhQ-0004VZ-JQ for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 12:56:48 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA25551 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 12:56:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLPhO-0000VA-Q7 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 12:56:46 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLPgQ-0000FM-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 12:55:46 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLPfc-0007nR-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 12:54:56 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLPU7-0008D9-4S; Wed, 05 May 2004 12:43:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLPL7-0004Dj-Qr for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 12:33:45 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA24272 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 12:33:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLPL6-00027K-9k for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 12:33:44 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLPK5-0001np-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 12:32:41 -0400 Received: from mail1.panix.com ([166.84.1.72]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLPJ6-0001Oi-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 12:31:40 -0400 Received: from panix5.panix.com (panix5.panix.com [166.84.1.5]) by mail1.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D51B448CCC for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 12:31:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from sethb@localhost) by panix5.panix.com (8.11.6p2-a/8.8.8/PanixN1.1) id i45GVeM11834; Wed, 5 May 2004 12:31:40 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200405051631.i45GVeM11834@panix5.panix.com> From: Seth Breidbart To: asrg@ietf.org In-reply-to: (pbaker@verisign.com) Subject: Re: [Asrg] draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-00 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: Wed, 5 May 2004 12:31:40 -0400 (EDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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: >> Because you probably won't continue to block their messages, once they >> (for example) start spewing through the zombie armies. > > It is completely illogical to block mail from a provider because > they have a zombie on their net. There is not a single ISP in this > country who could guarantee that they did not have any. However, there are some who take action to block and clean the zombie, and others who don't. > The way to deal with zombies is to have a better response protocol > to put ISPs on notice that they have a problem with a particular > address. Most ISPs do not want to be hosting zombies on their net > and they will kill them the moment they find out about them. For a rather small value of "Most ISPs", at least based on the content of my mailbox. > That is if the comunication reaches the right part of the company. I don't have time to throw a brick through the CEO's home window with the IP written on it for every zombie spam I get. Merely sending a complaint to the published abuse address often leads to no action at all, beyond perhaps and auto-ignorebot response. > Blacklisting zombies is certainly legit. But blacklisting every > other user of that ISP is not. Since when do you get to define "legit"? My toys, my rules; blocking whatever I feel like blocking is legit, and if you don't like it feel free not to buy service from me (as if you could in the first place). Taking action to move the pain back to the non-responsive ISP is legit and appropriate. If you don't want that to hurt you, don't be (a customer of) such an ISP. Seth _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed May 5 13:35:31 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 NAA28062 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 13:35:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLQCE-0000u3-GA for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 13:28:38 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i45HScMI003468 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 May 2004 13:28:38 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLQ8U-0006fO-Jt for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 13:24:46 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA27420 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 13:24:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLQ8S-0000X4-JM for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 13:24:44 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLQ7S-0000En-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 13:23:43 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLQ6P-0007b8-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 13:22:37 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLPrU-000848-KC; Wed, 05 May 2004 13:07:12 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLPlW-0005lP-Jm for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 13:01:02 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA25997 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 13:00:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLPlU-0001iO-J6 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 13:01:00 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLPkd-0001QK-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 13:00:08 -0400 Received: from mail22.messagelabs.com ([62.231.131.211]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLPjV-0000oc-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 12:58:57 -0400 X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: msergeant@messagelabs.com X-Msg-Ref: server-20.tower-22.messagelabs.com!1083776301!8367855 X-StarScan-Version: 5.2.10; banners=messagelabs.com,-,- X-Originating-IP: [212.125.75.70] Received: (qmail 1340 invoked from network); 5 May 2004 16:58:21 -0000 Received: from smtp-1.star.net.uk (212.125.75.70) by server-20.tower-22.messagelabs.com with SMTP; 5 May 2004 16:58:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 8814 invoked from network); 5 May 2004 16:58:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO matt-dev.int.star.co.uk) (195.216.14.9) by smtp-1.star.net.uk with SMTP; 5 May 2004 16:58:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 926 invoked from network); 4 May 2004 16:45:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?10.2.100.139?) (10.2.100.139) by matt?dev.int.star.co.uk with SMTP; 4 May 2004 16:45:14 -0000 In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v613) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <69FD4F0C-9EB5-11D8-9BDB-000A95AC67AA@messagelabs.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "'Barry Shein'" , ASRG list From: Matt Sergeant To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.613) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] 2a. Blacklists, collateral damage and anonymity Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 17:58:21 +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 Phillip, I get the feeling you're happy with certain blacklists. It's two issues [*] you feel stuck on: 1) Collateral damage and 2) anonymity. So I'll try to address those. Collateral Damage ----------------- This is a really tough issue. There's really only one DNSBL that I support in terms of its collateral damage policy and that is the SBL. They will escalate a listing from the IP addresses sending spam to the corporate mail servers of the ISP in question if they are unable to get action from that ISP in removing the spammer. They do not do this lightly - only after making numerous attempts to contact the ISP both via email and telephone calls. Note the fact that the escalation is not to the entire ISP - just to the corporate mail servers of the ISP. This seems to me to be a useful technique to kick spammers off the ISP. It has worked. And this level of collateral damage doesn't have too negative effect on the customers of the ISP. However we didn't feel we could codify this technique into the BCP. Maybe we should. Instead we tried to steer towards collateral damage being the LAST resort. We did not wish to outlaw the SBL, as it is a VERY good blacklist, and is run very well and is highly respected. Creating a BCP which outlawed the SBL would have a far greater negative effect than creating a BCP which allows it to escalate listings. If you do not feel we are currently doing so in this BCP then please help us strike a middle ground instead of declaring the BCP pointless. Anonymity --------- We did not wish to prevent anonymity in the BCP because it provides useful protection to the people who run these services. This has become necessary not because what they are doing is illegal, but because the cost of even a failed lawsuit in the US is too much for the creators of the blocklists to bear. So there's a rock and a hard place. A good blocklist like the CBL is anonymous for the reason above (and other reasons). And yet it only lists insecure machines for a short temporary period. It stops varying amounts of spam for people (in the range of 40% to 80%) with practically zero false positives. Having the CBL around makes internet email much better than not having it. Do I wish that these blocklists could all be public facing and not anonymous? Absolutely! But the reality of your litigious society has ensured that this is becoming more and more difficult. I cannot comment on the legality or otherwise of being anonymous and anyone else who cannot comment on it (because they are not lawyers) should not. Matt. [*] Feel free to correct this if I'm assuming wrong. ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email ______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed May 5 13:59:40 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (www.iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA00177 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 13:59:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLQZM-0004vc-PD for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 13:52:32 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i45HqWK2018944 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 May 2004 13:52:32 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLQSu-0001wa-6R for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 13:45:52 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA29024 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 13:45:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLQSs-0006i7-1b for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 13:45:50 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLQRn-0006PM-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 13:44:44 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLQQm-0005tK-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 13:43:40 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLQMG-0007ly-J7; Wed, 05 May 2004 13:39:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLQEI-0001a8-Rr for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 13:30:46 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA27859 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 13:30:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLQEG-0002IM-Q3 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 13:30:44 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLQDN-00023W-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 13:29:49 -0400 Received: from smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net ([207.172.4.61]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLQCm-0001o1-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 13:29:12 -0400 Received: from 209-6-102-148.c3-0.smr-ubr1.sbo-smr.ma.cable.rcn.com ([209.6.102.148] helo=600x--hd3.WorkGroup) by smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #4) id 1BLQCm-0002cW-00; Wed, 05 May 2004 13:29:12 -0400 From: "Dr. Jeffrey Race" To: "Jeffrey Race" Cc: "ASRG list" Reply-To: "Dr. Jeffrey Race" Priority: Normal X-Mailer: PMMail 2000 Standard (2.20.2475) For Windows 98 (4.10.2222) In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Asrg] RE: Analogies Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 05 May 2004 12:29:19 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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, 5 May 2004 09:03:06 -0700, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: >But a critic who posted 'food was inedible, sanitary >conditions dangerous' could be sued in a heartbeat. Of course he can be sued; I have been sued many times and appeared in court hundreds of times. The point is that (with rare exceptions) truth is an absolute defense in a defamation case. There are many other defenses (e.g. good faith, public duty). The point of a practice is to spell out proper rules. If the rules of practice are proper, public, and serve a non-discriminatory public purpose, the industry body propounding the practice is liable for nothing more than harassing litigation, likely not even that. A blacklist operator who violates the rules may be liable, or may not, in some venue on some cause of action. That is right and proper. The way to make a good blacklist system is to have a good industry practice. People who run bad blacklists get run out of town. (It happened in one famous case.) I will address tortious interference in another message. Jeffrey Race _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed May 5 14:08:11 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (www.iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA01229 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 14:08:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLQbm-0006B4-0P for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 13:55:02 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i45Ht1w5023741 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 May 2004 13:55:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLQYs-0004e0-QL for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 13:52:02 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA29483 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 13:52:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLQYq-0000g1-HW for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 13:52:00 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLQY2-0000On-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 13:51:11 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLQXR-00006e-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 13:50:33 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLQOE-0000KL-Bg; Wed, 05 May 2004 13:41:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLQIM-0005Nt-FH for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 13:34:58 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA28054 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 13:34:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLQIK-0003Nh-CH for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 13:34:56 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLQHL-00037T-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 13:33:56 -0400 Received: from smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net ([207.172.4.61]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLQGv-0002rX-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 13:33:29 -0400 Received: from 209-6-102-148.c3-0.smr-ubr1.sbo-smr.ma.cable.rcn.com ([209.6.102.148] helo=600x--hd3.WorkGroup) by smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #4) id 1BLQGv-0003Fs-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 13:33:29 -0400 From: "Dr. Jeffrey Race" To: "asrg@ietf.org" Reply-To: "Dr. Jeffrey Race" Priority: Normal X-Mailer: PMMail 2000 Standard (2.20.2475) For Windows 98 (4.10.2222) In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: RE: [Asrg] draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-00 Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 05 May 2004 12:33:36 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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,TO_ADDRESS_EQ_REAL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Wed, 5 May 2004 07:16:04 -0700, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: >It is completely illogical to block mail from a provider because >they have a zombie on their net. As a first step, yes, it is inappropriate, and that should be part of the practice. >There is not a single ISP in this >country who could guarantee that they did not have any. Not relevant. The issue is not "any"; it is one of continued patterns of abuse after proper notification > >The way to deal with zombies is to have a better response protocol >to put ISPs on notice that they have a problem with a particular >address. Most ISPs do not want to be hosting zombies on their net >and they will kill them the moment they find out about them. Yes but as you admit some do nothing. Those are the ones who need to be blacklisted into action (or bankruptcy, because they are profiting from the environmental-polluter business model.) >That is if the comunication reaches the right part of the company. In some companies there is no 'right part' because the management decides to dump their problem on the spam/trojan/virus/worm victims, rather than fixing it inhouse. Management chooses to be a polluter, and they should accept the consequences. We should > >Blacklisting zombies is certainly legit. But blacklisting every other >user of that ISP is not. Like all other complicated human situations, it depends on the facts of the situation. Jeffrey Race _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed May 5 14:34:07 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (www.iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA03410 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 14:34:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLR78-0002pI-9Y for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 14:27:26 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i45IRQWW010865 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 May 2004 14:27:26 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLR1h-0000N5-M2 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 14:21:49 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA02086 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 14:21:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLR1f-0001P1-9q for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 14:21:47 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLQys-0000Xa-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 14:18:54 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLQws-0007lo-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 14:16:50 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLQoU-0003dU-1k; Wed, 05 May 2004 14:08:10 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLQfk-0007ba-TR for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 13:59:08 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA29998 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 13:59:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLQfi-0002ec-Cs for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 13:59:06 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLQdH-0001vt-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 13:56:36 -0400 Received: from sparkle.rodents.montreal.qc.ca ([216.46.5.7] ident=KVcvcB7F6opEQFC915p0lDEZiGkCU7RWAuuywhxu5Po) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLQbv-0001YI-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 13:55:11 -0400 Received: (from mouse@localhost) by Sparkle.Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA25515; Wed, 5 May 2004 13:55:10 -0400 (EDT) From: der Mouse Message-Id: <200405051755.NAA25515@Sparkle.Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Erik-Conspiracy: There is no Conspiracy - and if there were I wouldn't be part of it anyway. To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-00 In-Reply-To: References: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 13:32:59 -0400 (EDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > The point I am making here is that any BCP that is issued should > ensure that any blacklist following the practices described would be > operating in compliance with existing criminal and civil law. This - importing legal restrictions into the BCP - is not really practical. We, the group generating the BCP, cannot know what the legal restrictions are. There are so many jurisdictions around that researching the various laws is too large a task. And besides, even as slow as legislative progress typically is, given the number of jurisdictions, it's a dead cinch that someone's legal climate will change during the BCP publication process, never mind between publication and use. Even if you just stick to, say, USA/Canada/EU/Australia, I think it would be a very bad idea to enshrine the current law of any of those in our document - especially given how fast (in legislative terms) the legal climate is changing. >> [..."collateral damage"...] > I don't think you will find a legitimate analogy for this, certainly > not the environmental one you cite where the real analogy would be > for private parties to organize measures against customers of the > polluters who had no part in the pollution. And what's wrong with that? I can organize - or more precisely try to organize - boycotts against anyone I please for any reason I please (with a few specific exceptions in many jurisdictions, none of which are relevant here), from people who wear black socks to people who can't spell to people who buy from Exxon - to (say) people who get net connectivity through Verizon. > The reason you will not find a legitimate analogy is that collateral > damage is very clearly a tortious interference with contract. > [...case law, notably MAPS...] As you ought to know, the MAPS cases were brought in the USA, where the merits of a case have comparatively little to do with how it ends; in MAPS cases I heard of, it was a question of who was willing to throw more money at lawyers. >> A blacklist author is not injuring anyone. > The cases against MAPS clearly show that the courts did not accept > this argument. As you yourself pointed out (in text I cut), the MAPS cases were settled out of court; the court did not have a chance to accept or reject the argument in question. > In the US you can be vulnerable for a claim for damages for walking > down the street. In this case it is the claim alone that would > result in crippling legal fees. True. Perhaps the BCP should say "do not run the list under USA legal jurisdiction"; that's certainly the lesson _I_ find in your examples. /~\ The ASCII der Mouse \ / Ribbon Campaign X Against HTML mouse@rodents.montreal.qc.ca / \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed May 5 14:49:01 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA04129 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 14:49:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLRHh-0008IG-99 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 14:38:21 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i45IcLN9031875 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 May 2004 14:38:21 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLR9e-00044D-U3 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 14:30:03 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA03165 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 14:30:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLR9c-0004Ej-Ee for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 14:30:00 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLR8o-0003xo-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 14:29:11 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLR7v-0003fl-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 14:28:15 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLR2r-00011W-3k; Wed, 05 May 2004 14:23:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLQs2-0004nX-61 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 14:11:50 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA01333 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 14:11:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLQrz-0006LE-M9 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 14:11:47 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLQqz-00064I-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 14:10:45 -0400 Received: from mout.perfora.net ([217.160.230.40]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLQpw-0005cL-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 14:09:40 -0400 Received: from [217.160.230.50] (helo=smtp.perfora.net) by mout.perfora.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1BLQpu-0000HN-00; Wed, 05 May 2004 14:09:38 -0400 Received: from [68.246.26.72] (helo=solidmatrix.com) by smtp.perfora.net with asmtp (SSLv3:RC4-MD5:128) (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1BLQps-0006c1-00; Wed, 05 May 2004 14:09:38 -0400 Message-ID: <40992DD8.4070308@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 list Subject: Re: [Asrg] draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-00 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 X-Provags-ID: perfora.net abuse@perfora.net auth:7051a7fa85b96745770cd89fa6d27f10 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 05 May 2004 14:09:28 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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: >>Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: >> >>>Barry is right about plaintifs using the BCP in littigation, >>>I would also expect to see the IETF drawn into littigation if >>>it published a BCP that endorsed collateral damage or keeping >>>the identity of a blacklist secret to avoid littigation. >>> >> >>Can you give an example of any other IETF BCP or any other >>IETF document >>used in litigation? For example was any ISP ever sued for not >>following >>guidelines in RFC 3013 (BCP 46) - "Recommended Internet >>Service Provider >>Security Services and Procedures"? > > > Can you think of any other instance where vexatious lawsuits > have been started so freely? > > Having the law on your side does not mean that it will not cost > a huge sum to defend. The IETF cannot afford $500,000 defending > itself in an unnecessary lawsuit. > There is another BCP that has a similar problem - RFC 2148/BCP 15 - "Deployment of the Internet White Pages Service". In particular is starts off with the following: "1. An organization SHOULD publish public E-mail addresses and other public address information about Internet users within their site." As many of us are aware, there are numerous laws that may forbid that (not counting the possibility of harvesting). This is why the next paragraph of the BCP addresses that: "2. Most countries have laws concerning publication of information about persons. Above and beyond these, the organization SHOULD follow the recommendations of [1]." Section 6 expands on this in detail, with snippets like: "Every maintainer of IWPS information should publish data according to the national law of the country in which the local database which holds the information resides." THEREFORE, to resolve this issue in regards to this particular document, it might be sufficient to include a similar section discussing the legal issues and make it clear that the local laws of whatever country the blacklist list operator is in, override the recommendations and that the BCP is not meant to go against any existing law. > > >>In any case, at this time this is a research document within >>the scope of the ASRG's charter. > > > I will still strongly advise that it be suppressed, regardless > of the contents. > See RFC 2014, section 3, first paragraph. 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 May 5 14:52:28 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA04409 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 14:52:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLRRa-0003vL-Ge for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 14:48:34 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i45ImYqW015078 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 May 2004 14:48:34 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLRHb-0008Ff-69 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 14:38:15 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA03670 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 14:38:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLRHY-0006X9-Eu for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 14:38:12 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLRGW-0006FI-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 14:37:09 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLRFl-0005wm-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 14:36:21 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLR7m-0003LW-35; Wed, 05 May 2004 14:28:06 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLR2X-0000mw-C8 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 14:22:41 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA02309 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 14:22:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLR2U-0001ke-RV for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 14:22:38 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLR0e-00011i-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 14:20:45 -0400 Received: from zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com ([47.129.242.57]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLQyI-000087-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 14:18:18 -0400 Received: from zcard309.ca.nortel.com (zcard309.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.69]) by zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.6/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id i45IHkr16745 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 14:17:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard309.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id JCT8PLQP; Wed, 5 May 2004 14:17:46 -0400 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (clewis-2.ca.nortel.com [47.129.150.65]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id JM9FVNFL; Wed, 5 May 2004 14:17:45 -0400 Message-ID: <40992FC9.4080509@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.5 (Windows/20040207) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-00 References: <200404301430.i3UEUVu24576@panix5.panix.com> <49E0F0F9-9AC2-11D8-BEA4-000A95AC67AA@messagelabs.com> <409464E8.40705@americasm01.nt.com> <4096C5DD.6030604@elvey.com> <4097C49A.70109@americasm01.nt.com> <409840E3.2020504@elvey.com> In-Reply-To: <409840E3.2020504@elvey.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 05 May 2004 14:17:45 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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 5/4/04 9:28 AM, Chris Lewis sent forth electrons to convey: >> I can think of a couple. Here's one: a blacklist entry that was >> created solely on the existance of an open proxy, yet delisting >> required that the system owner provided rDNS and postmaster >> accessibility IN ADDITION to fixing the proxy. Desirable yes, but, >> this goes beyond the BLs stated purpose, and unnecessarily conflates >> anti-spam with non-spam issues. rDNS/postmaster were irrelevant to >> the original listing, they should remain irrelevant to a subsequent >> delisting. > That's not a valid example. If these additional requirements were not > in the BL's stated delisting, then this issue was covered in > 2.1. "Truth in Advertising". You _could_ do it that way. But this runs into a number of problems. One of which being a crack to stick the wedge of impropriety in. Believe me, it's best for the blacklist _owner_ to do whatever they can that has the slightest whiff of ulterior motives. Ie: "pay me to get out of the list". Which is either extortion or protection rackets or both. I strongly believe that any blacklist owner who does think through all of the ramifications of "extra delisting requirements" will realize it's in their best interests to avoid them. In a legal sense. Objectivity and pinpoint accuracy is always to be preferred if there's no compelling reason to do otherwise (ie: SPEWS being inherently and deliberately subjective). Subjective isn't _wrong_, just unnecessary-to-the-goal subjectivity is dangerous - to the blacklist admin's legal liability - even if only a frivolous claim. When I was Usenet despamming (for about 6 years), there were many opportunities to do things like this. Some perfectly reasonable, some not. And I've watched other de/anti spammers go through some of the same temptations and the flamewars and worse that resulted. It's simply never preferable to do anything that is even remotely close to imposing something on the listee that benefits _you_, or isn't directly related to the listing. That ONLY provides leverage for legal action, justified or not. That's 10 years hard labour in the trenches (with at times an average of one lawsuit threat per _day_) speaking. This recommendation serves to _lessen_ the BL owner's potential legal problems, not the opposite. >>> 2.3. Listing/Delisting Criteria MUST Be Easily Available. > Vagueness here is undesirable. Here's my specific text suggestion: 2.3 > would benefit from the addition of sentences like: The precise > algorithms and data used for listing and delisting do not need to be > disclosed. Some criteria may be vaguely defined to slow down spammer > adaptation. I think clarification of intent along that line would be a good idea. >>> 2.6. MUST Have a Direct Non-Public Way to Request Removal. > I can't think of any benefit that 2.6 would provide. I claim that any > question re. SPEWS is likely going to be answered faster and better via > a nanae/nanabl posting. For the most part you're perfectly right. NANAE or NANABL will usually come up with a good explanation (albeit buried deep amongst the insults and entirely wrong answers). In theory, and much of the time in practise, it works acceptably well. _If_ it's asked, and _if_ one or more of the answerers manage to figure out the answer and _if_ the questioner is able to seperate the wheat from the chaff (nay, buckshot ;-), fine. But, these things fail a whole lot more than people appreciate. I'm on lists where things like this are discussed honestly. 1) listees (especially ISPs) sometimes have no idea whatsoever why are listed. Sometimes it's subtle (like a stale DNS entry), or some connection that's not published in the SPEWS entry. I full well believe that SPEWS listings result from unanswered complaints. On the other hand, one can easily expect some of these complaints going astray (for a whole host of reasons, including not identifying the responsible party correctly in the first place). Having a failsafe to get the right answer is desirable. I've seen plenty of ISPs saying "I have no idea why this is listed. We've never got any complaints about this customer". Or, worse, when they can't figure out what customer the listing is a result of. Yeah, sometimes they're lying. But not always. 2) A whole host of *SPs and personnel simply refuse to have anything to do with NANAE or NANABL. I've done my bit to try to persuade them otherwise, including in some cases "fronting" requests and guiding them thru the minefield. But it almost never happens. 3) I've seen NANAE/NANABL grasping at straws to find out the ultimate reason for a listing, and never finding it. Or not knowing if it has been found. My goal in anti-spam is to block spam. To prevent spam from being sent in the first place. To make it as easy as possible for ISPs to clean up problems or, gasp, point out mistakes. Even escalation has a positive role to play. I have no problem with SPEWS' general "ask NANAE" here, as long as there is a channel of last resort. CBL does something like this - you can delist yourself, and it happens within a few hours. They also have a removal limiter to refuse delisting if the same IP is removed too often. Then you're guided to contact the CBL directly. I'm sure that the vast majority of CBL delistings occur without having to go anywhere near the email address. The ones that do can't be that high volume, because I've not had problems dealing with them by email. And if you do deal with them by email, you still don't find out who they are. >>> 3. Special Rules for Blacklists Listing Insecure Machines. >>> See the SPEWS FAQ for why this is a bad idea. >> Which section? > From A45: > Due to abuse by spammers, open email relays no longer have any place on > the Internet. Some may want to debate this, we won't. > It was 3.1's "spam in hand" requirement that prompted my comment. A > BLs policy should state whether it will list w/o "spam in hand". Okay. >>> In general, it seems like the authors don't have much respect for the >>> tireless *volunteer* BL maintainers and need to spend more time >>> thinking about things from the POV of the BL maintainers. >> You're making at least three huge assumptions here, and I assure you, >> all are incorrect. Unfortunately, aside from suggesting you google >> for my name on Usenet (eg: NANA.bulletins) in the 1994-2000 period, >> answering this directly would have you holding me to a higher standard >> than our proposed BCP would. In other words, what makes you think I'm >> not running a public BL and know full well that POV? ;-) > :) Call it a gut feeling. Heh. Matt has run a public BL. Not for very long mind you, but apparently a lot of people used it during that period. As for the gut feeling w.r.t. me, well, I think that John Levine and a few others (besides Matt) might be persuaded to tell you that your gut feeling is wrong, without going into details ;-) > E.g. I > think even the CBL and SBL are not compliant with a strict > interpretation, hence some of the suggestions I've made. If the BCP can be twisted that far by a reasonable person, it needs to be adjusted. Thanks for your comments! > Oh, and good point in another email - the BCP should encourage BL usage. I view the BCP as helping in the following ways: - Blacklist owners have an idea of (a) what they're getting into and (b) what they should say to make the operation (not necessarily identity) of the blacklist transparent. - Blacklist users know what they're getting. So they won't be surprised or blindsided. They can make informed decisions on whether to use it or not. - By being as transparent as possible about the operation of the list, the blacklist owner shifts legal responsibility for use of the list onto the user of the blacklist. Which is where it should be. Even a blacklist that is run entirely capriciously can protect themselves from legal liability by making it damn clear to the potential blacklist user that it _is_ capricious. This BCP tells the blacklist owner which things at a minimum they should describe, so that the listee's argument can only be with the BL user. This BCP is _intended_ to be of benefit to both owners and users of BLs. Transparency benefits BCP owners even more than users... The only reason to lessen transparency is where necessary to prevent spammer evolution. Maybe we have to amplify the introduction more along the above lines to help ameliorate most of the legal concerns and make that intent more obvious. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed May 5 14:52:32 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA04426 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 14:52:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLRS0-0004Gw-6s for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 14:49:00 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i45In07E016417 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 May 2004 14:49:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLROz-00026k-As for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 14:45:53 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA03987 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 14:45:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLROw-0000tX-MM for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 14:45:50 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLRNz-0000c9-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 14:44:52 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLRNN-0000MR-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 14:44:13 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLRDW-000684-RX; Wed, 05 May 2004 14:34:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLR5D-0001aB-TS for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 14:25:27 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA02522 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 14:25:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLR5B-0002cB-Ad for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 14:25:25 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLR2q-00022U-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 14:23:01 -0400 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLR1B-0001Io-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 14:21:17 -0400 Received: from peacock.verisign.com ([65.205.251.73]) by mx2.foretec.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1BLR1A-0007wu-11 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 14:21:16 -0400 Received: from mou1wnexc02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.54]) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.11/) with ESMTP id i45ILA3M007243; Wed, 5 May 2004 11:21:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mou1wnexc02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) id ; Wed, 5 May 2004 11:21:10 -0700 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Seth Breidbart'" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-00 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, 5 May 2004 11:21:05 -0700 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 > Credit agencies don't "list", they provide information. > > If the correlation between "customer of Verizon" and "defaulted" were > high enough, they'd all mention being such a customer. If it were > considered irrelevant, they wouldn't. > > > How many credit agencies would list half the population of spain? > > How many insurance companies charge different amounts based on > neighborhood? That is actually a criminal violation of the credit acts. Some banks round here have paid very very large fines for that type of behavior. Sure it happens, but when it does a person listed can apply to the courts for damages. Once I had an issue with my mobile provider. They were refusing to let me get a replacement phone. Eventually someone directed me to their credit department where a supervisor told me "That program is not available to people with your postcode", to which I replied, "Oh dear you have a serious problem then, do you understand what you just said?". After a long pause, "That should not have happened". I won't go into the details here, suffice to say that it has been fixed. There are curently lawsuits in progress about the use of location data as any form of input to a scoring scheme. Location is not comparable to provider however. Location is subject to anti-discrimination statutes which are in general rather weaker than the tort of contract interference. > > I think it is utterly ludicrous to expect that any document is > > going to make it through IESG review on this topic. > > Then why are you wasting your time trying to stop it? To raise an issue at the appeals level you have to first raise it at first instance. > > Barry is right about plaintifs using the BCP in littigation, > > How about defendants using it? > > > I would also expect to see the IETF drawn into littigation if > > it published a BCP that endorsed collateral damage or keeping > > the identity of a blacklist secret to avoid littigation. > > There's a difference between "not mentioning" and "endorsing". > > Seth > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing 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 May 5 15:07:14 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA05419 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 15:07:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLRd9-0002DA-Fi for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 15:00:31 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i45J0VVk008491 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 May 2004 15:00:31 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLRYg-0007FA-EV for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 14:55:54 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA04596 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 14:55:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLRYd-0003mS-M3 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 14:55:51 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLRXb-0003Tp-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 14:54:48 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLRWf-0003C6-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 14:53:49 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLRS3-0004JM-JE; Wed, 05 May 2004 14:49:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLRFL-00074v-Gs for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 14:35:55 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA03548 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 14:35:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLRFI-0005w0-O0 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 14:35:52 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLRER-0005gC-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 14:34:59 -0400 Received: from mail1.panix.com ([166.84.1.72]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLRE2-0005PY-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 14:34:34 -0400 Received: from panix5.panix.com (panix5.panix.com [166.84.1.5]) by mail1.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E39BA48ABB for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 14:34:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from sethb@localhost) by panix5.panix.com (8.11.6p2-a/8.8.8/PanixN1.1) id i45IYVl26120; Wed, 5 May 2004 14:34:31 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200405051834.i45IYVl26120@panix5.panix.com> From: Seth Breidbart To: asrg@ietf.org In-reply-to: (pbaker@verisign.com) Subject: Re: [Asrg] draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-00 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: Wed, 5 May 2004 14:34:31 -0400 (EDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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: >> > How many credit agencies would list half the population of spain? >> >> How many insurance companies charge different amounts based on >> neighborhood? > > That is actually a criminal violation of the credit acts. Some banks > round here have paid very very large fines for that type of behavior. I trust you've never priced automobile insurance. There was recently a thread on misc.legal.moderated about someone wanting to live in Brooklyn but buy insurance claiming Nassau. Nobody suggested that the rate differential was illegal. > Sure it happens, but when it does a person listed can apply to the > courts for damages. And get laughed out of them, too. > Once I had an issue with my mobile provider. That doesn't sound like an insurance company or a credit agency. > There are curently lawsuits in progress about the use of location > data as any form of input to a scoring scheme. "Redlining" is illegal; however, other uses aren't. There are "lawsuits in progress" about lots of things. Seth _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed May 5 15:25:31 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA06784 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 15:25:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLRpO-0005ii-1U for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 15:13:10 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i45JD9ek021981 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 May 2004 15:13:10 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLRiP-00086P-I6 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 15:05:57 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA05259 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 15:05:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLRiM-0006fg-GI for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 15:05:54 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLRhb-0006Om-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 15:05:08 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLRgi-00068A-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 15:04:12 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLRZo-0007rH-KM; Wed, 05 May 2004 14:57:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLRUo-0005Jj-0e for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 14:51:54 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA04368 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 14:51:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLRUl-0002dr-7k for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 14:51:51 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLRU4-0002Ni-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 14:51:09 -0400 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLRTJ-00025V-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 14:50:22 -0400 Received: from peacock.verisign.com ([65.205.251.73]) by mx2.foretec.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1BLRTJ-0008UD-Sj for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 14:50:21 -0400 Received: from mou1wnexc02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.54]) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.11/) with ESMTP id i45IoK7k020827; Wed, 5 May 2004 11:50:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mou1wnexc02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) id ; Wed, 5 May 2004 11:50:20 -0700 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Matt Sergeant'" , "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" Cc: "'Barry Shein'" , ASRG list MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: [Asrg] RE: 2a. Blacklists, collateral damage and anonymity Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 11:50:17 -0700 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 > I get the feeling you're happy with certain blacklists. I believe it is possible to run a blacklist for certain very narrow purposes in a legal, useful and acceptable fashion. I do not think it is remotely possible to stop spam through blacklists. > It's two issues > [*] you feel stuck on: 1) Collateral damage and 2) anonymity. So I'll > try to address those. > > Collateral Damage > ----------------- > > This is a really tough issue. There's really only one DNSBL that I > support in terms of its collateral damage policy and that is the SBL. > They will escalate a listing from the IP addresses sending > spam to the > corporate mail servers of the ISP in question if they are > unable to get > action from that ISP in removing the spammer. They do not do this > lightly - only after making numerous attempts to contact the ISP both > via email and telephone calls. Note the fact that the > escalation is not > to the entire ISP - just to the corporate mail servers of the ISP. This is action against the ISP and not a third party. I would have no objection to that type of activity, it does not raise the issues of contract interference. There could still be an issue of course if the reason for the listing was simply malicious but that would be no different from listing the spammer. > Anonymity > --------- > > We did not wish to prevent anonymity in the BCP because it provides > useful protection to the people who run these services. This > has become > necessary not because what they are doing is illegal, but because the > cost of even a failed lawsuit in the US is too much for the > creators of the blocklists to bear. I don't believe in anonymous reputation services. If blacklists are going to demand accountability they must accept accountability - from all parties they affect, not just the ones they choose. I believe in the democratic rule of law, no exceptions. If the legal system is broken then it has to be fixed. There are plenty of blacklists that operate in the open. Spamhaus operates in a legal regime wrt libel that is far more hostile than the US. I do not believe that it should be legal for a public service ISP to use any anonymous blacklist service to filter customer's mail. > Do I wish that these blocklists could all be public facing and not > anonymous? Absolutely! But the reality of your litigious society has > ensured that this is becoming more and more difficult. When we started VeriSign nobody else dared to run a public service CA because they feared the liability issues. Today the liability issue is considered irrelevant by many CAs and CA customers (heh, they got a surprise comming). The reason is that VeriSign did such a good job of anticipating the legal issues and pre-empting them. The blacklist I am currently looking to establish will probably not block any spam at all, it will block less than 1% of the web sites mentioned in spam, hopefully though it will block 80%+ of a certain type of fraud. I want the blacklist to be used near universally, therefore I want to make it practically impossible for a false positive to occur - even though people will clearly attempt to engineer them. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed May 5 15:58:29 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (www.iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA08566 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 15:58:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLSR8-0007GJ-CH for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 15:52:11 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i45JqA53027901 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 May 2004 15:52:10 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLSFL-0002Sl-QX for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 15:39:59 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA07442 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 15:39:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLSFK-0000XQ-Cw for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 15:39:58 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLSEL-0000Gn-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 15:38:58 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLSDt-0007nO-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 15:38:29 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLS7f-0006GO-GI; Wed, 05 May 2004 15:32:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLRs7-0007QW-Fe for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 15:15:59 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA06306 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 15:15:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLRs6-0001e7-8u for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 15:15:58 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLRrA-0001NQ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 15:15:01 -0400 Received: from pigeon.verisign.com ([65.205.251.71]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLRqk-00016G-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 15:14:34 -0400 Received: from mou1wnexc01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.53]) by pigeon.verisign.com (8.12.11/) with ESMTP id i45JEVQm011406; Wed, 5 May 2004 12:14:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mou1wnexc01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) id ; Wed, 5 May 2004 12:14:31 -0700 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'der Mouse'" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-00 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, 5 May 2004 12:14:25 -0700 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 > > The point I am making here is that any BCP that is issued should > > ensure that any blacklist following the practices described would be > > operating in compliance with existing criminal and civil law. > > This - importing legal restrictions into the BCP - is not really > practical. > > We, the group generating the BCP, cannot know what the legal > restrictions are. There are so many jurisdictions around that > researching the various laws is too large a task. Tht is not true. There are basically two legal traditions that are in effect in the vast majority of the world, English Common Law and Continental Law. If you go back a bit further vitually all legal systems are derrived from Roman law or Confussian ideas. There is a significant amount of interchange since English Common Law imported a lot of Confussian ideas during the colonization of India and the opium wars. The basic principles of tort law are exactly the same whether you are in the UK, the US, Canada, Australia or most of the former colonies. Given that this is where the majority of current and future Internet users live it seems reasonable to expect BCPs to comply here. > And besides, even as > slow as legislative progress typically is, given the number of > jurisdictions, it's a dead cinch that someone's legal climate will > change during the BCP publication process, never mind between > publication and use. Interference with contract has been a legal principle that has existed for 2000 years. I doubt it will disappear anytime soon. > Even if you just stick to, say, USA/Canada/EU/Australia, I think it > would be a very bad idea to enshrine the current law of any > of those in > our document - especially given how fast (in legislative terms) the > legal climate is changing. Off hand I cannot recall a single legislative act in the past fifteen years that has changed the legal climate. CAN-SPAM merely criminalizes behavior that was already being successfully litigated by Jon Praed and co. Before that we had the digital signature act which merely reiterated the fact that in English common law any mark that is intended as a signature is a signature and that there is a rebuttable assumption that a signature is valid. Before that we had various hacker statutes that made it clear that theft of computer service, criminal damage to computer services was the same as any other criminal damage. In fact come to think of it I cannot think of any case where legislation has ever changed the legal principles that apply. > >> [..."collateral damage"...] > > I don't think you will find a legitimate analogy for this, certainly > > not the environmental one you cite where the real analogy would be > > for private parties to organize measures against customers of the > > polluters who had no part in the pollution. > > And what's wrong with that? I can organize - or more precisely try to > organize - boycotts against anyone I please for any reason I please > (with a few specific exceptions in many jurisdictions, none of which > are relevant here), from people who wear black socks to people who > can't spell to people who buy from Exxon - to (say) people who get net > connectivity through Verizon. You can lawfully boycott McDonalds if you don't like them. Organizing a boycott of customers of McDonalds is a very different matter. > As you ought to know, the MAPS cases were brought in the USA, > where the > merits of a case have comparatively little to do with how it ends; in > MAPS cases I heard of, it was a question of who was willing to throw > more money at lawyers. Read the pre-trial judgements. I don't think that better lawyers would have changed them. > As you yourself pointed out (in text I cut), the MAPS cases were > settled out of court; the court did not have a chance to accept or > reject the argument in question. There are pre-trial decisions that are public. and those decisions make it very clear that in that circuit at least the court was not buying the MAPS arguments. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed May 5 15:58:51 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (www.iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA08588 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 15:58:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLSRW-0007Xv-Ma for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 15:52:35 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i45JqYtt028996 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 May 2004 15:52:34 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLSHA-0003E6-Fo for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 15:41:52 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA07524 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 15:41:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLSH9-00019B-7x for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 15:41:51 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLSG8-0000oq-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 15:40:49 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLSF9-0000To-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 15:39:47 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLS7g-0006GW-Al; Wed, 05 May 2004 15:32:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLRsy-000807-HT for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 15:16:52 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA06375 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 15:16:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLRsx-0001u8-6p for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 15:16:51 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLRrz-0001dI-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 15:15:52 -0400 Received: from mail3.panix.com ([166.84.1.74]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLRr3-0001MF-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 15:14:53 -0400 Received: from panix5.panix.com (panix5.panix.com [166.84.1.5]) by mail3.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 732489833F for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 15:14:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from sethb@localhost) by panix5.panix.com (8.11.6p2-a/8.8.8/PanixN1.1) id i45JErg01438; Wed, 5 May 2004 15:14:53 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200405051914.i45JErg01438@panix5.panix.com> From: Seth Breidbart To: asrg@ietf.org In-reply-to: (pbaker@verisign.com) Subject: Re: [Asrg] RE: 2a. Blacklists, collateral damage and anonymity 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: Wed, 5 May 2004 15:14:53 -0400 (EDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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: > I believe it is possible to run a blacklist for certain very narrow > purposes in a legal, useful and acceptable fashion. I do not think > it is remotely possible to stop spam through blacklists. It is clearly possible to block a lot of it that way. Is there a reason you seem to be opposed to such blocking? > I don't believe in anonymous reputation services. They exist. Deal with it. Or continue to deny it; I don't have to care. > If blacklists are going to demand accountability they must accept > accountability - from all parties they affect, not just the ones they > choose. I haven't seen anything about blacklists that "demand accountability"; rather, they just provide information. If you choose to create a "blacklist of blacklists" that lists the ones that aren't sufficiently well-identified to satisfy you, go for it. I'm sure all those who agree with you will use it appropriately. > I believe in the democratic rule of law, no exceptions. If the legal > system is broken then it has to be fixed. What do "opinion servers" and "fact providers" have to do with "the democratic rule of law"? > There are plenty of blacklists that operate in the open. So you have no shortage of ones to use, if you want to. > I do not believe that it should be legal for a public service ISP to > use any anonymous blacklist service to filter customer's mail. The Constitution of the US disagrees with you. Read up about "freedom of contract" sometime. But I'll happily allow you to define the phrase "public service ISP" not to include those that use anonymous blacklist services; entities that want to use such services can call themselves "private service ISPs" or just "ISPs". > When we started VeriSign nobody else dared to run a public service > CA because they feared the liability issues. Today the liability > issue is considered irrelevant by many CAs and CA customers (heh, > they got a surprise comming). How much did you lose for that bogus Microsoft certificate? > The reason is that VeriSign did such > a good job of anticipating the legal issues and pre-empting them. Such as defining contracts to say "we have no liability". That would seem like a good thing for blacklists to do as well. > The blacklist I am currently looking to establish will probably not > block any spam at all, it will block less than 1% of the web sites > mentioned in spam, hopefully though it will block 80%+ of a certain > type of fraud. Fine with me. > I want the blacklist to be used near universally, That's very unlikely to happen. Seth _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed May 5 15:59:02 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (www.iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA08623 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 15:59:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLSRd-0007Za-8m for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 15:52:41 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i45JqfEg029103 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 May 2004 15:52:41 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLSHY-0003be-B4 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 15:42:16 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA07637 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 15:42:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLSHX-0001C3-2r for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 15:42:15 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLSGd-0000sv-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 15:41:19 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLSFm-0000ZR-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 15:40:26 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLS7i-0006Ge-38; Wed, 05 May 2004 15:32:06 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLRtu-000092-Kr for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 15:17:50 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA06448 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 15:17:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLRtt-0002A6-Cj for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 15:17:49 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLRsv-0001u0-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 15:16:50 -0400 Received: from peacock.verisign.com ([65.205.251.73]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLRrz-0001dC-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 15:15:51 -0400 Received: from mou1wnexc02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.54]) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.11/) with ESMTP id i45JFpMT001989; Wed, 5 May 2004 12:15:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mou1wnexc02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) id ; Wed, 5 May 2004 12:15:51 -0700 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Yakov Shafranovich'" , "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" Cc: ASRG list Subject: RE: [Asrg] draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-00 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, 5 May 2004 12:15:49 -0700 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Yakov writes: > There is another BCP that has a similar problem - RFC 2148/BCP 15 - > "Deployment of the Internet White Pages Service". In particular is > starts off with the following: Deployment of what? Given that Internet White Pages Service does not exist the publication of a BCP on running it would appear spurious. At the very least the contents of the BCP would appear to be as likely to be an example of what to avoid rather than copy. > "1. An organization SHOULD publish public E-mail addresses and > other public address information about Internet users > within their site." > "2. Most countries have laws concerning publication of > information about > persons. Above and beyond these, the organization SHOULD follow the > recommendations of [1]." Given that this is an anti-spam group I suspect that very few people here are going to argue that (1) constitutes a desirable, let alone a 'best' practice. This is another BCP that really should never have seen the light of day. Given that the project proposed is a global X.500 directory it will clearly never see the light in the future either. > Section 6 expands on this in detail, with snippets like: > > "Every maintainer of IWPS information should publish data according to > the national law of the country in which the local database > which holds the information resides." OK are we going to see a statement in the blacklist BCP stating that blacklists should observe all relevant national laws? Are we as a minimum going to see a comment to the effect that 'collateral damage' against any third party may constitute tortious interference with contract? > THEREFORE, to resolve this issue in regards to this > particular document, > it might be sufficient to include a similar section > discussing the legal > issues and make it clear that the local laws of whatever country the > blacklist list operator is in, override the recommendations > and that the BCP is not meant to go against any existing law. Well it would be a start, but in that case what will the BCP achieve? It won't change the behavior of the blacklists, it certainly will not affect the behavior of the spammers, it certainly will not provide any safe harbor in a legal dispute. So as Barry keeps saying, what is the point of the draft? What good is it attempting to achieve? The only point I can see in a BCP for blacklists is if it is going to reduce the problems being caused by blacklists. The consensus here seems to be that blacklists never create any problems. If so there seems to be no need for a BCP. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed May 5 16:06:53 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (www.iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA08999 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 16:06:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLSaS-0002EP-OV for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 16:01:48 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i45K1mit008578 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 May 2004 16:01:48 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLSUA-0000K2-N6 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 15:55:18 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA08390 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 15:55:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLSU9-0004vQ-53 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 15:55:17 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLST7-0004bi-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 15:54:14 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLSSU-0004J5-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 15:53:34 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLSIH-0003uK-Lw; Wed, 05 May 2004 15:43:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLS9R-00075O-RD for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 15:33:53 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA07180 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 15:33:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLS9Q-0006bG-AK for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 15:33:52 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLS8S-0006IW-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 15:32:53 -0400 Received: from peacock.verisign.com ([65.205.251.73]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLS7S-00060M-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 15:31:50 -0400 Received: from mou1wnexc02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.54]) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.11/) with ESMTP id i45JVniQ008620; Wed, 5 May 2004 12:31:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mou1wnexc02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) id ; Wed, 5 May 2004 12:31:49 -0700 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Seth Breidbart'" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-00 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, 5 May 2004 12:31:44 -0700 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 > > That is actually a criminal violation of the credit acts. Some banks > > round here have paid very very large fines for that type of > behavior. > > I trust you've never priced automobile insurance. > > There was recently a thread on misc.legal.moderated about someone > wanting to live in Brooklyn but buy insurance claiming Nassau. Nobody > suggested that the rate differential was illegal. The regulations that govern insurance are very different to those that govern credit. In particular mortgage lending and availability of credit have been routinely denied on the basis of race for years, when using race became illegal location was used as a proxy. In the case of insurance the issue was typically price. Insurance companies have not had a history of denying coverage on the basis of geography. But mortgage lenders have. since we are talking about a blocklist rather than something that purports to be an accurate estimate of probability the credit report analogy is the appropriate one. > > Sure it happens, but when it does a person listed can apply to the > > courts for damages. > > And get laughed out of them, too. The cases in this area were won by the plaintifs. Redlining districts is not legal in this state. > > Once I had an issue with my mobile provider. > > That doesn't sound like an insurance company or a credit agency. Mobile service is covered as trade credit. > > There are curently lawsuits in progress about the use of location > > data as any form of input to a scoring scheme. > > "Redlining" is illegal; however, other uses aren't. > > There are "lawsuits in progress" about lots of things. In this case the outcome of the lawsuits is uncertain, but that only reinforces my point that you cannot use an analogy to the credit report industry to justify 'collateral damage'. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed May 5 16:19:10 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (www.iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA09723 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 16:19:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLSjV-0007Ew-W9 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 16:11:10 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i45KB9iN027823 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 May 2004 16:11:09 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLSdZ-0004q0-IU for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 16:05:01 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA08906 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 16:04:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLSdX-00002e-SF for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 16:04:59 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLScS-0007Y8-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 16:03:53 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLSbi-0007Hk-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 16:03:06 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLSUs-0000hl-Pd; Wed, 05 May 2004 15:56:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLSNI-0005wW-Bx for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 15:48:12 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA08146 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 15:48:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLSNG-0002vI-Sk for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 15:48:10 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLSMD-0002eG-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 15:47:06 -0400 Received: from smtp-1.star.net.uk ([212.125.75.70]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLSLi-0002Mo-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 15:46:34 -0400 Received: (qmail 31242 invoked from network); 5 May 2004 19:46:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO matt-dev.int.star.co.uk) (195.216.14.9) by smtp-1.star.net.uk with SMTP; 5 May 2004 19:46:43 -0000 Received: (qmail 1138 invoked from network); 4 May 2004 19:33:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?10.2.100.178?) (10.2.100.178) by matt?dev.int.star.co.uk with SMTP; 4 May 2004 19:33:26 -0000 From: Matt Sergeant X-X-Sender: matt@localhost.localdomain To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" cc: "'Matt Sergeant'" , "'Barry Shein'" , ASRG list In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: [Asrg] RE: 2a. Blacklists, collateral damage and anonymity Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 20:46:32 +0100 (BST) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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, 5 May 2004, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > > This is a really tough issue. There's really only one DNSBL that I > > support in terms of its collateral damage policy and that is the SBL. > > They will escalate a listing from the IP addresses sending > > spam to the > > corporate mail servers of the ISP in question if they are > > unable to get > > action from that ISP in removing the spammer. They do not do this > > lightly - only after making numerous attempts to contact the ISP both > > via email and telephone calls. Note the fact that the > > escalation is not > > to the entire ISP - just to the corporate mail servers of the ISP. > > This is action against the ISP and not a third party. I would have no > objection to that type of activity, it does not raise the issues of > contract interference. > > There could still be an issue of course if the reason for the listing > was simply malicious but that would be no different from listing the > spammer. And would be a violation of the BCP. Good, that's progress. > > We did not wish to prevent anonymity in the BCP because it provides > > useful protection to the people who run these services. This > > has become > > necessary not because what they are doing is illegal, but because the > > cost of even a failed lawsuit in the US is too much for the > > creators of the blocklists to bear. > > I don't believe in anonymous reputation services. > > If blacklists are going to demand accountability they must accept > accountability - from all parties they affect, not just the ones they > choose. > > I believe in the democratic rule of law, no exceptions. If the legal > system is broken then it has to be fixed. There are plenty of blacklists > that operate in the open. Spamhaus operates in a legal regime wrt libel > that is far more hostile than the US. > > I do not believe that it should be legal for a public service ISP to > use any anonymous blacklist service to filter customer's mail. Spamhaus is a good example here. I'm glad you used it. Steve Linford is currently suffering massive financial loss because of the fact that spamhaus are a public resource. We stand to lose spamhaus because of this. I do not think that will happen because they will start charging for zone transfers of the SBL. Something they've talked about doing for a while. This will cover the costs of being DoS'd out of existance and hopefully enough to pay a small pitance to the hard working spamhaus helpers (who currently work for free). This will not work for all blacklists. Not even all good blacklists. If the spammers were all nice people I would agree with you whole heartedly that all blacklists should be accountable. You should hear some of the things that Steve has been sent in the post from these nice friendly spammers. I truly believe that his situation would have been made impossible had he been living in the US (i.e. where the spammers are). I would hate to see the same thing happening to the guy who created the CBL. > > Do I wish that these blocklists could all be public facing and not > > anonymous? Absolutely! But the reality of your litigious society has > > ensured that this is becoming more and more difficult. > > When we started VeriSign nobody else dared to run a public service > CA because they feared the liability issues. Today the liability > issue is considered irrelevant by many CAs and CA customers (heh, > they got a surprise comming). The reason is that VeriSign did such > a good job of anticipating the legal issues and pre-empting them. VeriSign has a lot of money to protect itself. It's certainly not managed to keep itself clear of litigation, but can afford to deal with the issue when it arises. > The blacklist I am currently looking to establish will probably not > block any spam at all, it will block less than 1% of the web sites > mentioned in spam, hopefully though it will block 80%+ of a certain > type of fraud. > > I want the blacklist to be used near universally, therefore I want > to make it practically impossible for a false positive to occur - > even though people will clearly attempt to engineer them. That is good. I'm sure it will comply with the concepts raised in this BCP. Matt. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed May 5 16:22:36 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (www.iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA09854 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 16:22:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLSqn-0001hO-O0 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 16:18:41 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i45KIfaQ006526 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 May 2004 16:18:41 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLSiV-00071Z-Ph for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 16:10:07 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA09107 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 16:10:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLSiU-0001UX-2y for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 16:10:06 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLShU-0001Cj-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 16:09:05 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLSge-0000uv-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 16:08:12 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLSbc-0003Ok-SA; Wed, 05 May 2004 16:03:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLSUh-0000OJ-K9 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 15:55:51 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA08429 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 15:55:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLSUg-0005C6-6Q for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 15:55:50 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLSTh-0004rS-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 15:54:50 -0400 Received: from [66.98.212.93] (helo=tin.nixcartel.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLSSd-0004KD-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 15:53:43 -0400 Received: from dvb.homelinux.org (unknown [202.88.170.34]) by tin.nixcartel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52B631AC06B for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 15:00:21 -0500 (CDT) Received: by dvb.homelinux.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id 9FCFA34020; Thu, 6 May 2004 01:23:22 +0530 (IST) From: Devdas Bhagat To: ASRG list Subject: Re: [Asrg] RE: 2a. Blacklists, collateral damage and anonymity Message-ID: <20040506012322.A15650@evita.devdas.geek> Reply-To: Devdas Bhagat References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: ; from pbaker@verisign.com on Wed, May 05, 2004 at 11:50:17AM -0700 X-Message-Flag: Friends protect friends from Microsoft Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 01:23:22 +0530 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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 05/05/04 11:50 -0700, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > > I get the feeling you're happy with certain blacklists. > > I believe it is possible to run a blacklist for certain very narrow > purposes in a legal, useful and acceptable fashion. I do not think > it is remotely possible to stop spam through blacklists. Let us say I block mail from certain network blocks, depending ov criteria of my choosing. This step is definitely not illegal. I choose to share this information with the world via a DNS based mechanism. Not illegal. The administrator of some third server shares my views and trusts me not to cause too many false positives for him and hence hooks into my DNSBL. Not illegal. Useful and acceptable are issues to be decided by the administrator of the recipients server and any contracts he may have with his customers. In any case, I do not see the blacklists as being provably illegal. > > > Anonymity > > --------- > > > > We did not wish to prevent anonymity in the BCP because it provides > > useful protection to the people who run these services. This > > has become > > necessary not because what they are doing is illegal, but because the > > cost of even a failed lawsuit in the US is too much for the > > creators of the blocklists to bear. > > I don't believe in anonymous reputation services. It is not a question of what *you* wish to believe in. Just to clarify a point, I would trust the anonymous maintainer(s) of SPEWS before I trust Verisign (ref: the false certificates issued to people claiming to be Microsoft). As yet, SPEWS has not given me justification to withdraw my trust. Verisign has. > If blacklists are going to demand accountability they must accept > accountability - from all parties they affect, not just the ones they > choose. Given that the service is optional and free, I doubt that accountability to anyone else is even a question. > I believe in the democratic rule of law, no exceptions. If the legal > system is broken then it has to be fixed. There are plenty of blacklists > that operate in the open. Spamhaus operates in a legal regime wrt libel > that is far more hostile than the US. > > I do not believe that it should be legal for a public service ISP to > use any anonymous blacklist service to filter customer's mail. Is there a contract guarantee that email will be delivered? If not, then the question is simply whether the ISP is allowed to restrict certain types of traffic. As of today, the network is the ISPs private network and they choose what traffic flows on it (IIRC, this is supported by US case law. I am not a lawyer, nor in the US, so please confirm with your legal department). It would be easy enough for any ISP to simply put in large blocks on their routers rather than querying DNSBLs, and that is legal. > The blacklist I am currently looking to establish will probably not > block any spam at all, it will block less than 1% of the web sites > mentioned in spam, hopefully though it will block 80%+ of a certain > type of fraud. Heres a hint: We use DNSBLs to stop spam. The content of the spam is irrelevant. Unsolicited Bulk Email can involve fraud, political messages, religious matters, charity issues, medical stuff, mortgages, whatever. The content is irrelevant. The issue is one of consent. > > I want the blacklist to be used near universally, therefore I want > to make it practically impossible for a false positive to occur - > even though people will clearly attempt to engineer them. I would not want a false negative in a DNSBL I use. Devdas Bhagat _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed May 5 16:42:41 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (www.iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA10883 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 16:42:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLT6H-0000CY-Ao for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 16:34:41 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i45KYfFH000766 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 May 2004 16:34:41 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLT1n-0006qQ-Gn for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 16:30:03 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA10371 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 16:30:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLT1l-0007ad-M8 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 16:30:01 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLT0s-0007Io-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 16:29:07 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLT01-00070p-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 16:28:13 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLSv1-0003bq-H3; Wed, 05 May 2004 16:23:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLSp2-0000LH-IH for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 16:16:52 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA09693 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 16:16:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLSp0-0003mA-RR for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 16:16:50 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLSo2-0003Uz-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 16:15:50 -0400 Received: from smtp-1.star.net.uk ([212.125.75.70]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLSn0-0002zS-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 16:14:46 -0400 Received: (qmail 6752 invoked from network); 5 May 2004 20:14:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO matt-dev.int.star.co.uk) (195.216.14.9) by smtp-1.star.net.uk with SMTP; 5 May 2004 20:14:55 -0000 Received: (qmail 1217 invoked from network); 4 May 2004 20:01:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?10.2.100.178?) (10.2.100.178) by matt?dev.int.star.co.uk with SMTP; 4 May 2004 20:01:38 -0000 From: Matt Sergeant X-X-Sender: matt@localhost.localdomain To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" cc: "'Yakov Shafranovich'" , ASRG list Subject: RE: [Asrg] draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-00 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, 5 May 2004 21:14:45 +0100 (BST) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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, 5 May 2004, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > The only point I can see in a BCP for blacklists is if it is going > to reduce the problems being caused by blacklists. The consensus here > seems to be that blacklists never create any problems. I fail to see how you reached that conclusion. The BCP came about *purely* because the authors saw problems in certain practices of certain DNSBLs. Matt. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed May 5 16:45:35 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (www.iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA10982 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 16:45:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLTEX-0004Fu-Ff for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 16:43:13 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i45KhD5h016349 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 May 2004 16:43:13 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLTAN-0001pL-Mk for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 16:38:55 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA10725 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 16:38:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLTAL-0002It-Ud for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 16:38:53 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLT9Q-00020W-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 16:37:57 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLT8k-0001jq-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 16:37:14 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLT2j-000786-Fc; Wed, 05 May 2004 16:31:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLSy2-0005MA-20 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 16:26:10 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA10129 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 16:26:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLSy0-0006Na-3B for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 16:26:08 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLSx4-00064f-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 16:25:11 -0400 Received: from peacock.verisign.com ([65.205.251.73]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLSwF-0005m9-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 16:24:19 -0400 Received: from mou1wnexc02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.54]) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.11/) with ESMTP id i45KOACJ027458; Wed, 5 May 2004 13:24:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mou1wnexc02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) id ; Wed, 5 May 2004 13:24:10 -0700 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Devdas Bhagat'" , ASRG list Subject: RE: [Asrg] RE: 2a. Blacklists, collateral damage and anonymity 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, 5 May 2004 13:24:06 -0700 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 > Let us say I block mail from certain network blocks, depending ov > criteria of my choosing. > This step is definitely not illegal. > > I choose to share this information with the world via a DNS based > mechanism. Not illegal. If you do so for the purpose of interferring with a contract or legitimate commerce you just crossed the line here. The fact you publish means that you expect the information to be read and acted on. > It is not a question of what *you* wish to believe in. Just > to clarify a > point, I would trust the anonymous maintainer(s) of SPEWS > before I trust > Verisign (ref: the false certificates issued to people claiming to be > Microsoft). As yet, SPEWS has not given me justification to > withdraw my > trust. Verisign has. Lets see, that was one incident out of about 400,000 certs issued each year. The error was picked up by VeriSign and the certificate was immediately revoked. It was VeriSign who reported the issue to Microsoft. The cert expired several years ago and has not actually been used as far as anyone is aware. You can't stop people from making mistakes. You can develop processes that detect them and correct them. In the case of the CA center procedures a check that was believed to have been interlocked was not. That coding error has since been corrected. But even if the error had not been corrected the error rate of the CA center would be better than five nines which is exceptional for a process that is human operated. I don't think you can seriously claim that your comparison to SPEWS is anything other than partisan. > > > If blacklists are going to demand accountability they must accept > > accountability - from all parties they affect, not just the > ones they > > choose. > Given that the service is optional and free, I doubt that > accountability to anyone else is even a question. If you affect someone the courts may decide to hold you accountable to them. > > I do not believe that it should be legal for a public service ISP to > > use any anonymous blacklist service to filter customer's mail. > Is there a contract guarantee that email will be delivered? There is an expctation. I suspect that it is currently legal to use an anonymous blacklist, but I don't think it should be legal for anyone other than the mailbox owner to do so. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed May 5 17:15:48 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (www.iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA12303 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 17:15:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLTeC-0006Zr-Ce for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 17:09:44 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i45L9iVw025279 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 May 2004 17:09:44 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLTYf-0004d0-Nu for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 17:04:01 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA11545 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 17:03:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLTYd-0001ax-L0 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 17:03:59 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLTXk-0001Ji-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 17:03:04 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLTXD-00012V-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 17:02:31 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLTQv-00014H-Kd; Wed, 05 May 2004 16:56:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLTGJ-000549-2l for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 16:45:03 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA10978 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 16:45:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLTGH-00040H-3U for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 16:45:01 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLTFL-0003jQ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 16:44:04 -0400 Received: from smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net ([207.172.4.61]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLTEz-0003Rw-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 16:43:41 -0400 Received: from 209-6-102-148.c3-0.smr-ubr1.sbo-smr.ma.cable.rcn.com ([209.6.102.148] helo=600x--hd3.WorkGroup) by smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #4) id 1BLTEz-0003Fh-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 16:43:42 -0400 From: "Dr. Jeffrey Race" To: "asrg@ietf.org" Reply-To: "Dr. Jeffrey Race" Priority: Normal X-Mailer: PMMail 2000 Standard (2.20.2475) For Windows 98 (4.10.2222) In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: RE: [Asrg] draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-00 Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 05 May 2004 15:43:47 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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,TO_ADDRESS_EQ_REAL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Wed, 5 May 2004 11:21:05 -0700, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: >. Location is subject >to anti-discrimination statutes which are in general rather weaker >than the tort of contract interference. Could you please clarify how you understand a blacklist operator to be involved here if he is not party to the contract? I have heard this alleged from time to time but never seen the logic spelt out Jeffrey Race _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed May 5 17:16:18 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (www.iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA12342 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 17:16:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLTeE-0006at-FY for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 17:09:46 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i45L9kXr025341 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 May 2004 17:09:46 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLTZq-00052J-VP for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 17:05:15 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA11605 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 17:05:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLTZo-0001uQ-Rg for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 17:05:12 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLTYl-0001cc-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 17:04:08 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLTYP-0001KK-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 17:03:45 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLTQy-00014x-Gm; Wed, 05 May 2004 16:56:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLTMA-0007bE-V2 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 16:51:06 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA11170 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 16:51:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLTM8-0005iK-Td for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 16:51:05 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLTLD-0005RW-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 16:50:07 -0400 Received: from mail1.panix.com ([166.84.1.72]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLTKo-00059k-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 16:49:42 -0400 Received: from panix5.panix.com (panix5.panix.com [166.84.1.5]) by mail1.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6698048C5D for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 16:49:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from sethb@localhost) by panix5.panix.com (8.11.6p2-a/8.8.8/PanixN1.1) id i45KnYs11475; Wed, 5 May 2004 16:49:34 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200405052049.i45KnYs11475@panix5.panix.com> From: Seth Breidbart To: asrg@ietf.org In-reply-to: (pbaker@verisign.com) Subject: Re: [Asrg] RE: 2a. Blacklists, collateral damage and anonymity 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: Wed, 5 May 2004 16:49:34 -0400 (EDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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: >> I choose to share this information with the world via a DNS based >> mechanism. Not illegal. > > If you do so for the purpose of interferring with a contract or > legitimate commerce you just crossed the line here. It can't possibly be my _purpose_ to interfere with a contract I don't even know exists. Nor would I be attempting to "interfere with legitimate commerce" (who gets to define "legitimate" anyway?) Only the mx-server owner has the ability to choose whether to accept or reject email. > The fact you publish means that you expect the information to > be read and acted on. Even I don't think there's anybody actually stupid enough to act on my (still hypothetical) noprimes blacklist. I intend to publish it just because I feel like publishing it, to prove the point that I can publish it. > Lets see, that was one incident out of about 400,000 certs issued > each year. How many domains have been hijacked because your company screwed up? What happened to the domain after the screwup was revealed? It was Verisign who paid lots of lawyers to beat up small companies with a contract that says "We're not responsible if we screw up." > If you affect someone the courts may decide to hold you accountable > to them. What puts Verisign above the law, then? >> Is there a contract guarantee that email will be delivered? > > There is an expctation. When somebody bought running.com, he had an _expectation_ that it would be registered to him. Verisign screwed up. How much did it pay to compensate him for violating his expectation? > I suspect that it is currently legal to use an anonymous blacklist, > but I don't think it should be legal for anyone other than the > mailbox owner to do so. Then you should move to a country that doesn't have the US Constitution's freedom to contract. Seth _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed May 5 17:18:02 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (www.iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA12431 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 17:18:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLTj8-0000cM-Jr for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 17:14:50 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i45LEogL002370 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 May 2004 17:14:50 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLTdN-0006To-Uy for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 17:08:54 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA11713 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 17:08:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLTdJ-0002uK-2v for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 17:08:49 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLTbl-0002Vh-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 17:07:14 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLTas-0002Cp-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 17:06:18 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLTRt-0001PJ-47; Wed, 05 May 2004 16:57:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLTPu-0000dt-Ud for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 16:54:58 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA11249 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 16:54:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLTPs-0006mT-Rx for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 16:54:56 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLTOw-0006Vq-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 16:53:58 -0400 Received: from smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net ([207.172.4.61]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLTOH-0006FA-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 16:53:17 -0400 Received: from 209-6-102-148.c3-0.smr-ubr1.sbo-smr.ma.cable.rcn.com ([209.6.102.148] helo=600x--hd3.WorkGroup) by smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #4) id 1BLTOG-00051r-00; Wed, 05 May 2004 16:53:17 -0400 From: "Dr. Jeffrey Race" To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" Cc: "ASRG list" Reply-To: "Dr. Jeffrey Race" Priority: Normal X-Mailer: PMMail 2000 Standard (2.20.2475) For Windows 98 (4.10.2222) In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Asrg] RE: 2a. Blacklists, collateral damage and anonymity Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 05 May 2004 15:53:23 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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, 5 May 2004 11:50:17 -0700, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > I do not think it is remotely possible to stop spam through blacklists. If blacklists identify the spam-enabling networks, then spam is stopped for those who take up the blacklists. As always, the issue is one of uptake. An orderly procedure for the operation and use of blacklists might therefore be a Good Thing. However history proves that when a pollution enabler is faced with a definitive connectivity shutdown, the pollution stops in a matter of days or even hours, despite all previous claims that it was impossible to stop customers doing this or that etc etc. For some enablers, only a mallet works. The plain fact is that if blacklists were accurate and agreed to be widely adopted at a time certain, well announced in advance, the spam would stop on that date, because any refractory polluter would face instant bankruptcy after said time. The whole point is that the emergent structure (sociology term of art, my apologies but I want to be precise so you can understand this is an engineering problem just like integrated circuits) only emerges from the mutual expectations of compliance. Many/most have to jump at once. Jeffrey Race _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed May 5 17:52:16 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA13536 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 17:52:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLUDJ-0005d8-UU for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 17:46:01 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i45Lk1hg021635 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 May 2004 17:46:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLU7c-0003PY-OQ for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 17:40:08 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA13150 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 17:40:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLU7a-0004L1-Be for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 17:40:06 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLU6f-00041i-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 17:39:09 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLU5h-0003iy-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 17:38:09 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLTzl-0007fq-8c; Wed, 05 May 2004 17:32:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLTr5-0003G5-8A for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 17:23:03 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA12544 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 17:22:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLTr2-00079k-UY for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 17:23:01 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLTq7-0006sl-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 17:22:04 -0400 Received: from [66.98.212.93] (helo=tin.nixcartel.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLTpV-0006bM-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 17:21:26 -0400 Received: from dvb.homelinux.org (unknown [202.88.170.34]) by tin.nixcartel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FA6A1AC06B for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 16:28:05 -0500 (CDT) Received: by dvb.homelinux.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id CC75E34020; Thu, 6 May 2004 02:51:04 +0530 (IST) From: Devdas Bhagat To: ASRG list Subject: Re: [Asrg] RE: 2a. Blacklists, collateral damage and anonymity Message-ID: <20040506025104.A18345@evita.devdas.geek> Reply-To: Devdas Bhagat References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: ; from pbaker@verisign.com on Wed, May 05, 2004 at 01:24:06PM -0700 X-Message-Flag: Friends protect friends from Microsoft Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 02:51:04 +0530 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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 05/05/04 13:24 -0700, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > > Let us say I block mail from certain network blocks, depending ov > > criteria of my choosing. > > This step is definitely not illegal. > > > > I choose to share this information with the world via a DNS based > > mechanism. Not illegal. > > If you do so for the purpose of interferring with a contract or > legitimate commerce you just crossed the line here. Uh? How different is it if I publish a list of IP addresses from which I do not accept email? I run more than one server, using DNS is a convinient way for me to ensure that all these see the same readonly data. > The fact you publish means that you expect the information to > be read and acted on. Read, possibly. Acted on, not in my expectations. I only claim the right to speech. I do not claim the right to make anyone else hear my speech, or to act on it. > I don't think you can seriously claim that your comparison to SPEWS is > anything other than partisan. Not really. I do not trust Verisign. I trust SPEWS *until* such time as they betray my trust. > > > > > If blacklists are going to demand accountability they must accept > > > accountability - from all parties they affect, not just the > > ones they > > > choose. > > Given that the service is optional and free, I doubt that > > accountability to anyone else is even a question. > > If you affect someone the courts may decide to hold you accountable > to them. Is a DNSBL affecting anyone? Not in any way that I see it. > > > I do not believe that it should be legal for a public service ISP to > > > use any anonymous blacklist service to filter customer's mail. > > > Is there a contract guarantee that email will be delivered? > > There is an expctation. I suspect that it is currently legal to use > an anonymous blacklist, but I don't think it should be legal for anyone > other than the mailbox owner to do so. Actually, unless specified otherwise, I would say it is for the MX onwer to do so. Devdas Bhagat _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed May 5 22:07:28 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA25925 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 22:07:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLYGY-0004sb-PL for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 22:05:38 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4625cAN018757 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 May 2004 22:05:38 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLYDO-0003q0-NI for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 22:02:22 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA25590 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 22:02:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLYDL-0005Wh-Mb for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 22:02:19 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLYCS-0005D9-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 22:01:25 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLYBk-0004tH-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 22:00:40 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLY5K-0000aG-Tj; Wed, 05 May 2004 21:54:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLY2Y-0005du-FJ for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 21:51:10 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA25049 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 21:51:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLY2V-00024r-HC for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 21:51:07 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLY1V-0001lQ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 21:50:06 -0400 Received: from peacock.verisign.com ([65.205.251.73]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLY0V-0001Ng-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 21:49:03 -0400 Received: from MOU1WNEXC03.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.55]) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.11/) with ESMTP id i461n3Xi024794; Wed, 5 May 2004 18:49:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mou1wnexc03.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) id ; Wed, 5 May 2004 18:49:03 -0700 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Dr. Jeffrey Race'" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-00 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, 5 May 2004 18:49:02 -0700 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,LINES_OF_YELLING autolearn=no version=2.60 > On Wed, 5 May 2004 11:21:05 -0700, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > >. Location is subject > >to anti-discrimination statutes which are in general rather weaker > >than the tort of contract interference. > > Could you please clarify how you understand a blacklist operator to be > involved here if he is not party to the contract? I have heard this > alleged from time to time but never seen the logic spelt out Alice signs a contract with Bob in which Bob agrees to paint Alice's house for $100. Mallet tells Bob that if he paints Alice's house that he will refuse to do business with her (or any other threat for that matter). If Bob does so Alice can sue Bob for failure to complete the contract. She can also sue Mallet for inducing the breach of contract as if Mallet was the defaulter. To give the full law article treatment: http://www.lectlaw.com/def/i084.htm INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE TORTS WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE Nature of the Tort of Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage The elements of that tort of are: '(1) an economic relationship between [the plaintiff and some third person] containing the probability of future economic benefit to the [plaintiff], (2) knowledge by the defendant of the existence of the relationship, (3) intentional acts on the part of the defendant designed to disrupt the relationship, (4) actual disruption of the relationship, [and] (5) damages to the plaintiff proximately caused by the acts of the defendant.' (Buckaloo v. Johnson (1975) 14 Cal.3d 815, 827.) NOTE: The Restatement of Torts explained it this way, 'The essential thing is the purpose to cause the result. If the actor does not have this purpose, his conduct does not subject him to liability under this rule even if it has the unintended effect of deterring the third person from dealing with the other.' The important thing is the intent. The ultimate goal may be to reduce spam, but that does not mean that the steps taken to achieve that goal are unintentional. The very clear purpose of 'collateral damage' is to disrupt that relationship. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed May 5 22:17:17 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA26490 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 22:17:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLYNl-0008NW-CE for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 22:13:05 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i462D5Fd032202 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 May 2004 22:13:05 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLYLv-0007ev-Ts for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 22:11:11 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA26194 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 22:11:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLYLs-0000hZ-SH for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 22:11:08 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLYKx-0000O6-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 22:10:12 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLYK2-00004K-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 22:09:14 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLYGv-0005Dq-V4; Wed, 05 May 2004 22:06:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLY8Q-000259-9T for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 21:57:14 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA25369 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 21:57:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLY8N-0003uw-64 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 21:57:11 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLY7P-0003c9-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 21:56:12 -0400 Received: from sc1.scconsult.com ([66.73.230.190] helo=toaster.scconsult.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLY74-0003Jv-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 21:55:50 -0400 Received: from [192.168.254.12] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by toaster.scconsult.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40772112010 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 21:55:49 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: bill@fireproof.scconsult.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: To: asrg@ietf.org From: Bill Cole Subject: RE: [Asrg] draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-00 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, 5 May 2004 21:55:47 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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 7:16 AM -0700 5/5/04, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > Most ISPs do not want to be hosting zombies on their net >and they will kill them the moment they find out about them. That >is if the comunication reaches the right part of the company. That may be true in a trivial sense (because there are more small ISP's than big ones) but it is not true that the ISP's hosting the largest numbers of zombies act that way. I know for a fact that at least one of the largest broadband providers in the US does NOT do so as a matter of intentional considered policy because they do not have the support resources to handle all the calls they would get if they cut off zombies as fast as they can identify them. This seems a very likely business condition for most of the similarly situated ILEC and cable providers who act as if they have an obligation to service customers no matter what, much as they may be legally required to do in their older lines of business. Whether that tendency is really a legal issue (as some ISP abuse staff of dubious legal credentials have implied to me) or is a matter of not wishing to trigger a legal test or is simply an issue of corporate culture, I cannot say. -- Bill Cole bill@scconsult.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed May 5 22:38:59 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA27644 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 22:38:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLYj8-0007ca-Ic for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 22:35:12 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i462ZAAJ029295 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 May 2004 22:35:10 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLYhe-00072B-Qv for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 22:33:38 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA27383 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 22:33:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLYhb-0007l7-G7 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 22:33:35 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLYgr-0007Pq-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 22:32:50 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLYfQ-0006ya-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 22:31:20 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLYaI-00046i-A0; Wed, 05 May 2004 22:26:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLYWa-0002d9-3X for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 22:22:12 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA26714 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 22:22:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLYWW-0004CD-RQ for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 22:22:08 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLYVh-0003t5-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 22:21:17 -0400 Received: from sc1.scconsult.com ([66.73.230.190] helo=toaster.scconsult.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLYUr-0003ZW-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 22:20:25 -0400 Received: from [192.168.254.12] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by toaster.scconsult.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6174112013 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 22:20:25 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: bill@fireproof.scconsult.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: To: ASRG list From: Bill Cole Subject: RE: [Asrg] draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-00 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, 5 May 2004 22:20:23 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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 1:35 PM -0700 5/4/04, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: [...] >The point about 'collateral damage' is not that it serves any >strategic purpose, it does not, all it does is to feed the egos >of the people who engage in it. It fails in the spam context >for the same reason that it failled in the military context. >Collateral damage forces parties who are natural allies to treat >you as the enemy. Unfortunately, there is some evidence to the contrary. Lurk in news.admin.net-abuse.blocklisting for a bit and note the Verio and ev1.net behavior (among others). It seems that some providers have decided that the collateral damage (a bad term actually, as the original refers to *unintentional* destruction) is more than they will tolerate, and so they react as soon as there is any. >There is a utility in certain very narrowly tailored blacklists. >But they should never attempt to list any address for any other >reason than it is a source of spam. Speaking from the point of view of actually working with some heavily-spammed mail systems, I think that is wrong unless you include a very loose definition of 'is a source of spam' that encompasses 'is a member of a logical set of addresses far more likely to sources of spam than to ever offer a single piece of legitimate mail to unacquainted networks.' Generally speaking, I'm thinking of the lists that have evolved from the original concept of a dialup list, still generally referred to as 'dynamic address' lists but that's a misleading name. The real unifying element is not whether addresses move from user to user in those ranges, but that the providers (RoadRunner, SBC, Cox, Telefonica, Wanadoo, UPC, Comcast etc) are selling service at such a low price that they attract customers incapable of securing their own machines while the providers cannot afford to enforce security of any meaningful sort on their own networks. In short: networks where there is no competent authority. In some cases (e.g. the many ranges of SBC DSL space that they they SWIP with 'PPPoX Pool' in the CustName field) it is rather easy to identify likely sources of spam and other sorts of bad behavior, and blacklisting such blocks before each individual address has been abused is a very useful tactic with negative side effects that most sites will never encounter. Another example: AOL is rather open about the fact that they try to prevent direct SMTP connections to the outside from their customer IP space. At times that has been accomplished imperfectly. A blacklist with all of that space would mostly have addresses that have never sent any spam at all directly to the world at large, and would be 100% made up of addresses whose legitimate authority says they should never be offering anyone mail of any sort. -- Bill Cole bill@scconsult.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed May 5 22:53:33 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA28304 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 22:53:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLYz2-000617-M8 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 22:51:36 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i462pal8023125 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 May 2004 22:51:36 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLYut-0004Wt-2r for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 22:47:19 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA28048 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 22:47:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLYup-0004W7-Mk for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 22:47:15 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLYtu-0004DL-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 22:46:18 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLYtR-0003uH-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 22:45:49 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLYom-00025Q-W2; Wed, 05 May 2004 22:41:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLYnJ-00017l-QM for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 22:39:29 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA27679 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 22:39:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLYnG-0001yc-Ag for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 22:39:26 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLYmB-0001d8-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 22:38:19 -0400 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLYlS-0001JD-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 22:37:34 -0400 Received: from sc1.scconsult.com ([66.73.230.190] helo=toaster.scconsult.com) by mx2.foretec.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1BLYlT-0006py-N6 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 22:37:35 -0400 Received: from [192.168.254.12] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by toaster.scconsult.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B733112017 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 22:36:43 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: bill@fireproof.scconsult.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: To: ASRG list From: Bill Cole Subject: RE: [Asrg] draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-00 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, 5 May 2004 22:36:41 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 At 8:41 AM -0700 5/5/04, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: [...] >The cases against MAPS clearly show that the courts did not accept this >argument. The cases against MAPS say essentially nothing about what any court accepted except at the vaguest sort of level. No court decided anything beyond pre-trial matters in any of the suits against MAPS. All those cases proved is that it is a bad idea to beg to be sued by companies that might do so with no intention of ever going to trial. >Publishing information with the intention that it be used to >block mail can constitute a tort. Do you have any useful legal citation for that? Such as an actual instance of a court ruling so, rather than just ruling (e.g. in a preliminary stage) that it's not a facially absurd argument? -- Bill Cole bill@scconsult.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed May 5 23:24:32 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (www.iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA29889 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 23:24:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLZRf-0000ZF-33 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 23:21:11 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i463LBaR002181 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 May 2004 23:21:11 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLZPl-00088A-HZ for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 23:19:13 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA29597 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 23:19:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLZPj-00073R-DW for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 23:19:11 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLZOn-0006kv-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 23:18:14 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLZO8-0006SM-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 23:17:32 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLZJl-0005fs-R8; Wed, 05 May 2004 23:13:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLZB4-0002XS-D9 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 23:04:02 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA28934 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 23:03:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLZAy-0001zv-Rq for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 23:03:57 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLZ9U-0001fL-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 23:02:25 -0400 Received: from pcls4-e.std.com ([192.74.137.144] helo=TheWorld.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLZ8Z-0001Ks-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 23:01:27 -0400 Received: from world.std.com (world-e.std.com [69.38.147.5]) by TheWorld.com (8.12.8p1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i4631E6l016113 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 23:01:28 -0400 Received: (from bzs@localhost) by world.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA15167; Wed, 5 May 2004 22:30:57 -0400 (EDT) From: Barry Shein MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16537.41825.469072.298569@world.std.com> To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-00 In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: VM 7.07 under Emacs 21.2.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 22:30:57 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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 A few quick points: 1. Although both sides are right regarding "collateral damage" the underlying problem right now is that the law (I'll talk about the US tho I suspect these comments are so vague as to apply more broadly) provides virtually no protection or even any effective process for dealing with spam. So some of the comments might be better pre-fixed with phrasing like "in a civilized circumstance..." (we would do this, or we would do that.) Unfortunately the current circumstances aren't civilized and when you get your 12 billionth spam from some 218.*.0.0 net and can't really find anything non-spam coming from that /16 you just block it all rather than having to accept one or more spams from each of its apparent 16,000+ zombies before blocking them all in one fell swoop. 2. With all due respect (not much) I think this repeated argument that BL's can't ("shouldn't" of course is in the realm of opium dens and children's stories) be held liable is just nutso. Repeating over and over and over that the only possible liable party is the person/org using the blacklist is just happy horse****. Imagine if I put up a web site with a list with your name and picture on it under the heading "Known Pedophiles". Why do you think we have slander, libel, incitement to riot, etc laws? What about shouting fire in a crowded movie theater (that's not on fire)? C'mon, inducement, presenting yourself as some sort of authority on a subject (who the spammers are) and giving out advice about others (blacklists), can all have liability exposures so let's stop repeating this embarrassingly naive idiocy as if repetition will make it otherwise. 3. In a similar sense, I know because I was once involved in a case revolving around this, that there is such a thing as an illegal business boycott. You can personally boycott any business you want, of course, who would know. But when businesses boycott other business in a provably organized way then anti-trust laws can come to bear. For example, I (as an ISP) can't urge my supermarket to refuse to sell food to a known spammer in the hope that he'll starve to death, that kind of thing, it's illegal. 4. All that said I think it's all kinda hopeless when technical people begin discussing the law, it quickly goes off into la-la-land; unlike their code or math or things they know something about they don't even know how to tell a good answer from a bad one and just begin shouting louder hoping that'll save the day. 5. But you can rely on the fact that I'm always right. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD The World | Public Access Internet | Since 1989 *oo* _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed May 5 23:59:22 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (www.iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA01218 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 23:59:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLa09-0004IL-Ti for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 23:56:50 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i463unFn016509 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 5 May 2004 23:56:49 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLZuq-00032w-IA for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 23:51:20 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA01053 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 23:51:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLZuo-00020Q-E6 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 23:51:18 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLZtt-0001h6-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 23:50:21 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLZtZ-0001Ni-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 23:50:01 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLZnl-0000LU-CX; Wed, 05 May 2004 23:44:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLZl2-00081e-Hm for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 23:41:12 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA00615 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 23:41:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLZl0-0006ZA-EO for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 23:41:10 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLZk1-0006EX-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 23:40:10 -0400 Received: from zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com ([47.129.242.57]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLZj1-0005cz-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 05 May 2004 23:39:07 -0400 Received: from zcard307.ca.nortel.com (zcard307.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.67]) by zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.6/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id i463cVh26232 for ; Wed, 5 May 2004 23:38:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard307.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id J6NPL9M0; Wed, 5 May 2004 23:38:31 -0400 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (acart15x.ca.nortel.com [47.130.24.143]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id JM9FV3D9; Wed, 5 May 2004 23:38:30 -0400 Message-ID: <4099B334.3000000@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.5 (Windows/20040207) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-00 References: <16537.41825.469072.298569@world.std.com> In-Reply-To: <16537.41825.469072.298569@world.std.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 05 May 2004 23:38:28 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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 Barry Shein wrote: > Imagine if I put up a web site with a list with your name and picture > on it under the heading "Known Pedophiles". Been there, done that, have the T-shirt. > libel defamation etc. etc. etc. Yet... yet... the news media and the police do it all the time. Obviously there's a way do to this. Nothing can bullet proof anybody, particularly in the US legal climate. But being transparent and honest about listing criteria can do a lot to shift most of the onus on the list _user_ who has made a conscious choice to use it and accept responsibility for it. After all, if Seth published a "random number BL", announced it exactly as such with big red "you're an idiot to use this" banner all over the web pages, just how successful do you think someone [sh|w]ould be suing him? _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu May 6 01:13:51 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (www.iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA04618 for ; Thu, 6 May 2004 01:13:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLbBQ-00078l-PZ for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 01:12:32 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i465CWK3027439 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 May 2004 01:12:32 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLb95-0005pI-Ia for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 01:10:07 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA04277 for ; Thu, 6 May 2004 01:10:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLb92-00040N-J8 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 01:10:04 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLb7Y-0003Ub-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 01:08:33 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLb5D-0002b8-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 01:06:07 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLazL-0001T6-Ai; Thu, 06 May 2004 01:00:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLaxg-0000bL-MT for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 00:58:20 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA03177 for ; Thu, 6 May 2004 00:58:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLaxd-00007R-Sm for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 00:58:17 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLawh-0007ao-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 00:57:19 -0400 Received: from xuxa.iecc.com ([208.31.42.42]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLavo-0007FZ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 00:56:24 -0400 Received: (qmail 27809 invoked by uid 100); 6 May 2004 04:56:20 -0000 Message-ID: <20040506045620.27808.qmail@xuxa.iecc.com> From: John Levine To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] News: Postini patents the relay server? In-Reply-To: <38363D9940D92A458010AAE24D162EB9021EDF0B@bremocog-55> Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA Cc: Damon.Sauer@BELLSOUTH.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: 6 May 2004 04:56:20 -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 Postini's patent is on the specific technique of preprocessing someone's mail by setting up the MX to point to an offsite preprocessing server that redelivers the laundered mail to the actual server. It's not a patent on general mail relay. I've seen pretty persuasive evidence that people other than Postini did this before Postini and published the fact that they were doing so. If someone wanted to spend the money to bust this patent, they could, but patent litigation is expensive. Has Postini said what they plan to do with the patent? Is it defensive, to keep anyone else from patenting the same thing, or do they plan to go after their competitors? 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 Thu May 6 01:19:33 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (www.iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA05018 for ; Thu, 6 May 2004 01:19:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLbDl-00006V-SY for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 01:14:57 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i465Ev2g000391 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 May 2004 01:14:57 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLbCF-0007mj-M0 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 01:13:23 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA04611 for ; Thu, 6 May 2004 01:13:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLbCC-0005P7-QI for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 01:13:20 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLbBO-00054D-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 01:12:31 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLbAe-0004js-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 01:11:44 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLb82-0004xX-1a; Thu, 06 May 2004 01:09:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLb0h-0001dM-92 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 01:01:27 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA03310 for ; Thu, 6 May 2004 01:01:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLb0e-00019P-Fx for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 01:01:24 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLazk-0000pK-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 01:00:28 -0400 Received: from xuxa.iecc.com ([208.31.42.42]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLazB-0000Un-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 00:59:53 -0400 Received: (qmail 28574 invoked by uid 100); 6 May 2004 04:59:54 -0000 Message-ID: <20040506045954.28573.qmail@xuxa.iecc.com> From: John Levine To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-00 In-Reply-To: Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA Cc: grsa@billmail.scconsult.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: 6 May 2004 04:59:54 -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=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 >Set 1: > >dnsbl 604800 IN NS . > >Set 2: > >dnsbl 604800 IN NS deadend >deadend 604800 IN A . > >Set 3: > >dnsbl 604800 IN NS deadend >deadend 604800 IN A 127.255.255.255 The value in an A record is a 32 bit IPv4 address, so Set 2 doesn't work. Sets 1 and 3 are OK, though. 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 Thu May 6 09:35:31 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (www.iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA12255 for ; Thu, 6 May 2004 09:35:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLizv-00054F-HN for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 09:33:11 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i46DXBvw019479 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 May 2004 09:33:11 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLiyf-0004MZ-49 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 09:31:53 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA12038 for ; Thu, 6 May 2004 09:31:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLiyc-0006dS-Og for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 09:31:50 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLixb-0006F4-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 09:30:47 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLixI-0005qz-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 09:30:28 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLir4-0002BG-Gi; Thu, 06 May 2004 09:24:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLikx-0008Gg-LJ for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 09:17:43 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA11404 for ; Thu, 6 May 2004 09:17:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLikw-00015g-1J for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 09:17:42 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLik8-0000i3-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 09:16:53 -0400 Received: from peacock.verisign.com ([65.205.251.73]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLijN-0000Ji-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 09:16:05 -0400 Received: from mou1wnexc02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.54]) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.11/) with ESMTP id i46DFt9g000757; Thu, 6 May 2004 06:15:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mou1wnexc02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) id ; Thu, 6 May 2004 06:15:55 -0700 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Bill Cole'" , ASRG list Subject: RE: [Asrg] draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-00 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: Thu, 6 May 2004 06:15:47 -0700 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 > The cases against MAPS say essentially nothing about what any court > accepted except at the vaguest sort of level. No court decided > anything beyond pre-trial matters in any of the suits against MAPS. > All those cases proved is that it is a bad idea to beg to be sued by > companies that might do so with no intention of ever going to trial. Pre-trial rullings are court decisions, they address issues like 'is there a set of facts which could allow a claim of this sort to succeed'. As such they are not 'vague', they address the exact issues being discussed here. Pre-trial is where questions of law get decided. So saying 'no court decided anything except questions of law' does not help when you are debating a question of law. The collateral damage issue only gets raised in a handful of early cases. then it just goes away. I think there is a reason that none of these cases would come to court, they simply don't need to. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu May 6 09:56:28 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (www.iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA13627 for ; Thu, 6 May 2004 09:56:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLjDH-0001lN-VN for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 09:47:00 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i46DkxoC006773 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 May 2004 09:46:59 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLj8J-0000ZC-DL for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 09:41:51 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA12499 for ; Thu, 6 May 2004 09:41:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLj8H-0002vb-Kj for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 09:41:49 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLj7M-0002Wl-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 09:40:52 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLj6f-00028M-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 09:40:09 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLj0l-0005Ny-EO; Thu, 06 May 2004 09:34:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLivg-0003Z5-SJ for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 09:28:48 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA11957 for ; Thu, 6 May 2004 09:28:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLive-0005Sh-SO for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 09:28:46 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLium-00054u-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 09:27:53 -0400 Received: from smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net ([207.172.4.61]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLiuE-0004gn-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 09:27:18 -0400 Received: from 209-6-102-148.c3-0.smr-ubr1.sbo-smr.ma.cable.rcn.com ([209.6.102.148] helo=600x--hd3.WorkGroup) by smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #4) id 1BLiuD-0004yV-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 09:27:17 -0400 From: "Dr. Jeffrey Race" To: "asrg@ietf.org" Reply-To: "Dr. Jeffrey Race" Priority: Normal X-Mailer: PMMail 2000 Standard (2.20.2475) For Windows 98 (4.10.2222) In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: RE: [Asrg] draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-00 Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 06 May 2004 08:27:26 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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,TO_ADDRESS_EQ_REAL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Wed, 5 May 2004 18:49:02 -0700, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: >> alleged from time to time but never seen the logic spelt out > >Alice signs a contract with Bob i Thank you. I will study this and respond after some upcoming travel Jeffrey Race _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu May 6 10:03:18 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA14147 for ; Thu, 6 May 2004 10:03:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLjJt-0003tc-Je for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 09:53:49 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i46DrnCN014966 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 May 2004 09:53:49 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLjBo-0000sE-Mz for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 09:45:28 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA12708 for ; Thu, 6 May 2004 09:45:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLjBm-0004Mb-U5 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 09:45:27 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLjAh-0003rz-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 09:44:20 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLj9a-0003P8-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 09:43:10 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLj1h-0005nl-4E; Thu, 06 May 2004 09:35:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLizV-0004b4-Ep for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 09:32:45 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA12053 for ; Thu, 6 May 2004 09:32:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLizT-00071d-AM for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 09:32:43 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLiyR-0006c2-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 09:31:40 -0400 Received: from smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net ([207.172.4.61]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLixM-0005yy-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 09:30:32 -0400 Received: from 209-6-102-148.c3-0.smr-ubr1.sbo-smr.ma.cable.rcn.com ([209.6.102.148] helo=600x--hd3.WorkGroup) by smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #4) id 1BLixM-0005Zv-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 09:30:32 -0400 From: "Dr. Jeffrey Race" To: "asrg@ietf.org" Reply-To: "Dr. Jeffrey Race" Priority: Normal X-Mailer: PMMail 2000 Standard (2.20.2475) For Windows 98 (4.10.2222) In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: RE: [Asrg] draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-00 Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 06 May 2004 08:30:41 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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,TO_ADDRESS_EQ_REAL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Wed, 5 May 2004 21:55:47 -0400, Bill Cole wrote: >I know for a fact that at >least one of the largest broadband providers in the US does NOT do so >as a matter of intentional considered policy because they do not have >the support resources to handle all the calls they would get if they >cut off zombies as fast as they can identify them. You have precisely stated the Environmental Polluter Business Model: internalize the profits; externalize the costs. These are the firms which must be motivated to reform, or else driven out of business. Jeffrey Race _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu May 6 10:10:42 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA15068 for ; Thu, 6 May 2004 10:10:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLjTJ-0001yL-UV for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 10:03:33 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i46E3X9M007582 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 May 2004 10:03:33 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLjLk-0004iK-06 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 09:55:44 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA13602 for ; Thu, 6 May 2004 09:55:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLjLi-0001Tj-3T for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 09:55:42 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLjKj-00014G-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 09:54:42 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLjJj-0000ct-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 09:53:39 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLjBQ-0000rQ-23; Thu, 06 May 2004 09:45:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLj6M-00084x-Ss for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 09:39:50 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA12430 for ; Thu, 6 May 2004 09:39:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLj6L-000280-3z for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 09:39:49 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLj5R-0001ju-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 09:38:53 -0400 Received: from smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net ([207.172.4.61]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLj51-0001LB-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 09:38:27 -0400 Received: from 209-6-102-148.c3-0.smr-ubr1.sbo-smr.ma.cable.rcn.com ([209.6.102.148] helo=600x--hd3.WorkGroup) by smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #4) id 1BLj50-0006qP-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 09:38:27 -0400 From: "Dr. Jeffrey Race" To: "asrg@ietf.org" Reply-To: "Dr. Jeffrey Race" Priority: Normal X-Mailer: PMMail 2000 Standard (2.20.2475) For Windows 98 (4.10.2222) In-Reply-To: <16537.41825.469072.298569@world.std.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: RE: [Asrg] draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-00 Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 06 May 2004 08:38:35 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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,TO_ADDRESS_EQ_REAL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Wed, 5 May 2004 22:30:57 -0400, Barry Shein wrote: >Imagine if I put up a web site with a list with your name and picture >on it under the heading "Known Pedophiles". >Why do you think we have slander, libel, The result would depend on the truthfulness of the statement and the jurisdiction's privacy laws. > incitement to riot, etc laws? >What about shouting fire in a crowded movie theater (that's not on >fire)? These issues relate to public safety and are irrelevant to the issue of evidence-based statements about the behavior of those responsible for certain IP addresses. > >C'mon, inducement, presenting yourself as some sort of authority on a >subject (who the spammers are) and giving out advice about others >(blacklists), can all have liability exposures so let's stop repeating >this embarrassingly naive idiocy as if repetition will make it >otherwise. Let us not repeat any idiocies but let us also realize that legal systems, after extensive levels of review, produce generally reasonable results. A well-thought-out practice can enhance outcomes for our industry. Lack of same leaves it up to others to determine what is acceptable. Working together now can prevent others from making decisions we ought to make. Jeffrey Race _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu May 6 11:02:32 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA18651 for ; Thu, 6 May 2004 11:02:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLkGG-0000CI-Or for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 10:54:08 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i46Es8JS000750 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 May 2004 10:54:08 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLk7Q-0006Dp-3m for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 10:45:00 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA17592 for ; Thu, 6 May 2004 10:44:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLk7N-000717-Oe for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 10:44:57 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLk6U-0006aU-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 10:44:03 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLk5w-00069k-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 10:43:28 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLjsw-0000Y4-Mn; Thu, 06 May 2004 10:30:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLjpu-0007L1-3k for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 10:26:54 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA16555 for ; Thu, 6 May 2004 10:26:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLjpr-00074e-RE for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 10:26:51 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLjp0-0006f3-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 10:25:58 -0400 Received: from newgiles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ([205.150.200.131] helo=mail.nitros9.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLjoL-0006F0-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 10:25:17 -0400 Received: from newgiles.nitros9.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.nitros9.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 935ED16CC3 for ; Thu, 6 May 2004 10:30:29 -0400 (EDT) From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-00 In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 06 May 2004 08:38:35 EDT." Message-Id: <20040506143029.935ED16CC3@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, 06 May 2004 10:30:29 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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 "Dr. Jeffrey Race" wrote: > Let us not repeat any idiocies but let us also realize that legal systems, > after extensive levels of review, produce generally reasonable > results. A well-thought-out practice can enhance outcomes for > our industry. My suggestion for a BCP would be to recommend that blacklists have a CBL-style page for de-listing addresses. But rather than de-listing them entirely, the addresses can be moved to an associated "grey list", which is published as "addresses under dispute". If the blacklist verification process passes the address, it can be removed from the greylist. Otherwise, it can be moved back to the blacklist. We can call this process "provisional de-listing". The problem this method attacks is the liability of listing an address in the blacklist while it's under dispute. We also shouldn't ignore the emotions people feel when their requests to be de-listed are ignored (so they see), because the blacklist is following a process they don't understand. Lowering the strength of the emotions involved in a dispute can have dampening effects on the potential for litigation in any jurisdiction. Section 2.7 of the draft addresses this issue, without going into the reasons why it's useful. Also, tabloids (National Enquirer, etc) have an interesting model for dealing with legal issues. They don't claim something, they quote someone else claiming it. This practice has demonstratably limited their liability. For blacklists, the tying of IP address reporting with IP address publication means that the blacklist maintainers are probably significantly more liable than if the processes were separate. (requisite IANAL). Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu May 6 13:31:20 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA05340 for ; Thu, 6 May 2004 13:31:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLmXL-0001i2-9M for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 13:19:55 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i46HJtKT006561 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 May 2004 13:19:55 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLlvu-0002LA-6L for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 12:41:14 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA28569 for ; Thu, 6 May 2004 12:41:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLlvs-0001VT-Kd for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 12:41:12 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLltD-0000Pu-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 12:38:29 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLlpy-00070r-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 12:35:06 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLl2d-0004Hb-G6; Thu, 06 May 2004 11:44:07 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLkol-0004ng-VQ for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 11:29:48 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA20239 for ; Thu, 6 May 2004 11:29:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLkok-0002oc-Un for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 11:29:47 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLknk-0002PD-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 11:28:45 -0400 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 1BLkmg-0001cM-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 11:27:38 -0400 Received: from candle.brasslantern.com (IDENT:schaefer@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by candle.brasslantern.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i46FRVOm006024 for ; Thu, 6 May 2004 08:27:31 -0700 Received: (from schaefer@localhost) by candle.brasslantern.com (8.12.11/8.12.11/Submit) id i46FRVTV006023 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 6 May 2004 08:27:31 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: candle.brasslantern.com: schaefer set sender to schaefer@closedmail.com using -f From: Bart Schaefer Message-Id: <1040506152731.ZM6022@candle.brasslantern.com> In-Reply-To: Comments: In reply to "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" "RE: [Asrg] draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-00" (May 5, 6:49pm) References: X-Mailer: Z-Mail (5.0.0 30July97) To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-00 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, 6 May 2004 15:27:31 +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 May 5, 6:49pm, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: } } Alice signs a contract with Bob in which Bob agrees to paint Alice's } house for $100. I'm curious: Anyone know of case law in which the rest of Phillip's example stands as is, but the contract Alice signs with Bob is to post billboards on Jim's wall without Jim's permission? That is, if the contract isn't legal to begin with, can Bob still be sued for breach? _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu May 6 14:01:39 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA07916 for ; Thu, 6 May 2004 14:01:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLn0V-0002Oe-Pj for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 13:50:03 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i46Ho3Qj009212 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 May 2004 13:50:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLmgl-0000eB-PY for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 13:29:42 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA04956 for ; Thu, 6 May 2004 13:29:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLmgj-0007Vt-Pk for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 13:29:37 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLmfB-0006io-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 13:28:02 -0400 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLmd6-0005sD-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 13:25:52 -0400 Received: from optimus22.ietf.org ([132.151.6.22] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by mx2.foretec.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1BLmd7-0002nR-IO for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 13:25:53 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLmOC-00037U-7k; Thu, 06 May 2004 13:10:28 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLlSH-0002VE-Lp for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 12:10:37 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA24184 for ; Thu, 6 May 2004 12:10:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLlSG-0004w9-8J for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 12:10:36 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLlP4-0003mR-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 12:07:19 -0400 Received: from peacock.verisign.com ([65.205.251.73]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLlLv-0002YL-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 12:04:03 -0400 Received: from mou1wnexc02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.54]) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.11/) with ESMTP id i46G42iH004871; Thu, 6 May 2004 09:04:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mou1wnexc02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) id ; Thu, 6 May 2004 09:04:02 -0700 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Alan DeKok'" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-00 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: Thu, 6 May 2004 09:04:01 -0700 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 > Also, tabloids (National Enquirer, etc) have an interesting model > for dealing with legal issues. They don't claim something, they quote > someone else claiming it. This practice has demonstratably limited > their liability. Under English law repeating a libel is exactly the same as having originated it. The National Enquirer is very careful to publish garbage about well known public figures who don't have any real protection under US law. There are a lot of defenses that would be relevant to blacklists though. > For blacklists, the tying of IP address reporting with IP address > publication means that the blacklist maintainers are probably > significantly more liable than if the processes were > separate. (requisite IANAL). But that might open up the complainer to retribution. I think that two reforms that would greatly improve blacklists would be to require them to publish the date at which a complaint was added and the date when the last update was made to the blacklist. Blacklists that have not been updated for months or years are often still in use. This has a major negative effect on IP address allocation when new allocations turn out to be pre-blacklisted by idiots who never update their lists. One of the ideas we have been discussing for the revised accreditation proposal is dividing the A record up to give it some structure: 127.tag.valmsb.vallsb val = 256*valmsb + vallsb This allows us 256 tags, each of which can be defined to have 65K possible values. One of the possible value types is a date type. If you don't require better resolution than days you can do 176 years in 16 bits - not bad eh? If you allow the base for the date calculation to be specified independently you can specify any date. Knowing the date of original listing and the date of last review of a listing is pretty useful when deciding whether to act. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu May 6 14:05:43 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA08188 for ; Thu, 6 May 2004 14:05:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLn35-0004MB-NV for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 13:52:43 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i46HqhNE016741 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 May 2004 13:52:43 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLmmp-0004Gn-Vv for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 13:35:56 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA05969 for ; Thu, 6 May 2004 13:35:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLmmn-000327-U1 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 13:35:54 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLmlq-0002b1-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 13:34:54 -0400 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLmkh-0001o6-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 13:33:43 -0400 Received: from optimus22.ietf.org ([132.151.6.22] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by mx2.foretec.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1BLmki-0002y3-E1 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 13:33:44 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLmYp-0003Cw-7Q; Thu, 06 May 2004 13:21:27 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLlyY-0003ks-A7 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 12:43:58 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA28950 for ; Thu, 6 May 2004 12:43:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLlyW-0002Zi-N2 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 12:43:56 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLlxR-00024N-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 12:42:49 -0400 Received: from peacock.verisign.com ([65.205.251.73]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLlvL-00016b-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 12:40:39 -0400 Received: from MOU1WNEXC03.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.55]) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.11/) with ESMTP id i46Gebgc018761; Thu, 6 May 2004 09:40:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mou1wnexc03.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) id ; Thu, 6 May 2004 09:40:37 -0700 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Bart Schaefer'" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-00 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: Thu, 6 May 2004 09:40:30 -0700 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 > On May 5, 6:49pm, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > } > } Alice signs a contract with Bob in which Bob agrees to paint Alice's > } house for $100. > > I'm curious: Anyone know of case law in which the rest of Phillip's > example stands as is, but the contract Alice signs with Bob is to post > billboards on Jim's wall without Jim's permission? > > That is, if the contract isn't legal to begin with, can Bob still be > sued for breach? You are attempting to turn 'collateral damage' to direct, ignoring the fact that what is objectionable and I contend, actionable is the deliberate harm cased to third parties. The correct analogy would be that Carol signs a contract with Bob to post billboards on Jim's wall. The legality of Carol's contract with Bob might affect Carol's claim against Mallet but it does not affect Alice's claim against Mallet. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu May 6 14:14:50 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA08624 for ; Thu, 6 May 2004 14:14:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLnDa-0000QC-GQ for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 14:03:36 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i46I3YSo001614 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 May 2004 14:03:34 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLn2M-000435-Ta for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 13:51:59 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA07094 for ; Thu, 6 May 2004 13:51:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLn2K-0002Et-Od for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 13:51:56 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLn1K-0001l6-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 13:50:54 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLn0L-0001J3-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 13:49:53 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLmgE-0000UE-BA; Thu, 06 May 2004 13:29:06 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLmQX-00050X-2V for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 13:12:53 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA02393 for ; Thu, 6 May 2004 13:12:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLmQV-0000jE-67 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 13:12:51 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLmNW-000747-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 13:09:47 -0400 Received: from plounts.uits.indiana.edu ([129.79.1.73]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLmKm-0005ve-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 13:06:56 -0400 Received: from mail-relay.iu.edu (logchain.uits.indiana.edu [129.79.1.77]) by plounts.uits.indiana.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10/IUPO) with ESMTP id i46H6rxI024569 for ; Thu, 6 May 2004 12:06:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from [10.0.2.2] (dial-64-151-129-77.bton.kiva.net [64.151.129.77]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail-relay.iu.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10/IUPO) with ESMTP id i46H6n3H012497 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 6 May 2004 12:06:52 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v613) In-Reply-To: <20040506160018.14846.68752.Mailman@www1.ietf.org> References: <20040506160018.14846.68752.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 (2.613) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] Re: Graylisting Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 12:06:48 -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,CLICK_BELOW autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > My suggestion for a BCP would be to recommend that blacklists have a > CBL-style page for de-listing addresses. But rather than de-listing > them entirely, the addresses can be moved to an associated "grey > list", which is published as "addresses under dispute". If the This idea is a tad bit complicated (perhaps too much so), and in my mind a little bit Draconian, but.. What about a graylist that would, after identifying a zombie host, graylist it, then contact the owner with instructions on installing the latest Windows patch? Preferably this would happen automatically, so the user's email would pop up a box saying "You're computer has been identified as potentially sending zombie-spam. Click here to install the latest Windows update" (or something like that) ISP's could require installation of a background program that could handle this (using suitably encrypted/signatured communications so as not to be hijacked). This wouldn't work for Mac or Linux though (it could work for Mac, as there is a centralized source for updates - Apple), but probably not for Linux - although people running Linux boxen should know better.. Anothiuer problem is for people with dial-up connections, downloading a bloated 15MB windows patch (I've never understood why a small security patch can't be a reasonable size of 600K - even some of MacOSX's are 1.5MB). And of course, it requires cooperation of ISPs and users. The big up-side that I see is that it forces (or at least coerces) people to *fix* their OS's. In time, perhaps people (and/or their ISPs) will put more pressure on MS to either make a secure, transparent Software Update which *only* deals with security vulnerabilities (as opposed to the "latest and most bloated" improvement from Redmond), or to make security of their OS (more) of a priority - although that might be technically unfeasible unless MS stopped ALL development to go through all 10 million lines or whatever of Windows code, or rewrote parts of it from scratch (or switched to Darwin ;-) Jim Witte jswitte@bloomington.in.us Indiana University CS --- Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes? _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu May 6 15:06:04 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (www.iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA11576 for ; Thu, 6 May 2004 15:06:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLnzv-0004kg-V3 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 14:53:32 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i46IrVJW018267 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 May 2004 14:53:31 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLnss-0001hO-Vf for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 14:46:15 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA10551 for ; Thu, 6 May 2004 14:46:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLnsq-0001sI-7P for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 14:46:12 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLnrn-0001Si-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 14:45:07 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLnrH-000139-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 14:44:35 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLnlt-0007VA-0n; Thu, 06 May 2004 14:39:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLne6-0004SF-Vs for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 14:30:58 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA09455 for ; Thu, 6 May 2004 14:30:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLne4-0003Jo-CH for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 14:30:56 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLnd4-0002uR-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 14:29:55 -0400 Received: from zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com ([47.129.242.57]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLnc9-00027d-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 14:28:57 -0400 Received: from zcard309.ca.nortel.com (zcard309.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.69]) by zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.6/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id i46ISPr07033 for ; Thu, 6 May 2004 14:28:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from zcard031.ca.nortel.com ([47.129.242.121]) by zcard309.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id JCT8P01L; Thu, 6 May 2004 14:28:25 -0400 Received: from americasm01.nt.com (clewis-2.ca.nortel.com [47.129.150.65]) by zcard031.ca.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id JM9FVRLV; Thu, 6 May 2004 14:28:25 -0400 Message-ID: <409A83C8.7060605@americasm01.nt.com> X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Chris Lewis" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.5 (Windows/20040207) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-00 References: <1040506152731.ZM6022@candle.brasslantern.com> In-Reply-To: <1040506152731.ZM6022@candle.brasslantern.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, 06 May 2004 14:28:24 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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 Bart Schaefer wrote: > On May 5, 6:49pm, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > } > } Alice signs a contract with Bob in which Bob agrees to paint Alice's > } house for $100. > > I'm curious: Anyone know of case law in which the rest of Phillip's > example stands as is, but the contract Alice signs with Bob is to post > billboards on Jim's wall without Jim's permission? > > That is, if the contract isn't legal to begin with, can Bob still be > sued for breach? No. If the contract isn't legal (ie: calls for things that one of the parties cannot guarantee to produce), there is _no_ contract. Full stop. Nobody's bound to it, let alone someone possibly getting hit with tortious interference of an illegal contract. In the situation at hand, I can't contract with you to "guarantee delivery" to specific people. Unless I have a contract with those people to accept delivery. The best I can do is contract delivery to "N people". I then have to start delivery attempts until I manage to achieve N people accepting delivery. I can't sue those that refuse delivery nor their agents. I can't sue someone for their refusal to let me trespass! If I can't achieve N people, I'm in breach - I shouldn't have promised something I couldn't deliver, and I'm stuck with the penalty clauses. The other aspect is the requirement of intent and knowledge. Going back to PHB's original scenario, Mallet can't be held under "tortious interference" if there is no knowledge of such contract or intent to interfere with it. Let's try a reasonably accurate analogy please: FlyersRealBig distributes flyers. Crotch marketing contracts with FlyersRealBig to distribute flyers about crotch supports "throughout the city". I live in a "gated community", and my condo fees include a fee with CondosRUs to patrol the perimeter and prevent scruffians coming through the gate. Especially flyer carrying scruffies. CondosRUs engages the services of FlyerCop to use satellite lasering systems to pinpoint FlyersRealBig scruffies so that CondosRUs security staff can turn them away. Is FlyerCop "tortiously interfering"? I think not. CondosRUs? Nope. Contracts cannot impose conditions on people who aren't a party to the contract. The recipient of the flyer, the security guards and the services they use (the FlyerCops) are not parties to the contract, and cannot be forced to accept delivery. All FlyersRealBig can legitimately offer as a service is "best efforts to deliver", _unless_ they have a contract with the recipient. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu May 6 15:11:50 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (www.iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA12320 for ; Thu, 6 May 2004 15:11:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLo1L-00058k-Ez for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 14:54:59 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i46IsxTe019752 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 May 2004 14:54:59 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLnwX-0003PD-LR for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 14:50:01 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA10662 for ; Thu, 6 May 2004 14:49:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLnwV-0003VE-1M for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 14:49:59 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLnvb-00036O-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 14:49:04 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLnuq-0002hX-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 14:48:16 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLnlu-0007VU-9R; Thu, 06 May 2004 14:39:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLnf5-0004vd-OX for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 14:31:59 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA09523 for ; Thu, 6 May 2004 14:31:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLnf3-0003jh-1s for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 14:31:57 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLne1-0003JQ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 14:30:54 -0400 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 1BLncy-0002Y0-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 14:29:48 -0400 Received: from candle.brasslantern.com (IDENT:schaefer@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by candle.brasslantern.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i46ITgDK006230 for ; Thu, 6 May 2004 11:29:42 -0700 Received: (from schaefer@localhost) by candle.brasslantern.com (8.12.11/8.12.11/Submit) id i46ITg48006229 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 6 May 2004 11:29:42 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: candle.brasslantern.com: schaefer set sender to schaefer@closedmail.com using -f From: Bart Schaefer Message-Id: <1040506182942.ZM6228@candle.brasslantern.com> Reply-To: asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: Comments: In reply to "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" "RE: [Asrg] draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-00" (May 6, 9:40am) References: X-Mailer: Z-Mail (5.0.0 30July97) To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-00 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, 6 May 2004 18:29:42 +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 May 6, 9:40am, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: } } > On May 5, 6:49pm, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: } > } } > } Alice signs a contract with Bob in which Bob agrees to paint Alice's } > } house for $100. } > } > I'm curious: Anyone know of case law in which the rest of Phillip's } > example stands as is, but the contract Alice signs with Bob is to post } > billboards on Jim's wall without Jim's permission? } > } > That is, if the contract isn't legal to begin with, can Bob still be } > sued for breach? } } You are attempting to turn 'collateral damage' to direct No, I'm attempting to get an answer to a question. } ignoring the fact that what is objectionable and I contend, actionable } is the deliberate harm cased to third parties. } } The correct analogy would be that Carol signs a contract with Bob } to post billboards on Jim's wall. Should I interpret this to mean that you postulate two contracts with Bob, and that the reason Mallet is threatening not to do business with Alice is because he knows about the contract with Carol? So a blacklist is like somebody publishing the details of Bob's contract with Carol, in order to induce Mallet to refuse to do business wth Alice? Let's change the analogy slightly so Mallet is threatening to organize a boycott of Alice because of Bob, rather than simply threating not to do business with Alice. That makes Mallet the blacklist operator, rather than merely a participant in the boycott. To escape from the world of analogies, let's say that Bob is an ISP with whom both Alice and Carol have service contracts. Harvey is a user of Mallet's blacklist, and Harvey has no contract with Bob (he uses another ISP). What terms of Alice's contract with Bob state that Harvey must accept Alice's mail? Regardless of Carol and Jim, how can Bob legally claim that he can require Harvey to accept mail from Alice? And if Bob cannot legally claim that, so such a contract is not valid, then can Mallet still be guilty of interfering with it? (Note, NOT "can Mallet still be sued for interfering".) } The legality of Carol's contract with Bob might affect Carol's claim } against Mallet but it does not affect Alice's claim against Mallet. Agreed, but what I'm interested in is still the terms of Alice's contract. Incidentally, I'm not a fan of "collateral damage" either. I'm just trying to understand the niceties of your analogy. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu May 6 15:12:29 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (www.iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA12394 for ; Thu, 6 May 2004 15:12:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLoBz-00055l-Nr for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 15:05:59 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i46J5xNr019565 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 May 2004 15:05:59 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLo0M-00053l-6S for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 14:53:58 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA10829 for ; Thu, 6 May 2004 14:53:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLo0J-00059u-CO for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 14:53:55 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLnzL-0004kL-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 14:52:56 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLnyM-0004K2-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 14:51:54 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLnqj-0000Lc-BA; Thu, 06 May 2004 14:44:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLnjv-0006cw-K4 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 14:36:59 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA10018 for ; Thu, 6 May 2004 14:36:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLnjs-0005pl-S9 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 14:36:56 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLnis-0005P0-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 14:35:55 -0400 Received: from out2.smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.26]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLnhq-0004sf-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 14:34:50 -0400 X-Sasl-enc: MSN1JlvuC9inKlBF2ROOzQ 1083868458 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 B1FB9B20E09; Thu, 6 May 2004 14:34:17 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <409A852B.5070805@elvey.com> From: Matthew Elvey User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.7b) Gecko/20040421 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Chris Lewis Cc: ASRG Subject: Re: 02.2 Re: [Asrg] draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-00 [_________] References: <200404301430.i3UEUVu24576@panix5.panix.com> <49E0F0F9-9AC2-11D8-BEA4-000A95AC67AA@messagelabs.com> <409464E8.40705@americasm01.nt.com> <4096C5DD.6030604@elvey.com> <4097C49A.70109@americasm01.nt.com> <409840E3.2020504@elvey.com> <40992FC9.4080509@americasm01.nt.com> In-Reply-To: <40992FC9.4080509@americasm01.nt.com> X-Habeas-SWE-1: winter into spring X-Habeas-SWE-2: brightly anticipated X-Habeas-SWE-3: like Habeas SWE (tm) X-Habeas-SWE-4: Copyright 2002 Habeas (tm) X-Habeas-SWE-5: Sender Warranted Email (SWE) (tm). The sender of this X-Habeas-SWE-6: email in exchange for a license for this Habeas X-Habeas-SWE-7: warrant mark warrants that this is a Habeas Compliant X-Habeas-SWE-8: Message (HCM) and not spam. Please report use of this X-Habeas-SWE-9: mark in spam to . Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 06 May 2004 11:34:19 -0700 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 5/5/04 11:17 AM, Chris Lewis sent forth electrons to convey: > Matthew Elvey wrote: > >> On 5/4/04 9:28 AM, Chris Lewis sent forth electrons to convey: > > >>> I can think of a couple. Here's one: a blacklist entry that was >>> created solely on the existance of an open proxy, yet delisting >>> required that the system owner provided rDNS and postmaster >>> accessibility IN ADDITION to fixing the proxy. Desirable yes, but, >>> this goes beyond the BLs stated purpose, and unnecessarily conflates >>> anti-spam with non-spam issues. rDNS/postmaster were irrelevant to >>> the original listing, they should remain irrelevant to a subsequent >>> delisting. >> > >> That's not a valid example. If these additional requirements were >> not in the BL's stated delisting, then this issue was covered in > > >> 2.1. "Truth in Advertising". > > > You _could_ do it that way. But this runs into a number of problems. > One of which being a crack to stick the wedge of impropriety in. > Believe me, it's best for the blacklist _owner_ to do whatever they > can that has the slightest whiff of ulterior motives. Ie: "pay me to > get out of the list". Which is either extortion or protection rackets > or both. > > I strongly believe that any blacklist owner who does think through all > of the ramifications of "extra delisting requirements" will realize > it's in their best interests to avoid them. In a legal sense. > Objectivity and pinpoint accuracy is always to be preferred if there's > no compelling reason to do otherwise (ie: SPEWS being inherently and > deliberately subjective). Subjective isn't _wrong_, just > unnecessary-to-the-goal subjectivity is dangerous - to the blacklist > admin's legal liability - even if only a frivolous claim. > > When I was Usenet despamming (for about 6 years), there were many > opportunities to do things like this. Some perfectly reasonable, some > not. And I've watched other de/anti spammers go through some of the > same temptations and the flamewars and worse that resulted. It's > simply never preferable to do anything that is even remotely close to > imposing something on the listee that benefits _you_, or isn't > directly related to the listing. That ONLY provides leverage for > legal action, justified or not. Simply being on a list someone runs seems to provide all the leverage for legal action any spammer has needed to sue. Having 2.2 seems like barricading one door of a room with 3 open doors. > > That's 10 years hard labour in the trenches (with at times an average > of one lawsuit threat per _day_) speaking. I'd really like to hear more about this (off-list). Appreciate the above info! > > This recommendation serves to _lessen_ the BL owner's potential legal > problems, not the opposite. > >>>> 2.3. Listing/Delisting Criteria MUST Be Easily Available. >>> > >> Vagueness here is undesirable. Here's my specific text suggestion: >> 2.3 would benefit from the addition of sentences like: The precise >> algorithms and data used for listing and delisting do not need to be >> disclosed. Some criteria may be vaguely defined to slow down spammer >> adaptation. > > > I think clarification of intent along that line would be a good idea. > >>>> 2.6. MUST Have a Direct Non-Public Way to Request Removal. >>> >> I can't think of any benefit that 2.6 would provide. I claim that >> any question re. SPEWS is likely going to be answered faster and >> better via a nanae/nanabl posting. > > > For the most part you're perfectly right. NANAE or NANABL will > usually come up with a good explanation (albeit buried deep amongst > the insults and entirely wrong answers). > > In theory, and much of the time in practise, it works acceptably well. > > _If_ it's asked, and _if_ one or more of the answerers manage to > figure out the answer and _if_ the questioner is able to seperate the > wheat from the chaff (nay, buckshot ;-), fine. > > But, these things fail a whole lot more than people appreciate. I'm > on lists where things like this are discussed honestly. > > 1) listees (especially ISPs) sometimes have no idea whatsoever why > are listed. Sometimes it's subtle (like a stale DNS > entry), or some connection that's not published in the SPEWS entry. I > full well believe that SPEWS listings result from unanswered > complaints. On the other hand, one can easily expect some of these > complaints going astray (for a whole host of reasons, including not > identifying the responsible > party correctly in the first place). Having a failsafe to get the right > answer is desirable. > > I've seen plenty of ISPs saying "I have no idea why this is listed. > We've never got any complaints about this customer". Or, worse, when > they can't figure out what customer the listing is a result of. Yeah, > sometimes they're lying. But not always. > > 2) A whole host of *SPs and personnel simply refuse to have anything > to do with NANAE or NANABL. I've done my bit to try to persuade them > otherwise, including in some cases "fronting" requests and guiding > them thru the minefield. But it almost never happens. If any of them do not have long listings at http://www.spamhaus.org/sbl/listings.lasso?isp=isp.tld then that's interesting, but I wonder if that's not the case. In other words, are these ever folks to whom your 1) above applies? I guess you're saying it is; more often than people appreciate, it does. In any case, I'd rather not see their unreasonable fear to post in a public place legitimized by BCP accomodation. (From what I've seen, competent (e.g. non-threatening, speficfy an IP and SPEWS #) nana* posts from listees not wearing black hats attract little 'buckshot'.) > > 3) I've seen NANAE/NANABL grasping at straws to find out the ultimate > reason for a listing, and never finding it. Or not knowing if it has > been found. > > My goal in anti-spam is to block spam. To prevent spam from being > sent in the first place. To make it as easy as possible for ISPs to > clean up problems or, gasp, point out mistakes. Even escalation has a > positive role to play. > > I have no problem with SPEWS' general "ask NANAE" here, as long as > there is a channel of last resort. > > CBL does something like this - you can delist yourself, and it happens > within a few hours. They also have a removal limiter to refuse > delisting if the same IP is removed too often. Then you're guided to > contact the CBL directly. > > I'm sure that the vast majority of CBL delistings occur without having > to go anywhere near the email address. The ones that do can't be that > high volume, because I've not had problems dealing with them by email. > And if you do deal with them by email, you still don't find out who > they are. Pretty nifty. Still I don't see why e.g. that email address auto-forwarding to a public place (perhaps read-only) would be wrong. But I don't have the experience you have, so perhaps you can enlighten me with an example of info that needs to be conveyed non-publicly. In other words, if the listee is going to make false statements, they'd be more comfortable doing so privately, but I can't think of a legit need for a Direct *Non-Public* Way to Request Removal. > >>>> 3. Special Rules for Blacklists Listing Insecure Machines. >>>> >> From [SPEWS FAQ] A45: >> Due to abuse by spammers, open email relays no longer have any place >> on the Internet. Some may want to debate this, we won't. >> It was 3.1's "spam in hand" requirement that prompted my comment. A >> BLs policy should state whether it will list w/o "spam in hand". > > > Okay. :) > > Heh. Matt has run a public BL. Not for very long mind you, but > apparently a lot of people used it during that period. > Oops. > As for the gut feeling w.r.t. me, well, I think that John Levine and a > few others (besides Matt) might be persuaded to tell you that your gut > feeling is wrong, without going into details ;-) Ok, I believe you. > >> E.g. I think even the CBL and SBL are not compliant with a strict >> interpretation, hence some of the suggestions I've made. > > > If the BCP can be twisted that far by a reasonable person, it needs to > be adjusted. Thanks for your comments! > I think it's been a productive discussion! Looking forward to -01. Thanks! > This BCP is _intended_ to be of benefit to both owners and users of > BLs. Transparency benefits BCP [you mean BL, I guess - elvey] owners > even more than users... The only reason to lessen transparency is > where necessary to prevent spammer evolution. > > Maybe we have to amplify the introduction more along the above lines > to help ameliorate most of the legal concerns and make that intent > more obvious. (I suggested some legal-issue wording for this in another post.) _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu May 6 16:23:21 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 QAA17163 for ; Thu, 6 May 2004 16:23:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLpNS-0005Ol-Nv for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 16:21:54 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i46KLslG020751 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 May 2004 16:21:54 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLpKg-0003Tc-3z for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 16:19:02 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA17066 for ; Thu, 6 May 2004 16:18:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLpKe-0002CY-EU for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 16:19:00 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLpJh-0001ny-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 16:18:02 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLpJA-0001PU-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 16:17:28 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLpC0-00012P-1j; Thu, 06 May 2004 16:10:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLp5F-0006VM-R7 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 16:03:05 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA16553 for ; Thu, 6 May 2004 16:03:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLp5E-0003VZ-8H for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 16:03:04 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLp4T-000349-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 16:02:18 -0400 Received: from pcls4-e.std.com ([192.74.137.144] helo=TheWorld.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLp3c-0002e3-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 16:01:24 -0400 Received: from world.std.com (bzs@world-e.std.com [69.38.147.5]) by TheWorld.com (8.12.8p1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i46K1OHV007650; Thu, 6 May 2004 16:01:24 -0400 Received: (from bzs@localhost) by world.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA02669; Thu, 6 May 2004 16:01:23 -0400 (EDT) From: Barry Shein MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16538.39315.39141.142211@world.std.com> To: "Chris Lewis" Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-00 In-Reply-To: <4099B334.3000000@americasm01.nt.com> References: <16537.41825.469072.298569@world.std.com> <4099B334.3000000@americasm01.nt.com> X-Mailer: VM 7.07 under Emacs 21.2.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 16:01:23 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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 May 5, 2004 at 23:38 clewis@nortelnetworks.com (Chris Lewis) wrote: > > libel defamation etc. etc. etc. > > Yet... yet... the news media and the police do it all the time. > > Obviously there's a way do to this. Well, for the news media it involves having a 1st amendment to the United States Constitution which mentions your profession by name. And a judiciary which has generally agreed that the need of the people to get their news in a timely manner, even with some errors, overrides damage done by honest or even mildly careless errors. Of course news orgs have been sued anyhow and have sometimes even lost because the item wasn't considered newsworthy or of a timely urgency (e.g., gossip columns), or maliciousness or gross negligence of some sort was claimed. The police also have some amount of legal protection from reasonable errors, but they (or their employers) get sued all the time and sometimes even lose. >Nothing can bullet proof anybody, particularly in the US legal climate. > >But being transparent and honest about listing criteria can do a lot to >shift most of the onus on the list _user_ who has made a conscious >choice to use it and accept responsibility for it. I think that's a convenient fantasy. At any rate, I'd certainly consult an atty before putting my own assets at risk in such a venture. Giving others advice isn't always defensible by "well they were dumb enough to listen to me!" But, of course, if one is jugement-proof then it may not make much difference. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD The World | Public Access Internet | Since 1989 *oo* _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu May 6 16:37:14 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 QAA17736 for ; Thu, 6 May 2004 16:37:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLpVq-0000Lx-H1 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 16:30:35 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i46KUYRZ001353 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 May 2004 16:30:34 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLpRW-0007Hk-3x for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 16:26:06 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA17262 for ; Thu, 6 May 2004 16:26:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLpRU-00056F-9e for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 16:26:04 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLpQY-0004hV-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 16:25:07 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLpQ2-0004IP-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 16:24:34 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLpNZ-0005Tk-Px; Thu, 06 May 2004 16:22:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLpEu-0001yC-On for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 16:13:04 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA16935 for ; Thu, 6 May 2004 16:13:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLpEt-0007aY-0H for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 16:13:03 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLpDw-0007Bs-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 16:12:05 -0400 Received: from pcls2.std.com ([192.74.137.142] helo=TheWorld.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLpDE-0006mp-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 16:11:20 -0400 Received: from world.std.com (bzs@world-e.std.com [69.38.147.5]) by TheWorld.com (8.12.8p1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i46KBDQp027109; Thu, 6 May 2004 16:11:14 -0400 Received: (from bzs@localhost) by world.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA10680; Thu, 6 May 2004 16:11:13 -0400 (EDT) From: Barry Shein MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16538.39905.551062.225018@world.std.com> To: "Dr. Jeffrey Race" Cc: "asrg@ietf.org" Subject: RE: [Asrg] draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-00 In-Reply-To: References: <16537.41825.469072.298569@world.std.com> X-Mailer: VM 7.07 under Emacs 21.2.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 16:11:13 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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 May 6, 2004 at 08:38 jrace@attglobal.net (Dr. Jeffrey Race) wrote: > > incitement to riot, etc laws? > >What about shouting fire in a crowded movie theater (that's not on > >fire)? > > These issues relate to public safety and are irrelevant to the issue of > evidence-based statements about the behavior of those responsible > for certain IP addresses. The point is the law recognizes the general concept of liability for inducing another to act. Claiming it was their decision to listen to you isn't a blanket defense. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD The World | Public Access Internet | Since 1989 *oo* _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu May 6 18:01:09 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 SAA22159 for ; Thu, 6 May 2004 18:01:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLqt7-0007c1-8e for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 17:58:41 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i46LwfOa029261 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 May 2004 17:58:41 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLqmo-0005tN-8J for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 17:52:10 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA21730 for ; Thu, 6 May 2004 17:52:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLqml-00024q-Nk for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 17:52:07 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLqlo-0001fL-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 17:51:09 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLql0-0001GB-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 17:50:18 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLqgr-0003kA-KK; Thu, 06 May 2004 17:46:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLqXP-0008IV-0b for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 17:36:15 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA20965 for ; Thu, 6 May 2004 17:36:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLqXM-000355-Gq for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 17:36:12 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLqWN-0002e9-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 17:35:11 -0400 Received: from smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net ([207.172.4.61]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLqVU-0002EI-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 17:34:16 -0400 Received: from 209-6-102-148.c3-0.smr-ubr1.sbo-smr.ma.cable.rcn.com ([209.6.102.148] helo=600x--hd3.WorkGroup) by smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #4) id 1BLqVU-0005eW-00; Thu, 06 May 2004 17:34:16 -0400 From: "Dr. Jeffrey Race" To: "Barry Shein" Cc: "asrg@ietf.org" Reply-To: "Dr. Jeffrey Race" Priority: Normal X-Mailer: PMMail 2000 Standard (2.20.2475) For Windows 98 (4.10.2222) In-Reply-To: <16538.39905.551062.225018@world.std.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: RE: [Asrg] draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-00 Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 06 May 2004 16:34:20 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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 Thu, 6 May 2004 16:11:13 -0400, Barry Shein wrote: > > These issues relate to public safety and are irrelevant to the issue of > > evidence-based statements about the behavior of those responsible > > for certain IP addresses. >The point is the law recognizes the general concept of liability for >inducing another to act. The law recognizes the _specific_ case of public safety in the case you cited ("no right to shout fire in a crowded theater"). Don't read any more in to it. Anyway I repeat that this is irrelevant to the prospect of litigation against a blacklist or any organization which legitimizes blacklists for purposes of public convenience. A blacklist does not _induce_ anyone to do anything (in a legal sense which means to offer an incentive). A blacklist just publishes facts (presumptively). If they are not facts, and someone is injured, then that is actionable as it should be. It has nothing to do with us. Jeffrey Race _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu May 6 20:19:20 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 UAA29541 for ; Thu, 6 May 2004 20:19:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLszk-0006gP-FL for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 20:13:42 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i470Deeq025689 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 May 2004 20:13:40 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLswU-0005hx-HK for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 20:10:18 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA29156 for ; Thu, 6 May 2004 20:10:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLswS-0005ic-Hp for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 20:10:16 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLsvT-0005JF-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 20:09:15 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLsuk-0004uQ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 20:08:30 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLssL-0004Ac-N2; Thu, 06 May 2004 20:06:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLspZ-0003Fl-3C for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 20:03:09 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA28898 for ; Thu, 6 May 2004 20:03:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLspX-0002lo-3E for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 20:03:07 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLsoX-0002Lc-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 20:02:06 -0400 Received: from sc1.scconsult.com ([66.73.230.190] helo=toaster.scconsult.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLsnR-0001YX-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 20:00:57 -0400 Received: from [192.168.254.12] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by toaster.scconsult.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AEF6112244 for ; Thu, 6 May 2004 20:00:52 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: bill@fireproof.scconsult.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: To: ASRG list From: Bill Cole Subject: RE: [Asrg] draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-00 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, 6 May 2004 20:00:49 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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 6:15 AM -0700 5/6/04, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: >> The cases against MAPS say essentially nothing about what any court >> accepted except at the vaguest sort of level. No court decided >> anything beyond pre-trial matters in any of the suits against MAPS. >> All those cases proved is that it is a bad idea to beg to be sued by >> companies that might do so with no intention of ever going to trial. > >Pre-trial rullings are court decisions, they address issues like >'is there a set of facts which could allow a claim of this sort >to succeed'. As such they are not 'vague', they address the exact >issues being discussed here. I repeat my plea: cite which rulings you are referring to. It was my understanding when I was at MAPS in 2000-2001 that none of the rulings in any of the cases had settled any significant questions of law. >Pre-trial is where questions of law get decided. So saying 'no court >decided anything except questions of law' does not help when you >are debating a question of law. I said no such thing. Your interpretation of the rulings in the MAPS cases is directly at odds with what MAPS lawyers were telling MAPS management in early 2001. You may be referring to some decision that I missed after I left MAPS, but you have yet to actually mention anything but vague generalities when asked for specific citations. >The collateral damage issue only gets raised in a handful of early cases. >then it just goes away. I think there is a reason that none of these >cases would come to court, they simply don't need to. The only MAPS case where collateral damage was an issue at all was the Media3 case, and Media3 failed to convince the judge that their case merited any soirt of preliminary injunction. -- Bill Cole bill@scconsult.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu May 6 20:19:22 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 UAA29558 for ; Thu, 6 May 2004 20:19:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLszr-0006xq-4D for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 20:13:47 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i470Dlog026765 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 May 2004 20:13:47 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLszL-0006dI-KO for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 20:13:15 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA29256 for ; Thu, 6 May 2004 20:13:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLszJ-0006xR-OY for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 20:13:13 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLsyM-0006Xf-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 20:12:14 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLsxp-00068g-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 20:11:41 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLssN-0004B1-8K; Thu, 06 May 2004 20:06:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLsqa-0003Y5-Vi for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 20:04:13 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA28936 for ; Thu, 6 May 2004 20:04:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLsqZ-0003Ct-1N for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 20:04:11 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLspY-0002m1-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 20:03:08 -0400 Received: from mout.perfora.net ([217.160.230.40]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLsod-0002MI-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 20:02:11 -0400 Received: from [217.160.230.50] (helo=smtp.perfora.net) by mout.perfora.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1BLsoa-0007Nj-00; Thu, 06 May 2004 20:02:08 -0400 Received: from [68.246.97.94] (helo=solidmatrix.com) by smtp.perfora.net with asmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1BLsoZ-0008HS-00; Thu, 06 May 2004 20:02:08 -0400 Message-ID: <409AD1F1.9020105@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: "Dr. Jeffrey Race" CC: Barry Shein , "asrg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Asrg] draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-00 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 X-Provags-ID: perfora.net abuse@perfora.net auth:7051a7fa85b96745770cd89fa6d27f10 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 06 May 2004 20:01:53 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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 Dr. Jeffrey Race wrote: > On Thu, 6 May 2004 16:11:13 -0400, Barry Shein wrote: > >>>These issues relate to public safety and are irrelevant to the issue of >>>evidence-based statements about the behavior of those responsible >>>for certain IP addresses. >> >>The point is the law recognizes the general concept of liability for >>inducing another to act. > > > The law recognizes the _specific_ case of public safety in the case you > cited ("no right to shout fire in a crowded theater"). Don't read any > more in to it. > > Anyway I repeat that this is irrelevant to the prospect of litigation against > a blacklist or any organization which legitimizes blacklists for purposes of > public convenience. A blacklist does not _induce_ anyone to do anything (in a legal > sense which means to offer an incentive). A blacklist just publishes > facts (presumptively). If they are not facts, and someone is injured, > then that is actionable as it should be. It has nothing to do with us. > Allow me to give another example. There is a proposal in SMTP-VERIFY subgroup floated about a month ago by Mark Baugher. It proposes a standard set of formats and protocols for letting an MTA publish statistical information about other MTAs it knows, similar to what SenderBase does today. This would enable an ISP like AOL or The World publish statistical information about the MTAs that exchange mail with it such as average volume per day, how long it had been known, etc. This data can be used in the filtering process - e.g. if the MTA is well known, it is less likely that it is a zombie. Would you say that publishing such data puts the MTA operator at a legal liability just because others would use it? Yakov -- Yakov Shafranovich / asrg shaftek.org SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / research solidmatrix.com "And this too shall come to pass" _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu May 6 21:36:22 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA03361 for ; Thu, 6 May 2004 21:36:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLuFY-00052J-IR for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 21:34:04 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i471Y4N1019353 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 May 2004 21:34:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLuAs-00035t-Po for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 21:29:14 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA03123 for ; Thu, 6 May 2004 21:29:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLuAq-0007YG-4q for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 21:29:12 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLu9v-00078v-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 21:28:16 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLu98-0006jX-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 21:27:26 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLu5p-00012k-FG; Thu, 06 May 2004 21:24:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLu1C-0000aK-J8 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 21:19:14 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA02523 for ; Thu, 6 May 2004 21:19:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLu19-0003Hj-Tj for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 21:19:12 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLu0A-0002s7-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 21:18:11 -0400 Received: from domainmail.richmond.com ([208.253.112.161] helo=messagelevel.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLtz5-00024D-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 21:17:03 -0400 Message-Id: <200405062116.AA362479708@messagelevel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: "Bill Mcinnis" Reply-To: To: X-Mailer: X-Declude-Sender: bill.mcinnis@messagelevel.com [127.0.0.1] X-Note: This E-mail was scanned by Declude JunkMail (www.declude.com) for spam. X-Spam-Tests-Failed: None [0] X-Note: This E-mail was sent from ([127.0.0.1]). Subject: [Asrg] Message Level Authentication Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 21:16:17 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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 Hello, We started this thread over in the MARID board only to be asked to move over here, which we can understand. What we stated over there is that we are www.messagelevel.com. what we have developed over the last several years, and have patents pending on for the last several years, is a system that verifies the validity of every message sent by an institution. Please, before you barf on it because of the patents, we are here to say that we want to help in any way, naturally we would like to pay our mortgages with this, but not take over the world, so we are willing to work with anyone that wants to help and contribute in most any reasonable way possible to this effort. What we have developed, not what we are thinking about, but what we have, working is a system that captures minute pieces of data from email sent from a system and stores that in a queriable form in a database. From there as the recieving system has the same data in the email, our module can pull it and query back via dns to the purported system and check for a record of the send. If so, move on to the next filter level, if not, it is spoofed and do what you what with it. This is no more a burden on DNS that RBL checks, Mail From checks, RMX, etc, except that it works to establish a outer boundry from which all else is relvant. How can we contribute to this board and the cause, while trying to make a little money to pay the bills, but like I said, not take over the world. Take a look at www.messagelevel.com to get a better idea. Thank you, Bill McInnis ---- This outgoing message is guaranteed to be authentic by MessageLevel users. Guarantee the authenticity of your email @ http://www.messagelevel.com. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu May 6 21:37:25 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA03444 for ; Thu, 6 May 2004 21:37:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLuHD-0005a8-2j for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 21:35:47 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i471Zlbe021451 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 6 May 2004 21:35:47 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLuEq-0004Vx-PA for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 21:33:20 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA03214 for ; Thu, 6 May 2004 21:33:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLuEn-0001OX-SO for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 21:33:17 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLuDq-0000zN-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 21:32:19 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLuD3-0000aK-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 21:31:29 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLu7m-0002Bu-4E; Thu, 06 May 2004 21:26:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLu49-0000sH-Lm for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 21:22:17 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA02610 for ; Thu, 6 May 2004 21:22:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLu47-0004UX-1E for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 21:22:15 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLu3B-000460-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 21:21:18 -0400 Received: from pcls3.std.com ([192.74.137.143] helo=TheWorld.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLu2p-0003hS-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 21:20:55 -0400 Received: from world.std.com (bzs@world-e.std.com [69.38.147.5]) by TheWorld.com (8.12.8p1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i471Ksur007077; Thu, 6 May 2004 21:20:54 -0400 Received: (from bzs@localhost) by world.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA04053; Thu, 6 May 2004 21:20:54 -0400 (EDT) From: Barry Shein MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16538.58486.217529.301764@world.std.com> To: Yakov Shafranovich Cc: "Dr. Jeffrey Race" , Barry Shein , "asrg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Asrg] draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-00 In-Reply-To: <409AD1F1.9020105@solidmatrix.com> References: <409AD1F1.9020105@solidmatrix.com> X-Mailer: VM 7.07 under Emacs 21.2.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 21:20:54 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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 May 6, 2004 at 20:01 research@solidmatrix.com (Yakov Shafranovich) wrote: > Would you say that publishing such data puts the MTA operator at a legal > liability just because others would use it? IANAL. But off-hand it reminds me of how they used to announce the winners in the illegal numbers racket in NYC. The last 3 digits of the day's parimutuel betting at Belmont, published with the race results in the daily papers, would be the winning numbers. Now, I doubt Belmont racetrack could be held liable for aiding and abetting the numbers racket, tho I believe they voluntarily agreed to just round off to zeros to stop the practice. So it would seem to me to make a difference that in one case the information is clearly being published soas to create a blacklist, and is being represented as such. While in the other case it could be generally useful information used in all sorts of ways. It's not like telephone directories invite phone harrassment. I think my best advice is that if I were to run a public spam blacklist I'd bounce it around with an atty if I had assets to protect, unless I were operating in a country where litigation by spammers for something like tortious interference isn't a realistic concern. My concern was only that a blacklist BCP document could provide fodder for the wrong people in an already charged and potentially litigious atmosphere. That doesn't necessarily argue for or against the document's existence, it may just be a fact (or an observation anyhow.) -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD The World | Public Access Internet | Since 1989 *oo* _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri May 7 01:02:31 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 BAA11400 for ; Fri, 7 May 2004 01:02:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLxTp-0001Ca-47 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 01:01:01 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i475113x004616 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 May 2004 01:01:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLxTC-0000tw-MP for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 01:00:22 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA11275 for ; Fri, 7 May 2004 01:00:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLxT9-0007Sc-V6 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 01:00:20 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLxSE-00074P-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 00:59:23 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLxRY-0006gL-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 00:58:40 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLxJD-0006rN-5v; Fri, 07 May 2004 00:50:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLxHb-0006MI-IJ for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 00:48:23 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA10782 for ; Fri, 7 May 2004 00:48:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLxHY-0002Z5-So for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 00:48:20 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLxGe-0002Ar-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 00:47:25 -0400 Received: from mail.295.ca ([67.43.129.226]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLxG2-0001mS-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 00:46:46 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.295.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAA3A198088 for ; Fri, 7 May 2004 00:46:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail.295.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 15442-01-13 for ; Fri, 7 May 2004 00:46:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from waltdnes.org (unknown [64.7.146.190]) by mail.295.ca (Postfix) with SMTP id D54D3198035 for ; Fri, 7 May 2004 00:46:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: by waltdnes.org (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Fri, 7 May 2004 00:46:08 -0400 From: "Walter Dnes" To: ASRG list Subject: Re: [Asrg] News: Postini patents the relay server? Message-ID: <20040507044607.GB946@m450> References: <38363D9940D92A458010AAE24D162EB9021EDF0B@bremocog-55> <20040506045620.27808.qmail@xuxa.iecc.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040506045620.27808.qmail@xuxa.iecc.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p7 (Debian) at 295.ca Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 7 May 2004 00:46:07 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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, May 06, 2004 at 04:56:20AM -0000, John Levine wrote > Postini's patent is on the specific technique of preprocessing > someone's mail by setting up the MX to point to an offsite > preprocessing server that redelivers the laundered mail to the actual > server. It's not a patent on general mail relay. Don't look now, Postini has just patented outsourcing. Think of all the western corporations who've been doing this for years. -- Walter Dnes Email users are divided into two classes; 1) Those who have effective spam-blocking 2) Those who wish they did _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri May 7 03:50:15 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA03253 for ; Fri, 7 May 2004 03:50:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BM04W-0003MV-TJ for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 03:47:05 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i477l4fq012923 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 May 2004 03:47:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BM018-0002Fu-Bp for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 03:43:34 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA02777 for ; Fri, 7 May 2004 03:43:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BM015-00058S-Sr for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 03:43:31 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BM007-0004gw-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 03:42:32 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLzz1-0003ys-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 03:41:23 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLzn6-0005Qk-Bc; Fri, 07 May 2004 03:29:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLzho-0003qC-Cj for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 03:23:36 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA01807 for ; Fri, 7 May 2004 03:23:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLzhm-0004vy-4V for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 03:23:34 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLzgq-0004Wk-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 03:22:36 -0400 Received: from sense-sea-megasub-1-311.oz.net ([216.39.145.57] helo=angel.commercialventvac.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLzgE-0003qG-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 03:21:58 -0400 Received: from commercialventvac.com (black [192.168.2.25]) by angel.commercialventvac.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i477KfVR008724 for ; Fri, 7 May 2004 00:21:38 -0700 Message-ID: <409B38AB.1040507@commercialventvac.com> From: Jeff Silverman Reply-To: jeff@commercialventvac.com User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4.1) Gecko/20031114 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------010100040309020107080506" Subject: [Asrg] We got some stinging criticism Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 07 May 2004 00:20:11 -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,HTML_MESSAGE, HTML_TITLE_EMPTY autolearn=no version=2.60 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------010100040309020107080506 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit People, Larry Seltzer is the Security Center Editor for E-week. He just wrote an article, http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1583421,00.asp, and he has some pretty stinging criticisms of us. In particular, he wrote: > The group is an outgrowth of the Anti-Spam Research Group (ASRG), > a part of the Internet Research Task Force > (IRTF). The ASRG has produced a digital > mountain of discussion but not a whole lot of consensus on actual > solutions, and there's way too much topical variety and digression on > the group's mailing list. All of this is perhaps why some folks went > to the IETF asking to be saved from themselves and to have a standard > put on the "railroad" track. He also writes: > All of this leads me to believe that the group is moving far too fast. > I agree with Wacker [Rand Wacker, director of product strategy at > Sendmail Inc. - Jeff ] about real-world experimentation. Is it really > necessary to have a standard so quickly, when we're so early in the > real-world implementations of the major proposals? I wish we could > wait to get more experience with them first. I guess there is no pleasing some people - but it would be interesting to talk with him and ask him for advice. Jeff --------------010100040309020107080506 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit People,

     Larry Seltzer is the Security Center Editor for E-week.  He just wrote an article, http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1583421,00.asp, and he has some pretty stinging criticisms of us.  In particular, he wrote:

The group is an outgrowth of the Anti-Spam Research Group (ASRG), a part of the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF). The ASRG has produced a digital mountain of discussion but not a whole lot of consensus on actual solutions, and there's way too much topical variety and digression on the group's mailing list. All of this is perhaps why some folks went to the IETF asking to be saved from themselves and to have a standard put on the "railroad" track.
He also writes:

All of this leads me to believe that the group is moving far too fast. I agree with Wacker [Rand Wacker, director of product strategy at Sendmail Inc. - Jeff ]  about real-world experimentation. Is it really necessary to have a standard so quickly, when we're so early in the real-world implementations of the major proposals? I wish we could wait to get more experience with them first.
I guess there is no pleasing some people - but it would be interesting to talk with him and ask him for advice.


Jeff

--------------010100040309020107080506-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri May 7 10:50:06 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (www.iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA28073 for ; Fri, 7 May 2004 10:50:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BM6ZW-0004JJ-VG for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 10:43:32 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i47EhUb7016569 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 May 2004 10:43:30 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BM5y9-0003ET-4i for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 10:04:55 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA22949 for ; Fri, 7 May 2004 10:04:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BM5y7-00023F-1i for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 10:04:51 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BM5xB-0001dP-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 10:03:54 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BM5wn-0001Dg-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 10:03:29 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BM5tR-0007Mm-MO; Fri, 07 May 2004 10:00:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BM2Aj-0006xq-RI for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 06:01:38 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA12060 for ; Fri, 7 May 2004 06:01:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BM2Ag-0000fi-5E for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 06:01:34 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BM29n-00006n-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 06:00:39 -0400 Received: from mail6.speakeasy.net ([216.254.0.206]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BM28M-0007CL-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 05:59:10 -0400 Received: (qmail 12075 invoked by uid 64014); 7 May 2004 09:59:10 -0000 Received: from larry@larryseltzer.com by mail6.speakeasy.net with AmikaGuardian-Server-2.1.2; 07 May 2004 09:59:10 -0000 X-AmikaGuardian-Id: mail6.speakeasy.net108392395026112068 X-AmikaGuardian-Action: Do Nothing() Received: from mailny.ziffdavis.com (HELO elliot) (lseltzer@[63.167.10.254]) (envelope-sender ) by mail6.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 7 May 2004 09:59:10 -0000 From: "Larry Seltzer" To: , Subject: RE: [Asrg] We got some stinging criticism 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: <409B38AB.1040507@commercialventvac.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 Thread-Index: AcQ0Bpi6gBvPWcb2RgGGHk3Yf09XsgAEmpzA Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 7 May 2004 05:58:05 -0400 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 >>...it would be interesting to talk with him and ask him for advice. Basically, I can't believe the schedule on this thing. And since a high % of the discussion is always off thepoint or outside the formal agenda, there won't be all that much discussion going into this very important standard. Larry Seltzer eWEEK.com Security Center Editor http://security.eweek.com/ http://blog.ziffdavis.com/seltzer larryseltzer@ziffdavis.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri May 7 11:16:07 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (www.iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA00233 for ; Fri, 7 May 2004 11:16:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BM6eu-0006j2-Na for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 10:49:04 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i47En4YS025850 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 May 2004 10:49:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BM6XH-0003re-BK for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 10:41:11 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA26983 for ; Fri, 7 May 2004 10:41:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BM6XF-00037j-3R for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 10:41:09 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BM6Vd-0002FR-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 10:39:30 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BM6U6-0001cV-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 10:37:54 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BM5w9-0001c5-Ng; Fri, 07 May 2004 10:02:49 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BM4pP-0003iD-1u for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 08:51:47 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA19054 for ; Fri, 7 May 2004 08:51:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BM4pN-00018Q-Lo for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 08:51:45 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BM4oP-0000iL-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 08:50:46 -0400 Received: from domainmail2.richmond.com ([208.253.112.161] helo=messagelevel.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BM4nT-0007hA-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 08:49:47 -0400 Message-Id: <200405070849.AA158597314@messagelevel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: "Bill Mcinnis" Reply-To: To: , Matthew Elvey CC: Subject: Re: [Asrg] Message Level Authentication X-Mailer: X-Declude-Sender: bill.mcinnis@messagelevel.com [127.0.0.1] X-Note: This E-mail was scanned by Declude JunkMail (www.declude.com) for spam. X-Spam-Tests-Failed: None [0] X-Note: This E-mail was sent from ([127.0.0.1]). Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 7 May 2004 08:49:10 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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 Matthew, Point 1 - What part of what andy said? We cant make ip claims about similarities because you have come up with nothing so far as a group. Point 2 - As far as an expert review of what we have developed, unfortunatley the experts formed the asrg a long time after we came up with this. Point 3 - Yes we did get feedback and we answered everything anyone asked. Next. Question 1 - does everything have to be in a draft form? I have seen a lot of things hashed through without those (CID and YDK). Most of them seem to be ideas about things to try and not about things already built? Question 2 - Is the patent piece of this a non starter in terms of working with this group? I know you all are considering other patent pending ideas, what makes this one so different and what is with the hostile remarks to us popping our heads up? We are not trying to create a hostile environment, we just created something we know works and want to have it flushed out as an option as it is the most secure form of authentication (no pki, no publishing specific ips dns, not rebranding of old ideas into something new), it provides the level of accountability required before any e-postage scheme is possible and actually works. Is the job of this group to find something that works, or find something that nobody else came up with? Thank you Bill McInnis ---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- From: Matthew Elvey Date: Thu, 06 May 2004 21:04:11 -0700 >On 5/6/2004 6:16 PM, Bill Mcinnis sent forth electrons to convey: > >>Hello, >> >>We started this thread over in the MARID board only to be >>asked to move over here, which we can understand. >> >> >What Andy said applies equally here: > >Bill, >> >>If you are asking for expert review of your proprietary anti-spam >>system, please do it elsewhere. >> >>If you are seeking to contribute to this IETF standardization effort, >>please submit an Internet Draft complete with proper intellectual >>property notices. And remember, MARID is about a DNS authorization >>solution for MTAs. >> >>If you believe that input documents to MARID are in conflict with your >>own intellectual property, please specify which methods are in >>conflict. >> >>-andy, co-chair > >? > >It looks like you already got a bunch of feedback on the MARID list: >http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/mail-archive/msg00940.html > >>... >>Thank you, >> >>Bill McInnis >> >> >. > >---- >This message has been verified as authentic by MessageLevel. >Guarantee the authenticity of your email @ http://www.messagelevel.com. > ---- This outgoing message is guaranteed to be authentic by MessageLevel users. Guarantee the authenticity of your email @ http://www.messagelevel.com. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri May 7 11:59:30 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (www.iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA02597 for ; Fri, 7 May 2004 11:59:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BM7h6-0004wn-Np for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 11:55:24 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i47FtOmO019017 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 May 2004 11:55:24 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BM7Zr-0002ys-P0 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 11:47:55 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA02202 for ; Fri, 7 May 2004 11:47:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BM7Zq-0002a3-IP for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 11:47:54 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BM7Z1-00028g-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 11:47:04 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BM7YG-0001hQ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 11:46:16 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BM7ON-0007Ql-9R; Fri, 07 May 2004 11:36:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BM78r-0002Ac-9u for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 11:20:01 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA00625 for ; Fri, 7 May 2004 11:19:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BM78q-0005oF-F3 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 11:20:00 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BM77y-0005MZ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 11:19:06 -0400 Received: from newgiles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ([205.150.200.131] helo=mail.nitros9.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BM77F-0004un-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 11:18:21 -0400 Received: from newgiles.nitros9.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.nitros9.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7FD316E1F for ; Fri, 7 May 2004 11:23:34 -0400 (EDT) From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-00 In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 06 May 2004 20:01:53 EDT." <409AD1F1.9020105@solidmatrix.com> Message-Id: <20040507152334.D7FD316E1F@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, 07 May 2004 11:23:34 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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: > Would you say that publishing such data puts the MTA operator at a legal > liability just because others would use it? My understanding is that in some jurisdictions, the answer is "Yes." In Canada, it's legal to give a reference for an ex-employee which says "he showed up at work drunk and naked, so we fired him". In other countries, it may not be legal to say that, even if it's true. There is a way around the legal issues. Have a "de-list me" page, just like the CBL does. The key is that rather than pretending the rentry under dispute doesn't exist, you mark it "de-listed at owners request." Recipients can then choose what to do. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri May 7 14:58:39 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 OAA12541 for ; Fri, 7 May 2004 14:58:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BMAVu-0003dX-CM for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 14:56:02 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i47Iu2JU013971 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 May 2004 14:56:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BMAT0-0002Mf-UU for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 14:53:02 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA12178 for ; Fri, 7 May 2004 14:52:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BMASy-00073S-7K for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 14:53:00 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BMARy-0006bi-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 14:51:59 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BMAQz-00069g-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 14:50:57 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BMAKI-00005I-D7; Fri, 07 May 2004 14:44:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BMAER-0006e3-2N for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 14:37:59 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA11096 for ; Fri, 7 May 2004 14:37:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BMAEO-00007W-9z for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 14:37:56 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BMADU-0007TQ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 14:37:01 -0400 Received: from mail3.panix.com ([166.84.1.74]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BMACY-00073F-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 14:36:02 -0400 Received: from panix5.panix.com (panix5.panix.com [166.84.1.5]) by mail3.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34AF698921 for ; Fri, 7 May 2004 14:36:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from sethb@localhost) by panix5.panix.com (8.11.6p2-a/8.8.8/PanixN1.1) id i47Ia2309398; Fri, 7 May 2004 14:36:02 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200405071836.i47Ia2309398@panix5.panix.com> From: Seth Breidbart To: asrg@ietf.org In-reply-to: <20040507152334.D7FD316E1F@mail.nitros9.org> (aland@ox.org) Subject: Re: [Asrg] draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-00 References: <20040507152334.D7FD316E1F@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, 7 May 2004 14:36:02 -0400 (EDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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 Canada, it's legal to give a reference for an ex-employee which > says "he showed up at work drunk and naked, so we fired him". In > other countries, it may not be legal to say that, even if it's true. In the US, it's legal to say that. He might sue, of course; but if it's true, he won't win. > There is a way around the legal issues. Have a "de-list me" page, > just like the CBL does. The key is that rather than pretending the > rentry under dispute doesn't exist, you mark it "de-listed at owners > request." > > Recipients can then choose what to do. Then someone listed and marked that way, who gets blocked, can still sue over the original listing. Seth _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri May 7 15:11:56 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (www.iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA14269 for ; Fri, 7 May 2004 15:11:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BMAi0-0005Oe-EO for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 15:08:33 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i47J8WFk020734 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 May 2004 15:08:32 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BMAX0-0003v4-HJ for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 14:57:10 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA12382 for ; Fri, 7 May 2004 14:57:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BMAWx-00013B-Jt for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 14:57:07 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BMAVp-0000aA-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 14:55:57 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BMAUj-0007hg-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 14:54:49 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BMAKK-00005r-Cv; Fri, 07 May 2004 14:44:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BMAGQ-00075K-Aw for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 14:40:03 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA11189 for ; Fri, 7 May 2004 14:39:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BMAGN-0000z3-JQ for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 14:39:59 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BMAFU-0000Zb-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 14:39:05 -0400 Received: from xuxa.iecc.com ([208.31.42.42]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BMAEw-0000A1-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 14:38:30 -0400 Received: (qmail 9449 invoked by uid 100); 7 May 2004 18:38:29 -0000 Message-ID: <20040507183829.9448.qmail@xuxa.iecc.com> From: John Levine To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] We got some stinging criticism In-Reply-To: Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA Cc: larry@larryseltzer.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: 7 May 2004 18:38:29 -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 >Basically, I can't believe the schedule on this thing. It's certainly very aggressive, and I agree that we need a whole lot more experiments before trying to roll stuff out widely. On the other hand, the IETF has lots of standards that never were used much. It would be a shame if people were to put a lot of work into something that nobody uses, but it wouldn't be a disaster. 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 Fri May 7 15:26:15 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (www.iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA15497 for ; Fri, 7 May 2004 15:26:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BMAwt-0004r3-5C for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 15:23:56 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i47JNt8Q018662 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 May 2004 15:23:55 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BMAtA-0003jL-Mx for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 15:20:04 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA15196 for ; Fri, 7 May 2004 15:20:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BMAt9-0003TB-I7 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 15:20:03 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BMAsG-00032W-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 15:19:08 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BMArD-0002bG-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 15:18:03 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BMAlT-00087G-6r; Fri, 07 May 2004 15:12:07 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BMAhh-000596-2E for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 15:08:13 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA13844 for ; Fri, 7 May 2004 15:08:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BMAhe-00067r-1T for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 15:08:10 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BMAgy-0005h1-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 15:07:29 -0400 Received: from newgiles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ([205.150.200.131] helo=mail.nitros9.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BMAgD-0005D5-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 15:06:41 -0400 Received: from newgiles.nitros9.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.nitros9.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 437B41706A for ; Fri, 7 May 2004 15:11:51 -0400 (EDT) From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-00 In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 07 May 2004 14:36:02 EDT." <200405071836.i47Ia2309398@panix5.panix.com> Message-Id: <20040507191151.437B41706A@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, 07 May 2004 15:11:51 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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: > > There is a way around the legal issues. Have a "de-list me" page, > > just like the CBL does. The key is that rather than pretending the > > rentry under dispute doesn't exist, you mark it "de-listed at owners > > request." > > > > Recipients can then choose what to do. > > Then someone listed and marked that way, who gets blocked, can still > sue over the original listing. ... which may (or may not) have been negatively listed. The original listing can be positive, negative, or a request to "not list me". The key is to ensure that the entries which are "not-listed at owners request" are *not* always originally a negative listing. This means that when someone sees those entries, there is no automatic assumption that the owner was behaving poorly. e.g. Blacklists can list whole swaths of unallocated addresses as "not listed at owners request". The blocks 29/8, 30/8 are still unallocated, I think. Blacklist maintainers can use the public statement that those addresses are unallocated as a request to NOT have them in the list. There's no reason to blacklist them, as no one should be using them, right? Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri May 7 17:13:45 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 RAA21248 for ; Fri, 7 May 2004 17:13:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BMCdw-0002xe-Qa for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 17:12:29 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i47LCSLd011382 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 May 2004 17:12:28 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BMCVp-0000bt-MD for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 17:04:05 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA20419 for ; Fri, 7 May 2004 17:04:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BMCVn-00020D-Im for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 17:04:03 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BMCUr-0001X2-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 17:03:06 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BMCTg-0000oQ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 17:01:52 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BMCL7-0005q9-F0; Fri, 07 May 2004 16:53:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BLwcy-0002sQ-P8 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 00:06:24 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA09444 for ; Fri, 7 May 2004 00:06:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BLwcw-00017B-Fk for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 00:06:22 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BLwbw-0000g6-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 00:05:21 -0400 Received: from out2.smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.26]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BLway-0000Cc-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 00:04:20 -0400 X-Sasl-enc: lL/9FkoUMPAd6bANzee9dA 1083902656 Received: from elvey.com (ns.nextbus.com [64.164.28.194]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0EEFCB2541F; Fri, 7 May 2004 00:04:13 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <409B0ABB.4040602@elvey.com> From: Matthew Elvey User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.5 (Windows/20040207) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bill.mcinnis@messagelevel.com Subject: Re: [Asrg] Message Level Authentication References: <200405062116.AA362479708@messagelevel.com> In-Reply-To: <200405062116.AA362479708@messagelevel.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=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, 06 May 2004 21:04:11 -0700 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=AWL,HABEAS_SWE autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 5/6/2004 6:16 PM, Bill Mcinnis sent forth electrons to convey: >Hello, > >We started this thread over in the MARID board only to be >asked to move over here, which we can understand. > > What Andy said applies equally here: Bill, > >If you are asking for expert review of your proprietary anti-spam >system, please do it elsewhere. > >If you are seeking to contribute to this IETF standardization effort, >please submit an Internet Draft complete with proper intellectual >property notices. And remember, MARID is about a DNS authorization >solution for MTAs. > >If you believe that input documents to MARID are in conflict with your >own intellectual property, please specify which methods are in >conflict. > >-andy, co-chair ? It looks like you already got a bunch of feedback on the MARID list: http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/mail-archive/msg00940.html >... >Thank you, > >Bill McInnis > > . _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri May 7 17:33:44 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 RAA22156 for ; Fri, 7 May 2004 17:33:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BMCv0-0008Sf-Kl for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 17:30:06 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i47LU6XI032521 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 May 2004 17:30:06 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BMCoC-0005w0-Dh for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 17:23:04 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA21720 for ; Fri, 7 May 2004 17:23:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BMCoA-0002QH-0p for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 17:23:02 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BMCnB-0001z4-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 17:22:02 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BMCm7-0001IV-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 17:20:55 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BMCeT-0003MP-Dg; Fri, 07 May 2004 17:13:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BMCVt-0000c9-89 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 17:04:09 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA20441 for ; Fri, 7 May 2004 17:04:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BMCVr-00020f-3L for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 17:04:07 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BMCUx-0001Y1-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 17:03:12 -0400 Received: from out2.smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.26]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BMCTs-000177-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 17:02:04 -0400 X-Sasl-enc: AMfDG7LDKcFNBvXmzSt3uw 1083963486 Received: from elvey.com (ns.nextbus.com [64.164.28.194]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89558B29450; Fri, 7 May 2004 16:58:04 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <409BF85A.3060209@elvey.com> From: Matthew Elvey User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.5 (Windows/20040207) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bill.mcinnis@messagelevel.com Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Message Level Authentication References: <200405070849.AA158597314@messagelevel.com> In-Reply-To: <200405070849.AA158597314@messagelevel.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: Fri, 07 May 2004 13:58:03 -0700 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=AWL,HABEAS_SWE autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 5/7/2004 5:49 AM, Bill Mcinnis sent forth electrons to convey: >Matthew, > >Question 1 - does everything have to be in a draft form? I have seen a >lot of things hashed through without those (CID and YDK). Most of them >seem to be ideas about things to try and not about things already built? > > CID and YDK got a lot of hostility for not submitting stuff in draft form too. (And the former for being based on unspecified proprietary IP, and simply being from a company that's a convicted predatory monopoly, etc.) Here's one way likely to get rid of much of such hostility: https://www.redhat.com/legal/patent_policy.html. An irrevocable offer to license at a specified price would be another idea... >Question 2 - Is the patent piece of this a non starter in terms of >working with this group? I know you all are considering other patent >pending ideas, what makes this one so different and what is with the >hostile remarks to us popping our heads up? > > The IETF doesn't flatly reject anything that's patented or patent pending, AFAIK, but it's a big hit, because patents usually make broad adoption more difficult. In terms of techno-social merit, ML seems to potentially accomplish about what SPF does, while requiring more work from adoptees, and less incentive to early adopters, hence being less likely to achieve its potential. E.g. I'd have to set up and run an ML server for my domain (or pay someone to). >We are not trying to create a hostile environment, we just created >something we know works and want to have it flushed out as an option >as it is the most secure form of authentication (no pki, no publishing >specific ips dns, not rebranding of old ideas into something new), >it provides the level of accountability required before any e-postage >scheme is possible and actually works. > >Is the job of this group to find something that works, or find something >that nobody else came up with? > >Thank you > >Bill McInnis >---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- >From: Matthew Elvey >Date: Thu, 06 May 2004 21:04:11 -0700 > > > >>On 5/6/2004 6:16 PM, Bill Mcinnis sent forth electrons to convey: >> >> >> >>>Hello, >>> >>>We started this thread over in the MARID board only to be >>>asked to move over here, which we can understand. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>What Andy said applies equally here: >> >>Bill, >> >> >>>If you are asking for expert review of your proprietary anti-spam >>>system, please do it elsewhere. >>> >>>If you are seeking to contribute to this IETF standardization effort, >>>please submit an Internet Draft complete with proper intellectual >>>property notices. And remember, MARID is about a DNS authorization >>>solution for MTAs. >>> >>>If you believe that input documents to MARID are in conflict with your >>>own intellectual property, please specify which methods are in >>>conflict. >>> >>>-andy, co-chair >>> >>> >>? >> >>It looks like you already got a bunch of feedback on the MARID list: >>http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/mail-archive/msg00940.html >> >> >> >>>... >>>Thank you, >>> >>>Bill McInnis >>> >>> >>> >>> >>. >> >>---- >>This message has been verified as authentic by MessageLevel. >>Guarantee the authenticity of your email @ http://www.messagelevel.com. >> >> >> > >---- >This outgoing message is guaranteed to be authentic by MessageLevel users. >Guarantee the authenticity of your email @ http://www.messagelevel.com. > > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri May 7 17:47:12 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 RAA22730 for ; Fri, 7 May 2004 17:47:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BMD6O-0003bO-Rw for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 17:41:52 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i47LfqUJ013828 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 May 2004 17:41:52 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BMD3l-0002W9-5H for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 17:39:09 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA22387 for ; Fri, 7 May 2004 17:39:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BMD3i-0001Z2-Nr for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 17:39:06 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BMD2g-000177-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 17:38:03 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BMD1d-0000Te-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 17:36:57 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BMCw0-0000Ev-MH; Fri, 07 May 2004 17:31:08 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BMCsF-0007Sd-FO for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 17:27:15 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA21897 for ; Fri, 7 May 2004 17:27:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BMCsD-0004CG-2O for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 17:27:13 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BMCrQ-0003m5-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 17:26:24 -0400 Received: from mout.perfora.net ([217.160.230.40]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BMCqf-0003KV-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 17:25:37 -0400 Received: from 000-155-784.area3.spcsdns.net[68.246.94.43] (helo=solidmatrix.com) by mrelay.perfora.net with ESMTP (Nemesis), id 1BMCqc-1d2f-0MKz5u-00071q; Fri, 07 May 2004 17:25:34 -0400 Message-ID: <409BFEC2.70906@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: bill.mcinnis@messagelevel.com, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Message Level Authentication References: <200405070849.AA158597314@messagelevel.com> <409BF85A.3060209@elvey.com> In-Reply-To: <409BF85A.3060209@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: Fri, 07 May 2004 17:25:22 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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 Matthew Elvey wrote: > On 5/7/2004 5:49 AM, Bill Mcinnis sent forth electrons to convey: ... >> Question 2 - Is the patent piece of this a non starter in terms of >> working with this group? I know you all are considering other patent >> pending ideas, what makes this one so different and what is with the >> hostile remarks to us popping our heads up? >> > The IETF doesn't flatly reject anything that's patented or patent > pending, AFAIK, but it's a big hit, because patents usually make broad > adoption more difficult. > The ASRG's IPR policy can be found here: http://asrg.sp.am/about/ipr.shtml The basic thrust is that you should disclose your IPR upfront. However, as Mathew stated, patents make adoption more complicated. Yakov -- Yakov Shafranovich / asrg shaftek.org SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / research solidmatrix.com "And this too shall come to pass" _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri May 7 18:33:45 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (www.iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA25694 for ; Fri, 7 May 2004 18:33:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BMDsK-00072e-5Q for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 18:31:24 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i47MVO8g027069 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 May 2004 18:31:24 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BMDr6-0006j2-OU for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 18:30:08 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA25530 for ; Fri, 7 May 2004 18:30:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BMDr3-00001f-SW for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 18:30:05 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BMDq4-0007PA-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 18:29:04 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BMDp3-0006sT-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 18:28:01 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BMDiH-000402-Ps; Fri, 07 May 2004 18:21:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BMDcs-0001Pb-BO for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 18:15:26 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA24790 for ; Fri, 7 May 2004 18:15:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BMDcp-0001VT-Gb for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 18:15:23 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BMDbi-000158-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 18:14:15 -0400 Received: from xuxa.iecc.com ([208.31.42.42]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BMDax-0000et-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 18:13:28 -0400 Received: (qmail 8447 invoked by uid 100); 7 May 2004 22:13:28 -0000 Message-ID: <20040507221328.8446.qmail@xuxa.iecc.com> From: John Levine To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Message Level Authentication In-Reply-To: <200405070849.AA158597314@messagelevel.com> Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA Cc: bill.mcinnis@messagelevel.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: 7 May 2004 22:13:28 -0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 >Is the job of this group to find something that works, or find >something that nobody else came up with? The former. Patents aren't an insurmountable problem, although unless your patented scheme is vastly, enormously, better than all of the alternatives, people are going to use schemes that are either P.D. or where patent owners offer free licenses as Microsoft says they're going to do with Caller ID. The lack of a formal Internet Draft isn't insurmoutable either, although lack of a concrete technical spec is. Microsoft has published a Caller ID spec with as much detail as you'd find in an I-D, and there's one coming shortly for Domain Keys. The basic problem with per message callback verification is that it's not a very good way to authenticate messages. It's an idea that's come up from time to time and has never garnered much enthusiasm. It's very expensive for recipients, since it requires a database lookup over the net for each message, and unlike any of the LMAP proposals or Domain Keys, the looked up data can't be cached for other messages from the same domain. It's a disaster for senders if their domain is even moderately spoofed, since they'll be hammered with lookups for every spoofed message. (My abuse.net domain, for example, sends under 10K messages a day, but there's up to a million daily forged abuse.net spams from about two Russian spammers.) It also seems to me utterly implausible that a high volume mailer like AOL or Hotmail would be able to maintain a database of every message they send, and process queries in real time. Unlike mail sending and receiving, this cannot be farmed out to multiple independent parallel servers, since the domain's database has to know about all the mail sent from that domain and respond to all the queries. If you had a concrete description of your system, we could probably identify other problems with forwarded mail, roaming users, one-way forwarders like computer.org and pobox.com, and "frankenmail" with the head of a legit mail and the body of a spam. But given how fundamental the performance and scaling issues are, I doubt you'll get much more feedback here even if you did have a spec. Several ASRG participants run e-mail consultancies, so if you really wanted a more detailed critique, you could doubtless hire someone to help perform one. 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 Fri May 7 20:21:38 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA00079 for ; Fri, 7 May 2004 20:21:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BMFXf-0001z9-Ce for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 20:18:11 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i480IBUj007631 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 May 2004 20:18:11 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BMFVl-0001Hn-6F for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 20:16:13 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA29884 for ; Fri, 7 May 2004 20:16:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BMFVj-0006L7-7A for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 20:16:11 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BMFUk-0005vI-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 20:15:10 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BMFTr-0005WL-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 20:14:15 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BMFNt-0007xk-Az; Fri, 07 May 2004 20:08:05 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BMFKB-0006bj-Bq for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 20:04:15 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA29484 for ; Fri, 7 May 2004 20:04:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BMFK9-0001JP-Dq for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 20:04:13 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BMFJA-0000tr-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 20:03:12 -0400 Received: from peacock.verisign.com ([65.205.251.73]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BMFIe-0000Ub-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 20:02:40 -0400 Received: from mou1wnexc02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.54]) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.11/) with ESMTP id i4802egL024470; Fri, 7 May 2004 17:02:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mou1wnexc02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) id ; Fri, 7 May 2004 17:02:40 -0700 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'John Levine'" , asrg@ietf.org Cc: bill.mcinnis@messagelevel.com Subject: RE: [Asrg] Message Level Authentication 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: Fri, 7 May 2004 17:02:38 -0700 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 > Patents aren't an insurmountable problem, although unless your > patented scheme is vastly, enormously, better than all of the > alternatives, people are going to use schemes that are either P.D. or > where patent owners offer free licenses as Microsoft says they're > going to do with Caller ID. You will probably find a large number of people are not going to read a proposal that is encumbered by patent claims in a forum that does not have an RF or RAND IP policy in place. I don't see a need for an encumbered scheme in this space. I think that there is a very good solution on the table that is subject to acceptable (i.e. free) licensing terms. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri May 7 20:41:14 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA00965 for ; Fri, 7 May 2004 20:41:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BMFsw-00085T-Kk for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 20:40:10 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i480eAnV031088 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 May 2004 20:40:10 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BMFs1-0007pe-MM for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 20:39:13 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA00830 for ; Fri, 7 May 2004 20:39:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BMFrz-0000VW-E6 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 20:39:11 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BMFqz-00003x-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 20:38:10 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BMFpu-0007Be-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 20:37:02 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BMFl2-0005eF-J6; Fri, 07 May 2004 20:32:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BMFgS-0004TX-Jx for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 20:27:16 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA00334 for ; Fri, 7 May 2004 20:27:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BMFgQ-0003Fx-Ci for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 20:27:14 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BMFfe-0002pV-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 20:26:27 -0400 Received: from sense-sea-megasub-1-311.oz.net ([216.39.145.57] helo=angel.commercialventvac.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BMFed-0001zQ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 20:25:24 -0400 Received: from commercialventvac.com (black [192.168.2.25]) by angel.commercialventvac.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i480NqVR012020; Fri, 7 May 2004 17:24:49 -0700 Message-ID: <409C2879.7020801@commercialventvac.com> From: Jeff Silverman Reply-To: jeff@commercialventvac.com User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4.1) Gecko/20031114 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Larry Seltzer CC: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] We got some stinging criticism References: <200405071000.i479xrVR009228@angel.commercialventvac.com> In-Reply-To: <200405071000.i479xrVR009228@angel.commercialventvac.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------020105000209020004010903" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 07 May 2004 17:23:21 -0700 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,HTML_MESSAGE, HTML_TITLE_EMPTY autolearn=no version=2.60 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------020105000209020004010903 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Larry Seltzer wrote: >>>...it would be interesting to talk with him and ask him for advice. >>> >>> > >Basically, I can't believe the schedule on this thing. And since a high % of the >discussion is always off the point or outside the formal agenda, there won't be all that >much discussion going into this very important standard. > >Larry Seltzer >eWEEK.com Security Center Editor >http://security.eweek.com/ >http://blog.ziffdavis.com/seltzer >larryseltzer@ziffdavis.com > Larry, Thank you for responding. There is no way I can speak for the group, of course, but I am confused by your comment. When you say that you can't believe the schedule on this thing, I construe that to mean that you are unhappy with the amount of time that has been allocated to the task. Do you think that there is too much time or not enough time? Since we are designing an open security system, one of the things that we have to do with each proposal is attack the proposal. I realize that it appears as if we are in the throes of devisive argument and racked with dissension, and again only speaking for myself, I believe that the argument is generally healthy and helpful. I am not a professional computer scientist, so at time the discussion is a little beyond me, but the members of group have generally been tolerant and willing to explain things in detail whenever I have asked them. I would be very concerned if there was "group think" going on, but I think this group seems to be safe from that. There are several problems that I myself want to avoid: *) Whatever we design ought to run on a fairly modest computer *) Whatever we design should "open" in the sense that it is unencumbered by either copyright or patent issues. I am not terribly concerned about the distinction between the BSD license and the GPL license, but I am adamantly opposed to the B.O.R.G. (Basically Owned by the Redmond Giant) license. *) It has to be reliable not only in the face of ordinary errors but also against Bad Guys actively trying to break it. A corollary of this point is I think that the system cannot rely on the sender to do the right thing. As I understand the caller ID protocol, it relies on the sender. I think Microsoft might be envisioning a world in which the power of root, er, I mean administrator, is limited; it is not clear to me how that can possibly be done when there are virtual machines. *) It would be nice if whatever we design is backwards compatible with existing protocols. So for example, if we invent something new, it would be better to implement it on top of HTTP or SNMP or similar, or extend SMTP in a backwards compatible way. *) It would be nice if it worked a high percentage of the time. In my opinion, these are daunting goals. Are any of them unreasonable or demonstrably unattainable? Have I missed anything important? Now, I am inclined to agree with you that at times we do lose sight of our goals. So if you will review some of the messages I have sent to the group as of late, you'll notice I have been trying to push the group back on track. It seems like a strange role for a newbie to take on, but one of the advantages of being a newbie is that I am not weighted down with a lot of history of the group. Of course one of the disadvantages is that there is a lot I should know and do not know. Further, I have no reputation with the group. Larry, when all is said and done, your opinion is important to me, because I think you have a better handle on what ordinary users want and need. I, for example, loath Microsoft with a passion that defies easy description. I am also deathly afraid of Microsoft. Clearly, I am out of the mainstream in this regard. Because you write for an important magazine, you have to stay connected with what ordinary users want and need, or else you are irrelevant. You are not irrelevant. Therefore, you are connected, and we should listen to what you have to say. Again, this message is only my opinion, and should not be construed as speaking for the group. Sincerely yours Jeff --------------020105000209020004010903 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Larry Seltzer wrote:
...it would be interesting to talk with him and ask him for advice.
      
 
Basically, I can't believe the schedule on this thing. And since a high % of the
discussion is always off the point or outside the formal agenda, there won't be all that
much discussion going into this very important standard. 

Larry Seltzer
eWEEK.com Security Center Editor
http://security.eweek.com/
http://blog.ziffdavis.com/seltzer
larryseltzer@ziffdavis.com

Larry,
       Thank you for responding.

    There is no way I can speak for the group, of course, but I am confused by your comment.  When you say that you can't believe the schedule on this thing, I construe that to mean that you are unhappy with the amount of time that has been allocated to the task.  Do you think that there is too much time or not enough time?

    Since we are designing an open security system, one of the things that we have to do with each proposal is attack the proposal.  I realize that it appears as if we are in the throes of devisive argument and racked with dissension, and again only speaking for myself, I believe that the argument is generally healthy and helpful.  I am not a professional computer scientist, so at time the discussion is a little beyond me, but the members of group have generally been tolerant and willing to explain things in detail whenever I have asked them.  I would be very concerned if there was "group think" going on, but I think this group seems to be safe from that.

    There are several problems that I myself want to avoid:

*) Whatever we design ought to run on a fairly modest computer
*) Whatever we design should "open" in the sense that it is unencumbered by either copyright or patent issues.  I am not terribly concerned about the distinction between the BSD license and the GPL license, but I am adamantly opposed to the B.O.R.G. (Basically Owned by the Redmond Giant) license.
*) It has to be reliable not only in the face of ordinary errors but also against Bad Guys actively trying to break it.  A corollary of this point is I think that the system cannot rely on the sender to do the right thing.  As I understand the caller ID protocol, it relies on the sender.  I think Microsoft might be envisioning a world in which the power of root, er, I mean administrator, is limited; it is not clear to me how that can possibly be done when there are virtual machines. 
*) It would be nice if  whatever we design is backwards compatible with existing protocols.  So for example, if we invent something new, it would be better to implement it on top of HTTP or SNMP or similar, or extend SMTP in a backwards compatible way.
*) It would be nice if it worked a high percentage of the time.

    In my opinion, these are daunting goals.  Are any of them unreasonable or demonstrably unattainable?  Have I missed anything important?

    Now, I am inclined to agree with you that at times we do lose sight of our goals.  So if you will review some of the messages I have sent to the group as of late, you'll notice I have been trying to push the group back on track.  It seems like a strange role for a newbie to take on, but one of the advantages of being a newbie is that I am not weighted down with a lot of history of the group.  Of course one of the disadvantages is that there is a lot I should know and do not know.  Further, I have no reputation with the group.

    Larry, when all is said and done, your opinion is important to me, because I think you have a better handle on what ordinary users want and need.  I, for example, loath Microsoft with a passion that defies easy description.  I am also deathly afraid of Microsoft.  Clearly, I am out of the mainstream in this regard.  Because you write for an important magazine, you have to stay connected with what ordinary users want and need, or else you are irrelevant.  You are not irrelevant.  Therefore, you are connected, and we should listen to what you have to say. 

    Again, this message is only my opinion, and should not be construed as speaking for the group.


Sincerely yours

Jeff

--------------020105000209020004010903-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri May 7 21:54:17 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 VAA03951 for ; Fri, 7 May 2004 21:54:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BMGuG-0000P9-Lk for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 21:45:36 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i481ja8q001549 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 May 2004 21:45:36 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BMGt0-0008Kr-OB for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 21:44:18 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA03724 for ; Fri, 7 May 2004 21:44:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BMGsx-0005RA-Us for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 21:44:16 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BMGs0-000523-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 21:43:16 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BMGrg-0004cs-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 21:42:56 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BMGk2-0005be-Dt; Fri, 07 May 2004 21:35:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BMGhU-0004wy-Bv for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 21:32:24 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA03238 for ; Fri, 7 May 2004 21:32:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BMGhR-0000GA-L7 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 21:32:21 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BMGgU-0007dJ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 21:31:22 -0400 Received: from mail1.speakeasy.net ([216.254.0.201]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BMGfz-0007DE-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 21:30:51 -0400 Received: (qmail 27260 invoked from network); 8 May 2004 01:30:51 -0000 Received: from dsl081-214-187.nyc2.dsl.speakeasy.net (HELO elliot) (lseltzer@[64.81.214.187]) (envelope-sender ) by mail1.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 8 May 2004 01:30:51 -0000 From: "Larry Seltzer" To: Cc: Subject: RE: [Asrg] We got some stinging criticism 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: <409C2879.7020801@commercialventvac.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 Thread-Index: AcQ0lGu0gOIff3f6SGCKy8yWZOPv4gAB1qnA Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 7 May 2004 21:29:44 -0400 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 Is this really appropriate here? The column was basically about MARID and only peripherally dealt with ASRG. At first I responded because I read both lists and I assumed the remark was on the right one. Larry Seltzer eWEEK.com Security Center Editor http://security.eweek.com/ http://blog.ziffdavis.com/seltzer larryseltzer@ziffdavis.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri May 7 22:02:04 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 WAA04167 for ; Fri, 7 May 2004 22:02:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BMH2l-0002YB-16 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 21:54:23 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i481sMAt009797 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 May 2004 21:54:22 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BMGxr-00019m-3N for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 21:49:19 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA03840 for ; Fri, 7 May 2004 21:49:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BMGxo-0007Wo-8Q for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 21:49:16 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BMGwu-00077d-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 21:48:21 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BMGwG-0006hv-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 21:47:40 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BMGti-00009F-Uy; Fri, 07 May 2004 21:45:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BMGlL-00060F-F5 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 21:36:23 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA03454 for ; Fri, 7 May 2004 21:36:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BMGlI-00021i-KW for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 21:36:20 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BMGkE-0001Xv-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 21:35:15 -0400 Received: from out2.smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.26]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BMGjA-0000lh-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 21:34:08 -0400 X-Sasl-enc: acP8hbyuGLHzzwV9Kt7iGg 1083980041 Received: from elvey.com (ns.nextbus.com [64.164.28.194]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55BCEB2B39F; Fri, 7 May 2004 21:34:01 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <409C3907.6030007@elvey.com> From: Matthew Elvey User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.5 (Windows/20040207) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] Message Level Authentication References: <20040507221328.8446.qmail@xuxa.iecc.com> In-Reply-To: <20040507221328.8446.qmail@xuxa.iecc.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: Fri, 07 May 2004 18:33:59 -0700 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=AWL,HABEAS_SWE autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 5/7/2004 11:13 AM, John Levine sent forth electrons to convey: > [P]eople are going to use schemes that are either P.D. or > >where patent owners offer free licenses as Microsoft says they're >going to do with Caller ID. > My reading of the license was that I need permission from Microsoft to use CID, and that they may withhold it. That's not free! (Besides which, as Jeff Silverman just said on ASRG: > The system cannot rely on the sender to do the right thing. As I > understand the caller ID protocol, it relies on the sender. ) _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri May 7 22:18:38 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 WAA04941 for ; Fri, 7 May 2004 22:18:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BMHO8-0000GP-Ua for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 22:16:28 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i482GS9i001010 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 May 2004 22:16:28 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BMHL5-0007Z7-Hq for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 22:13:19 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA04665 for ; Fri, 7 May 2004 22:13:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BMHL2-0002CE-Fc for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 22:13:16 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BMHK2-0001lS-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 22:12:15 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BMHIw-000170-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 22:11:06 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BMHEz-0005PQ-KJ; Fri, 07 May 2004 22:07:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BMHBY-0004hd-TG for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 22:03:28 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA04240 for ; Fri, 7 May 2004 22:03:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BMHBV-0005ha-TV for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 22:03:26 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BMHAL-0005El-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 22:02:13 -0400 Received: from out2.smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.26]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BMH9D-0004RL-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 22:01:03 -0400 X-Sasl-enc: 0eECEpb1D2sKF1ISz+J2VA 1083981512 Received: from elvey.com (ns.nextbus.com [64.164.28.194]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D505B2AF54; Fri, 7 May 2004 21:58:32 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <409C3EC8.7040304@elvey.com> From: Matthew Elvey User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.5 (Windows/20040207) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: ASRG list Subject: Re: [Asrg] draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-00 References: <40992DD8.4070308@solidmatrix.com> In-Reply-To: <40992DD8.4070308@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=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, 07 May 2004 18:58:32 -0700 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=AWL,HABEAS_SWE autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 5/5/2004 11:09 AM, Yakov Shafranovich sent forth electrons to convey: > THEREFORE, to resolve this issue in regards to this particular document, > it might be sufficient to include a similar section discussing the legal > issues and make it clear that the local laws of whatever > [jurisdiction] the > blacklist list operator is in, override the recommendations and that the > BCP is not meant to go against any existing law. It's a pity we feel compelled to do this. But yeah, we need it. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri May 7 22:37:19 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA05490 for ; Fri, 7 May 2004 22:37:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BMHgL-0005Bt-5y for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 22:35:17 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i482ZHip019945 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 May 2004 22:35:17 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BMHWt-0002sZ-SB for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 22:25:31 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA05155 for ; Fri, 7 May 2004 22:25:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BMHWq-0007Ut-NE for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 22:25:28 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BMHVx-00072e-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 22:24:34 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BMHUm-0006ax-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 22:23:20 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BMHOi-0000VZ-Vg; Fri, 07 May 2004 22:17:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BMHN4-0008FV-O1 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 22:15:22 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA04694 for ; Fri, 7 May 2004 22:15:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BMHN1-00033Z-IJ for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 22:15:19 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BMHLz-0002cM-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 22:14:15 -0400 Received: from xuxa.iecc.com ([208.31.42.42]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BMHKs-0001nO-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 22:13:06 -0400 Received: (qmail 25270 invoked by uid 100); 8 May 2004 02:13:01 -0000 Message-ID: <20040508021301.25269.qmail@xuxa.iecc.com> From: John Levine To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Patent licenses In-Reply-To: <409C3907.6030007@elvey.com> Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA Cc: matthew@elvey.com Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 8 May 2004 02:13:01 -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 >> [P]eople are going to use schemes that are either P.D. or >>where patent owners offer free licenses as Microsoft says they're >>going to do with Caller ID. >My reading of the license was that I need permission from Microsoft to >use CID, and that they may withhold it. >That's not free! (Besides which, as Jeff Silverman just said on ASRG: Contacts at MS have informally told me that the intention with the CLID patents is to provide free permanent licenses to everyone. They realize that the current license doesn't say that, so presumably at some point they'll revise the license to say what it's supposed to. We'll see. In any event, that was an example. I think we all agree that a scheme is much more likely to be adopted widely if people who use it don't have to negotiate patent licenses. 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 Sun May 9 19:31:41 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (www.iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA27993 for ; Sun, 9 May 2004 19:31:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BMxkK-0004T6-0f for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 09 May 2004 19:30:12 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i49NUBPO017176 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 9 May 2004 19:30:11 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BMxcb-00040b-8W for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 09 May 2004 19:22:13 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA27710 for ; Sun, 9 May 2004 19:22:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BMxcZ-0003IH-NB for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 09 May 2004 19:22:11 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BMxbb-0002y0-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 09 May 2004 19:21:12 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BMxaY-0002fZ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 09 May 2004 19:20:06 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BMxXZ-0003Z8-4t; Sun, 09 May 2004 19:17:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BMxVn-0003O4-DP for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 09 May 2004 19:15:11 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA27536 for ; Sun, 9 May 2004 19:15:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BMxVl-0001IZ-JS for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 09 May 2004 19:15:09 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BMxUu-000127-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 09 May 2004 19:14:17 -0400 Received: from sense-sea-megasub-1-311.oz.net ([216.39.145.57] helo=angel.commercialventvac.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BMxUH-0000e9-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 09 May 2004 19:13:38 -0400 Received: from commercialventvac.com (black [192.168.2.25]) by angel.commercialventvac.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i49NCYVR028321 for ; Sun, 9 May 2004 16:13:27 -0700 Message-ID: <409EBAC0.5070207@commercialventvac.com> From: Jeff Silverman Reply-To: jeff@commercialventvac.com User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4.1) Gecko/20031114 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------060103030401000005010506" Subject: [Asrg] Are we allowed to extend the SMTP protocol? Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 09 May 2004 16:12:00 -0700 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,HTML_20_30,HTML_MESSAGE, HTML_TITLE_EMPTY autolearn=no version=2.60 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------060103030401000005010506 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit People, I was wandering through the SMTP RFC (http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2821.html and other places), and I got to section 4.2 which is the reply codes that the receiving MTA sends back to the sending MTA. I think this is where we ought to focus our thinking. Can we modify the SMTP to add an authenticating capability? I think so. In particular, I notice the following in the RFC: The list of codes that appears below MUST NOT be construed as permanent. While the addition of new codes should be a rare and significant activity, with supplemental information in the textual part of the response being preferred, new codes may be added as the result of new Standards or Standards-track specifications. Consequently, a sender-SMTP MUST be prepared to handle codes not specified in this document and MUST do so by interpreting the first digit only. What if we added a code 320 or 453, I think, which means authenticate yourself to me? Then sending MTA will then queue the message for retransmission later. The receiving MTA would then send a Turing-difficult test to the erstwhile sender of the message, such as a pointer to a graphic that the sending MTA has to read (e.g. http://www.commercialventvac.com/~jeffs/mail.jpg ) or it could be all text that a human still has to parse for example A H H A RRRR DDDD TTTTTTT EEEEEE SSSSS TTTTTTT A A H H A A R R D D T E S T A A H H A A R R D D T E SSSS T AAAAAAA HHHHHH AAAAAAA RRRR D D T EEEE S T A A H H A A R R D D T E S S T A A H H A A R R DDDD T EEEEEEE SSSS T Or it could be a sound clip. The sender of the message takes the test, and puts the answer in the subject field. This message is sent to the receiving MTA. The receiving MTA has to go through the message until it gets to the subject field so that it knows that this is a test and not a message. Once the sender has passed the test, then the receiver can add the sender to a white list which is under the control of the user. I realize I am not very structured - this idea is somewhat half baked. The user would have three lists of addresses of correspondents: a white list, which can be passed without further testing; a blacklist, which can be rejected without further testing; and a graylist, which must be tested. Whenever a new correspondent appears, they automatically are added to the graylist by the MTA. If the user decides that this correspondent is a spammer, then they can add the user to the blacklist. There are a couple of problems with this. One is that the Turing difficult test is language dependent. I am used to thinking in terms of a roman alphabet, but what if the receiver and the correspondent are Israeli or Arabic? Another problem is that if the correspondent were to somehow learn that an address was on the receiver's white list, then the correspondent could send a message with that address. The user response in that case would be to move that address from the white list back to the gray list. The big advantage of this scheme is that it requires modification only to the receiving MTA and requires no changes to the UTAs. My intuition tells me that there are far fewer MTAs than UTAs and since the MTAs are under the control of sysadmins and not users, it will be easier to update them. So, I couple of questions: 1) Does this sound like a good idea? 2) If it is a good idea, then what do we do next? 3) If it is a bad idea, then why is it a bad idea, and can it be fixed or is it hopeless? I recognize that this is a variant on challenge/response, but I missed most of the discussion of challenge/response and I am not sure I understand why it is not a good idea. Many thanks, Jeff --------------060103030401000005010506 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit People,

    I was wandering through the SMTP RFC (http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2821.html and other places), and I got to section 4.2 which is the reply codes that the receiving MTA sends back to the sending MTA.  I think this is where we ought to focus our thinking.


    Can we modify the SMTP to add an authenticating capability?  I think so.  In particular, I notice the following in the RFC:

The list of codes that appears below MUST NOT be construed as
   permanent.  While the addition of new codes should be a rare and
   significant activity, with supplemental information in the textual
   part of the response being preferred, new codes may be added as the
   result of new Standards or Standards-track specifications.
   Consequently, a sender-SMTP MUST be prepared to handle codes not
   specified in this document and MUST do so by interpreting the first
   digit only.

  What if we added a code 320 or 453, I think, which means authenticate yourself to me?   Then sending MTA will then queue the message for retransmission later.

    The receiving MTA would then send a Turing-difficult test to the erstwhile sender of the message, such as a pointer to a graphic that the sending MTA has to read (e.g. http://www.commercialventvac.com/~jeffs/mail.jpg) or it could be all text that a human still has to parse for example

   A         H    H     A      RRRR  DDDD     TTTTTTT EEEEEE     SSSSS TTTTTTT
  A A        H    H    A A     R   R D   D       T    E         S         T
 A   A       H    H   A   A    R   R D    D      T    E          SSSS     T
AAAAAAA      HHHHHH  AAAAAAA   RRRR  D    D      T    EEEE           S    T
A     A      H    H  A     A   R   R D   D       T    E        S    S     T
A     A      H    H  A     A   R   R DDDD        T    EEEEEEE   SSSS      T


Or it could be a sound clip.
  The sender of the message takes the test, and puts the answer in the subject field.  This message is sent to the receiving MTA.  The receiving MTA has to go through the message until it gets to the subject field so that it knows that this is a test and not a message.

    Once the sender has passed the test, then the receiver can add the sender to a white list which is under the control of the user.  I realize I am not very structured - this idea is somewhat half baked.  The user would have three lists of addresses of correspondents: a white list, which can be passed without further testing; a blacklist, which can be rejected without further testing; and a graylist, which must be tested.  Whenever a new correspondent appears, they automatically are added to the graylist by the MTA.  If the user decides that this correspondent is a spammer, then they can add the user to the blacklist.


    There are a couple of problems with this.  One is that the Turing difficult test is language dependent.  I am used to thinking in terms of a roman alphabet, but what if the receiver and the correspondent are Israeli or Arabic?    Another problem is that if the correspondent were to somehow learn that an address was on the receiver's white list, then the correspondent could send a message with that address.  The user response in that case would be to move that address from the white list back to the gray list.

    The big advantage of this scheme is that it requires modification only to the receiving MTA and requires no changes to the UTAs.  My intuition tells me that there are far fewer MTAs than UTAs and since the MTAs are under the control of sysadmins and not users, it will be easier to update them.
 


So, I couple of questions:

1)  Does this sound like a good idea?

2)  If it is a good idea, then what do we do next?

3) If it is a bad idea, then why is it a bad idea, and can it be fixed or is it hopeless?


I recognize that this is a variant on challenge/response, but I missed most of the discussion of challenge/response and I am not sure I understand why it is not a good idea.

Many thanks,


Jeff




 --------------060103030401000005010506-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon May 10 07:10:45 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 HAA24771 for ; Mon, 10 May 2004 07:10:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BN8ax-0003mX-Us for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 May 2004 07:05:16 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4AB5FGB014531 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 May 2004 07:05:15 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BN8Zl-0003Wn-5S for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 10 May 2004 07:04:01 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA24312 for ; Mon, 10 May 2004 07:03:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BN8Zg-0001QB-VE for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 10 May 2004 07:03:57 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BN8Z1-00016s-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 10 May 2004 07:03:15 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BN8Y8-0000l7-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 10 May 2004 07:02:20 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BN8S2-0002qr-0G; Mon, 10 May 2004 06:56:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BN8Qi-0002fW-Hd for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 10 May 2004 06:54:40 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA23734 for ; Mon, 10 May 2004 06:54:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BN8Qe-0006BV-Cs for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 10 May 2004 06:54:36 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BN8Pg-0005sO-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 10 May 2004 06:53:37 -0400 Received: from ns.espace.net ([81.2.117.194] helo=espace.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BN8Oi-0005Tp-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 10 May 2004 06:52:36 -0400 Received: from [81.2.117.198] (81.2.117.198) by espace.net with ESMTP (Eudora Internet Mail Server 3.2.3) for ; Mon, 10 May 2004 11:52:30 +0100 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: fm-lists%espace.net@127.0.0.1 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <409EBAC0.5070207@commercialventvac.com> References: <409EBAC0.5070207@commercialventvac.com> To: asrg@ietf.org From: Fearghas McKay Subject: Re: [Asrg] Are we allowed to extend the SMTP protocol? 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, 10 May 2004 11:46:34 +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 At 4:12 pm -0700 9/5/04, Jeff Silverman wrote: > >I recognize that this is a variant on challenge/response, but I missed >most of the discussion of challenge/response and I am not sure I >understand why it is not a good ide this sounds like a variation of what happens with camram - see http://www.camram.org/ Camram is using hashcash tokens that can be generated computationally but the model allows for payments as well. You can include the hashcash token with the mail so that there is no need to do the C/R part. f _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon May 10 18:30:07 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA12425 for ; Mon, 10 May 2004 18:30:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BNJAJ-0002Y6-4d for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 May 2004 18:22:27 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4AMMR7s009799 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 May 2004 18:22:27 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BNJ3E-00072N-8Q for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 10 May 2004 18:15:08 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA11330 for ; Mon, 10 May 2004 18:15:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BNJ3B-0006yK-FW for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 10 May 2004 18:15:05 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BNJ2C-0006cA-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 10 May 2004 18:14:05 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BNJ16-0005yt-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 10 May 2004 18:12:56 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BNIrV-0000ym-OX; Mon, 10 May 2004 18:03:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BNIcN-0004RC-PH for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 10 May 2004 17:47:23 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA08708 for ; Mon, 10 May 2004 17:47:19 -0400 (EDT) From: gep2@terabites.com Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BNIcL-0004qF-5L for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 10 May 2004 17:47:21 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BNIbV-0004V6-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 10 May 2004 17:46:30 -0400 Received: from rwcrmhc12.comcast.net ([216.148.227.85]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BNIaq-00046z-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 10 May 2004 17:45:48 -0400 Received: from WinProxy.anywhere (c-67-164-154-5.client.comcast.net[67.164.154.5]) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc12) with SMTP id <2004051021451801400k09r6e>; Mon, 10 May 2004 21:45:18 +0000 Received: from 192.168.0.30 by 192.168.0.1 (WinProxy); Mon, 10 May 2004 16:45:03 -0600 Received: from 192.168.0.240 (unverified [192.168.0.240]) by nts1.terabites.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Mon, 10 May 2004 16:56:19 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Asrg] Are we allowed to extend the SMTP protocol? To: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 16:56:19 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,LINES_OF_YELLING, NO_REAL_NAME,RATWARE_EMWAC autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Date: Sun, 09 May 2004 16:12:00 -0700 From: Jeff Silverman Reply-To: jeff@commercialventvac.com To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: [Asrg] Are we allowed to extend the SMTP protocol? > People, > I was wandering through the SMTP RFC (http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2821.html and other places), and I got to section 4.2 which is the reply codes that the receiving MTA sends back to the sending MTA. I think this is where we ought to focus our thinking. > Can we modify the SMTP to add an authenticating capability? I think so. While we certainly COULD, I think it's not desirable for a whole variety of reasons. Among them: 1) There are a LOT of systems around the world which handle E-mail, and many of them qualify as "legacy" systems where the original company having written the software may have orphaned it. It's not safe to presume that it either can be changed, or even that it's reasonable to expect a user to change software that "has always worked fine." 2) Many older programs won't know how to handle (and may not even report) previously unknown response codes. 3) The fact that mail sending/receiving software is "authenticated" is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT to the issue of whether the E-mail being sent is spam or not. Before a zombie spambot got infected, no doubt it was trustworthy and legitimate (and it probably sends at least SOME legitimate and non-spam mail, even AFTER being infected). I truly don't understand this continuing fascination with the question of authenticating/verifying/certification of users and mail servers. I understand that it _sounds_ like it probably is a good idea, but it TRULY doesn't do very much to prevent (or intercept!) the sending of spam! > In particular, I notice the following in the RFC: > The list of codes that appears below MUST NOT be construed as permanent. While the addition of new codes should be a rare and significant activity, with supplemental information in the textual part of the response being preferred, new codes may be added as the result of new Standards or Standards-track specifications. Consequently, a sender-SMTP MUST be prepared to handle codes not specified in this document and MUST do so by interpreting the first digit only. That's okay, although (again) existing legacy software clearly won't be in a position to differentiate between old codes with the same first digit and new ones. > What if we added a code 320 or 453, I think, which means authenticate yourself to me? Then sending MTA will then queue the message for retransmission later. I don't much like in principle any schemes which give information to spammers... whether that be what they need to change to get messages through, or most anything else. I also don't like schemes as a matter of principle which result in adding cost to the worldwide E-mail system, whether that be human customer service people, or bandwidth cost for retries, or worldwide inherent software complexity. Ultimately, that cost will be borne (one way or the other) by "normal users", folks like you and me. > The receiving MTA would then send a Turing-difficult test to the erstwhile sender of the message, such as a pointer to a graphic that the sending MTA has to read (e.g. http://www.commercialventvac.com/~jeffs/mail.jpg ) or it could be all text that a human still has to parse for example > A H H A RRRR DDDD TTTTTTT EEEEEE SSSSS TTTTTTT A A H H A A R R D D T E S T A A H H A A R R D D T E SSSS T AAAAAAA HHHHHH AAAAAAA RRRR D D T EEEE S T A A H H A A R R D D T E S S T A A H H A A R R DDDD T EEEEEEE SSSS T > Or it could be a sound clip. And what do you think that mailing list software (Yahoogroups, Majordomo, or whatever) is going to do with such stuff? Or, as another example... one of my consulting clients sends (automated, direct from their back-end accounting system) E-mailed PDF file copies of invoices to their customers. What's likely to happen to these kind of "human challenge" bouncebacks? Answer... they're going to fall on the ground, much of the time. I've gotten newsletters from several very unhappy publishers pointing out that they TRULY don't have time for such foolishness, and stating that they either ignore or unsubscribe users sending them back such nonsense. As for your ASCII text thing above, that operates on several (likely invalid for some users) assumptions... one being that they have a 80-column (or more!) screen width, another that they're viewing the message with a fixed-width font, another being that their paragraphs don't automatically get "reformatted" (much the way the top of the "T" wrapped for me). > The sender of the message takes the test, and puts the answer in the subject field. This message is sent to the receiving MTA. The receiving MTA has to go through the message until it gets to the subject field so that it knows that this is a test and not a message. Again, these schemes fall apart (badly) when you have large-scale (legitimate) mailers. Yahoogroups for instance. > Once the sender has passed the test, then the receiver can add the sender to a white list which is under the control of the user. I realize I am not very structured - this idea is somewhat half baked. The user would have three lists of addresses of correspondents: a white list, which can be passed without further testing; a blacklist, which can be rejected without further testing; and a graylist, which must be tested. Whenever a new correspondent appears, they automatically are added to the graylist by the MTA. If the user decides that this correspondent is a spammer, then they can add the user to the blacklist. I don't much like that approach, because I don't think it's finely-grained enough. I think what's important is that as a recipient, I expect and trust a given sender to send me a CERTAIN TYPE of stuff, and (maybe) nothing more exotic than that. I may subscribe to a newsletter that's sent in plain ASCII text, or (maybe) with limited HTML formatting. If I get an E-mail from (even the same From address, whether legitimate or spoofed) that sender that suddenly calls for Java scripting, or an ActiveX enclosure, or has a PIF or EXE or SCR file attachment... then I probably don't want to handle it the same way just because I know the sender and trust the stuff they USUALLY send to me. I probably want to quarantine (or toss entirely) such questionable stuff. And likewise, just because I got a (maybe spoofed) infected message from someone CLAIMING to be my trusted correspondent, doesn't mean that I want to change their status for the OTHER (legitimate) stuff they will continue to send me. > There are a couple of problems with this. One is that the Turing difficult test is language dependent. I am used to thinking in terms of a roman alphabet, but what if the receiver and the correspondent are Israeli or Arabic? Then presumably the test also works in the language the sender and recipient understand!!! Obviously, if they're e-mailing each other, there presumably is SOME common language permitting communication. > Another problem is that if the correspondent were to somehow learn that an address was on the receiver's white list, then the correspondent could send a message with that address. Yes, and some of these won't be a huge surprise, especially if the sender is a big sender and normally sends relatively exotic stuff. To some degree, that's part of the cost of sending more exotic E-mails (even legitimately): it increases the likelihood that they won't be reliably delivered. But that's part of the reason why it's important to have a finely-grained "permissions list" approach rather than a (too!) simple white/grey/black list. > The user response in that case would be to move that address from the white list back to the gray list. If they can differentiate based on content, then there should be NO reason to NOT scan the "whitelisted" entries, just as for the "greylisted" ones. > The big advantage of this scheme is that it requires modification only to the receiving MTA and requires no changes to the UTAs. My intuition tells me that there are far fewer MTAs than UTAs and since the MTAs are under the control of sysadmins and not users, it will be easier to update them. That's very much a mixed bag, though. The fact that the sysadmin is responsible means angry complaints by some po'd users, who will object to WHATEVER the settings are. This is one of those cases, I think, where a user-based product is better, and allows them to set it up in JUST the way they prefer. > So, I couple of questions: > 1) Does this sound like a good idea? I've listed some of my comments on it. > 2) If it is a good idea, then what do we do next? > 3) If it is a bad idea, then why is it a bad idea, and can it be fixed or is it hopeless? It depends on how much "pounding" on it it takes while you're still taking that as "fixing" versus "redesign". :-) *I* think that a single-ended system, under the TOTAL control of the receiving user, is the way to go. I like a finely-grained permission list where the recipient has a very narrow-mesh gauntlet that incoming mail must traverse (and without help from outside) in order to reach the Inbox, and where there's no feedback sent to the sender. > I recognize that this is a variant on challenge/response, Right, and I consider that a non-starter in principle, since large scale mailers simply can't be bothered. > but I missed most of the discussion of challenge/response and I am not sure I understand why it is not a good idea. Hopefully some of this discussion has helped you to "get it". :-) Gordon Peterson http://personal.terabites.com/ 1977-2002 Twenty-fifth anniversary year of Local Area Networking! Support free and fair US elections! http://stickers.defend-democracy.org 12/19/98: Partisan Republicans scornfully ignore the voters they "represent". 12/09/00: the date the Republican Party took down democracy in America. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon May 10 20:33:23 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (www.iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA18741 for ; Mon, 10 May 2004 20:33:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BNL3C-0003Y0-Kr for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 May 2004 20:23:14 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4B0NEZR013628 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 May 2004 20:23:14 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BNKsa-00012t-7l for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 10 May 2004 20:12:16 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA17811 for ; Mon, 10 May 2004 20:12:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BNKsY-0000xm-7x for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 10 May 2004 20:12:14 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BNKrg-0000eB-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 10 May 2004 20:11:21 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BNKrG-0000K6-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 10 May 2004 20:10:54 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BNKhi-0006zr-Gm; Mon, 10 May 2004 20:01:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BNKe6-0006Kt-4G for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 10 May 2004 19:57:20 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA17228 for ; Mon, 10 May 2004 19:57:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BNKe4-0003je-4p for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 10 May 2004 19:57:16 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BNKdA-0003On-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 10 May 2004 19:56:21 -0400 Received: from sc1.scconsult.com ([66.73.230.190] helo=toaster.scconsult.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BNKcT-00034K-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 10 May 2004 19:55:38 -0400 Received: from [192.168.254.12] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by toaster.scconsult.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 449DD112AA7 for ; Mon, 10 May 2004 19:55:32 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: bill@fireproof.scconsult.com Message-Id: To: asrg@ietf.org From: Bill Cole Subject: Re: [Asrg] Are we allowed to extend the SMTP protocol? 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, 10 May 2004 19:55:29 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BEST_PORN,FREE_PORN autolearn=no version=2.60 At 4:12 PM -0700 5/9/04, Jeff Silverman wrote: >[...] > The receiving MTA would then send a Turing-difficult test to the >erstwhile sender of the message, How do you expect to figure out who that is? > such as a pointer to a graphic that the sending MTA has to read >(e.g. >http://www.commercialventvac.com/~jeffs/mail.jpg) >or it could be all text that a human still has to parse for example > > A H H A RRRR DDDD TTTTTTT EEEEEE SSSSS TTTTTTT > A A H H A A R R D D T E S T > A A H H A A R R D D T E SSSS T >AAAAAAA HHHHHH AAAAAAA RRRR D D T EEEE S T >A A H H A A R R D D T E S S T >A A H H A A R R DDDD T EEEEEEE SSSS T You are quite completely wrong in assuming that a human is needed to parse that. As for the images that are used by some operations now (like Yahoo) to determine humanity, the spammers have already figured out how to harness humans to solve them unwittingly. Some people will do practically anything for pornography. Of course, you also run right in to issues of what blind people would do. If you think there are no blind people using email, you are again quite completely wrong. >Or it could be a sound clip. An even more naive idea. To the point of qualifying for words like 'stupid.' Anyone who can see and display a JPEG image can type back in a character string as long as it sticks to a limited character set like the mailsafe 64, but identifying a sound is impossible to people with bad hearing and probably to anyone who does not share a specific dialect with the test administrator. > The sender of the message takes the test, and puts the answer in >the subject field. This message is sent to the receiving MTA. The >receiving MTA has to go through the message until it gets to the >subject field so that it knows that this is a test and not a message. > > Once the sender has passed the test, then the receiver can add >the sender to a white list which is under the control of the user. >I realize I am not very structured - this idea is somewhat half >baked. The user would have three lists of addresses of >correspondents: a white list, which can be passed without further >testing; a blacklist, which can be rejected without further testing; >and a graylist, which must be tested. Whenever a new correspondent >appears, they automatically are added to the graylist by the MTA. >If the user decides that this correspondent is a spammer, then they >can add the user to the blacklist. > > > There are a couple of problems with this. One is that the >Turing difficult test is language dependent. I am used to thinking >in terms of a roman alphabet, but what if the receiver and the >correspondent are Israeli or Arabic? Another problem is that if >the correspondent were to somehow learn that an address was on the >receiver's white list, then the correspondent could send a message >with that address. The user response in that case would be to move >that address from the white list back to the gray list. > > The big advantage of this scheme is that it requires >modification only to the receiving MTA and requires no changes to >the UTAs. My intuition tells me that there are far fewer MTAs than >UTAs and since the MTAs are under the control of sysadmins and not >users, it will be easier to update them. > > > >So, I couple of questions: > >1) Does this sound like a good idea? It's an OLD idea which has proven in practice to be garbage. What you are talking about is generally referred to as a 'challenge/response authentication protocol' and the acronym is fitting. I have received dozens of those challenges in the past year for mail I never sent along with hundreds of normal bounces from mail systems which accepted mail with my address in the envelope ONE such challenge to any mail hitting my private domain is adequate for me to never accept a second piece of mail from that system again. If such a mechanism became anything like a standard practice, I'd abandon email. >2) If it is a good idea, then what do we do next? Drive a stake through its heart so it stops rising from the dead every time someone new starts thinking shallowly about how to stop spam. >3) If it is a bad idea, then why is it a bad idea, and can it be >fixed or is it hopeless? Hopeless. >I recognize that this is a variant on challenge/response, but I >missed most of the discussion of challenge/response and I am not >sure I understand why it is not a good idea. The archives are open. Years of discussion in comp.mail.* and news.admin.net-abuse.email are open through Google. Read them. If reading the prior discussions of challenge/response ideas and implementations fails to convince you that it is an unsalvageably bad idea, come back and explain how it can be implemented so as to NOT generate robotic, bulk, unsolicited email in my mailbox. There are language dependencies, technology dependencies, and human ability dependencies. Each is fatal in itself. The recent past of people adopting these sorts of measures for other media like websites (where those flaws are subject to some mitigation) has led to an attack which is intrinsically impossible to overcome: the entity seeking to automate the test merely hooks the tests up to a proxy system fronted by something that he can draw a lot of human eyes to, such as a free porn site. There's no clear way around this. -- Bill Cole bill@scconsult.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon May 10 20:46:40 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (www.iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA19428 for ; Mon, 10 May 2004 20:46:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BNLKc-0007OG-W4 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 May 2004 20:41:15 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4B0fECh028407 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 May 2004 20:41:14 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BNLDt-0005ux-SI for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 10 May 2004 20:34:17 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA18771 for ; Mon, 10 May 2004 20:34:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BNLDr-0000cH-KG for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 10 May 2004 20:34:15 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BNLCr-0000HY-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 10 May 2004 20:33:14 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BNLBv-0007ky-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 10 May 2004 20:32:15 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BNL2z-0003W2-Sy; Mon, 10 May 2004 20:23:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BNBJv-0007v9-Da for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 10 May 2004 09:59:53 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA04410 for ; Mon, 10 May 2004 09:59:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BNBJt-0004AG-D7 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 10 May 2004 09:59:49 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BNBIz-0003mq-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 10 May 2004 09:58:54 -0400 Received: from sc1.scconsult.com ([66.73.230.190] helo=toaster.scconsult.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BNBHD-0003G1-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 10 May 2004 09:57:03 -0400 Received: from [192.168.254.12] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by toaster.scconsult.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A67B1129B9 for ; Mon, 10 May 2004 09:56:47 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: bill@fireproof.scconsult.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <409EBAC0.5070207@commercialventvac.com> References: <409EBAC0.5070207@commercialventvac.com> To: asrg@ietf.org From: Bill Cole Subject: Re: [Asrg] Are we allowed to extend the SMTP protocol? 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, 10 May 2004 09:56:42 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=4.3 required=5.0 tests=BEST_PORN,FREE_PORN autolearn=no version=2.60 At 4:12 PM -0700 5/9/04, Jeff Silverman wrote: >[...] > The receiving MTA would then send a Turing-difficult test to the >erstwhile sender of the message, How do you expect to figure out who that is? > such as a pointer to a graphic that the sending MTA has to read >(e.g. >http://www.commercialventvac.com/~jeffs/mail.jpg) >or it could be all text that a human still has to parse for example > > A H H A RRRR DDDD TTTTTTT EEEEEE SSSSS TTTTTTT > A A H H A A R R D D T E S T > A A H H A A R R D D T E SSSS T >AAAAAAA HHHHHH AAAAAAA RRRR D D T EEEE S T >A A H H A A R R D D T E S S T >A A H H A A R R DDDD T EEEEEEE SSSS T You are quite completely wrong in assuming that a human is needed to parse that. As for the images that are used by some operations now (like Yahoo) to determine humanity, the spammers have already figured out how to harness humans to solve them unwittingly. Some people will do practically anything for pornography. Of course, you also run right in to issues of what blind people would do. If you think there are no blind people using email, you are again quite completely wrong. >Or it could be a sound clip. An even more naive idea. To the point of qualifying for words like 'stupid.' Anyone who can see and display a JPEG image can type back in a character string as long as it sticks to a limited character set like the mailsafe 64, but identifying a sound is impossible to people with bad hearing and probably to anyone who does not share a specific dialect with the test administrator. > The sender of the message takes the test, and puts the answer in >the subject field. This message is sent to the receiving MTA. The >receiving MTA has to go through the message until it gets to the >subject field so that it knows that this is a test and not a message. > > Once the sender has passed the test, then the receiver can add >the sender to a white list which is under the control of the user. >I realize I am not very structured - this idea is somewhat half >baked. The user would have three lists of addresses of >correspondents: a white list, which can be passed without further >testing; a blacklist, which can be rejected without further testing; >and a graylist, which must be tested. Whenever a new correspondent >appears, they automatically are added to the graylist by the MTA. >If the user decides that this correspondent is a spammer, then they >can add the user to the blacklist. > > > There are a couple of problems with this. One is that the >Turing difficult test is language dependent. I am used to thinking >in terms of a roman alphabet, but what if the receiver and the >correspondent are Israeli or Arabic? Another problem is that if >the correspondent were to somehow learn that an address was on the >receiver's white list, then the correspondent could send a message >with that address. The user response in that case would be to move >that address from the white list back to the gray list. > > The big advantage of this scheme is that it requires >modification only to the receiving MTA and requires no changes to >the UTAs. My intuition tells me that there are far fewer MTAs than >UTAs and since the MTAs are under the control of sysadmins and not >users, it will be easier to update them. > > > >So, I couple of questions: > >1) Does this sound like a good idea? It's an OLD idea which has proven in practice to be garbage. What you are talking about is generally referred to as a 'challenge/response authentication protocol' and the acronym is fitting. I have received dozens of those challenges in the past year for mail I never sent along with hundreds of normal bounces from mail systems which accepted mail with my address in the envelope ONE such challenge to any mail hitting my private domain is adequate for me to never accept a second piece of mail from that system again. If such a mechanism became anything like a standard practice, I'd abandon email. >2) If it is a good idea, then what do we do next? Drive a stake through its heart so it stops rising from the dead every time someone new starts thinking shallowly about how to stop spam. >3) If it is a bad idea, then why is it a bad idea, and can it be >fixed or is it hopeless? Hopeless. >I recognize that this is a variant on challenge/response, but I >missed most of the discussion of challenge/response and I am not >sure I understand why it is not a good idea. The archives are open. Years of discussion in comp.mail.* and news.admin.net-abuse.email are open through Google. Read them. If reading the prior discussions of challenge/response ideas and implementations fails to convince you that it is an unsalvageably bad idea, come back and explain how it can be implemented so as to NOT generate robotic, bulk, unsolicited email in my mailbox. There are language dependencies, technology dependencies, and human ability dependencies. Each is fatal in itself. The recent past of people adopting these sorts of measures for other media like websites (where those flaws are subject to some mitigation) has led to an attack which is intrinsically impossible to overcome: the entity seeking to automate the test merely hooks the tests up to a proxy system fronted by something that he can draw a lot of human eyes to, such as a free porn site. There's no clear way around this. -- Bill Cole bill@scconsult.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon May 10 22:12:42 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA23636 for ; Mon, 10 May 2004 22:12:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BNMjJ-0007y0-Ia for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 May 2004 22:10:49 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4B2AnJZ030619 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 May 2004 22:10:49 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BNMYL-0005ge-EQ for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 10 May 2004 21:59:29 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA22282 for ; Mon, 10 May 2004 21:59:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BNMYI-0005xL-H6 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 10 May 2004 21:59:26 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BNMXK-0005ZU-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 10 May 2004 21:58:26 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BNMWX-0005Ec-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 10 May 2004 21:57:37 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BNMU1-0004i9-Pi; Mon, 10 May 2004 21:55:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BNMKb-00031r-Un for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 10 May 2004 21:45:18 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA21737 for ; Mon, 10 May 2004 21:45:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BNMKZ-0001Fh-2l for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 10 May 2004 21:45:15 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BNMJg-0000uy-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 10 May 2004 21:44:21 -0400 Received: from sparkle.rodents.montreal.qc.ca ([216.46.5.7] ident=ENjYAjISzArWX7bIL1Fg2mn8nPfd9BWAjYQ77WY8JXR) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BNMIl-0000YJ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 10 May 2004 21:43:23 -0400 Received: (from mouse@localhost) by Sparkle.Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA18350; Mon, 10 May 2004 21:43:22 -0400 (EDT) From: der Mouse Message-Id: <200405110143.VAA18350@Sparkle.Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Erik-Conspiracy: There is no Conspiracy - and if there were I wouldn't be part of it anyway. To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Are we allowed to extend the SMTP protocol? In-Reply-To: References: <409EBAC0.5070207@commercialventvac.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 21:31:59 -0400 (EDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit I received two copies of the list message, differing most notably in their From: headers: > From: Bill Cole > From: Bill Cole Perhaps someone is looping list mail back, mangling the From:? > Of course, you also run right in to issues of what blind people would > do. If you think there are no blind people using email, you are > again quite completely wrong. I even know two of them. One I know better as a mud user, but he also does email; he uses a speech synth. The other one has a Braille "display". >> Or it could be a sound clip. Deaf people. Or people with a visual, but not auditory, comprehension of the language in question (such as me, if the language were French). Or, as someone pointed out upthread, people with _no_ comprehension of the language you challenge in. > Anyone who can see and display a JPEG image can type back in a > character string as long as it sticks to a limited character set like > the mailsafe 64, ...but even that is severely limiting. It assumes that the human is still online when the message delivery is attempted (no more queueing at and retrying by the sender's smarthost) and it assumes that the person is using equipment capable of graphics. For example, if I'm on the road with my laptop, it would cut me out entirely. It also assumes the human is willing to jump through your silly hoops, something which runs counter to experience. > but identifying a sound is impossible to people with bad hearing and > probably to anyone who does not share a specific dialect with the > test administrator. English is my mother tongue and I had someone forward me a soundclip (a recording of the Powerpuff Girls intro - "Blossom, commander and the leader, ..." - and I couldn't tell what Bubbles was being called until I googled for the parts I could make out. It took me years of listening to Manic Monday (Bangles) until I managed to convert the sounds making up the line "kissin' Valentino by a crystal-blue Italian stream" into a coherent sequence of words. And I'm even less capable of playing sound clips than I am of displaying images. /~\ The ASCII der Mouse \ / Ribbon Campaign X Against HTML mouse@rodents.montreal.qc.ca / \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon May 10 22:56:15 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 WAA26258 for ; Mon, 10 May 2004 22:56:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BNNGX-0006iK-K0 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 May 2004 22:45:09 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4B2j9Uu025808 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 10 May 2004 22:45:09 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BNNBK-0005gq-NP for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 10 May 2004 22:39:46 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA25230 for ; Mon, 10 May 2004 22:39:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BNNBH-0005Bq-Dh for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 10 May 2004 22:39:43 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BNNA6-0004mh-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 10 May 2004 22:38:31 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BNN9J-0004Qv-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 10 May 2004 22:37:41 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BNN4t-0004Ah-Ma; Mon, 10 May 2004 22:33:07 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BNMyM-0002Va-DL for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 10 May 2004 22:26:22 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA24404 for ; Mon, 10 May 2004 22:26:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BNMyJ-0000KF-6Y for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 10 May 2004 22:26:19 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BNMxP-00000B-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 10 May 2004 22:25:23 -0400 Received: from sc1.scconsult.com ([66.73.230.190] helo=toaster.scconsult.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BNMx6-0007U9-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 10 May 2004 22:25:04 -0400 Received: from [192.168.254.12] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by toaster.scconsult.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4A01112B31 for ; Mon, 10 May 2004 22:25:03 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: bill@fireproof.scconsult.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200405110143.VAA18350@Sparkle.Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA> References: <409EBAC0.5070207@commercialventvac.com> <200405110143.VAA18350@Sparkle.Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA> To: asrg@ietf.org From: Bill Cole Subject: Re: [Asrg] Are we allowed to extend the SMTP protocol? 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, 10 May 2004 22:25:01 -0400 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 At 9:31 PM -0400 5/10/04, der Mouse wrote: >I received two copies of the list message, differing most notably in >their From: headers: > >> From: Bill Cole >> From: Bill Cole > >Perhaps someone is looping list mail back, mangling the From:? No, I mangled the From myself early today, and have no idea how the one with the errant 'v' ever made it to the list at all, much less with that wild additional domain added. My only guess is some resolver/nameserver combo somewhere that tacks on a cnri.reston.va.us to every query and has a wildcard in that zone. -- Bill Cole bill@scconsult.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue May 11 05:20:05 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (www.iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA14060 for ; Tue, 11 May 2004 05:20:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BNTFS-0004A8-6y for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 11 May 2004 05:08:27 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4B98Qqi015974 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 11 May 2004 05:08:26 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BNT5w-0001eC-CQ for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 11 May 2004 04:58:36 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA13158 for ; Tue, 11 May 2004 04:58:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BNT5t-0002JB-9U for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 11 May 2004 04:58:33 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BNT4u-0001v9-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 11 May 2004 04:57:32 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BNT3p-0001H3-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 11 May 2004 04:56:25 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BNSmQ-0005C3-HT; Tue, 11 May 2004 04:38:26 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BNSWY-0001sH-5W for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 11 May 2004 04:22:04 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA11315 for ; Tue, 11 May 2004 04:21:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BNSWV-0004Bx-8m for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 11 May 2004 04:21:59 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BNSVg-0003mC-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 11 May 2004 04:21:08 -0400 Received: from joy.songbird.com ([208.184.79.7]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BNSUG-0002tF-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 11 May 2004 04:19:40 -0400 Received: from bbprime (jay.songbird.com [208.184.79.253]) by joy.songbird.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i4B8IFd01024; Tue, 11 May 2004 01:18:15 -0700 From: Dave Crocker Reply-To: Dave Crocker Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <376058800.20040511011811@brandenburg.com> To: "Larry Seltzer" CC: jeff@commercialventvac.com, asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] We got some stinging criticism In-Reply-To: References: <409B38AB.1040507@commercialventvac.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: Tue, 11 May 2004 01:18:11 -0700 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,PRIORITY_NO_NAME autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Larry, LS> Basically, I can't believe the schedule on this thing. And since a high % of the LS> discussion is always off thepoint or outside the formal agenda, there won't be all that LS> much discussion going into this very important standard. My view is that the schedule was set with a very good understanding of the implications in being so aggressive. People do aggressive, successful projects all the time and that includes many of the folks involved in Marid. What is essential in meeting such dates with anything useful is reducing the scope of the effort and making choices that are easy to understand and that seem very likely to do something useful. Of course "something useful" can be far more modest than "solve the entire problem". But I lie. "Can be" is wrong. "Must be" is right. Small, incremental steps are often a way to solve a large, complicated problem. The difference between such steps and "experiments" depends on the nature of the steps. If the steps are small and straightforward enough to be easy to understand, and seem likely to do _something_ useful, then the only thing "experimental" about the step is how much it will help solve the larger problem. At worst, you are left with a new capability that has some utility. 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 May 12 20:48:44 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 UAA22743 for ; Wed, 12 May 2004 20:48:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BO4NP-0007hq-EG for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 12 May 2004 20:47:07 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4D0l72Y029613 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 12 May 2004 20:47:07 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BO49U-0003Ix-PB for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 12 May 2004 20:32:44 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA21403 for ; Wed, 12 May 2004 20:32:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BO49S-0000YN-Ky for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 12 May 2004 20:32:42 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BO48p-00002a-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 12 May 2004 20:32:04 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BO47n-0007Jc-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 12 May 2004 20:30:59 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BO443-0001p6-65; Wed, 12 May 2004 20:27:07 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BO2X5-0008Gw-PZ for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 12 May 2004 18:48:59 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA16979 for ; Wed, 12 May 2004 18:48:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BO2X2-00035E-K2 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 12 May 2004 18:48:56 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BO2W8-0002Zs-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 12 May 2004 18:48:00 -0400 Received: from peacock.verisign.com ([65.205.251.73]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BO2VQ-000246-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 12 May 2004 18:47:16 -0400 Received: from MOU1WNEXC03.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.55]) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.11/) with ESMTP id i4CMlF1X022319; Wed, 12 May 2004 15:47:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mou1wnexc03.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) id ; Wed, 12 May 2004 15:47:15 -0700 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Dave Crocker'" Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] We got some stinging criticism 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, 12 May 2004 15:47:14 -0700 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 > What is essential in meeting such dates with anything useful > is reducing > the scope of the effort and making choices that are easy to understand > and that seem very likely to do something useful. You will probably find that the number of people disagreeing here is similar to the number that would disagree on such issues as motherhood apple pie etc. Equally there is a point where the scope of effort is reduced to the point where the work product does not have sufficient value. If the IETF delivers a work product at the end of MARID that is considered inadequate it will not be allowed a second chance. The standard will be set in another forum. Reducing the changes to the Internet to meet your personal comfort level is not a sustainable strategy. > At worst, you are left with a new capability that has some utility. That is far from the worst outcome possible here. The Internet community was told spam was beneath the IETF for eight years, then we were told that it was a long term research problem and only after SPF or CallerID looked like succeeding without IETF endorsement did anything happen. If you can convince people that a simple solution will work better that is one thing, if you are simply going to try to protect a failed 20 year old protocol design then get a clue. The time for procrastination and examining the fundamental navel here passed four years ago. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed May 12 20:49:20 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 UAA22823 for ; Wed, 12 May 2004 20:49:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BO4Nq-00082Q-5X for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 12 May 2004 20:47:34 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4D0lYF9030893 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 12 May 2004 20:47:34 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BO4H4-0005cK-NP for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 12 May 2004 20:40:34 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA21871 for ; Wed, 12 May 2004 20:40:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BO4H2-0004fT-Gr for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 12 May 2004 20:40:32 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BO4G7-00048q-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 12 May 2004 20:39:36 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BO4FH-0003bG-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 12 May 2004 20:38:43 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BO44H-0001s9-R8; Wed, 12 May 2004 20:27:21 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BO1fp-00061S-1N for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 12 May 2004 17:53:57 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA13764 for ; Wed, 12 May 2004 17:53:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BO1fm-0006Sb-Ea for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 12 May 2004 17:53:54 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BO1en-0005xU-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 12 May 2004 17:52:53 -0400 Received: from omr2.netsolmail.com ([216.168.230.163]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BO1do-0005Qx-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 12 May 2004 17:51:52 -0400 Received: from ms9.netsolmail.com (IDENT:mirapoint@[216.168.230.183]) by omr2.netsolmail.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i4CLp5Zo022188 for ; Wed, 12 May 2004 17:51:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from IAN (CPE-144-136-148-251.qld.bigpond.net.au [144.136.148.251]) by ms9.netsolmail.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.2.2-GA) with ESMTP id AWG24561; Wed, 12 May 2004 17:51:43 -0400 (EDT) From: "Ian Peter" To: Message-ID: 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 10.0.2605 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: [Asrg] ITU WSIS meeting Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 07:51:24 +1000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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 Has anyone been approached about this? Should we seek to get Yakov or someone else in attendance as a subject matter expert? (For those not following the governance debates this is part of ITU's lead up to the World Summit on Information Society Internet governance discussions) ITU WSIS Thematic Meeting on Countering Spam, Geneva, 7-9 July 2004 Information about the meeting says the discussion will be structured=20 around five main themes: - Scope of the problem - Technical solutions - Consumer and small business education and awareness - Legislation and Enforcement - International cooperation See (general information) and (more specific) Ian Peter Senior Partner Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd P.O. Box 10670 Adelaide St Brisbane 4000 Australia Tel (617) 3870 1181 Mobile (614) 1966 7772 _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed May 12 21:11:01 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (www.iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA24078 for ; Wed, 12 May 2004 21:11:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BO4j7-0005pL-C6 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 12 May 2004 21:09:33 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4D19Xxi022395 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 12 May 2004 21:09:33 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BO4iT-0005X0-De for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 12 May 2004 21:08:53 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA23923 for ; Wed, 12 May 2004 21:08:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BO4iQ-00046m-RM for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 12 May 2004 21:08:50 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BO4hP-0003YQ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 12 May 2004 21:07:48 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BO4gL-0002yC-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 12 May 2004 21:06:41 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BO4Zy-0002tX-CN; Wed, 12 May 2004 21:00:06 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BO4Qt-0000rA-TL for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 12 May 2004 20:50:43 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA23012 for ; Wed, 12 May 2004 20:50:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BO4Qr-0002aA-I6 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 12 May 2004 20:50:41 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BO4Pn-0001zf-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 12 May 2004 20:49:36 -0400 Received: from mout.perfora.net ([217.160.230.41]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BO4OP-0000vr-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 12 May 2004 20:48:09 -0400 Received: from 000-137-713.area3.spcsdns.net[68.246.23.219] (helo=solidmatrix.com) by mrelay.perfora.net with ESMTP (Nemesis), id 1BO4OG-1v0u-0MKz5u-0007wu; Wed, 12 May 2004 20:48:00 -0400 Message-ID: <40A2C5B4.3030905@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: Ian Peter CC: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] ITU WSIS meeting 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, 12 May 2004 20:47:48 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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 This is the first I have heard about it. I forwarded the message to the IAB. Yakov Ian Peter wrote: > Has anyone been approached about this? Should we seek to get Yakov or > someone else in attendance as a subject matter expert? > > (For those not following the governance debates this is part of ITU's > lead up to the World Summit on Information Society Internet governance > discussions) > > > > ITU WSIS Thematic Meeting on Countering Spam, Geneva, 7-9 July 2004 > > Information about the meeting says the discussion will be structured > around five main themes: > > - Scope of the problem > - Technical solutions > - Consumer and small business education and awareness > - Legislation and Enforcement > - International cooperation > > > See (general information) > > and > > (more > specific) > > -- 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 May 12 21:22:49 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (www.iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA24543 for ; Wed, 12 May 2004 21:22:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BO4tu-0007rC-S1 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 12 May 2004 21:20:43 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4D1Kgs2030202 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 12 May 2004 21:20:42 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BO4qx-0007QF-6d for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 12 May 2004 21:17:39 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA24374 for ; Wed, 12 May 2004 21:17:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BO4qu-0000sS-Ks for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 12 May 2004 21:17:36 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BO4ps-0000Mw-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 12 May 2004 21:16:33 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BO4ov-0007dr-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 12 May 2004 21:15:33 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BO4jd-0005rC-0C; Wed, 12 May 2004 21:10:05 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BO4eI-0003jN-8w for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 12 May 2004 21:04:34 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA23653 for ; Wed, 12 May 2004 21:04:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BO4eF-0001w9-MZ for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 12 May 2004 21:04:31 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BO4dG-0001Qf-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 12 May 2004 21:03:31 -0400 Received: from sparkle.rodents.montreal.qc.ca ([216.46.5.7] ident=3hQO7ngKnVMkERuKqOV8gWrXi6L8Q5i8CEwszmRbmzV) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BO4cT-0000wY-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 12 May 2004 21:02:41 -0400 Received: (from mouse@localhost) by Sparkle.Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA18048; Wed, 12 May 2004 21:02:36 -0400 (EDT) From: der Mouse Message-Id: <200405130102.VAA18048@Sparkle.Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Erik-Conspiracy: There is no Conspiracy - and if there were I wouldn't be part of it anyway. To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] We got some stinging criticism In-Reply-To: References: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 20:39:30 -0400 (EDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > The Internet community was told spam was beneath the IETF for eight > years, then we were told that it was a long term research problem and > only after SPF or CallerID looked like succeeding without IETF > endorsement did anything happen. You appear to think that someone is going to be able to impose something like SPF or its ilk. The closest you'll get to this is some cabal like AOL/Microsoft/Yahoo/etc refusing to talk with anyone who doesn't - in which case I for one will be quite firmly on the "doesn't" side; A/M/Y/etc bring a fairly large negative value to my mailbox and I would love it if they would go away. SPF won't stop spam. CallerID won't stop spam. All they'll do is make it a little more traceable, right back to the zombie which handed the message to its outgoing smarthost - basically what we already have now. It will put a dent in it briefly, which will be trumpeted as a great success, a dent which will last just long enough for spamware authors to update their products to send to smarthost instead of direct to target MX; new code will roll out and it will be business as usual. Nothing but action by the providers hosting the zombie armies will stop spam, and probably even that won't truly _stop_ spam (though if the large providers were to somehow miraculously get a collective clue and take effective action, they could reduce it to tolerable levels). /~\ The ASCII der Mouse \ / Ribbon Campaign X Against HTML mouse@rodents.montreal.qc.ca / \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed May 12 22:28:21 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA27424 for ; Wed, 12 May 2004 22:28:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BO5sA-00057C-4o for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 12 May 2004 22:22:58 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4D2Mwam019658 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 12 May 2004 22:22:58 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BO5qu-0004sl-3N for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 12 May 2004 22:21:40 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA27132 for ; Wed, 12 May 2004 22:21:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BO5qq-0002H0-Vp for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 12 May 2004 22:21:37 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BO5pv-0001kG-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 12 May 2004 22:20:40 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BO5oj-0001DK-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 12 May 2004 22:19:25 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BO5jb-0002o2-3v; Wed, 12 May 2004 22:14:07 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BO5dD-0001CG-Jq for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 12 May 2004 22:07:31 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA26609 for ; Wed, 12 May 2004 22:07:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BO5dA-00032l-EO for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 12 May 2004 22:07:28 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BO5cC-0002XK-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 12 May 2004 22:06:28 -0400 Received: from mail3.panix.com ([166.84.1.74]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BO5b9-0001yx-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 12 May 2004 22:05:24 -0400 Received: from panix5.panix.com (panix5.panix.com [166.84.1.5]) by mail3.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BCAD982DF for ; Wed, 12 May 2004 22:05:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from sethb@localhost) by panix5.panix.com (8.11.6p2-a/8.8.8/PanixN1.1) id i4D25Mc21791; Wed, 12 May 2004 22:05:22 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200405130205.i4D25Mc21791@panix5.panix.com> From: Seth Breidbart To: asrg@ietf.org In-reply-to: <200405130102.VAA18048@Sparkle.Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA> (message from der Mouse on Wed, 12 May 2004 20:39:30 -0400 (EDT)) Subject: Re: [Asrg] We got some stinging criticism References: <200405130102.VAA18048@Sparkle.Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 22:05:22 -0400 (EDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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 der Mouse wrote: > You appear to think that someone is going to be able to impose > something like SPF or its ilk. The closest you'll get to this is > some cabal like AOL/Microsoft/Yahoo/etc refusing to talk with anyone > who doesn't - in which case I for one will be quite firmly on the > "doesn't" side; A/M/Y/etc bring a fairly large negative value to my > mailbox and I would love it if they would go away. They'll only impose it for _receiving_ email; they'll publish it for sending, but you can ignore it if you want. So what you lose by not publishing it would be the ability to send email to their users. > SPF won't stop spam. CallerID won't stop spam. All they'll do is > make it a little more traceable, right back to the zombie which > handed the message to its outgoing smarthost - basically what we > already have now. It will put a dent in it briefly, which will be > trumpeted as a great success, a dent which will last just long > enough for spamware authors to update their products to send to > smarthost instead of direct to target MX; new code will roll out and > it will be business as usual. Except that it will be easier for ISPs to block spam that comes through their smarthost, and they'll have more interest in doing so as the smarthost itself gets blocked for emitting spam. > Nothing but action by the providers hosting the zombie armies will > stop spam, and probably even that won't truly _stop_ spam (though if > the large providers were to somehow miraculously get a collective > clue and take effective action, they could reduce it to tolerable > levels). Yes, that would be best. But in _this_ universe, they're mostly not going to do anything until it costs them more not to act than to act. Seth _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu May 13 00:50:07 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (www.iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA02671 for ; Thu, 13 May 2004 00:50:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BO83D-00037n-9A for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 13 May 2004 00:42:31 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4D4gVls012011 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 13 May 2004 00:42:31 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BO81J-0002bk-Q5 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 13 May 2004 00:40:33 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA02369 for ; Thu, 13 May 2004 00:40:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BO81H-0006Cx-52 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 13 May 2004 00:40:31 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BO80I-0005iQ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 13 May 2004 00:39:31 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BO7zD-00050N-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 13 May 2004 00:38:23 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BO7vx-00013C-DB; Thu, 13 May 2004 00:35:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BO7ub-0000pC-Gz for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 13 May 2004 00:33:37 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA01991 for ; Thu, 13 May 2004 00:33:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BO7uZ-0002eG-1u for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 13 May 2004 00:33:35 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BO7tW-00027Y-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 13 May 2004 00:32:31 -0400 Received: from sokol.elan.net ([216.151.192.200]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BO7sM-0001A2-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 13 May 2004 00:31:18 -0400 Received: from sokol.elan.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.11/8.12.5) with ESMTP id i4D5mAfs018724; Wed, 12 May 2004 22:48:10 -0700 Received: from localhost (william@localhost) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.11/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id i4D5mAcP018721; Wed, 12 May 2004 22:48:10 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: sokol.elan.net: william owned process doing -bs From: "william(at)elan.net" To: der Mouse cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] We got some stinging criticism In-Reply-To: <200405130102.VAA18048@Sparkle.Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA> 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, 12 May 2004 22:48:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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 Wed, 12 May 2004, der Mouse wrote: > > The Internet community was told spam was beneath the IETF for eight > > years, then we were told that it was a long term research problem and > > only after SPF or CallerID looked like succeeding without IETF > > endorsement did anything happen. > > You appear to think that someone is going to be able to impose > something like SPF or its ilk. The closest you'll get to this is some > cabal like AOL/Microsoft/Yahoo/etc refusing to talk with anyone who > doesn't - in which case I for one will be quite firmly on the "doesn't" > side; A/M/Y/etc bring a fairly large negative value to my mailbox and I > would love it if they would go away. Well, I'd love it if everybody stop using windows and switched to linux but lets be realistic... > SPF won't stop spam. CallerID won't stop spam. All they'll do is make > it a little more traceable, right back to the zombie which handed the > message to its outgoing smarthost - basically what we already have now. No, neither SPF not CallerID will have any serious effect traceability of spam by ip, they are not designed to do it at all. The only value in SPF and CallerID and similar proposals is to stop spammers from forging your own domain (joe-jobs) and banks and other important companies domains (phishing) which might cut a little into criminal spammers revenue. > It will put a dent in it briefly, which will be trumpeted as a great > success, Doubt that. The adaption can not happen that quickly as to allow to see any results right away. Additionally the results are rather small as far as spam itself is concerned, rather the results would be that spam filters would have easier time picking up phishing scam emails, but out of all spam, such emails account for < 5% of total and as such eventhough they do greater damage to people who might fall for it, they will not be seen in the whole context of increasing amount of different sort of spam that people will continue to see in their mailbox. Additionally given even most optimistic adaption rate of 25% of actively used domains within 12 months, it gives enough time for spammers to adapt as number of spammers is LOT smaller (on the scale of 1:100,000) then number of mail server operators as well as number of spamware programs is smaller then number of mail servers, but more important spamware writers are quicker to adapt given how much money they get paid by largest spammers (they only need to have couple large spammers pay them to have enough monetory incentive to implement new feature where as for antispammer software writers they need thousands to pay) >a dent which will last just long enough for spamware authors > to update their products to send to smarthost instead of direct to > target MX; new code will roll out and it will be business as usual. They don't need to do it at all. All they need to do is to either forge domains that do not have LMAP records (i.e. add code in their spamware to do quick search for domains that don't have it before forging something) or even to enter their own LMAP records using some throw-away domains (nothing new to spammers, they have good skills at creating through-away domains for spammer-advertised websites where lusers actually place orders) > Nothing but action by the providers hosting the zombie armies will stop > spam, and probably even that won't truly _stop_ spam (though if the > large providers were to somehow miraculously get a collective clue and > take effective action, they could reduce it to tolerable levels). Agree completely. And as I noted one way to work on this as part of that is to identify which ip blocks are used by lusers who are very unlikely to be running mail server. i.e. MTA-MARK proposal or some kind of variant of that that puts LMAP or like records in IN-ADDR space. Unlike every other LMAP proposal this really does have potential to stop sizable amount of spam and it can happen quickly enough that spammers may not be able to adapt immediatly as to have noticable effect of ever 25% all that would be needed is that 5 out of 10 largest dsl/cable providers enter these records and convincing 5 providers to enter something into dns is a lot easier and can happen a LOT quicker then when we wait for same to happen to 1 million domains. -- William Leibzon Elan Networks william@elan.net _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu May 13 03:34:47 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 DAA25217 for ; Thu, 13 May 2004 03:34:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BOAhi-00014w-B3 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 13 May 2004 03:32:32 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4D7WUwA004139 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 13 May 2004 03:32:30 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BOAZk-00089n-IF for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 13 May 2004 03:24:16 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA24151 for ; Thu, 13 May 2004 03:24:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BOAZi-0002RR-Ax for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 13 May 2004 03:24:14 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BOAYJ-0001ma-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 13 May 2004 03:22:48 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BOAXH-0001Cq-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 13 May 2004 03:21:43 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BOAPu-0006JE-Nl; Thu, 13 May 2004 03:14:06 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BOAGA-0004MK-9y for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 13 May 2004 03:04:02 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA23256 for ; Thu, 13 May 2004 03:03:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BOAG6-00006m-9B for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 13 May 2004 03:03:58 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BOAF8-0007PQ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 13 May 2004 03:02:59 -0400 Received: from sense-sea-megasub-1-311.oz.net ([216.39.145.57] helo=angel.commercialventvac.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BOAED-0006u4-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 13 May 2004 03:02:01 -0400 Received: from commercialventvac.com (black [192.168.2.25]) by angel.commercialventvac.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i4D73Ckx011479 for ; Thu, 13 May 2004 00:03:13 -0700 Message-ID: <40A31D68.5040309@commercialventvac.com> From: Jeff Silverman Reply-To: jeff@commercialventvac.com User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4.1) Gecko/20031114 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] May I summarize this conversation, please? Rev "A" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 00:02:00 -0700 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit People, I'd like to take a moment and review what I think we've learned from these discussions. I am not even going to try to figure out who gets credit for what. Please correct me if I am wrong. I'd like to thank everybody who contacted me and set me straight. There seem to be three approaches to dealing with SPAM. One approach solves the problem by solving four subproblems: identification, authentication, authorization, and trust. Another approach solves the problem by some sort of lexical and/or semantical analysis of the message itself. Yet another approach solves the problem by raising the cost of sending a message. There seems to be no consensus on which approach is "best", and in fact a solution might be a combination of approaches. * We can uniquely identify the sender of a mail message using their E-mail address and their MTA host name and/or MTA IP address. * However, we cannot authenticate that a message actually came from the person the message identifies as the sender. This is so for a couple of reasons: 1) SMTP makes no guarantee that the sender identification is either honest or accurate. 2) a corrupt or incompetent MTA sysadmin can break any system that we care to implement. 3) My intuition tells me that a corrupt or incompetent UTA sysadmin can break any system, if through no other method than telnetting to the MTA port 25. I think we are in agreement that this situation will not change without changing the SMTP and we are very, very reluctant to do that for what are good reasons. * Several methods of authorizing messages have been proposed or implemented. These methods can be grouped into internal examination methods and external examination methods. Internal examination methods include keyword recognition systems, statistical analysis systems, Bayesian analysis, reputation systems, and other techniques that border on A.I. External examination methods include whitelists, blacklists, challenge/response mechanisms, and counting sent/received message ratios. * A trusted system or component is one with the power to break one's security policy. I think we have decided that we cannot trust the sender of an E_mail message. I think we are reluctant to trust an impartial third party e.g. Verisign because of concerns that the third party will not be trustworthy in any of a number of ways. Also, communicating that trust from system to system is problematical. Think about something like kerberos, on a planetary scale. Ideally, the trust mechanism should be in the receiver's MTA. Since an MTA can handle a lot of messages, the computational cost should be low. * That we are reluctant to change the SMTP and that we cannot trust the senders at all strongly suggests that the solution to the SPAM problem is in the receiving MTA (or possibly the receiving UTA). This is a very unsatisfactory conclusion because the cost of dealing with SPAM is born by the receivers; there seems to be no way to shift the cost to the senders. Proposals to raise the cost of sending E-mail using e-postage are rejected because it is hard to see how such schemes could be implemented without changing the SMTP; and it raises issues of trust: anybody could claim to be an MTA and demand a bunch of your postage. We've had several (frustrating at times) discussions about some good ideas that do not work. Whitelists and blacklists suffer from the problems of insufficient granularity, timeliness, and the fact that spammers frequently create new identities. If we could solve the authentication problem, then blacklists and whitelists might work, especially if there was a mechanism by which the lists could be automatically maintained between the MTA and the UTA. The problem with authentication is that it increases the costs on the sending side. This seems to me to be A Good Thing, but it was criticized. Internal examination methods tend to be compute intensive, and examining a message to see if it is spam is computationally expensive and unreliable. This could be dealt with by moving the SPAM inspection function from the MTA to the UTA. Internal examination relies on the idea that certain words and phrases are diagnostic of SPAM, e.g. "Trust me" and "v.agra". So the spammer can increase the cost on the receivers side by using "v.agra", "v,agra", "v;agra", etc. Furthermore, a spammer could run his/her message through the internal examination system, and modify the text until it was accepted as not spam. Challenge/Response was rejected because it was perceived as being hard for the visually challenged, it has language issues, and it is not obvious how to implement it without changing the SMTP. Reputation systems were rejected (I think that is the consensus) because it is not clear that past behavior is a good predictor of future behavior: the Russell Chicken scenario. Also, crooks sometimes go straight. External methods such as looking at the ratio of sent messages to received messages were rejected because they required trusting an external system. For example, a spammer could claim that although he had sent millions of messages, he had also received millions of messages, so he's not a spammer, he's just busy. Discrepencies between the return address as stated in the HELO or ELHO message and the actual source IP address cannot be the sole criteria for accepting/rejecting a message because some ISPs separate the sending and receiving functions for load leveling purposes. Multiple indicators have been proposed, but I do not understand how they would work in practice. Graylists? If the internal examination system felt there was a high probability of spam and the sender has a reputation for sending spam, then probably the message is spam. But if we cannot authenticate that the spammer is who he or she says he or she is, then is the reputation meaningful? What if the internal examination system and the external examination system disagree? And does multiple indicators have sufficient accuracy in prediction to justify the extra cost of calculation? One of my critics asked, rhetorically I think, why so many workers are enthralled with sender authentication. I think the question is fair, and I've been thinking about it. While I cannot speak for anybody else, the reason why I am interested in sender authentication is, as a practicing sysadmin, I think in terms of identification/authentication/authorization. When a user logs in with a username, that identifies the user. Any of you are welcome to try logging in to the jeff account on www.commercialventvac.com. When the user feeds the system his or her password, that authenticates the user. None of you know my password, so you cannot be authenticated as me. However, the contents of /etc/passwd or the NIS password table are what authorizes the user to do whatever the user can do. So if I am identified as jeff and authenticated as jeff, I am still forbidden to do anything to aaron (unless aaron authorizes me by changing permissions on his files). E-mail is the only protocol I am aware of where the ostensibly human receiver is connected to the server. In most protocols, the ostensibly human receiver is connected to the client; and there is a mechanism for authenticating clients. The mechanism might not be very good (e.g. FTP and telnet require sending passwords over the wire "in clear") but SMTP is noteworthy for lacking any authentication at all. Finally, because there are trust issues, we do not want to give any particular entity a monopoly on the system. Furthermore, if there are "secrets" inside the system, eventually they will be discovered and published. So the system must be open. To summarize, we want to invent a system which runs on the receiving MTA or possibly UTA, which will positively identify incoming E-mail messages as either SPAM or not using some (set of ) criteria to be developed. This system must interoperate with existing MTAs. The system must be "open" in the sense that it is unencombered by patents or copyrights (the GPL or the BSD license is acceptable). Sincerely yours, Jeff _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu May 13 04:00:29 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (www.iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA26541 for ; Thu, 13 May 2004 04:00:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BOB6y-0006Eh-LM for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 13 May 2004 03:58:36 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4D7wa40023971 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 13 May 2004 03:58:36 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BOB4P-0005lO-53 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 13 May 2004 03:55:57 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA26345 for ; Thu, 13 May 2004 03:55:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BOB4M-0003y7-IL for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 13 May 2004 03:55:54 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BOB3P-0003Rq-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 13 May 2004 03:54:56 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BOB2P-0002wD-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 13 May 2004 03:53:53 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BOAwm-0004JH-Ft; Thu, 13 May 2004 03:48:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BOAtc-0003dn-AT for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 13 May 2004 03:44:48 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA25960 for ; Thu, 13 May 2004 03:44:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BOAtZ-00061j-R8 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 13 May 2004 03:44:45 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BOAsc-0005W4-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 13 May 2004 03:43:47 -0400 Received: from sparkle.rodents.montreal.qc.ca ([216.46.5.7] ident=f9WeuytZuZ0Y38sdUzqbOBkoq5Jj3JvDE0cROQ3g93i) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BOArz-0004zb-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 13 May 2004 03:43:07 -0400 Received: (from mouse@localhost) by Sparkle.Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA (8.8.8/8.8.8) id DAA29225; Thu, 13 May 2004 03:43:07 -0400 (EDT) From: der Mouse Message-Id: <200405130743.DAA29225@Sparkle.Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Erik-Conspiracy: There is no Conspiracy - and if there were I wouldn't be part of it anyway. To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] May I summarize this conversation, please? Rev "A" In-Reply-To: <40A31D68.5040309@commercialventvac.com> References: <40A31D68.5040309@commercialventvac.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 03:35:43 -0400 (EDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > I'd like to take a moment and review [...] This is mostly a very good summary. As probably one of the more opinionated of the discussants (disputants?), for well over 100 lines I see nothing I disagree with. Then at the very end.... > The system must be "open" in the sense that it is unencombered by > patents or copyrights (the GPL or the BSD license is acceptable). Enh. Speak for yourself. For me, the system must be unencumbered; it's acceptable for an _implementation_ of it to be under the GPL or a BSD copyright, or any other for that matter, but for the system itself to be encumbered, even in such a way, is not. At least to me. (I might be convinced to accept a three-clause BSD license, but even that would take convincing. And I'm not sure the GPL as I've usually seen it _could_ apply to the system itself, as opposed to an implementation of it. Certainly the polemic at the beginning wouldn't apply.) /~\ The ASCII der Mouse \ / Ribbon Campaign X Against HTML mouse@rodents.montreal.qc.ca / \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu May 13 04:41:41 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (www.iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA28240 for ; Thu, 13 May 2004 04:41:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BOBgm-0004yi-IY for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 13 May 2004 04:35:37 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4D8ZaR3019005 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 13 May 2004 04:35:36 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BOBWI-0002xs-JH for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 13 May 2004 04:24:46 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA27453 for ; Thu, 13 May 2004 04:24:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BOBWF-0003Nv-UP for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 13 May 2004 04:24:43 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BOBVG-0002q5-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 13 May 2004 04:23:42 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BOBU8-0001su-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 13 May 2004 04:22:32 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BOBNw-0001AC-GN; Thu, 13 May 2004 04:16:08 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BOBIk-0008Pv-0u for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 13 May 2004 04:10:46 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA26952 for ; Thu, 13 May 2004 04:10:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BOBIh-0003uo-Ay for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 13 May 2004 04:10:43 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BOBHj-0003Pf-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 13 May 2004 04:09:44 -0400 Received: from [66.98.212.93] (helo=tin.nixcartel.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BOBGr-0002u7-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 13 May 2004 04:08:49 -0400 Received: from dvb.homelinux.org (unknown [202.88.170.34]) by tin.nixcartel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AA3A1AC06D for ; Thu, 13 May 2004 03:17:16 -0500 (CDT) Received: by dvb.homelinux.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id CF4A734020; Thu, 13 May 2004 13:38:17 +0530 (IST) From: Devdas Bhagat To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] May I summarize this conversation, please? Rev "A" Message-ID: <20040513133817.A13512@evita.devdas.geek> Reply-To: Devdas Bhagat References: <40A31D68.5040309@commercialventvac.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <40A31D68.5040309@commercialventvac.com>; from jeff@commercialventvac.com on Thu, May 13, 2004 at 12:02:00AM -0700 Notice-Requested-Upon-Delivery-To: devdas@dvb.homelinux.org X-Message-Flag: Friends protect friends from Microsoft Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 13:38:17 +0530 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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 13/05/04 00:02 -0700, Jeff Silverman wrote: > One of my critics asked, rhetorically I think, why so many workers are > enthralled with sender authentication. I think the question is fair, I have a slightly different viewpoint to this. There are two main points to sender authentication: 1> It can increase the level of granularity of the consent level of the recipient. Instead of saying "my MTA will accept mail from system foo", it says "my MTA will accept mail from authenticated users bar and baz". This tends to support a whitelisting approach. 1a) This limits the amount of "collateral damage" possible, even with ISP smarthosts. 1b) It also reduces the burden on ISPs who now have to kick off spammers. Instead they can ignore the spammers and let everyone else block only those addresses. While 1a is good, 1b is a significant disadvantage. 1a also has a small problem. What happens to the case where there is a multirecipient message and one of the recipients wishes to accept the mail, but one wishes to reject it? Since SMTP does not have per recipient response codes, there is no way of communicating the consent of a single recipient to a sender. 2> Since spam is a social problem, we have to use social mechanisms against the spammers. With an authenticated sender, it is reasonable to be able to point at the headers in a court of law and claim that the sender is actually the spammer. This reduces the chance of being falsely implicated in a lawsuit. With sender authentication, usable legal measures can be pressed for. You have implied the second, but missed the first. > his files). E-mail is the only protocol I am aware of where the > ostensibly human receiver is connected to the server. In most > protocols, the ostensibly human receiver is connected to the client; and > there is a mechanism for authenticating clients. The mechanism might And this just as often raises the question of stolen and broken passwords. While strong AAA works very well as a deterrent in a corporate environment, there is a different issue on the Internet, where there are more parties involved. recipient ( contract ) recipient's ISP [Problem with spam is here] (no contract) <---- This is the crux of the issue. sender's ISP [The fix is here] ( contract ) <---- enforcement solves issues (?) sender. Even with strong AAA, nothing will happen if the sender's ISP does not terminate the spammers connectivity. Devdas Bhagat _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu May 13 15:18:07 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 PAA07382 for ; Thu, 13 May 2004 15:18:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BOLdM-0004YJ-BY for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 13 May 2004 15:12:44 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4DJCiDW017493 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 13 May 2004 15:12:44 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BOLVA-0006l9-Fg for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 13 May 2004 15:04:16 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA05714 for ; Thu, 13 May 2004 15:04:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BOLV7-0002JM-JJ for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 13 May 2004 15:04:13 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BOLU9-0001k7-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 13 May 2004 15:03:13 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BOLT6-0001B4-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 13 May 2004 15:02:08 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BOLCX-0006Hn-Js; Thu, 13 May 2004 14:45:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BOL8p-0004m8-4D for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 13 May 2004 14:41:11 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA04714 for ; Thu, 13 May 2004 14:41:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BOL8m-0005Vx-9T for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 13 May 2004 14:41:08 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BOL7Y-0004R7-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 13 May 2004 14:39:53 -0400 Received: from mout.perfora.net ([217.160.230.41]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BOL6K-0003da-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 13 May 2004 14:38:36 -0400 Received: from [217.160.230.50] (helo=smtp.perfora.net) by mout.perfora.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1BOL6K-0007L4-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 13 May 2004 14:38:36 -0400 Received: from [68.246.60.172] (helo=solidmatrix.com) by smtp.perfora.net with asmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1BOL6J-0006So-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 13 May 2004 14:38:36 -0400 Message-ID: <40A3C093.1090507@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 X-Provags-ID: perfora.net abuse@perfora.net auth:7051a7fa85b96745770cd89fa6d27f10 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] 3. Proposals - draft-bonatti-generic-antispam-00.txt Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 14:38:11 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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 This just got posted to the ID archive: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-bonatti-generic-antispam-00.txt 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 Thu May 13 17:38:09 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 RAA17788 for ; Thu, 13 May 2004 17:38:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BONm4-0004pN-W1 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 13 May 2004 17:29:53 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4DLTq8d018558 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 13 May 2004 17:29:52 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BONgR-0001Wl-Eq for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 13 May 2004 17:24:03 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA15866 for ; Thu, 13 May 2004 17:23:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BONgP-0001Ha-3k for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 13 May 2004 17:24:01 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BONdT-0007iX-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 13 May 2004 17:21:00 -0400 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BONcK-00076P-02 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 13 May 2004 17:19:48 -0400 Received: from optimus22.ietf.org ([132.151.6.22] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by mx2.foretec.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1BONYB-0000xW-DU for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 13 May 2004 17:15:31 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BOMlW-0005Dw-Hn; Thu, 13 May 2004 16:25:14 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BOMYI-0001ox-Gn for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 13 May 2004 16:11:34 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA10423 for ; Thu, 13 May 2004 16:11:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BOMYG-0007Sm-GX for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 13 May 2004 16:11:32 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BOMXa-0006v3-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 13 May 2004 16:10:51 -0400 Received: from rockridge.uits.indiana.edu ([129.79.1.74]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BOMWi-0006Lq-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 13 May 2004 16:09:56 -0400 Received: from mail-relay.iu.edu (logchain.uits.indiana.edu [129.79.1.77]) by rockridge.uits.indiana.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10/IUPO) with ESMTP id i4DK9sbV005653 for ; Thu, 13 May 2004 15:09:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from [10.0.2.2] (dial-64-151-129-134.bton.kiva.net [64.151.129.134]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail-relay.iu.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10/IUPO) with ESMTP id i4DK9o3H006288 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 13 May 2004 15:09:53 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v613) In-Reply-To: <20040513160012.26727.22928.Mailman@www1.ietf.org> References: <20040513160012.26727.22928.Mailman@www1.ietf.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <7CF366E8-A519-11D8-BE62-000393DC31DA@bloomington.in.us> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Jim Witte To: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.613) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] Re: Zombie armies... Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 15:09:49 -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 > Nothing but action by the providers hosting the zombie armies will stop What about getting MS to close the holes that allow the 'Zombie armies' to be turned into zombies in the first place? Of course, after reading about all the variants of the "CoolWebSearch worm" and the various dll and css sheets it puts various places - I think that may be hopeless, short of MS just rewriting Windows from the bottom up, with security and *user notification* in mind (NOTHING should be able to change the default CSS sheet, or put something into my TCP/IP stack (Windock LSP) without my knowledge) Jim _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu May 13 17:38:14 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 RAA17807 for ; Thu, 13 May 2004 17:38:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BONm5-0004q4-JN for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 13 May 2004 17:29:53 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4DLTrP0018596 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 13 May 2004 17:29:53 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BONgb-0001Y5-48 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 13 May 2004 17:24:13 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA15895 for ; Thu, 13 May 2004 17:24:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BONgY-0001Ia-U2 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 13 May 2004 17:24:10 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BONdi-0007lY-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 13 May 2004 17:21:15 -0400 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BONcO-00076P-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 13 May 2004 17:19:52 -0400 Received: from optimus22.ietf.org ([132.151.6.22] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by mx2.foretec.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1BONWM-0000wd-5z for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 13 May 2004 17:13:38 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BOMlT-0005DO-Tj; Thu, 13 May 2004 16:25:11 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BOMV4-00019K-K5 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 13 May 2004 16:08:14 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA10186 for ; Thu, 13 May 2004 16:08:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BOMV2-0005hZ-Rk for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 13 May 2004 16:08:12 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BOMU3-00058Y-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 13 May 2004 16:07:12 -0400 Received: from rockridge.uits.indiana.edu ([129.79.1.74]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BOMSx-0004Az-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 13 May 2004 16:06:03 -0400 Received: from mail-relay.iu.edu (logchain.uits.indiana.edu [129.79.1.77]) by rockridge.uits.indiana.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10/IUPO) with ESMTP id i4DK5vbV004089 for ; Thu, 13 May 2004 15:05:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from [10.0.2.2] (dial-64-151-129-134.bton.kiva.net [64.151.129.134]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail-relay.iu.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10/IUPO) with ESMTP id i4DK5r3H006088 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 13 May 2004 15:05:56 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v613) In-Reply-To: <20040513160012.26727.22928.Mailman@www1.ietf.org> References: <20040513160012.26727.22928.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 (2.613) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] Re: Stinging Criticism Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 15:05:52 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > they're mostly not going to do anything until it costs them more not > to act than to act. What if one could somehow bring the router manufacturers interested? If any spam solution is to really work, it should dramatically decrease the amount of Internet traffic flying through the routers, and conversely, increase the amount of capacity for legitimate applications (whatever those may be - anything but spam..) If they could make that case to ISPs, business, governments (?), and possibly even end-users that some combination of legislation and technical change could dramatically increase the speed and efficiency of the internet, it could have some effect. What effect, I'm not sure. But talking about the "costs of spam" (other than e-postage, which has been roundly criticized here), one very real cost is on infrastructure. Of course, it's not clear how much end-ISP users will really care about this as long as high-speed DSL in the US is not widely in use (last mile is the limiting factor - I'm comparing "high-speed" with places like Singapore, where I've heard they have something like 10Mbps connections for half the population for prices comparable to dial-up in the US). But businesses and universities (with fat pipes), ISP's (who have to run mail servers and deal with all this crap coming off the backbone), research institutions (those that aren't using Abilene which isn't affected by spam as far as I know) *might* just care about such an argument. Although, the "this will reduce your bandwidth and infrastructure costs" argument is possibly contrary to the financial interests of the Cisco's of the world. 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 Thu May 13 21:03:31 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (www.iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA29254 for ; Thu, 13 May 2004 21:03:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BOR3C-0001O9-6t for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 13 May 2004 20:59:48 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4E0xkfV005332 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 13 May 2004 20:59:46 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BOQwB-00089K-U6 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 13 May 2004 20:52:32 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA28562 for ; Thu, 13 May 2004 20:52:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BOQw9-0001Ep-BD for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 13 May 2004 20:52:29 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BOQv8-0000fM-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 13 May 2004 20:51:27 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BOQu7-00004b-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 13 May 2004 20:50:23 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BOQj7-00050y-W2; Thu, 13 May 2004 20:39:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BOQgi-00040d-BJ for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 13 May 2004 20:36:36 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA27884 for ; Thu, 13 May 2004 20:36:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BOQgf-0000WH-Vg for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 13 May 2004 20:36:30 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BOQfr-000005-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 13 May 2004 20:35:39 -0400 Received: from [216.151.192.222] (helo=mail.completewhois.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BOQev-0006ki-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 13 May 2004 20:34:42 -0400 Received: by mail.completewhois.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id 7A84518A0B; Thu, 13 May 2004 17:40:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.completewhois.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 735584C073; Thu, 13 May 2004 17:40:23 -0700 (PDT) From: William Leibzon To: Jim Witte Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: Stinging Criticism 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: Thu, 13 May 2004 17:40:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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 Router manufacturers benefit from larger amount of traffic on the net - the more traffic there is, the more equipment they can seel to ISPs. If anything, the point about decreasing traffic and unnecessary load capacity on the net can be made to ISPs and they do already know that, its the question that real protection against zombie is not that simple, ISPs would need to have additional equipment that will redirect all traffic from port 25 to their own relay servers and then they also have to actually maintain their relay servers as well as put protection so that one user could not send too many emails (i.e. when computer gets infected and becomes a zombie) as well as notification system to let the users know their computer is a zombie and customer support to at least give them some simple suggestions on what to do (i.e. dump windows, install linux and we'll help you on the way :). In any case, when you think about it, you'll realize that ISP steps to deal with zombies is not a simple process and can be quite expensive for ISPs. At the same time when I asked once on the isp forum how many would be willing to mark their dialup and dsl ports as non-mta end-user ports primarily if this would help decrease spam - most said they would be happy to do it if this was something that is no more complex then reverse dns. On Thu, 13 May 2004, Jim Witte wrote: > > they're mostly not going to do anything until it costs them more not > > to act than to act. > > What if one could somehow bring the router manufacturers interested? > If any spam solution is to really work, it should dramatically decrease > the amount of Internet traffic flying through the routers, and > conversely, increase the amount of capacity for legitimate applications > (whatever those may be - anything but spam..) If they could make that > case to ISPs, business, governments (?), and possibly even end-users > that some combination of legislation and technical change could > dramatically increase the speed and efficiency of the internet, it > could have some effect. What effect, I'm not sure. But talking about > the "costs of spam" (other than e-postage, which has been roundly > criticized here), one very real cost is on infrastructure. > > Of course, it's not clear how much end-ISP users will really care > about this as long as high-speed DSL in the US is not widely in use > (last mile is the limiting factor - I'm comparing "high-speed" with > places like Singapore, where I've heard they have something like 10Mbps > connections for half the population for prices comparable to dial-up in > the US). But businesses and universities (with fat pipes), ISP's (who > have to run mail servers and deal with all this crap coming off the > backbone), research institutions (those that aren't using Abilene which > isn't affected by spam as far as I know) *might* just care about such > an argument. Although, the "this will reduce your bandwidth and > infrastructure costs" argument is possibly contrary to the financial > interests of the Cisco's of the world. > > Jim Witte > jswitte@bloomington.in.us > Indiana University CS > > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing 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 May 13 22:16:18 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA02311 for ; Thu, 13 May 2004 22:16:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BOSDX-0003MS-89 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 13 May 2004 22:14:31 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4E2EV4b012912 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 13 May 2004 22:14:31 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BOS9n-0002Xj-VJ for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 13 May 2004 22:10:40 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA02166 for ; Thu, 13 May 2004 22:10:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BOS9k-0004TG-Tq for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 13 May 2004 22:10:37 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BOS8q-0003wp-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 13 May 2004 22:09:40 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BOS7s-0003QE-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 13 May 2004 22:08:40 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BOS3N-0000bx-PN; Thu, 13 May 2004 22:04:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BORxE-0006yX-7c for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 13 May 2004 21:57:40 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA01725 for ; Thu, 13 May 2004 21:57:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BORxB-0005LJ-7x for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 13 May 2004 21:57:37 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BORwG-0004oL-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 13 May 2004 21:56:41 -0400 Received: from xuxa.iecc.com ([208.31.42.42]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BORvS-0004I1-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 13 May 2004 21:55:50 -0400 Received: (qmail 12999 invoked by uid 100); 14 May 2004 01:55:46 -0000 Message-ID: <20040514015546.12998.qmail@xuxa.iecc.com> From: John Levine To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 3. Proposals - draft-bonatti-generic-antispam-00.txt In-Reply-To: <40A3C093.1090507@solidmatrix.com> Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA Cc: research@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: 14 May 2004 01:55:46 -0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 >http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-bonatti-generic-antispam-00.txt To save people's time, it's yet another scheme for recipients to call back to senders to ask if they sent it. All of the problems that applied to the callback system discussed last week appear to apply equally to this one. 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 Thu May 13 22:16:48 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA02365 for ; Thu, 13 May 2004 22:16:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BOSDY-0003NE-9O for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 13 May 2004 22:14:32 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4E2EWbQ012959 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 13 May 2004 22:14:32 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BOSAn-0002q3-As for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 13 May 2004 22:11:41 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA02203 for ; Thu, 13 May 2004 22:11:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BOSAk-000505-8W for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 13 May 2004 22:11:38 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BOS9o-0004Tl-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 13 May 2004 22:10:40 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BOS9F-0003xH-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 13 May 2004 22:10:05 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BOS3O-0000c5-IQ; Thu, 13 May 2004 22:04:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BORyG-0007NU-IZ for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 13 May 2004 21:58:44 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA01764 for ; Thu, 13 May 2004 21:58:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BORyD-0005sC-Iu for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 13 May 2004 21:58:41 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BORxF-0005M4-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 13 May 2004 21:57:42 -0400 Received: from xuxa.iecc.com ([208.31.42.42]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BORwR-0004p0-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 13 May 2004 21:56:51 -0400 Received: (qmail 13252 invoked by uid 100); 14 May 2004 01:56:52 -0000 Message-ID: <20040514015652.13248.qmail@xuxa.iecc.com> From: John Levine To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: Zombie armies... In-Reply-To: <7CF366E8-A519-11D8-BE62-000393DC31DA@bloomington.in.us> Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA Cc: jswitte@bloomington.in.us Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 14 May 2004 01:56:52 -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 >> Nothing but action by the providers hosting the zombie armies will stop > > What about getting MS to close the holes that allow the 'Zombie >armies' to be turned into zombies in the first place? Considering how many people still use Windows 98, and the rate at which people are still finding horrible bugs in Windows XP and newer versions, I fear that's not likely in practice. Too bad. -- John R. Levine, IECC, POB 727, Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 330 5711 johnl@iecc.com, Mayor, http://johnlevine.com, Member, Provisional board, Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri May 14 00:12:53 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 AAA08729 for ; Fri, 14 May 2004 00:12:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BOU2N-00061l-1X for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 14 May 2004 00:11:07 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4E4B7fa023165 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 14 May 2004 00:11:07 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BOTwi-0004pI-Ae for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 14 May 2004 00:05:16 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA08494 for ; Fri, 14 May 2004 00:05:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BOTwf-0006el-Vq for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 14 May 2004 00:05:14 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BOTvh-00064i-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 14 May 2004 00:04:14 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BOTuC-0005Tg-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 14 May 2004 00:02:40 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BOTre-0003du-At; Fri, 14 May 2004 00:00:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BOTlT-0002FE-Cr for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 13 May 2004 23:53:39 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA08031 for ; Thu, 13 May 2004 23:53:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BOTlR-0001hm-5A for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 13 May 2004 23:53:37 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BOTkO-0001A8-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 13 May 2004 23:52:33 -0400 Received: from sparkle.rodents.montreal.qc.ca ([216.46.5.7] ident=TIHHHI1gd1hfZGsWHsOxYRZE3KbPGb7kPLGT65r5HUD) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BOTjC-00007z-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 13 May 2004 23:51:18 -0400 Received: (from mouse@localhost) by Sparkle.Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA (8.8.8/8.8.8) id XAA04347; Thu, 13 May 2004 23:51:17 -0400 (EDT) From: der Mouse Message-Id: <200405140351.XAA04347@Sparkle.Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Erik-Conspiracy: There is no Conspiracy - and if there were I wouldn't be part of it anyway. To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: Stinging Criticism In-Reply-To: References: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 23:47:38 -0400 (EDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > [...] real protection against zombie is not that simple, ISPs would > need to have additional equipment that will redirect all traffic from > port 25 to their own relay servers No, it would be enough to block port 25 connections except to their user-submission hosts. (Many providers do this already.) They may _prefer_ to redirect attempts to connect elsewhere, but that's a different issue. Most of the rest of what you say I agree with, including the basic point that > ISP steps to deal with zombies is not a simple process and can be > quite expensive for ISPs. /~\ The ASCII der Mouse \ / Ribbon Campaign X Against HTML mouse@rodents.montreal.qc.ca / \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri May 14 01:32:51 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (www.iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA13305 for ; Fri, 14 May 2004 01:32:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BOVI6-0000r9-0z for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 14 May 2004 01:31:26 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4E5VQGf003287 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 14 May 2004 01:31:26 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BOVHF-0000dL-J9 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 14 May 2004 01:30:33 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA12694 for ; Fri, 14 May 2004 01:30:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BOVHC-0005Wx-9V for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 14 May 2004 01:30:30 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BOVDd-0004SA-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 14 May 2004 01:26:50 -0400 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BOVCN-0003gH-01 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 14 May 2004 01:25:31 -0400 Received: from optimus22.ietf.org ([132.151.6.22] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by mx2.foretec.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1BOVA3-0000Vu-Vs for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 14 May 2004 01:23:08 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BOV74-0006P7-Ie; Fri, 14 May 2004 01:20:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BOV2p-0005rD-IV for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 14 May 2004 01:15:39 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA12504 for ; Fri, 14 May 2004 01:15:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BOV2m-0006bs-Ju for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 14 May 2004 01:15:36 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BOV1r-00066b-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 14 May 2004 01:14:40 -0400 Received: from mail.295.ca ([67.43.129.226]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BOV1H-0005aq-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 14 May 2004 01:14:03 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.295.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78025198087 for ; Fri, 14 May 2004 01:13:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail.295.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 27076-01-2 for ; Fri, 14 May 2004 01:13:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from waltdnes.org (unknown [67.43.129.161]) by mail.295.ca (Postfix) with SMTP id 9C932198092 for ; Fri, 14 May 2004 01:13:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: by waltdnes.org (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Fri, 14 May 2004 01:12:52 -0400 From: "Walter Dnes" To: ASRG list Message-ID: <20040514051252.GA3400@m450> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p7 (Debian) at 295.ca Subject: [Asrg] 7. BCP. Proposal... dynamic-address-specific rDNS Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 01:12:52 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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 My ISP allows customers to configure their own smtp-stage filters. At first, I figured that DNSbls were the FUSSP. However, there was a lot of spam leakage through my filters. DNSbls are part of the solution, but not the entire solution. Additional options have appeared in the filter rules. The two most effective ones are blocking of email from sites with... - no/none/zip/zilch/nada rDNS (host/nslookup returns NXDOMAIN) - regexp filtering for dynamic-IP-like rDNS, ie... [0-9]+-[0-9]+-[0-9]+ \.dial dhcp As a single user, my sample size is quite small. Up to May 12th, my rules had blocked a grand total of 263 email attempts so far this month. Lack of hostname accounted for 113, and dynamic-IP-like rDNS stopped 64. That's just over 2/3rd of all blocking. Residential dynamic IP addresses are growing at an explosive rate. DNSbls have a hard time keeping up with them. Spam zombies are cranking out direct-to-MX email in record numbers. This is currently a very large part of the unwanted promotional/soliciting email problem, aka spam. Blocking this avenue for spammers isn't the FUSSP, but it will make a major dent in the current problem. Therefore, I propose that ISPs assign all dynamic IP addresses an rDNS that includes a recognizable identifying substring such as "dynamic". There may be adverse side-effects I'm not aware of with total lack of rDNS. If not, null rDNS would be just as good. Advantages... - no structural changes required to DNS or SMTP, just doing things slightly differently. That's why I'm presenting the idea as a BCP proposal rather than in another area. - because this proposal merely calls for changes in the practices with the current DNS system, there is no need for a new registration or certification beauracracy - no load on outbound routers/gateways, unlike outbound port-25 blocking - it would also work against assymetric routing attacks which outbound port-25 blocking is useless against. To achieve the same protection an ISP would have to block port 25 *IN AND OUTBOUND* to/from residential dynamic IP addresses. The technical requirements, and costs of two-way blocking can be significant - the receiving ISP can decide whether or not to block inbound email from such addresses - unlike RMX/SPF, this can be implemented by one ISP and its outbound email would be checkable immediately. There are already a lot of email servers that can check rDNS addresses of incoming email. AOL already does this by labeling their dynamic IP addresses with an rDNS that includes the string "ipt.aol.com". - valid email "From:" personal domains will not be blocked when sent via the ISP's MTA, which might be an issue under some implementations of RMX/SPF - unlike ordinary DNSbls, DOS-attacks can't shut down this system, short of taking down DNS entirely. In that case, email is shut down too, because sending systems can't resolve MX IP addresses. - ordinary DNSbls of dynamic IP addresses have problems keeping up with the growth of new blocks of IP addresses. My proposal would simply "just work". Comments, etc ? -- 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 May 14 11:45:29 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 LAA28549 for ; Fri, 14 May 2004 11:45:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BOeps-0002uw-Ct for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 14 May 2004 11:42:56 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4EFgug7011213 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 14 May 2004 11:42:56 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BOep6-0002k1-VY for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 14 May 2004 11:42:09 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA28323 for ; Fri, 14 May 2004 11:42:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BOep5-00020l-UG for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 14 May 2004 11:42:08 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BOeoB-0001Vx-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 14 May 2004 11:41:11 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BOenB-00011D-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 14 May 2004 11:40:09 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BOegJ-0000dy-II; Fri, 14 May 2004 11:33:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BOedR-0000Iv-0B for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 14 May 2004 11:30:05 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA27801 for ; Fri, 14 May 2004 11:30:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BOedP-0003n1-UZ for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 14 May 2004 11:30:04 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BOecP-0003HQ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 14 May 2004 11:29:02 -0400 Received: from mout.perfora.net ([217.160.230.40]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BOebI-0002TC-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 14 May 2004 11:27:53 -0400 Received: from 000-144-031.area3.spcsdns.net[68.246.48.112] (helo=solidmatrix.com) by mrelay.perfora.net with ESMTP (Nemesis), id 1BOebF-2lxM-0MKz5u-0000eN; Fri, 14 May 2004 11:27:49 -0400 Message-ID: <40A4E572.2050308@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] 7. BCP. Proposal... dynamic-address-specific rDNS References: <20040514051252.GA3400@m450> In-Reply-To: <20040514051252.GA3400@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: Fri, 14 May 2004 11:27:46 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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 Walter Dnes wrote: > Therefore, I propose that ISPs assign all dynamic IP addresses an rDNS > that includes a recognizable identifying substring such as "dynamic". > There may be adverse side-effects I'm not aware of with total lack of > rDNS. If not, null rDNS would be just as good. Take a look at the following: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-lorenzen-marid-mxout-00.txt Keep in mind the following: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-stumpf-dns-mtamark-01.txt There is also a proposal floated by Phil Hallam Baker expanding on MTA MARK. Yakov -- Yakov Shafranovich / asrg shaftek.org SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / research solidmatrix.com "And this too shall come to pass" _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri May 14 18:19:53 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA03209 for ; Fri, 14 May 2004 18:19:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BOkvh-0001sD-Ds for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 14 May 2004 18:13:21 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4EMDLYG007200 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 14 May 2004 18:13:21 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BOkt1-0000J1-18 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 14 May 2004 18:10:35 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA02208 for ; Fri, 14 May 2004 18:10:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BOksy-0001Vh-9p for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 14 May 2004 18:10:32 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BOksA-00011F-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 14 May 2004 18:09:43 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BOkrP-0000VH-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 14 May 2004 18:08:55 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BOkjn-00039m-2u; Fri, 14 May 2004 18:01:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BOkhY-000266-3S for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 14 May 2004 17:58:44 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA01013 for ; Fri, 14 May 2004 17:58:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BOkhV-0003F0-Cf for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 14 May 2004 17:58:41 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BOkgZ-0002k8-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 14 May 2004 17:57:44 -0400 Received: from mercury.mv.net ([199.125.85.40]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BOkfw-0002Eu-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 14 May 2004 17:57:04 -0400 Received: (qmail 3444 invoked from network); 14 May 2004 17:55:51 -0400 Received: from iridium.mv.net (HELO mv.mv.com) (199.125.85.17) by mercury.mv.net with SMTP; 14 May 2004 17:57:03 -0400 X-Peer-Info: remote-ip 199.125.85.17 local-ip 199.125.85.40 local-name mercury.mv.net Received: (qmail 7375 invoked by uid 101); 14 May 2004 17:55:51 -0400 From: "Mark E. Mallett" To: Yakov Shafranovich Cc: Walter Dnes , ASRG list Subject: Re: [Asrg] 7. BCP. Proposal... dynamic-address-specific rDNS Message-ID: <20040514215551.GE15830@iridium.mv.net> References: <20040514051252.GA3400@m450> <40A4E572.2050308@solidmatrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <40A4E572.2050308@solidmatrix.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 17:55:51 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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, May 14, 2004 at 11:27:46AM -0400, Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > Walter Dnes wrote: > > Therefore, I propose that ISPs assign all dynamic IP addresses an rDNS > >that includes a recognizable identifying substring such as "dynamic". > >There may be adverse side-effects I'm not aware of with total lack of > >rDNS. If not, null rDNS would be just as good. > > Take a look at the following: > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-lorenzen-marid-mxout-00.txt > > Keep in mind the following: > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-stumpf-dns-mtamark-01.txt > > There is also a proposal floated by Phil Hallam Baker expanding on MTA MARK. Those are in the same universe as a naming standard for dynamically assigned IP addresses, but not the same thing. I think a dynamic-IP RDNS naming standard would be a positive thing. It wouldn't necessarily cure anything, but a reasonable BCP recommendation for this would encourage providers to adhere to a well-known naming system for this one specific thing rather than everyone coming up with something different; and this practice would help others (such as filter users). I think the string needs to be a little more formally specified than just including the substring "dynamic" though-- that's too much of a common word. If it specifically matched the IP number in some way, the name could be tested against the IP number to give an assurance that one has found a self-declared dynamic IP address. e.g., something like: for any IPv4 IP address canonically represented by a.b.c.d, the leftmost part of the RDNS name shall match the string "a-b-c-d-dynamic." mm _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri May 14 19:36:20 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 TAA06380 for ; Fri, 14 May 2004 19:36:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BOmCM-0004UT-4v for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 14 May 2004 19:34:38 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4ENYc4n017261 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 14 May 2004 19:34:38 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BOm6m-000391-73 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 14 May 2004 19:28:52 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA06076 for ; Fri, 14 May 2004 19:28:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BOm6k-0000on-H9 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 14 May 2004 19:28:50 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BOm5n-0000HC-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 14 May 2004 19:27:52 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BOm4U-0007VI-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 14 May 2004 19:26:30 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BOlsO-0007pG-Lq; Fri, 14 May 2004 19:14:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BOlpQ-0007EG-8K for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 14 May 2004 19:10:58 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA05283 for ; Fri, 14 May 2004 19:10:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BOlpM-0007PJ-Jj for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 14 May 2004 19:10:52 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BOlma-0006RP-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 14 May 2004 19:08:02 -0400 Received: from sokol.elan.net ([216.151.192.200]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BOllg-0005vM-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 14 May 2004 19:07:04 -0400 Received: from sokol.elan.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.11/8.12.5) with ESMTP id i4F0OB3s001256; Fri, 14 May 2004 17:24:11 -0700 Received: from localhost (william@localhost) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.11/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id i4F0OAdQ001253; Fri, 14 May 2004 17:24:10 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: sokol.elan.net: william owned process doing -bs From: "william(at)elan.net" To: "Mark E. Mallett" cc: Yakov Shafranovich , Walter Dnes , ASRG list Subject: Re: [Asrg] 7. BCP. Proposal... dynamic-address-specific rDNS In-Reply-To: <20040514215551.GE15830@iridium.mv.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 17:24:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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 > Those are in the same universe as a naming standard for dynamically > assigned IP addresses, but not the same thing. I think a dynamic-IP > RDNS naming standard would be a positive thing. It wouldn't > necessarily cure anything, but a reasonable BCP recommendation for > this would encourage providers to adhere to a well-known naming system > for this one specific thing rather than everyone coming up with > something different; and this practice would help others (such > as filter users). > > I think the string needs to be a little more formally specified than > just including the substring "dynamic" though-- that's too much of a > common word. If it specifically matched the IP number in some way, > the name could be tested against the IP number to give an assurance > that one has found a self-declared dynamic IP address. e.g., something > like: for any IPv4 IP address canonically represented by a.b.c.d, the > leftmost part of the RDNS name shall match the string "a-b-c-d-dynamic." Actually I've been thinking about this for a while as well as testing various forms and records in rdns. Take a look the following idea given in example manner: ------------------------------------ $ nslookup -query=ANY -silent 216.151.192.3 3.192.151.216.in-addr.arpa name = rdns1.elan.net. 3.192.151.216.in-addr.arpa name = _smtp._tcp._sir.maintest.192.151.216.in-addr.arpa. $ nslookup -query=ANY -silent _smtp._tcp._sir.maintest.192.151.216.in-addr.arpa. Name: _smtp._sir.maintest.192.151.216.in-addr.arpa Address: 127.0.0.2 _smtp._tcp._sir.maintest.192.151.216.in-addr.arpa text = "v=spf1 -all" ------------------------------------ In this case the idea is to specify additional dns pointer record (but not primary one - there are very good reasons why ISP may want to use its own specific naming convention for its reverse ips, its bad idea to specially say you must name it that way) in a special way. I preliminary called it "service information record pointer" which provides pointer on where additional information maybe obtained regarding outgoing service connections that may (or may not) be expected from that ip. That service maybe provided by SRV or similar future protocol or maybe through some form of dns authorization protocol (SPF is used in my example). Additionally specific meaning is given to "A" record for such PTR record which may be 127.0.0.1 meaning such connections are to be expected from that ip (which is default) or 127.0.0.2 which indicates that ip would not make outgoing connections like that and if you see it, you can safely deny it (i.e. expect that either ip is not authorized to do what it does or that the actual ip packet is forged, though this might have more meaning for udp services). Now the good thing about this is that doing it as above requires 0 changes to network infrastracture and pretty easy to implement at the SMTP server level to check for such records and connections can be rejected before SMTP session even starts, it does however require additional dns lookup (i.e. when you see a pointer with _sir, it thereafter must be resolved). Another option I played around with is here: -------------- $ nslookup -query=ANY -silent 2.192.151.216.in-addr.arpa. 2.192.151.216.in-addr.arpa name = unix.elan.net. 2.192.151.216.in-addr.arpa text = "v=spf1 ptr -all" Name: 2.192.151.216.in-addr.arpa Address: 127.0.0.5 -------------- In this case TXT and A records are entered directly in addition to PTR to specific IN-ADDR record. The good thing about this is that it requires no additional dns lookups since doing query on "ANY" record will provide all of it and many mail servers already do lookup on PTR record of incoming ip address. However at the same time it can be noted that ANY lookup for in-addr is unusual and most dns resolver libraries would interpret lookup on ip address (i.e. 216.151.192.2 in this example) as lookup of PTR on in-addr of that ip address: -------------- $ nslookup -query=ANY -silent 216.151.192.2 Server: 216.151.192.1 Address: 216.151.192.1#53 2.192.151.216.in-addr.arpa name = unix.elan.net. -------------- Such interpretation means additional records (TXT and A) would not be checked and mail servers must be modified to do its own conversion of ip address into inaddr form for lookup. It also means quite a number of basicly the same kind of records may have to be entered as you can't provide cname redirection, which btw also breaks RFC2317 (not that I support this badly thought of RFC). But at the same time, the PRO to this direct approach is that there no necessity to do extra dns lookup (but as people from SPF community will tell you, dns lookups are "cheap", spf seems to be designed to cause dozen of extra lookups in some cases) Anyway I'm the point that I actually started working on draft on the first PTR procedure (very slow so far, this has been low priority among many research and public projects I get involved in). I guess I'm asking to know if you think this is actually worth doing because there seems to be so little support for MTA-MARK like proposals from anti-spam and marid community which contines to be focused on rmx and dmp methods. -- William Leibzon Elan Networks william@elan.net _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri May 14 21:37:01 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (www.iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA10354 for ; Fri, 14 May 2004 21:37:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BOo4H-0003F6-TB for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 14 May 2004 21:34:25 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4F1YPXs012447 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 14 May 2004 21:34:25 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BOnxn-0001cz-AH for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 14 May 2004 21:27:43 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA09726 for ; Fri, 14 May 2004 21:27:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BOnxk-0003w8-LL for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 14 May 2004 21:27:40 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BOnwp-0003Q1-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 14 May 2004 21:26:44 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BOnw8-0002w8-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 14 May 2004 21:26:00 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BOnjt-0007dR-Oa; Fri, 14 May 2004 21:13:21 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BOmfD-00029F-SI for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 14 May 2004 20:04:27 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA07251 for ; Fri, 14 May 2004 20:04:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BOmfB-0002py-TQ for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 14 May 2004 20:04:26 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BOmeC-0002Li-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 14 May 2004 20:03:24 -0400 Received: from mail1.panix.com ([166.84.1.72]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BOmdE-0001kI-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 14 May 2004 20:02:24 -0400 Received: from panix5.panix.com (panix5.panix.com [166.84.1.5]) by mail1.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E348D49201 for ; Fri, 14 May 2004 20:02:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from sethb@localhost) by panix5.panix.com (8.11.6p2-a/8.8.8/PanixN1.1) id i4F02Hv08168; Fri, 14 May 2004 20:02:17 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200405150002.i4F02Hv08168@panix5.panix.com> From: Seth Breidbart To: asrg@ietf.org In-reply-to: <20040514215551.GE15830@iridium.mv.net> (mem@mv.mv.com) Subject: Re: [Asrg] 7. BCP. Proposal... dynamic-address-specific rDNS References: <20040514051252.GA3400@m450> <40A4E572.2050308@solidmatrix.com> <20040514215551.GE15830@iridium.mv.net> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 20:02:17 -0400 (EDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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 problem with specifying dynamic is that it isn't what we care about. Really, I don't care if an IP address is dynamic, however that's defined. (Changes daily? weekly? There are DHCP-assigned addresses that change less often than some supposedly "fixed" IP addresses.) What I care about is whether or not the IP address owner thinks that email should ever emanate from that IP address. For instance, I'd want "This is a webserver that's not supposed to emit email directly" on the list, while "This is a business-class service customer who is welcome to emit email directly" not to be on the list. The general case, of course, is to list precisely which protocols the IP address ought (not) to be initiating in general; one possible reason for handling this via something suggestive (rather than just blocking the port) is to allow sufficiently-clued servers to accept connections (with authentication, perhaps) even though the general case is otherwise. Besides, when I'm feeling sufficiently paranoid, I'll do things like run sshd on Port 25 with a banner that looks like a mailserver, just in case somebody finds an exploit against the version of sshd I'm running, how likely are they to try it against every mailserver they see? Seth _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat May 15 13:54:06 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (www.iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA01822 for ; Sat, 15 May 2004 13:54:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BP3LE-0005rL-Ri for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 15 May 2004 13:52:57 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4FHquL4022524 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 15 May 2004 13:52:56 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BP3Hg-0005Rw-Ug for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 15 May 2004 13:49:16 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA01714 for ; Sat, 15 May 2004 13:49:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BP3He-0004M8-S2 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 15 May 2004 13:49:14 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BP3GZ-0003xS-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 15 May 2004 13:48:07 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BP3FY-0003TR-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 15 May 2004 13:47:04 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BP32v-0003af-1H; Sat, 15 May 2004 13:34:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BP31K-0003RK-L4 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 15 May 2004 13:32:22 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA01267 for ; Sat, 15 May 2004 13:32:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BP31I-0005N6-I1 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 15 May 2004 13:32:20 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BP30O-0004xs-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 15 May 2004 13:31:25 -0400 Received: from teal.hjp.at ([62.99.236.98]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BP2zP-00048f-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 15 May 2004 13:30:23 -0400 Received: (qmail 28969 invoked by uid 500); 15 May 2004 17:29:51 -0000 From: "Peter J. Holzer" To: ASRG list Subject: Re: [Asrg] 7. BCP. Proposal... dynamic-address-specific rDNS Message-ID: <20040515172951.GA26738@teal.hjp.at> Mail-Followup-To: ASRG list References: <20040514215551.GE15830@iridium.mv.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="9amGYk9869ThD9tj" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 15 May 2004 19:29:51 +0200 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 --9amGYk9869ThD9tj Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 2004-05-14 17:24:10 -0700, william(at)elan.net wrote: > Another option I played around with is here: > -------------- > $ nslookup -query=3DANY -silent 2.192.151.216.in-addr.arpa. >=20 > 2.192.151.216.in-addr.arpa name =3D unix.elan.net. > 2.192.151.216.in-addr.arpa text =3D "v=3Dspf1 ptr -all" >=20 > Name: 2.192.151.216.in-addr.arpa > Address: 127.0.0.5 > -------------- >=20 > In this case TXT and A records are entered directly in addition to PTR to= =20 > specific IN-ADDR record. The good thing about this is that it requires > no additional dns lookups since doing query on "ANY" record will provide > all of it and many mail servers already do lookup on PTR record of=20 > incoming ip address. Unfortunately, no. ANY just means "any", not "all". If a DNS cache (at least bind, but I suspect others work the same) receives a request of type ANY, it will return the records it has in its cache, if there are any, and only forward the query if there are no matching records. For example: $ dig -x 216.151.192.2 ;; QUESTION SECTION: ;2.192.151.216.in-addr.arpa. IN PTR ;; ANSWER SECTION: 2.192.151.216.in-addr.arpa. 86400 IN PTR unix.elan.net. $ dig 2.192.151.216.in-addr.arpa. any ;; QUESTION SECTION: ;2.192.151.216.in-addr.arpa. IN ANY ;; ANSWER SECTION: 2.192.151.216.in-addr.arpa. 86293 IN PTR unix.elan.net. As you can see, only the PTR record is returned. $ dig 2.192.151.216.in-addr.arpa. a =20 ;; QUESTION SECTION: ;2.192.151.216.in-addr.arpa. IN A ;; ANSWER SECTION: 2.192.151.216.in-addr.arpa. 86400 IN A 127.0.0.5 When we explicitely ask for the A record, we get it, and $ dig 2.192.151.216.in-addr.arpa. any ;; QUESTION SECTION: ;2.192.151.216.in-addr.arpa. IN ANY ;; ANSWER SECTION: 2.192.151.216.in-addr.arpa. 85960 IN A 127.0.0.5 2.192.151.216.in-addr.arpa. 85837 IN PTR unix.elan.net. Now we have get both the A and the PTR (but still no TXT) record. So to be safe you have to make absolutely sure that all clients of your caching dns server make only ANY requests (pretty much impossible in the general case) or explicitely query for any record type you need. hp --=20 _ | Peter J. Holzer | I think we need two definitions: |_|_) | Sysadmin WSR | 1) The problem the *users* want us to solve | | | hjp@hjp.at | 2) The problem our solution addresses. __/ | http://www.hjp.at/ | -- Phillip Hallam-Baker on spam --9amGYk9869ThD9tj Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFAplOPfZ+RkG8quy0RAk66AJ9mJTPInu2E5GLRi4XtZB/a0/uG0gCgnOBg y5HNgu84ENrpY09fCYj9qkE= =yA5S -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --9amGYk9869ThD9tj-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat May 15 16:20:36 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 QAA09159 for ; Sat, 15 May 2004 16:20:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BP5cj-0002ft-D4 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 15 May 2004 16:19:09 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4FKJ9Aq010279 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 15 May 2004 16:19:09 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BP5br-0002Y8-Ip for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 15 May 2004 16:18:15 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA09094 for ; Sat, 15 May 2004 16:18:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BP5bp-0002wF-SK for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 15 May 2004 16:18:13 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BP5au-0002Yb-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 15 May 2004 16:17:16 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BP5aC-0002At-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 15 May 2004 16:16:32 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BP5Us-0001hs-CN; Sat, 15 May 2004 16:11:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BP5Tf-0001Tw-Ok for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 15 May 2004 16:09:47 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA08946 for ; Sat, 15 May 2004 16:09:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BP5Te-0007Am-3X for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 15 May 2004 16:09:46 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BP5SU-0006jg-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 15 May 2004 16:08:34 -0400 Received: from joy.songbird.com ([208.184.79.7]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BP5Rw-0006Ic-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 15 May 2004 16:08:00 -0400 Received: from bbprime (jay.songbird.com [208.184.79.253]) by joy.songbird.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i4FK7UJ31825 for ; Sat, 15 May 2004 13:07:30 -0700 From: Dave Crocker Reply-To: Dave Crocker Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <949165049.20040515130725@brandenburg.com> To: asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <933985834.20040515013625@brandenburg.com> References: <933985834.20040515013625@brandenburg.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] Fwd: Internet Mail Architecture draft Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 15 May 2004 13:07:25 -0700 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,PRIORITY_NO_NAME autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit FYI. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking Sunnyvale, CA USA , ===== Forwarded Message ===== From: Dave Crocker To: ietf-smtp@imc.org cc: Date: Saturday, May 15, 2004, 1:36:25 AM Subject: Internet Mail Architecture draft Folks, I've just sent draft-crocker-mail-arch-00 to be issued as an internet-draft. In the interim, it is available at: and The document summarizes Internet Mail architectural components, their relationships, and the identities they use. The draft recommends that discussion about the draft take place on the SMTP mailing list. So I have only BCC'd the MARID and LEMONADE mailing lists, to let folks there know about the draft. But it really will be better to have discussion take place in only one venue. ===== End of Forwarded Message ===== _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat May 15 23:34:31 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (www.iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA26136 for ; Sat, 15 May 2004 23:34:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BPCPM-0007Sr-An for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 15 May 2004 23:33:48 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4G3XmtN028693 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 15 May 2004 23:33:48 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BPCJL-0006m7-7i for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 15 May 2004 23:27:35 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA25937 for ; Sat, 15 May 2004 23:27:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BPCJJ-0006E3-Aw for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 15 May 2004 23:27:33 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BPCIO-0005qR-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 15 May 2004 23:26:36 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BPCHT-0005Sv-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 15 May 2004 23:25:39 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BPC5F-0005IL-AY; Sat, 15 May 2004 23:13:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BP4i2-0002q3-VE for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 15 May 2004 15:20:34 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA07286 for ; Sat, 15 May 2004 15:20:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BP4i1-0002ir-Kb for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 15 May 2004 15:20:33 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BP4h0-0002In-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 15 May 2004 15:19:31 -0400 Received: from joy.songbird.com ([208.184.79.7]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BP4gK-0001qH-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 15 May 2004 15:18:48 -0400 Received: from bbprime (jay.songbird.com [208.184.79.253]) by joy.songbird.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i4FJIDJ25130 for ; Sat, 15 May 2004 12:18:13 -0700 From: Dave Crocker Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <12510240801.20040515121812@brandenburg.com> To: asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <933985834.20040515013625@brandenburg.com> References: <933985834.20040515013625@brandenburg.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] Fwd: Internet Mail Architecture draft Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 15 May 2004 12:18:12 -0700 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,PRIORITY_NO_NAME autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit FYI. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking Sunnyvale, CA USA , ===== Forwarded message ===== From: Dave Crocker To: ietf-smtp@imc.org Date: Saturday, May 15, 2004, 1:36:25 AM Subject: Internet Mail Architecture draft Folks, I've just sent draft-crocker-mail-arch-00 to be issued as an internet-draft. In the interim, it is available at: and The document summarizes Internet Mail architectural components, their relationships, and the identities they use. The draft recommends that discussion about the draft take place on the SMTP mailing list. So I have only BCC'd the MARID and LEMONADE mailing lists, to let folks there know about the draft. But it really will be better to have discussion take place in only one venue. d/ ----- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking Sunnyvale, CA USA ; ===== End of original message text ===== _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon May 17 00:15:21 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 AAA11981 for ; Mon, 17 May 2004 00:15:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BPZV1-0007iA-Ux for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 May 2004 00:13:12 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4H4DBGV029640 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 May 2004 00:13:11 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BPZS1-0006pV-3b for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 17 May 2004 00:10:05 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA11811 for ; Mon, 17 May 2004 00:10:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BPZRy-0004sC-Mq for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 17 May 2004 00:10:02 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BPZPh-0004M5-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 17 May 2004 00:07:46 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BPZOl-00043K-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 17 May 2004 00:06:43 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BPZGL-0005A7-Bw; Sun, 16 May 2004 23:58:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BPWgF-0001xC-18 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 16 May 2004 21:12:35 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA02088 for ; Sun, 16 May 2004 21:12:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BPWgC-0005zL-9z for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 16 May 2004 21:12:32 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BPWfL-0005hn-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 16 May 2004 21:11:43 -0400 Received: from joust.vosn.net ([209.151.81.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BPWeZ-0005Pw-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 16 May 2004 21:10:51 -0400 Received: from dsl-43.19.240.220.rns02-kent-syd.dsl.comindico.com.au ([220.240.19.43] helo=dle5) by joust.vosn.net with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1BPWeN-0004Xb-CR for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 16 May 2004 19:10:39 -0600 From: "Joshua Leisk" To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000D_01C43BFF.942E2D50" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2727.1300 Thread-Index: AcQ7q8DnLY6LUro5Sl+RGsTS9lFi3Q== Message-Id: X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - joust.vosn.net X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - intechcomm.net.au Subject: [Asrg] MTA Trust Management / Authentication, Zombie Prevention and Virus & SPAM Prevention Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 11:10:33 +1000 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,HTML_FONTCOLOR_UNKNOWN, HTML_MESSAGE,MISSING_OUTLOOK_NAME autolearn=no version=2.60 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_000D_01C43BFF.942E2D50 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, I posted this some time ago here: http://www.intechcomm.net.au as well as to this mailing list and didn't receive any comments other than from derMouse. Would you all read this and tell me why this wouldn't work. I have also posted a 'stepping-stone' method of implementing this system with an easy transition and method for creating a global whitelist at the above website under one of the comments to the original post. Cheers, Joshua Leisk iT&C I propose that we need to construct a global registry of certified closed-relay, 'spoof'-proof email servers, married to the verified details of the server's owner, who are possibly placed under a financial security bond, depending on the age of the domain name and previous history, to operate it SPAM-free and then prevent all 'registered' email servers from receiving email from any 'unregistered' email server (or be cleaned and filed separately - see "'Softer' Variation of the Concept"), or accepting email client submissions from clients not using an encrypted password authentication, eg. SPA. The exquisite beauty of this system is that the onus is no longer on the recipient to deal with the SPAM or viruses, but the sender to prove that it is NOT SPAM or a virus. If SPAM, email or viruses are sent from an unregistered email server, it is simply rejected - BEFORE the mail or virus has been transmitted, effectively eliminating the internet traffic caused by SPAM and viruses and freeing up bandwidth for legitimate traffic. As an email virus could never be a registered SMTP mail server, it will be unable to propagate through any participating mail server! The mail server owner(s) should also enter into a contract with its users, binding them to abide by the mail server authority's rules, or be financially liable and publicly known, should that mail server be used for SPAM and/or the mail server owner be 'fined' by the mail server authority for such misuse. This three-way contract allows financial accountability without a 'big-brother' database of every email user. Financial accountability is required to enforce compliance with anti-SPAM regulations. If the registration of a new mail server, for which the domain name is less than 12 months old and if the new mail server owner was not able to be 'sponsored' or vouched for by a number of 'trusted' registered mail servers, required the new owner to supply a security bond of (suggested) US$2500+, in advance, to be forfeited in the event that the mail server was used to SPAM, coupled with the mail server being potentially de-registered and barred from participating in the new 'secure' email system (should the owner of the mail server be unable to identify and hold liable the user responsible), mail server owners would take a much keener interest in preventing unauthorized use of their systems. Mail server owners who cannot afford the security bond or have other registered mail server owners to sponsor them can still forward all mail, using TLS/SASL, through their ISP's mail server. Considering the abilities of the current mail server software available, there is no technical excuse for any mail system to allow unauthorized email to be relayed. MTA tags, message tracking and secure password authentication with every sending email client provides end-user accountability and ultimately financial liability. Additionally, any user needing to send to more than (suggested) 50 recipients at one time, should be granted by the mail server's administrator on a 'per-user' basis and the 'privileged' user registered with the mail server authority, rather than permission needlessly granted to every user. Administrator notifications and temporary account lock-outs, if a 'standard' user send to more than 300 recipients in 24 hours, would prevent stolen account passwords from being widely exploited. I would also suggest that any email user that is granted elevated sending privileges should not have the sending username stamped on the mail by the mail server, as they will certainly be subjected to 'identify theft' attacks. Message ID tagging will still provide user accountability to the mail server operator in the event of an infringement. I would also suggest 'privileged' users should be contractually obligated NOT to store their password in their email client software, which would prevent email client software with poor security from being exploited by hackers, trojans, spyware or viruses - especially considering the recent source-code leaks for Microsoft products. The same policy should probably apply to ordinary users, but I can see this causing some difficulties. A security bond also eliminates the occurrence of 'phoenix' SPAM servers, as the cost of forfeiting the bond should significantly exceed the potential profits gained from a couple of day's sales generated by SPAM, at 300 emails per day. A yearly registration fee for each email server would also be necessary to fund the infrastructure costs incurred by the mail server registrar. Many automated open-relay testing facilities already exist on the Web and prior to a mail server being registered, it will be required to pass stringent tests, certifying it unable to act as an open relay. The next problem to eliminate is 'spoofing' - an illegitimate mail server may attempt to pose as a registered mail server to facilitate transmission of unsolicited email. Clearly this poses a considerable threat to any secure email system. Methods like 'SPF" and RMX are a great idea, but do not PROVE that the mail server is the registered mail server, only that it is a mail server that is communicating on port 25 of the public IP address for which the mail server operates. This leaves a private network utilising network address translation (NAT) wide open for Trojans, SPAMbots and viruses that could easily lookup the external IP address, perform a reverse lookup and masquerade the original mail server. This is not good. I further propose that during a 'secure' SMTP mail server transaction, before verifying that the sending email server ('Server 1') is registered with the Mail Server Registrar, a connection is made by the receiving mail server ('Server 2') to the sender's fully-qualified domain-name, as listed in the DNS ('Server X'). This is the same host-name that was presented by 'Server 1' when connecting to 'Server 2'. A query is then sent to 'Server X' to verify that it is indeed the same host as 'Server 1'. This would be performed by challenging 'Server X' with a 128 character 'Session ID', randomly generated when the original connection was made between 'Server 1' & 'Server 2'. 'Server X' would then return only a logical 'YES' or 'NO' as to whether as the queried 'Session ID' exists from 'Server 2'. If the session ID does not exist, the connection between 'Server 1' and 'Server 2' is simply dropped and the IP address of 'Server 1' is blocked for a limited period of time. Only after satisfying itself that 'Server 1' is not spoofed and also registered with the Mail Server Registrar will 'Server 2' allow any mail to be received from 'Server 1', thus eliminating all email from all untrustworthy sources, including email virus engines. After terminating the original connection, the Session ID information is deleted. There are those who would argue that the traffic and CPU cost of effectively three remote database queries for each remote SMTP server connection (DNS, Session ID, Mail Server Registrar) are too high for the average mail server and data-pipe bandwidth. Considering the resources currently being used to receive and process SPAM and viruses, overall traffic and CPU costs would actually decrease - as the server load will be significantly reduced by not having to receive and process the unsolicited traffic, or filter the SPAM and/or viruses. To prevent mail server performance from being adversely affected and to prevent network outages from stopping all mail from being received, the Mail Server Registrar will need to securely replicate the database of certified mail servers onto 'slave' databases located at the trunks of major data networks in each country, much the same as the DNS system. Description of processes used in this system: Mail Server Registration - 1) The mail server is registered in the DNS as per usual. 2) The mail server owner submits their application for registration with the Mail Server Registrar ("MSR"), or possibly an accredited agent for the MSR (who will then forward the details to the MSR), including host name, registered owner's details, admin contact details and typical proof of ID. For an individual, this would typically include: Fully Qualified Host Name, Owner's Name, Address, Phone Number, Fax, Date of Birth, Drivers' License Number (Photocopy), Social Security Number (if US Citizen), Photocopy of Birth Certificate and / or Photocopy of Credit Card, Address where mail server will be located. Email Address. For a business, this would typically include: Fully Qualified Host Name, Company Name, All Details of Company Directors (as per 'individual' details), Principal Place of Business Address, A.C.N / A.B.N. / Registered Business Number (+Photocopy / Scan of Certificate of Incorporation), Phone Number, Fax, Address where mail server will be located. Contact Email Address. The admin contact details to be required are: Name, Phone Number, Email Address, Fax, Proof of ID. 3) The details are recorded in a private database and checked against a database of known SPAMmers (recorded during SPAM reporting) and registration will be denied or the security bond heavily increased if a match is found. 4) The hostname on the application is subjected to an automated security test, from multiple IP addresses, which it must pass. 5) A contract is made between the MSR and the mail server owner. The security bond, if applicable, is collected and the applicant hostname is added to the database, with sending privileges granted. User Registration for a Mail Server - User accountability needs to be maintained to protect mail servers from habitual offenders and provide the ability to recover damages from an offending user, but is beyond the legal scope of the MSR's contract with the mail server owner. This is why the MSR holds the mail server liable. The mail server owner(s) should enter into a contract or agreement with the user, binding them to financial accountability and liability if they abuse the terms of service, including spamming. This also circumvents the need for any anti-SPAM laws in any particular country. 1) The user supplies all relevant identification. 2) The registered mail server owner(s) query the MSR to check if the person is a known offender. 3) The mail server owner(s) then choose to grant conditional use of their systems based on prior history. Mail Exchanging - (A more 'friendly' variation of this method is also found in "'Softer' Variation of the Concept".) 1) The sending user ("sender") authenticates with mail server, using secure password authentication ("SPA"), or whatever form of encryption eventually supersedes it. 2) The sender delivers messages to mail server, using the mail server owner's policies, including whether the sending username is stamped on the message header, maximum amount of recipients per message, maximum amount of messages per day. 3) The sending mail server ("Server 1") queries the DNS and finds the mail exchanging host for the recipient's domain name ("Server 2"). 4) Server 1 establishes an encrypted TCP connection with Server 2 and supplies a randomly generated 128 character 'Session ID'. 5) Server 2 queries the DNS with Server 1's apparent hostname and resolves an IP address ("Server X"). 6) Server 2 establishes an encrypted TCP connection with Server X and queries the server with the Session ID obtained from Server 1. 7) Server X looks up a temporary database of current connections and their respective Session IDs and determines if a connection exists with Server 2 that has an identical Session ID. If the result is positive, then Server X returns a logical TRUE to Server 2, the querying connection is then dropped between Server X and Server 2 and the querying ability temporarily suspended for a period of (suggested) 3 minutes for Server 2's IP address to prevent brute force attacks on Session IDs. 8) Server 2 then queries the MSR database to see if the hostname exists AND has sending privileges granted and if both return positive then the MSR database returns a logical TRUE and Server 2 allows mail to flow from Server 1. If the result of the first query with Server X is negative, then Server X returns a logical FALSE to Server 2, the connection is then dropped between Server X and Server 2 and the querying ability temporarily suspended for a period of (suggested) 3 minutes for Server 2's IP address, again to prevent brute force attacks on Session IDs, following which, the connection is then also dropped between Server 1 and Server 2. If the result of the second query (to the MSR database) returns FALSE, the connection between Server 1 and Server 2 is dropped. In either case, Server 2 will then prevent connections being made from Server 1's IP address for a limited amount of time (suggested 24 hours). Spam Reporting - If an infringement occurs, liability must be established and action taken: 1) User receives unsolicited email that does not comply with MSR policies. 2) User forwards the email 'source-code' to a designated email address at the MSR. 3) The MSR examines the message header and identifies the hostname of the sending mail server, the MTA message tracking ID, possibly the sending username (if name-stamping is enabled), time and date stamping, as well as confirming if the email does not comply with MSR policies. Further examples from the same sender will also be searched for. 4) Automated security testing is performed on the mail server identified. 5) If the message IS SPAM, or if the mail server does not pass the security test, action needs to be taken. The offending mail server could have its sending privileges suspended and the security deposit forfeited. The offending email is forwarded to the mail server owner and administrator, along with notification of any suspension and bond forfeit, also notification if the mail server failed the security test. The suspension will remain in place until a new bond has been paid and the offending user details have been supplied to the MSR, which are then placed in a database of offenders, made available (by query) to registered mail server owners and operators. If the mail server owner (or admin) is unable to supply details of the offender OR if the mail server has repeated offences, the security deposit could be greatly increased or the mail server deregistered. If no user can be identified, the mail server owner must assume responsibility and financial liability. 6) If applicable, the mail server recovers damages from the offending user. Automated Testing - In addition to the current mail server security tests freely available on the Web, I would conduct the security tests from a private list of dynamic IP addresses, in different network ranges, to prevent a malicious or ignorant mail server admin from merely blocking traffic from a known security testing IP address. I also have designed a system to help prove whether email lists have been 'harvested'. Every registered mail server should be obligated to provide free mailboxes for use by the Mail Server Registrar. These mailboxes would only be used as 'collection points' for unsolicited mail and not for any other purpose. The email addresses would then be used on websites, forums, newsgroups and bulletin boards and any SPAM received by these 'collection points' can be automatically considered as illegally harvested and dealt with even more rapidly. Implementation - The plug-ins or upgrades to the existing SMTP engines should allow for backwards compatibility during the cut-over period. I would suggest launching the public awareness campaign and product, allowing for a 12 month cut-over period, after which, the SMTP server's traditional receiving service will no longer operate (or be altered and cleaned, see 'Softer' Variation of the Concept.) During the cut-over period, any mail that is sent to and from any unregistered mail servers should have automatic replies to the sender and an information block added to the body of the original message, both of which inform the sender and recipient that due to mail server being unregistered, they will no longer be able to communicate with this party after 'S-DAY' (or be altered, see 'Softer' Variation of the Concept) and point them towards a website with a list of registered mail servers and ISPs, with their contact details, sorted by geographical location, so that they may choose an alternate provider. 'Softer' Variation of the Concept - A slight variation of the concept that still allows mail to be received from unregistered mail servers, yet duly processed and separated from 'safe' email, could also be effective. This is not my preferred method of operation, but it may be more widely accepted. This method could also be useful during the transition period to 'safe' email. Mail servers using this method will seamlessly communicate with mail servers utilizing my original 'hardline' concept, but it gives the mail server owner and the users a choice (and a safe way) of receiving 'unsafe' email. Obviously this method will not eliminate all the traffic generated by SPAM and email viruses, which is why this is not my preferred method, but it does allow for easier marketing and could easily be 'turned off' in the future, once market saturation has been reached. If every mail server had 2 mailboxes for each user - one 'safe' mailbox and one 'unsafe' mailbox, unregistered mail could still be received, processed and stored in the unsafe mailbox. Alternatively, the subject line in the message header could be stamped so that the mail client can further process the message. I would suggest that all users of the mail server must be given the option of whether to have an 'unsafe' mailbox at all and also whether or not to have the mail server strip all attachments and possibly HTML tags received by the 'unsafe' mailbox - I would suggest this is should be the default option, if the choice is given to the mail server users at all, otherwise users will still be exposed to viral infections. If a receiving mail server was unable to verify the authenticity or registration of a sending mail server, all mail received from the sending mail server would be classed as 'unsafe' and routed through to the '.unsafe' mailbox. If the recipient on the receiving mail server has elected not to have an 'unsafe' mailbox, the message would be rejected and a Non Delivery Report (NDR) generated to the sending user. Summary ~ As you have now seen, using my system, it is very easy to eliminate email viruses and the vast majority of all SPAM. For the few isolated cases that will remain, it will be extremely easy to identify, track and police. Email users can still enjoy the freedom of submitting mail from an external network. This is extremely important for mobile users and wireless technology. My system would easily be implemented as a plug-in, or upgrade to the existing SMTP standard, allowing backwards compatibility, during the cut-over period. There are no problems caused to existing mail-routing, delivery priorities or relative user anonymity, if so required. SMTP servers can also still fully function using a dynamic IP address and dynamic DNS, if they need to, unlike other recently proposed anti-spoofing techniques. Also, a registered mail server will always be able to send to an unregistered mail server. Accountability is still maintained, regardless of the relative anonymity. Due to message tracking IDs (serial numbers) stamped on emails by the sending mail server, the mail server owner can easily identify the user responsible and the sending mail server's identity is already stamped on the message headers and using my system, cannot be spoofed. Law and order can be easily restored to the global email system, without impacting on freedom, liberties, finances or functionality. The responsibilities of the Mail Server Registrar should fall to the UN/ ITU, as this is a global policy change. ------=_NextPart_000_000D_01C43BFF.942E2D50 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi,

 

I posted this some time ago here: http://www.intechcomm.net.au = as well as to this mailing list and didn’t receive any comments other than = from derMouse. Would you all read this and tell me why = this wouldn’t work. I have also posted a ‘stepping-stone’ = method of implementing this system with an easy transition and method for = creating a global whitelist at the above website under = one of the comments to the original post.

 

Cheers,

 

Joshua Leisk

iT&= C

 

<SNIP>

 

I propose that = we need to construct a global registry of certified closed-relay, = ‘spoof’-proof email servers, married to the verified details of the server’s = owner, who are possibly placed under a financial security bond, depending on the = age of the domain name and previous history, to operate it SPAM-free and then = prevent all ‘registered’ email servers from receiving email from any ‘unregistered’ email server (or be cleaned and filed = separately - see “‘Softer’ Variation of the Concept”), or = accepting email client submissions from clients not using an encrypted password authentication, eg. SPA.

The exquisite beauty of this system is that the onus is no longer on the recipient to deal with the SPAM or viruses, but the sender to prove that = it is NOT SPAM or a virus. If SPAM, email or viruses are sent from an = unregistered email server, it is simply rejected - BEFORE the mail or virus has been transmitted, effectively eliminating the internet traffic caused by SPAM = and viruses and freeing up bandwidth for legitimate traffic. As an email = virus could never be a registered SMTP mail server, it will be unable to = propagate through any participating mail server!

The mail server owner(s) should also enter into a contract with its = users, binding them to abide by the mail server authority’s rules, or be financially liable and publicly known, should that mail server be used = for SPAM and/or the mail server owner be ‘fined’ by the mail server authority for such misuse. This three-way contract allows financial accountability without a ‘big-brother’ database of every = email user.

Financial accountability is required to enforce compliance with = anti-SPAM regulations. If the registration of a new mail server, for which the = domain name is less than 12 months old and if the new mail server owner was not = able to be 'sponsored' or vouched for by a number of 'trusted' registered = mail servers, required the new owner to supply a security bond of (suggested) US$2500+, in advance, to be forfeited in the event that the mail server = was used to SPAM, coupled with the mail server being potentially = de-registered and barred from participating in the new ‘secure’ email system = (should the owner of the mail server be unable to identify and hold liable the = user responsible), mail server owners would take a much keener interest in preventing unauthorized use of their systems. Mail server owners who = cannot afford the security bond or have other registered mail server owners to = sponsor them can still forward all mail, using TLS/SASL, through their ISP's = mail server.

Considering the abilities of the current mail server software available, = there is no technical excuse for any mail system to allow unauthorized email = to be relayed. MTA tags, message tracking and secure password authentication = with every sending email client provides end-user accountability and = ultimately financial liability.

Additionally, any user needing to send to more than (suggested) 50 = recipients at one time, should be granted by the mail server’s administrator = on a ‘per-user’ basis and the ‘privileged’ user = registered with the mail server authority, rather than permission needlessly = granted to every user. Administrator notifications and temporary account lock-outs, = if a ‘standard’ user send to more than 300 recipients in 24 = hours, would prevent stolen account passwords from being widely exploited. I would = also suggest that any email user that is granted elevated sending privileges should = not have the sending username stamped on the mail by the mail server, as they = will certainly be subjected to ‘identify theft’ attacks. Message = ID tagging will still provide user accountability to the mail server = operator in the event of an infringement.

I would also suggest ‘privileged’ users should be = contractually obligated NOT to store their password in their email client software, = which would prevent email client software with poor security from being = exploited by hackers, trojans, spyware or viruses - especially considering the recent source-code leaks for = Microsoft products. The same policy should probably apply to ordinary users, but I = can see this causing some difficulties.

A security bond also eliminates the occurrence of ‘phoenix’ = SPAM servers, as the cost of forfeiting the bond should significantly exceed = the potential profits gained from a couple of day’s sales generated by = SPAM, at 300 emails per day.

A yearly registration fee for each email server would also be necessary = to fund the infrastructure costs incurred by the mail server registrar. Many = automated open-relay testing facilities already exist on the Web and prior to a = mail server being registered, it will be required = to pass stringent tests, certifying it unable to act as an open relay.

The next problem to eliminate is ‘spoofing’ - an illegitimate mail server may attempt to pose = as a registered mail server to facilitate transmission of unsolicited email. = Clearly this poses a considerable threat to any secure email system. =

Methods like 'SPF" and RMX are a great idea, but do not PROVE that = the mail server is the registered mail server, only that it is a mail server = that is communicating on port 25 of the public IP address for which the mail = server operates. This leaves a private network utilising network address = translation (NAT) wide open for Trojans, SPAMbots and = viruses that could easily lookup the external IP address, perform a reverse = lookup and masquerade the original mail server. This is not good.

I further propose that during a ‘secure’ SMTP mail server transaction, before verifying that the sending email server = (‘Server 1’) is registered with the Mail Server Registrar, a connection is = made by the receiving mail server (‘Server 2’) to the sender’s fully-qualified domain-name, as listed in the DNS (‘Server = X’). This is the same host-name that was presented by ‘Server 1’ = when connecting to ‘Server 2’. A query is then sent to = ‘Server X’ to verify that it is indeed the same host as ‘Server = 1’. This would be performed by challenging ‘Server X’ with a 128 character ‘Session ID’, randomly generated when the original connection was made between ‘Server 1’ & ‘Server 2’. ‘Server X’ would then return only a logical = ‘YES’ or ‘NO’ as to whether as the queried ‘Session = ID’ exists from ‘Server 2’. If the session ID does not exist, = the connection between ‘Server 1’ and ‘Server 2’ is = simply dropped and the IP address of ‘Server 1’ is blocked for a = limited period of time. Only after satisfying itself = that ‘Server 1’ is not spoofed and also registered with the Mail = Server Registrar will ‘Server 2’ allow any mail to be received from ‘Server 1’, thus eliminating all email from all = untrustworthy sources, including email virus engines. After terminating the original connection, the Session ID information is deleted.

There are those who would argue that the traffic and CPU cost of = effectively three remote database queries for each remote SMTP server connection = (DNS, Session ID, Mail Server Registrar) are too = high for the average mail server and data-pipe bandwidth. Considering the = resources currently being used to receive and process SPAM and viruses, overall = traffic and CPU costs would actually decrease - as the server load will be = significantly reduced by not having to receive and process the unsolicited traffic, or = filter the SPAM and/or viruses.

To prevent mail server performance from being adversely affected and to = prevent network outages from stopping all mail from being received, the Mail = Server Registrar will need to securely replicate the database of certified mail servers onto ‘slave’ databases located at the trunks of = major data networks in each country, much the same as the DNS system.

Description of processes used in = this system:

Mail Server Registration = –

1) The mail server is registered in the DNS as per usual.
2) The mail server owner submits their application for registration with = the Mail Server Registrar (“MSR”), or possibly an accredited = agent for the MSR (who will then forward the details to the MSR), including host = name, registered owner’s details, admin contact details and typical = proof of ID. For an individual, this would typically include:
Fully Qualified Host Name, Owner’s Name, Address, Phone Number, = Fax, Date of Birth, Drivers’ License Number (Photocopy), Social Security = Number (if US Citizen), Photocopy of Birth Certificate and / or Photocopy of Credit = Card, Address where mail server will be located. Email Address.

For a business, this would typically include:
Fully Qualified Host Name, Company Name, All Details of Company = Directors (as per ‘individual’ details), Principal Place of Business = Address, A.C.N / A.B.N. / Registered Business Number (+Photocopy / Scan of = Certificate of Incorporation), Phone Number, Fax, Address where mail server will be located. Contact Email Address.

The admin contact details to be required are:
Name, Phone Number, Email Address, Fax, Proof of = ID.

3) The details are recorded in a private database and checked against a database of known SPAMmers (recorded during = SPAM reporting) and registration will be denied or the security bond heavily increased if a match is found.
4) The hostname on the application is subjected to an automated security = test, from multiple IP addresses, which it must pass.
5) A contract is made between the MSR and the mail server owner. The = security bond, if applicable, is collected and the applicant hostname is added to = the database, with sending privileges granted.

User Registration for a Mail Server = –

User accountability needs to be maintained to protect mail servers from habitual offenders and provide the ability to recover damages from an = offending user, but is beyond the legal scope of the MSR’s contract with the mail server owner. This is why the MSR holds the mail = server liable. The mail server owner(s) should enter into a contract or = agreement with the user, binding them to financial accountability and liability if they = abuse the terms of service, including spamming. This also circumvents the need = for any anti-SPAM laws in any particular country.
1) The user supplies all relevant identification.
2) The registered mail server owner(s) query the MSR to check if the = person is a known offender.
3) The mail server owner(s) then choose to grant conditional use of = their systems based on prior history.

Mail Exchanging = –

(A more 'friendly' variation of this method is also found in “‘Softer’ Variation of the Concept”.)

1) The sending user (“sender”) authenticates with mail = server, using secure password authentication (“SPA”), or whatever = form of encryption eventually supersedes it.
2) The sender delivers messages to mail server, using the mail server owner’s policies, including whether the sending username is = stamped on the message header, maximum amount of recipients per message, maximum = amount of messages per day.
3) The sending mail server (“Server 1”) queries the DNS and = finds the mail exchanging host for the recipient’s domain name = (“Server 2”).
4) Server 1 establishes an encrypted TCP connection with Server 2 and = supplies a randomly generated 128 character ‘Session ID’.
5) Server 2 queries the DNS with Server 1’s apparent hostname and resolves an IP address (“Server X”).
6) Server 2 establishes an encrypted TCP connection with Server X and = queries the server with the Session ID obtained from Server 1.
7) Server X looks up a temporary database of current connections and = their respective Session IDs and determines if a connection exists with Server = 2 that has an identical Session ID. If the result is positive, then Server X = returns a logical TRUE to Server 2, the querying connection is then dropped = between Server X and Server 2 and the querying ability temporarily suspended for = a period of (suggested) 3 minutes for Server 2’s IP address to = prevent brute force attacks on Session IDs.
8) Server 2 then queries the MSR database to see if the hostname exists = AND has sending privileges granted and if both return positive then the MSR = database returns a logical TRUE and Server 2 allows mail to flow from Server 1. =

If the result of the first query with Server X is negative, then Server = X returns a logical FALSE to Server 2, the connection is then dropped = between Server X and Server 2 and the querying ability temporarily suspended for = a period of (suggested) 3 minutes for Server 2’s IP address, again = to prevent brute force attacks on Session IDs, following which, the = connection is then also dropped between Server 1 and Server 2. If the result of the = second query (to the MSR database) returns FALSE, the connection between Server = 1 and Server 2 is dropped. In either case, Server 2 will then prevent = connections being made from Server 1’s IP address for a limited amount of time (suggested 24 hours).

Spam Reporting = –

If an infringement occurs, liability must be established and action = taken:
1) User receives unsolicited email that does not comply with MSR = policies.
2) User forwards the email ‘source-code’ to a designated = email address at the MSR.
3) The MSR examines the message header and identifies the hostname of = the sending mail server, the MTA message tracking ID, possibly the sending = username (if name-stamping is enabled), time and date stamping, as well as = confirming if the email does not comply with MSR policies. Further examples from the = same sender will also be searched for.
4) Automated security testing is performed on the mail server = identified.
5) If the message IS SPAM, or if the mail server does not pass the = security test, action needs to be taken. The offending mail server could have its sending privileges suspended and the security deposit forfeited. The = offending email is forwarded to the mail server owner and administrator, along = with notification of any suspension and bond forfeit, also notification if = the mail server failed the security test. The suspension will remain in place = until a new bond has been paid and the offending user details have been supplied = to the MSR, which are then placed in a database of offenders, made available = (by query) to registered mail server owners and operators. If the mail = server owner (or admin) is unable to supply details of the offender OR if the mail = server has repeated offences, the security deposit could be greatly increased = or the mail server deregistered. If no user can be identified, the mail server = owner must assume responsibility and financial liability.
6) If applicable, the mail server recovers damages from the offending = user.

Automated Testing = –

In addition to the current mail server security tests freely available = on the Web, I would conduct the security tests from a private list of dynamic = IP addresses, in different network ranges, to prevent a malicious or = ignorant mail server admin from merely blocking traffic from a known security testing = IP address. I also have designed a system to help prove whether email lists = have been ‘harvested’. Every registered mail server should be = obligated to provide free mailboxes for use by the Mail Server Registrar. These = mailboxes would only be used as ‘collection points’ for unsolicited = mail and not for any other purpose. The email addresses would then be used on = websites, forums, newsgroups and bulletin boards and any SPAM received by these ‘collection points’ can be automatically considered as = illegally harvested and dealt with even more rapidly.


Implementation -

The plug-ins or upgrades to the existing SMTP engines should allow for backwards compatibility during the cut-over period. I would suggest = launching the public awareness campaign and product, allowing for a 12 month = cut-over period, after which, the SMTP server’s traditional receiving = service will no longer operate (or be altered and cleaned, see ‘Softer’ Variation of the Concept.)

During the cut-over period, any mail that is sent to and from any = unregistered mail servers should have automatic replies to the sender and an = information block added to the body of the original message, both of which inform = the sender and recipient that due to mail server being = unregistered, they will no longer be able to communicate with this party after ‘S-DAY’ (or be altered, see ‘Softer’ Variation = of the Concept)
and point them towards a website with a list = of registered mail servers and ISPs, with their contact details, sorted by geographical location, so that they may choose an alternate = provider.

‘Softer’ Variation of = the Concept -

A slight variation of the concept that still allows mail to be received = from unregistered mail servers, yet duly processed and separated from ‘safe’ email, could also be effective.

This is not my preferred method of operation, but it may be more widely = accepted. This method could also be useful during the transition period to ‘safe’ email. Mail servers using this method will seamlessly communicate with mail servers utilizing my original = ‘hardline’ concept, but it gives the mail server owner and the users a choice (and = a safe way) of receiving ‘unsafe’ email.

Obviously this method will not eliminate all the traffic generated by = SPAM and email viruses, which is why this is not my preferred method, but it does = allow for easier marketing and could easily be ‘turned off’ in the future, once market saturation has been reached.

If every mail server had 2 mailboxes for each user – one ‘safe’ mailbox and one ‘unsafe’ mailbox, = unregistered mail could still be received, processed and stored in the unsafe = mailbox. Alternatively, the subject line in the message header could be stamped so that the mail = client can further process the message.

I would suggest that all users of the mail server must be given the = option of whether to have an ‘unsafe’ mailbox at all and also whether = or not to have the mail server strip all attachments and possibly HTML tags = received by the ‘unsafe’ mailbox - I would suggest this is should be = the default option, if the choice is given to the mail server users at all, otherwise users will still be exposed to viral infections.

If a receiving mail server was unable to verify the authenticity or registration of a sending mail server, all mail received from the = sending mail server would be classed as ‘unsafe’ and routed through to = the ‘.unsafe’ mailbox. If the recipient on the receiving mail server has elected not = to have an ‘unsafe’ mailbox, the message would be rejected and a Non Delivery Report (NDR) generated to the sending user.

Summary ~

As you have now seen, using my system, it is very easy to eliminate = email viruses and the vast majority of all SPAM. For the few isolated cases = that will remain, it will be extremely easy to identify, track and police.

Email users can still enjoy the freedom of submitting mail from an = external network. This is extremely important for mobile users and wireless = technology.

My system would easily be implemented as a plug-in, or upgrade to the = existing SMTP standard, allowing backwards compatibility, during the cut-over = period.

There are no problems caused to existing mail-routing, delivery = priorities or relative user anonymity, if so required. SMTP servers can also still = fully function using a dynamic IP address and dynamic DNS, if they need to, = unlike other recently proposed anti-spoofing techniques. Also, a registered = mail server will always be able to send to an unregistered mail server.

Accountability is still maintained, regardless of the relative = anonymity. Due to message tracking IDs (serial numbers) stamped on emails by the = sending mail server, the mail server owner can easily identify the user responsible = and the sending mail server’s identity is already stamped on the message = headers and using my system, cannot be spoofed.

Law and order can be easily restored to the global email system, without impacting on freedom, liberties, finances or functionality.

The responsibilities of the Mail Server Registrar should fall to the UN/ = ITU, as this is a global policy change.

 

<END SNIP>

------=_NextPart_000_000D_01C43BFF.942E2D50-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon May 17 01:22:23 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (www.iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA15275 for ; Mon, 17 May 2004 01:22:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BPaYa-0008Kr-9D for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 May 2004 01:20:56 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4H5KubG032042 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 May 2004 01:20:56 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BPaWV-0007sV-4E for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 17 May 2004 01:18:47 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA15192 for ; Mon, 17 May 2004 01:18:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BPaWS-0002Qt-8z for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 17 May 2004 01:18:44 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BPaVW-00029L-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 17 May 2004 01:17:47 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BPaUn-0001o5-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 17 May 2004 01:17:01 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BPaQy-0007DP-4O; Mon, 17 May 2004 01:13:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BPaKq-0005i8-R9 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 17 May 2004 01:06:44 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA14933 for ; Mon, 17 May 2004 01:06:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BPaKn-0006qQ-Rr for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 17 May 2004 01:06:41 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BPaJs-0006Yu-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 17 May 2004 01:05:44 -0400 Received: from mail1.panix.com ([166.84.1.72]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BPaJO-0006HH-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 17 May 2004 01:05:14 -0400 Received: from panix5.panix.com (panix5.panix.com [166.84.1.5]) by mail1.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 909C8488AA for ; Mon, 17 May 2004 01:05:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from sethb@localhost) by panix5.panix.com (8.11.6p2-a/8.8.8/PanixN1.1) id i4H55Ax01818; Mon, 17 May 2004 01:05:10 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200405170505.i4H55Ax01818@panix5.panix.com> From: Seth Breidbart To: asrg@ietf.org In-reply-to: (nospam@intechcomm.net.au) Subject: Re: [Asrg] MTA Trust Management / Authentication, Zombie Prevention and Virus & SPAM Prevention 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: Mon, 17 May 2004 01:05:10 -0400 (EDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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 "Joshua Leisk" wrote: > I propose that we need to construct a global registry of certified Who is "we"? Who certifies? Why should I trust them? > closed-relay, 'spoof'-proof email servers, married to the verified details > of the server's owner, Who verifies? How much does this cost? > who are possibly placed under a financial security > bond, depending on the age of the domain name and previous history, Why should somebody have to pay to send email? Who holds the bond? Who determines when it gets forfeited? To whom does it get forfeited? > to operate it SPAM-free and then prevent all 'registered' email > servers from receiving email from any 'unregistered' email server Nobody gets to prevent my server from doing what I want. My toys, my rules. > The exquisite beauty of this system is that the onus is no longer on > the recipient to deal with the SPAM or viruses, but the sender to > prove that it is NOT SPAM or a virus. Why should I have to prove it to _your authority_? > As an email virus could never be a registered SMTP mail server, Why not? > Financial accountability is required to enforce compliance with > anti-SPAM regulations. If the registration of a new mail server, for > which the domain name is less than 12 months old and if the new mail > server owner was not able to be 'sponsored' or vouched for by a > number of 'trusted' registered mail servers, required the new owner > to supply a security bond of (suggested) US$2500+, No. I ain't gonna pay. Deal with it. Feel free to reject my email, of course; it's up to your users if they'd rather get my email or pay you for email services. > A yearly registration fee for each email server will never be paid. > Methods like 'SPF" and RMX are a great idea, but do not PROVE that > the mail server is the registered mail server, only that it is a > mail server that is communicating on port 25 of the public IP > address for which the mail server operates. This leaves a private > network utilising network address translation (NAT) wide open for > Trojans, SPAMbots and viruses that could easily lookup the external > IP address, perform a reverse lookup and masquerade the original > mail server. This is not good. Anybody who puts their outgoing mailswerver behind the same NAT address as a bunch of luser boxes is an idiot. Get the idea? I don't want a central authority, and won't cooperate with one if forced to. (I will, of course, cooperate with various private authorities to whatever extent I feel like at the time.) Seth _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon May 17 03:11:36 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 DAA03369 for ; Mon, 17 May 2004 03:11:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BPcER-0003me-Vg for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 May 2004 03:08:15 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4H78FVH014544 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 May 2004 03:08:15 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BPcC7-0003Ev-Ck for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 17 May 2004 03:05:51 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA03240 for ; Mon, 17 May 2004 03:05:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BPcC3-0003qo-FA for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 17 May 2004 03:05:47 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BPcAy-0003XH-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 17 May 2004 03:04:41 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BPcA6-0003Ai-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 17 May 2004 03:03:47 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BPc4X-0002MG-AR; Mon, 17 May 2004 02:58:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BPc2P-00022S-Lq for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 17 May 2004 02:55:49 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA02787 for ; Mon, 17 May 2004 02:55:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BPc2L-0000iV-Pq for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 17 May 2004 02:55:45 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BPc1Y-0000Pz-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 17 May 2004 02:54:56 -0400 Received: from vqbn-link.syd.comindico.com.au ([203.221.180.26] helo=veritel.com.au) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BPc0Y-00002n-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 17 May 2004 02:53:54 -0400 Received: (qmail 21929 invoked from network); 17 May 2004 06:53:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO dle5) (send@veritel.com.au@220.240.19.43) by 29.180.221.203.comindico.com.au with SMTP; 17 May 2004 06:53:42 -0000 From: "Joshua Leisk" To: Subject: RE: [Asrg] MTA Trust Management / Authentication, Zombie Prevention and Virus & SPAM Prevention MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2727.1300 Thread-Index: AcQ7zf9Aq8gbDk+/Tk6NCqkFDxyRPQADEuEw In-reply-to: <200405170505.i4H55Ax01818@panix5.panix.com> 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, 17 May 2004 16:53:42 +1000 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 "We" is yet to be decided - that why this why this is a group effort... we want ideas here, which is why I am posting mine. "Who' need not be the same body as "We" - there could be a 3rd party 'Enforcement Agency', or many - the reporting is a separate function.. we already have multiple blacklists, from multiple providers... no reason why that can't continue, just in a different format. Single authority? - This is somewhat similar to the DNS and WHOIS.. add your thoughts.. COST - This is important - this is a 'bring a friend' arrangement - if your mail server can be vouched for by others, there is no bond... In reality I would prefer no bond at all and only have a 'circle of trust' that expands outwards... but you need to allow for net.newbies.. Ongoing arrangements require identification checks, which incur time and cost. Domain name registration costs, so what's the big deal paying for a mail server while you're at it? Capitalism at its best. Work out what spam and viruses cost you every year - more than a yearly registration. Joshua Leisk http://www.intechcomm.net.au -----Original Message----- From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Seth Breidbart Sent: Monday, 17 May 2004 3:05 PM To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] MTA Trust Management / Authentication, Zombie Prevention and Virus & SPAM Prevention "Joshua Leisk" wrote: > I propose that we need to construct a global registry of certified Who is "we"? Who certifies? Why should I trust them? > closed-relay, 'spoof'-proof email servers, married to the verified details > of the server's owner, Who verifies? How much does this cost? > who are possibly placed under a financial security > bond, depending on the age of the domain name and previous history, Why should somebody have to pay to send email? Who holds the bond? Who determines when it gets forfeited? To whom does it get forfeited? > to operate it SPAM-free and then prevent all 'registered' email > servers from receiving email from any 'unregistered' email server Nobody gets to prevent my server from doing what I want. My toys, my rules. > The exquisite beauty of this system is that the onus is no longer on > the recipient to deal with the SPAM or viruses, but the sender to > prove that it is NOT SPAM or a virus. Why should I have to prove it to _your authority_? > As an email virus could never be a registered SMTP mail server, Why not? > Financial accountability is required to enforce compliance with > anti-SPAM regulations. If the registration of a new mail server, for > which the domain name is less than 12 months old and if the new mail > server owner was not able to be 'sponsored' or vouched for by a > number of 'trusted' registered mail servers, required the new owner > to supply a security bond of (suggested) US$2500+, No. I ain't gonna pay. Deal with it. Feel free to reject my email, of course; it's up to your users if they'd rather get my email or pay you for email services. > A yearly registration fee for each email server will never be paid. > Methods like 'SPF" and RMX are a great idea, but do not PROVE that > the mail server is the registered mail server, only that it is a > mail server that is communicating on port 25 of the public IP > address for which the mail server operates. This leaves a private > network utilising network address translation (NAT) wide open for > Trojans, SPAMbots and viruses that could easily lookup the external > IP address, perform a reverse lookup and masquerade the original > mail server. This is not good. Anybody who puts their outgoing mailswerver behind the same NAT address as a bunch of luser boxes is an idiot. Get the idea? I don't want a central authority, and won't cooperate with one if forced to. (I will, of course, cooperate with various private authorities to whatever extent I feel like at the time.) Seth _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing 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 May 17 07:25:25 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 HAA14228 for ; Mon, 17 May 2004 07:25:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BPgDr-0003lU-6x for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 May 2004 07:23:55 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4HBNtjx014473 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 May 2004 07:23:55 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BPg7C-0002rl-I5 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 17 May 2004 07:17:02 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA13803 for ; Mon, 17 May 2004 07:17:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BPg7C-0003Wo-3D for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 17 May 2004 07:17:02 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BPg69-0003BS-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 17 May 2004 07:15:57 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BPg51-0002ng-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 17 May 2004 07:14:47 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BPfxW-0001ZF-2l; Mon, 17 May 2004 07:07:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BPfti-0000y5-9Y for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 17 May 2004 07:03:06 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA13254 for ; Mon, 17 May 2004 07:03:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BPfte-0007BA-11 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 17 May 2004 07:03:02 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BPfsu-0006se-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 17 May 2004 07:02:16 -0400 Received: from mail22.messagelabs.com ([62.231.131.211]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BPfsA-0006Wl-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 17 May 2004 07:01:30 -0400 X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: msergeant@messagelabs.com X-Msg-Ref: server-15.tower-22.messagelabs.com!1084791655!8891742 X-StarScan-Version: 5.2.11; banners=messagelabs.com,-,- X-Originating-IP: [212.125.75.70] Received: (qmail 15476 invoked from network); 17 May 2004 11:00:55 -0000 Received: from smtp-1.star.net.uk (212.125.75.70) by server-15.tower-22.messagelabs.com with SMTP; 17 May 2004 11:00:55 -0000 Received: (qmail 26371 invoked from network); 17 May 2004 11:00:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO matt-dev.int.star.co.uk) (195.216.14.9) by smtp-1.star.net.uk with SMTP; 17 May 2004 11:00:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 3528 invoked from network); 16 May 2004 10:46:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?10.2.100.139?) (10.2.100.139) by matt?dev.int.star.co.uk with SMTP; 16 May 2004 10:46:50 -0000 In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v613) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <796B991E-A7F1-11D8-953D-000A95AC67AA@messagelabs.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: From: Matt Sergeant Subject: Re: [Asrg] MTA Trust Management / Authentication, Zombie Prevention and Virus & SPAM Prevention To: "Joshua Leisk" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.613) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 12:00:57 +0100 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 17 May 2004, at 07:53, Joshua Leisk wrote: > "We" is yet to be decided - that why this why this is a group > effort... we > want ideas here, which is why I am posting mine. > "Who' need not be the same body as "We" - there could be a 3rd party > 'Enforcement Agency', or many - the reporting is a separate function.. > we > already have multiple blacklists, from multiple providers... no reason > why > that can't continue, just in a different format. > > Single authority? - This is somewhat similar to the DNS and WHOIS.. > add your > thoughts.. > > COST - > This is important - this is a 'bring a friend' arrangement - if your > mail > server can be vouched for by others, there is no bond... In reality I > would > prefer no bond at all and only have a 'circle of trust' that expands > outwards... but you need to allow for net.newbies.. > > Ongoing arrangements require identification checks, which incur time > and > cost. Domain name registration costs, so what's the big deal paying > for a > mail server while you're at it? Capitalism at its best. Work out what > spam > and viruses cost you every year - more than a yearly registration. For a similar idea, check the archives for GIEIS. And read up on it at http://gieis.esmartguy.com/ Matt. ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email ______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon May 17 07:33:54 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 HAA14652 for ; Mon, 17 May 2004 07:33:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BPgFo-000475-UC for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 May 2004 07:25:56 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4HBPu27015812 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 May 2004 07:25:56 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BPgDx-0003oA-60 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 17 May 2004 07:24:01 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA14185 for ; Mon, 17 May 2004 07:24:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BPgDw-0005kg-Kr for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 17 May 2004 07:24:00 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BPgCw-0005SE-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 17 May 2004 07:22:59 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BPgCN-0005A3-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 17 May 2004 07:22:23 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BPg7C-0002rh-2x; Mon, 17 May 2004 07:17:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BPfzX-0001wL-CQ for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 17 May 2004 07:09:07 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA13544 for ; Mon, 17 May 2004 07:09:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BPfzT-0001Ka-3Z for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 17 May 2004 07:09:03 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BPfyb-00010v-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 17 May 2004 07:08:10 -0400 Received: from mail1.nber.org ([207.113.108.7]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BPfxi-0000gy-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 17 May 2004 07:07:14 -0400 Received: from mail1 (root@localhost) by mail1.nber.org (8.12.8/8.12.8) with SMTP id i4HB7Ftw019148 for ; Mon, 17 May 2004 07:07:16 -0400 Received: from nber5.nber.org (nber5.nber.org [207.113.108.99]) by mail1.nber.org (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i4HB7FjX019134; Mon, 17 May 2004 07:07:15 -0400 From: Daniel Feenberg To: Joshua Leisk cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] MTA Trust Management / Authentication, Zombie Prevention and Virus & SPAM Prevention In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 07:07:15 -0400 (EDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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, 17 May 2004, Joshua Leisk wrote: > > > > I propose that we need to construct a global registry of certified > closed-relay, 'spoof'-proof email servers, married to the verified details > of the server's owner, who are possibly placed under a financial security > bond, depending on the age of the domain name and previous history, to > operate it SPAM-free and then prevent all 'registered' email servers from > receiving email from any 'unregistered' email server (or be cleaned and > filed separately - see "'Softer' Variation of the Concept"), or accepting > email client submissions from clients not using an encrypted password > authentication, eg. SPA. > You will no doubt receive many replies stating why this practice would be undesirable, but even if correct, those reasons have nothing to do with why it is unlikely to be adopted. After all, many undesirable practices survive quite hardily. The basic problem is a lack of recipients willing to reject mail mail from uncertified senders. Consider that in the early days of this project only a few senders will be certified, and even if they are large and important, any MTA operator who required certification before accepting mail would be rejecting half their legitimate mail too. Of course, receiving MTAs might ust white list certified servers (rather than reject uncertified ones), to avoid rejecting spammy looking but legitimate mail from them, but that provides only a tiny incentive for legitimate mailers to sign up for certification. But that practice would provide a large incentive for borderline spammers to try to get certification, and "regulatory capture theory" (look it up) suggests that some will succeed. Eventually certification will (in a statistical sense) predict spammy mail. Transitions are sometimes very hard. Dan Feenberg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon May 17 19:11:58 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA12170 for ; Mon, 17 May 2004 19:11:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BPr5l-0005vM-Ay for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 May 2004 19:00:17 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4HN0HoQ022766 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 May 2004 19:00:17 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BPr15-0003Li-52 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 17 May 2004 18:55:27 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA11425 for ; Mon, 17 May 2004 18:55:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BPr11-0000bo-V1 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 17 May 2004 18:55:24 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BPr0E-0000I3-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 17 May 2004 18:54:35 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BPqzM-0007l0-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 17 May 2004 18:53:40 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BPqeP-0005u8-Rc; Mon, 17 May 2004 18:32:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BPqRN-0005pt-Px for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 17 May 2004 18:18:33 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA08362 for ; Mon, 17 May 2004 18:18:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BPqRK-0002Sv-UF for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 17 May 2004 18:18:31 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BPqQL-00027w-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 17 May 2004 18:17:30 -0400 Received: from anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net ([194.217.242.91]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BPqPu-0001nC-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 17 May 2004 18:17:02 -0400 Received: from gti.noc.demon.net ([195.11.55.101] helo=rnc1.al.cl.cam.ac.uk) by anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1BPqPn-000DnN-0X for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 17 May 2004 23:16:55 +0100 Message-ID: To: asrg@ietf.org From: Richard Clayton MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 M <7fPN0OjtGdv6AX1irDkRphaT6+> Subject: [Asrg] 3. Proof-of-work analysis Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 23:15:46 +0100 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I hope this is useful: I'm in the Security Group of the Computer Laboratory at the University of Cambridge. Ben Laurie (yes, that Ben Laurie) and I have recently been doing some sums on proof-of-work / client puzzles / hashcash methods of imposing economic constraints upon the sending of spam... Ben wanted to know how big a proof was needed for a practical scheme he was considering -- and I told him it wasn't going to work. We then carefully worked through all the calculations, using the best data that we could obtain -- and we did indeed come to the conclusion that proof-of-work is not a viable proposal :( The paper we wrote about this was presented last week in Minneapolis at the (academic, peer-reviewed) "Third Annual Workshop on Economics and Information Security" (WEAS04) We've doubtless duplicated the figures on the back of many an envelope, but it is clearly useful to have the analysis in the formal literature where our assumptions and figures can be considered and possibly even improved upon by others. Paper: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rnc1/proofwork.pdf Slides from talk: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rnc1/talks/040514-ProofWork.pdf Abstract: A frequently proposed method of reducing unsolicited bulk email ("spam") is for senders to pay for each email they send. Proof- of-work schemes avoid charging real money by requiring senders to demonstrate that they have expended processing time in solving a cryptographic puzzle. We attempt to determine how difficult that puzzle should be so as to be effective in preventing spam. We analyse this both from an economic perspective, "how can we stop it being cost-effective to send spam", and from a security perspective, "spammers can access insecure end-user machines and will steal processing cycles to solve puzzles". Both analyses lead to similar values of puzzle difficulty. Unfortunately, real- world data from a large ISP shows that these difficulty levels would mean that significant numbers of senders of legitimate email would be unable to continue their current levels of activity. We conclude that proof-of-work will not be a solution to the problem of spam. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- For the avoidance of doubt, the type of scheme we believe we have shown is not viable is one where all email (except "mailing list" email) carries a "proof-of-work" along with it. It may be that it is still sensible to consider composite schemes where puzzles are only solved per sending host or where receivers use puzzles to admit senders into whitelists... ... however, we would consider it incumbent on any proposer of such a scheme to do similar calculations to ours before putting it forward. [ off-topic for here, but we also suspect that a number of proof- of-work schemes in peer-to-peer networks would fall to our type of real-world analysis :( people tend to use client puzzles as a kind of "magic fairy dust" to scatter over systems when they get stuck in their design :( ] - -- richard Richard Clayton They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 iQA/AwUBQKk5khfnRQV/feRLEQIcyACcCrGw1ZZIHV+qP7AZy9M8XJU4920AnjcW M35kvXsj8cv/ujtY9xpf79av =wEUV -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon May 17 21:54:15 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA21109 for ; Mon, 17 May 2004 21:54:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BPtmi-0007AH-Dx for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 May 2004 21:52:48 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4I1qm3p027542 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 May 2004 21:52:48 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BPtlq-0006sd-7y for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 17 May 2004 21:51:54 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA20948 for ; Mon, 17 May 2004 21:51:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BPtln-0001sw-CX for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 17 May 2004 21:51:51 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BPtkf-0001Vu-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 17 May 2004 21:50:42 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BPtjm-00018o-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 17 May 2004 21:49:46 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BPteD-0004RN-GG; Mon, 17 May 2004 21:44:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BPtXx-0002n6-Sw for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 17 May 2004 21:37:34 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA20156 for ; Mon, 17 May 2004 21:37:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BPtXv-0004VJ-3Q for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 17 May 2004 21:37:31 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BPtWw-00046U-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 17 May 2004 21:36:31 -0400 Received: from pcls3.std.com ([192.74.137.143] helo=TheWorld.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BPtVw-0003P9-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 17 May 2004 21:35:28 -0400 Received: from world.std.com (root@world-e.std.com [69.38.147.5]) by TheWorld.com (8.12.8p1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i4I1ZCpD030079; Mon, 17 May 2004 21:35:12 -0400 Received: (from bzs@localhost) by world.std.com (8.12.8p1/8.12.8) id i4I1RX8l005417; Mon, 17 May 2004 21:27:33 -0400 (EDT) From: Barry Shein MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16553.26244.957274.207669@world.std.com> To: Richard Clayton Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 3. Proof-of-work analysis In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: VM 7.07 under Emacs 21.2.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 21:27:32 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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'm just idly curious (like you I have zero confidence in proof-of-work schemes) but why wouldn't they all be equivalent to "don't send me your next command for (at least) N seconds or I'll drop the connection"? That'd be independent of CPU speed wouldn't it! Or for that matter just don't respond with a 250 to their HELO for N seconds and if they continue talking anyhow drop the connection (something like this is in the current beta sendmail, 8.13.0beta.) That's fairly easy to implement and how can a conformant MTA distinguish a sneaky delay from a slow network? Most MTAs are configured to wait a minute or two for the initial HELO anyhow. Unless someone has a good answer this is why I've always thought these proof-of-work/hashcash schemes were the product of dopes. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD The World | Public Access Internet | Since 1989 *oo* _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon May 17 22:10:19 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA21740 for ; Mon, 17 May 2004 22:10:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BPu1H-0002bl-1r for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 May 2004 22:07:51 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4I27prj010012 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 May 2004 22:07:51 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BPtz9-0001ly-VK for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 17 May 2004 22:05:39 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA21565 for ; Mon, 17 May 2004 22:05:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BPtz6-00070f-VV for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 17 May 2004 22:05:37 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BPty4-0006eN-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 17 May 2004 22:04:33 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BPtwx-00068z-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 17 May 2004 22:03:23 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BPtqo-0008F1-5x; Mon, 17 May 2004 21:57:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BPtpT-0007hU-Vh for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 17 May 2004 21:55:39 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA21170 for ; Mon, 17 May 2004 21:55:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BPtpR-0003PJ-1a for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 17 May 2004 21:55:37 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BPtoM-00031f-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 17 May 2004 21:54:30 -0400 Received: from mail3.panix.com ([166.84.1.74]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BPtnN-0002YX-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 17 May 2004 21:53:29 -0400 Received: from panix5.panix.com (panix5.panix.com [166.84.1.5]) by mail3.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E4A59840D for ; Mon, 17 May 2004 21:53:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from sethb@localhost) by panix5.panix.com (8.11.6p2-a/8.8.8/PanixN1.1) id i4I1rP909144; Mon, 17 May 2004 21:53:25 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200405180153.i4I1rP909144@panix5.panix.com> From: Seth Breidbart To: asrg@ietf.org In-reply-to: <16553.26244.957274.207669@world.std.com> (message from Barry Shein on Mon, 17 May 2004 21:27:32 -0400) Subject: Re: [Asrg] 3. Proof-of-work analysis References: <16553.26244.957274.207669@world.std.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, 17 May 2004 21:53:25 -0400 (EDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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 Barry Shein wrote: > I'm just idly curious (like you I have zero confidence in > proof-of-work schemes) but why wouldn't they all be equivalent to > "don't send me your next command for (at least) N seconds or I'll > drop the connection"? That'd be independent of CPU speed wouldn't > it! Spamware could parallel connections to umpteen million recipients and send at full speed if all it had to do was wait. > Or for that matter just don't respond with a 250 to their HELO for N > seconds and if they continue talking anyhow drop the connection > (something like this is in the current beta sendmail, 8.13.0beta.) That works currently against spamware that pipelines illegally. If it becomes more common, that spamware will become less common. Seth _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue May 18 01:35:16 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (www.iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA01436 for ; Tue, 18 May 2004 01:35:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BPxBo-0003SP-MU for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 01:30:56 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4I5UuTE013289 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 01:30:56 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BPx7h-0002Vd-Qa for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 01:26:41 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA01050 for ; Tue, 18 May 2004 01:26:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BPx7e-0003gq-Oj for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 01:26:38 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BPx6g-0003Jt-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 01:25:38 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BPx5e-0002sG-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 01:24:34 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BPwzK-00013t-KD; Tue, 18 May 2004 01:18:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BPwuO-00006A-CN for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 01:12:56 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA00420 for ; Tue, 18 May 2004 01:12:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BPwuL-0006DD-Ar for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 01:12:53 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BPwtK-0005pa-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 01:11:51 -0400 Received: from sparkle.rodents.montreal.qc.ca ([216.46.5.7] ident=JwLodagRUMDZ7ym4ndRe8BTU8gZEUSHj9rOrChGgtRc) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BPwsL-0005SY-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 01:10:49 -0400 Received: (from mouse@localhost) by Sparkle.Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA (8.8.8/8.8.8) id BAA26322; Tue, 18 May 2004 01:10:49 -0400 (EDT) From: der Mouse Message-Id: <200405180510.BAA26322@Sparkle.Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Erik-Conspiracy: There is no Conspiracy - and if there were I wouldn't be part of it anyway. To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 3. Proof-of-work analysis In-Reply-To: <16553.26244.957274.207669@world.std.com> References: <16553.26244.957274.207669@world.std.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 01:04:31 -0400 (EDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > I'm just idly curious (like you I have zero confidence in > proof-of-work schemes) but why wouldn't they all be equivalent to > "don't send me your next command for (at least) N seconds or I'll > drop the connection"? No, because "wait for N seconds" is parallelizable across many connections, whereas "do N cpu-seconds of work" isn't. At the root of one of the problems with p-o-w schemes is that there is no easy way to tell what constitutes N cpu-seconds of work for the SMTP client, so instead a problem of standardized hardness is substituted (eg, "find a data block containing this random cookie whose SHA-1 hash begins with N zero bits").... > Or for that matter just don't respond with a 250 to their HELO for N > seconds and if they continue talking anyhow drop the connection Yes, that can be very effective. (It will stay that way for a while, too, until ratware authors implement one of the possible workarounds to it...I'm already trying to think of workarounds and defenses against them, against that day.) > That's fairly easy to implement and how can a conformant MTA > distinguish a sneaky delay from a slow network? It can't. But that's not what p-o-w schemes ask for; they ask for a solution to a nonce problem of whatever hardness the server demands. /~\ The ASCII der Mouse \ / Ribbon Campaign X Against HTML mouse@rodents.montreal.qc.ca / \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue May 18 02:23:49 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA17168 for ; Tue, 18 May 2004 02:23:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BPxqJ-0007jJ-HV for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 02:12:47 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4I6ClTc029708 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 02:12:47 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BPxmP-0005vg-12 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 02:08:45 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA11601 for ; Tue, 18 May 2004 02:08:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BPxmL-0004Ji-Fg for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 02:08:41 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BPxlS-0003xl-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 02:07:47 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BPxkt-0003bh-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 02:07:11 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BPxd1-00018u-6W; Tue, 18 May 2004 01:59:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BPxZn-0008SF-RT for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 01:55:43 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA02517 for ; Tue, 18 May 2004 01:55:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BPxZk-00079x-Ed for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 01:55:40 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BPxYn-0006m5-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 01:54:42 -0400 Received: from peacock.verisign.com ([65.205.251.73]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BPxXz-0006Q8-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 01:53:51 -0400 Received: from mou1wnexc02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.54]) by peacock.verisign.com (8.12.11/) with ESMTP id i4I5rpD1012954; Mon, 17 May 2004 22:53:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mou1wnexc02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) id ; Mon, 17 May 2004 22:53:51 -0700 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: "'Seth Breidbart'" , asrg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Asrg] 3. Proof-of-work analysis 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: Mon, 17 May 2004 22:53:43 -0700 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 > Spamware could parallel connections to umpteen million recipients and > send at full speed if all it had to do was wait. Absolutely, this code is not your standard mail client stuff. > > Or for that matter just don't respond with a 250 to their HELO for N > > seconds and if they continue talking anyhow drop the connection > > (something like this is in the current beta sendmail, 8.13.0beta.) > > That works currently against spamware that pipelines illegally. If it > becomes more common, that spamware will become less common. Problem is that there are lots of people using these techniques for good reason. 'illegal' is a poor choice of language, SMTP is not an act of parliament, nor is it a particularly great design. If you need to send out a million mails to your customers as Ebay does every day you cannot wait around a minute while someone's idiot sendmail script runs. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue May 18 02:47:24 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA18600 for ; Tue, 18 May 2004 02:47:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BPyHf-0001WF-Qd for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 02:41:04 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4I6f3oE005829 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 02:41:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BPyA5-0008IR-VA for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 02:33:13 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA17878 for ; Tue, 18 May 2004 02:33:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BPyA2-0006EY-7n for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 02:33:10 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BPy8z-0005pa-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 02:32:06 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BPy89-0005PG-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 02:31:13 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BPy2M-0006PA-Pz; Tue, 18 May 2004 02:25:14 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BPy00-0004qP-Ux for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 02:22:48 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA17065 for ; Tue, 18 May 2004 02:22:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BPxzx-000223-B3 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 02:22:45 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BPxyu-0001d6-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 02:21:40 -0400 Received: from sokol.elan.net ([216.151.192.200]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BPxxm-0000rw-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 02:20:30 -0400 Received: from sokol.elan.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.11/8.12.5) with ESMTP id i4I7cIl2006067 for ; Tue, 18 May 2004 00:38:18 -0700 Received: from localhost (william@localhost) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.11/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id i4I7cHc4006064 for ; Tue, 18 May 2004 00:38:17 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: sokol.elan.net: william owned process doing -bs From: "william(at)elan.net" To: asrg@ietf.org Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: [Asrg] 3.bc - Microbonds and bonds in general Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 00:38:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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 following was just posted to spf, but since that group is not focused on spam technologies in general, it might be more usefull and productive if discussions about this concept happen here. I note that what is proposed is kind of a merger of bondedsender and similar whitelists with micropayments (or similar) system of confirmation of that whitelisting. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 00:20:39 -0400 From: Meng Weng Wong Reply-To: spf-discuss@v2.listbox.com To: spf-discuss@v2.listbox.com Subject: Re: [spf-discuss] regarding hashcash / penny black and vanquish On a related note regarding the sender-pays concept, I was recently approached by www.vanquish.com. The concept is similar to Yahoo DomainKeys --- ISP-level cryptographic signatures embedded invisibly in the message --- but adds an interesting twist: along with the signature you get a microbond. Not a micropayment, where each delivery always represents a financial transaction; more like a microbet, where each delivery is underwritten by a willingness to pay. Essentially, senders say "I bet you 1 cent that my message won't waste your time." If the message is legit, the recipient doesn't collect. Only if it's spam does the recipient make the sender pay. I think this model accurately reflects real-world economics. Their business challenge is twofold: getting their zero-value bond (in signature only mode) out into the market before Yahoo DomainKeys hits the bigtime, and finding the industry niche who actually do want to make use of this concept. The great thing about sender authentication is that once it's in place, you can start augmenting the email landscape in all kinds of interesting ways like this one. ------- Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com/ Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/ Latest draft at http://spf.pobox.com/spf-draft-200405.txtsc Wiki: http://spfwiki.infinitepenguins.net/pmwiki.php/SenderPermittedFrom/ _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue May 18 03:19:42 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (www.iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA20344 for ; Tue, 18 May 2004 03:19:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BPyr6-00031g-E7 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 03:17:40 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4I7Hepg011619 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 03:17:40 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BPypM-0002Gx-Jg for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 03:15:52 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA20030 for ; Tue, 18 May 2004 03:15:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BPypK-0007WI-DM for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 03:15:50 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BPyoe-00079Q-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 03:15:09 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BPynt-0006lz-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 03:14:22 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BPyc4-00076u-1S; Tue, 18 May 2004 03:02:08 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BPyMX-0003Bs-MQ for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 02:46:05 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA18549 for ; Tue, 18 May 2004 02:46:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BPyMT-0003Vq-PY for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 02:46:01 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BPyLf-000375-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 02:45:11 -0400 Received: from mail3.panix.com ([166.84.1.74]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BPyKi-0002gq-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 02:44:12 -0400 Received: from panix5.panix.com (panix5.panix.com [166.84.1.5]) by mail3.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7250298444 for ; Tue, 18 May 2004 02:44:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from sethb@localhost) by panix5.panix.com (8.11.6p2-a/8.8.8/PanixN1.1) id i4I6iDS05394; Tue, 18 May 2004 02:44:13 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200405180644.i4I6iDS05394@panix5.panix.com> From: Seth Breidbart To: asrg@ietf.org In-reply-to: (pbaker@verisign.com) Subject: Re: [Asrg] 3. Proof-of-work analysis 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: Tue, 18 May 2004 02:44:13 -0400 (EDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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: >> > Or for that matter just don't respond with a 250 to their HELO for N >> > seconds and if they continue talking anyhow drop the connection >> > (something like this is in the current beta sendmail, 8.13.0beta.) >> >> That works currently against spamware that pipelines illegally. If it >> becomes more common, that spamware will become less common. > > Problem is that there are lots of people using these techniques for > good reason. 'illegal' is a poor choice of language, OK, "in violation of the RFCs which state that pipelining is not allowed unless the receiver advertises the capability". > SMTP is not an act of parliament, nor is it a particularly great > design. If you need to send out a million mails to your customers as > Ebay does every day you cannot wait around a minute while someone's > idiot sendmail script runs. Then eBay is going to run into mail rejection problems due to improper pipelining (if eBay actually uses that technique, which I don't know). Seth _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue May 18 05:35:37 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 FAA28206 for ; Tue, 18 May 2004 05:35:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQ0yt-00020C-Rk for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 05:33:52 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4I9XpVq007697 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 05:33:51 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQ0xD-0001PM-L5 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 05:32:07 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA27873 for ; Tue, 18 May 2004 05:32:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQ0xA-0007mP-9S for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 05:32:04 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQ0wC-0007Mn-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 05:31:05 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQ0vM-0006xm-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 05:30:12 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQ0lf-00079U-8y; Tue, 18 May 2004 05:20:11 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQ0ii-000652-Nf for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 05:17:08 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA26844 for ; Tue, 18 May 2004 05:17:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQ0if-0001Wz-EO for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 05:17:05 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQ0hP-00013g-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 05:15:48 -0400 Received: from chromatix.demon.co.uk ([80.177.102.173] helo=lithium.chromatix.org.uk) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQ0gH-0000K9-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 05:14:37 -0400 Received: from arowana.chromatix.org.uk ([192.168.239.106]) by lithium.chromatix.org.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.31) id 1BQ0gG-0000GT-Pf; Tue, 18 May 2004 10:14:36 +0100 In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v613) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: asrg@ietf.org From: Jonathan Morton Subject: Re: [Asrg] 3. Proof-of-work analysis To: Richard Clayton X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.613) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 10:14:40 +0100 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > I'm in the Security Group of the Computer Laboratory at the University > of Cambridge. Ben Laurie (yes, that Ben Laurie) and I have recently > been doing some sums on proof-of-work / client puzzles / hashcash > methods of imposing economic constraints upon the sending of spam... > > Ben wanted to know how big a proof was needed for a practical scheme > he was considering -- and I told him it wasn't going to work. We then > carefully worked through all the calculations, using the best data > that we could obtain -- and we did indeed come to the conclusion that > proof-of-work is not a viable proposal :( That's a very interesting paper, thank you. I wonder, however, what the distribution curves are like when "regular correspondents" are exempted from proof-of-work, not just mailing lists. Would it be possible to re-examine the MTA logs for this type of pattern? By "regular correspondents" I mean people who know each other well enough to send mail regularly, not necessarily frequently - even once a week over a period of months. I ask this because I expect that users with slow machines - who would otherwise be the group most inconvenienced by proof-of-work schemes - send mail that mostly falls into this category. I don't know, however, how much of the overall picture is accounted for by these. For future work, it might be instructive to identify various non-spam use-cases which appear to have a high proof-of-work load - ie. on the "long tail" of the distribution curves presented - and consider practical ways of relieving or accommodating it. -------------------------------------------------------------- from: Jonathan "Chromatix" Morton mail: chromi@chromatix.demon.co.uk website: http://www.chromatix.uklinux.net/ tagline: The key to knowledge is not to rely on people to teach you it. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue May 18 06:27:19 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA01226 for ; Tue, 18 May 2004 06:27:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQ1nD-0005mS-5U for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 06:25:51 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4IAPpt3022216 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 06:25:51 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQ1dv-0003gP-FX for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 06:16:15 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA00515 for ; Tue, 18 May 2004 06:16:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQ1dr-0002ps-Mq for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 06:16:11 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQ1co-0002QI-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 06:15:07 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQ1bq-00021V-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 06:14:06 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQ1Wv-0000zw-B0; Tue, 18 May 2004 06:09:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQ1SK-00007v-PY for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 06:04:16 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA29994 for ; Tue, 18 May 2004 06:04:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQ1SH-0005li-2h for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 06:04:13 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQ1RC-0005Lg-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 06:03:07 -0400 Received: from sparkle.rodents.montreal.qc.ca ([216.46.5.7] ident=cDwcTR9lJMOvFZeSEwtchSOcIcFlISn5WVqBcD9ySqr) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQ1QS-0004wf-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 06:02:20 -0400 Received: (from mouse@localhost) by Sparkle.Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA26962; Tue, 18 May 2004 06:02:21 -0400 (EDT) From: der Mouse Message-Id: <200405181002.GAA26962@Sparkle.Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Erik-Conspiracy: There is no Conspiracy - and if there were I wouldn't be part of it anyway. To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 3. Proof-of-work analysis In-Reply-To: References: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 05:48:37 -0400 (EDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit >> That works currently against spamware that pipelines illegally. > Problem is that there are lots of people using these techniques for > good reason. Problem? What problem? I am quite happy to reject mail from people who think they deserve to be exempted from the RFCs that apply to everyone else (such as the ones that forbid non-negotiated SMTP pipelining), no matter how good they think their reasons. > 'illegal' is a poor choice of language, SMTP is not an act of > parliament, I disagree here too. `Illegal' is commonly used (in computer contexts and even some non-computer contexts, such as chess) to mean "in violation of applicable rules" even when those rules do not take the form of mundane law. Would you object to saying that an attempt to move a knight as if it were a bishop in chess is an "illegal move"? That certain machine-code bit patterns constitute "illegal instructions"? This is the sense in which ratware pipelines "illegally". > If you need to send out a million mails to your customers as Ebay > does every day you cannot wait around a minute while someone's idiot > sendmail script runs. If you think you're somehow "above" the RFCs, you not only _deserve_ to have your mail refused, you _will_ have your mail refused - at rates that increase with the perceived severity of the violation. "But I need to send out more than my machine can handle if I have to follow the rules" will be, quite properly, answered with "then get more machines". Being big does not exempt you from the rules, no matter how much organizations like your email provider might wish it did. /~\ The ASCII der Mouse \ / Ribbon Campaign X Against HTML mouse@rodents.montreal.qc.ca / \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue May 18 12:00:54 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 MAA24580 for ; Tue, 18 May 2004 12:00:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQ6zG-0003Su-SS for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 11:58:39 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4IFwc5u013320 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 11:58:38 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQ6ur-0002GA-I9 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 11:54:05 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA24190 for ; Tue, 18 May 2004 11:54:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQ6uq-0003JP-EQ for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 11:54:04 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQ6tp-0003Gp-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 11:53:02 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQ6t2-0003FG-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 11:52:12 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQ6m5-0006ZY-HE; Tue, 18 May 2004 11:45:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQ6eI-0003pM-BI for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 11:36:58 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA23248 for ; Tue, 18 May 2004 11:36:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQ6eH-0002M1-AW for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 11:36:57 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQ6dP-0002JC-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 11:36:03 -0400 Received: from newgiles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ([205.150.200.131] helo=mail.nitros9.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQ6cT-0002Fw-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 11:35:05 -0400 Received: from newgiles.nitros9.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.nitros9.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78E5B16FCA for ; Tue, 18 May 2004 11:40:39 -0400 (EDT) From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 3. Proof-of-work analysis In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 18 May 2004 01:04:31 EDT." <200405180510.BAA26322@Sparkle.Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA> Message-Id: <20040518154039.78E5B16FCA@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, 18 May 2004 11:40:39 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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 der Mouse wrote: > > I'm just idly curious (like you I have zero confidence in > > proof-of-work schemes) but why wouldn't they all be equivalent to > > "don't send me your next command for (at least) N seconds or I'll > > drop the connection"? > > No, because "wait for N seconds" is parallelizable across many > connections, whereas "do N cpu-seconds of work" isn't. Many MTA's can limit the number of simultaneous connections from clients, and can group the connections into pools. Until the spam attempts went up by another order of magnitude, I was quite successful in limiting my MTA to ~50 connections, with ~10 reserved for the pool of MX's that most of my traffic came from. In the end, it was easier to discard the domain, and move to another one. But that solution doesn't scale, which is why we're here. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue May 18 12:41:25 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 MAA26453 for ; Tue, 18 May 2004 12:41:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQ7TZ-0004a2-Fs for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 12:29:57 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4IGTvYj017606 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 12:29:57 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQ7H5-0001Fh-MM for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 12:17:03 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA25273 for ; Tue, 18 May 2004 12:17:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQ7H4-0004cx-EY for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 12:17:02 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQ7GE-0004bA-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 12:16:11 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQ7Fs-0004Ya-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 12:15:48 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQ70i-00040H-T8; Tue, 18 May 2004 12:00:08 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQ6yc-0003Ji-Is for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 11:57:58 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA24352 for ; Tue, 18 May 2004 11:57:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQ6yb-0003XR-At for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 11:57:57 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQ6xj-0003St-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 11:57:04 -0400 Received: from anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net ([194.217.242.90]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQ6wl-0003Pt-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 11:56:03 -0400 Received: from gti.noc.demon.net ([195.11.55.101] helo=rnc1.al.cl.cam.ac.uk) by anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1BQ6wh-000D6d-0W for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 16:56:02 +0100 Message-ID: To: asrg@ietf.org From: Richard Clayton Subject: Re: [Asrg] 3. Proof-of-work analysis References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 M <7fPN0OjtGdv6AX1irDkRphaT6+> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 13:10:34 +0100 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,DATE_IN_PAST_03_06 autolearn=no version=2.60 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 In article , Jonathan Morton writes >> We then >> carefully worked through all the calculations, using the best data >> that we could obtain -- and we did indeed come to the conclusion that >> proof-of-work is not a viable proposal :( > >That's a very interesting paper, thank you. I wonder, however, what >the distribution curves are like when "regular correspondents" are >exempted from proof-of-work, not just mailing lists. Would it be >possible to re-examine the MTA logs for this type of pattern? in principle yes ... however I doubt that the systems at the top of the curve (sending lots of email per day) would have regular correspondents. Besides the people running mailing lists, they will be e-commerce systems sending acknowledgements, hospitals confirming appointments, fax delivery systems relaying incoming messages etc. However, I could not be sure of that statement without a fair amount of processing. Since I'd like to know how much of the top of the curve involves mailing lists, that's not processing that I'm averse to doing. >By "regular correspondents" I mean people who know each other well >enough to send mail regularly, not necessarily frequently - even once a >week over a period of months. I ask this because I expect that users >with slow machines - who would otherwise be the group most >inconvenienced by proof-of-work schemes - send mail that mostly falls >into this category. I don't know, however, how much of the overall >picture is accounted for by these. I don't see why one should expect any correlation between machine speed and regularity of sending email. Many businesses will not splash out for admin staff machines, so it is they as well as aged parents who might be expected to have old kit :) >For future work, it might be instructive to identify various non-spam >use-cases which appear to have a high proof-of-work load - ie. on the >"long tail" of the distribution curves presented - and consider >practical ways of relieving or accommodating it. indeed so ... though you should note that there is not much difference between spam viability thresholds and the average case, let alone power- users. For proof-of-work to look plausible (and not a high-risk strategy) I'd like to see factors of a thousand or more between plausible workloads for legitimate senders and any economically viable spamming activity :-( - -- richard Richard Clayton They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 iQA/AwUBQKn9OhfnRQV/feRLEQJruQCZAeu3ZpTgrPIspvVIhs1sFk8yFbAAn2JQ HTxFfnBPFrZm/jskT4NwehQE =3MEJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue May 18 13:02:31 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 NAA27585 for ; Tue, 18 May 2004 13:02:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQ7ja-0001iB-Sx for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 12:46:30 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4IGkUI4006572 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 12:46:30 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQ7hC-0000oV-8B for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 12:44:02 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA26555 for ; Tue, 18 May 2004 12:43:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQ7hA-00068d-KY for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 12:44:00 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQ7gK-00066H-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 12:43:09 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQ7fX-00063w-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 12:42:19 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQ7Tg-0004dM-TQ; Tue, 18 May 2004 12:30:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQ7I3-0001VH-LO for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 12:18:03 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA25307 for ; Tue, 18 May 2004 12:18:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQ7I2-0004fg-8a for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 12:18:02 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQ7HA-0004df-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 12:17:08 -0400 Received: from newgiles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ([205.150.200.131] helo=mail.nitros9.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQ7Gj-0004bN-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 12:16:41 -0400 Received: from newgiles.nitros9.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.nitros9.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5558D16FCA for ; Tue, 18 May 2004 12:22:06 -0400 (EDT) From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 3. Proof-of-work analysis In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 18 May 2004 05:48:37 EDT." <200405181002.GAA26962@Sparkle.Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA> Message-Id: <20040518162206.5558D16FCA@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, 18 May 2004 12:22:06 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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 der Mouse wrote: > >> That works currently against spamware that pipelines illegally. > > Problem is that there are lots of people using these techniques for > > good reason. > > Problem? What problem? I am quite happy to reject mail from people > who think they deserve to be exempted from the RFCs that apply to > everyone else Is this another example of the SMTP spec having requirements, but supplying no provisions for satisfying, or enforcing, those requirements? Similar weaknesses exist in other protocols, but they're less problematic for a whole host of reasons. Hmm... I think it's time for me to update my attempt at creating a document describing "how spammers abuse fields and flaws in SMTP, and why". Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue May 18 14:12:59 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (www.iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA02840 for ; Tue, 18 May 2004 14:12:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQ92l-0003kl-Un for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 14:10:24 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4IIANET014423 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 14:10:23 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQ8t4-0001Q2-N8 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 14:00:22 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA01763 for ; Tue, 18 May 2004 14:00:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQ8t2-0003SG-E7 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 14:00:20 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQ8s1-0003P4-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 13:59:18 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQ8rW-0003Lb-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 13:58:46 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQ8k5-00004s-4K; Tue, 18 May 2004 13:51:05 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQ8dK-00074o-6Q for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 13:44:06 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA00052 for ; Tue, 18 May 2004 13:44:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQ8dI-00023g-0U for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 13:44:04 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQ8cI-000217-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 13:43:03 -0400 Received: from sparkle.rodents.montreal.qc.ca ([216.46.5.7] ident=V08SQYM1bwBTVONGibgJCze4aIPAKd5QGubyLmnAv3V) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQ8ba-0001y8-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 13:42:18 -0400 Received: (from mouse@localhost) by Sparkle.Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA28469; Tue, 18 May 2004 13:42:11 -0400 (EDT) From: der Mouse Message-Id: <200405181742.NAA28469@Sparkle.Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Erik-Conspiracy: There is no Conspiracy - and if there were I wouldn't be part of it anyway. To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 3. Proof-of-work analysis In-Reply-To: <20040518162206.5558D16FCA@mail.nitros9.org> References: <20040518162206.5558D16FCA@mail.nitros9.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 13:34:56 -0400 (EDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit >>>> That works currently against spamware that pipelines illegally. >>> Problem is that there are lots of people using these techniques for >>> good reason. >> Problem? What problem? I am quite happy to reject mail from people >> who think they deserve to be exempted from the RFCs that apply to >> everyone else > Is this another example of the SMTP spec having requirements, but > supplying no provisions for satisfying, or enforcing, those > requirements? Right. Like most protocols, the enforcement mechanism consists of interoperation failures. However, unlike most protocols, historical implementations of SMTP have tolerated many and egregious protocol violations, so there is a chicken-and-egg problem with rolling in protocol conformance checks. Illegal pipelining is just one of the forms of protocol violation that has historically been tolerated, and has current prominence because it's now being abused by ratware. This has produced a positive side to adopting pipelining conformance checks, counterbalancing the negative side that has kept such checks out until now. We're now in the uncomfortable unsettled transition period from widely unchecked and nonconforming to widely checked and conforming. /~\ The ASCII der Mouse \ / Ribbon Campaign X Against HTML mouse@rodents.montreal.qc.ca / \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue May 18 20:44:19 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 UAA01434 for ; Tue, 18 May 2004 20:44:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQF7h-0002yG-Hz for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 20:39:53 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4J0drLt011420 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 20:39:53 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQF3W-0001he-1m for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 20:35:34 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA01054 for ; Tue, 18 May 2004 20:35:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQF3T-00041C-SV for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 20:35:31 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQF2Z-0003vc-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 20:34:36 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQF1Y-0003rV-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 20:33:32 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQEvH-0008Qz-4t; Tue, 18 May 2004 20:27:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQEh0-0005rv-HS for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 20:12:18 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA29990 for ; Tue, 18 May 2004 20:12:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQEgy-0002Py-Gs for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 20:12:16 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQEgC-0002N5-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 20:11:29 -0400 Received: from chromatix.demon.co.uk ([80.177.102.173] helo=lithium.chromatix.org.uk) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQEfi-0002Jg-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 20:10:58 -0400 Received: from arowana.chromatix.org.uk ([192.168.239.106]) by lithium.chromatix.org.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.31) id 1BQEfg-0000FZ-Dz; Wed, 19 May 2004 01:10:56 +0100 In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v613) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <03A0F711-A929-11D8-B336-000393863768@chromatix.demon.co.uk> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: asrg@ietf.org From: Jonathan Morton Subject: Re: [Asrg] 3. Proof-of-work analysis To: Richard Clayton X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.613) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 01:11:02 +0100 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >>> We then >>> carefully worked through all the calculations, using the best data >>> that we could obtain -- and we did indeed come to the conclusion that >>> proof-of-work is not a viable proposal :( >> >> That's a very interesting paper, thank you. I wonder, however, what >> the distribution curves are like when "regular correspondents" are >> exempted from proof-of-work, not just mailing lists. Would it be >> possible to re-examine the MTA logs for this type of pattern? > > in principle yes ... however I doubt that the systems at the top of the > curve (sending lots of email per day) would have regular > correspondents. > Besides the people running mailing lists, they will be e-commerce > systems sending acknowledgements, hospitals confirming appointments, > fax > delivery systems relaying incoming messages etc. Let's think about the statistical significance a bit. The Net-wide average is about 3 people per host, but most hosts have only one or two people behind them. The discrepancy may well be made up for by a small number of hosts handling very large numbers of people. As an example, Lancaster University provides a central UNIX-shell cluster for all students, among the services of which was the official e-mail system. Because it's a UNIX shell system, the mail is sent from the members of the cluster, not from the terminal used to log on. So, in theory, the Internet sees 10,000 students sharing three 4-way Sun workstations (this, at least, was what the configuration used to be). In practice, about 60% of those students are off-campus and typically use third-party ISPs for personal correspondence anyway, and an increasingly large proportion of the remainder use personal computers from their rooms - but you can see the principle. And yes, I agree that this particular use-case is fairly pessimal in terms of proof-of-work scenarios. However, intra-campus communications are typically quite well-ordered, so (with careful management around the beginning of the academic year) it could still be possible to use the same three workstations in a proof-of-work world. >> By "regular correspondents" I mean people who know each other well >> enough to send mail regularly, not necessarily frequently - even once >> a >> week over a period of months. I ask this because I expect that users >> with slow machines - who would otherwise be the group most >> inconvenienced by proof-of-work schemes - send mail that mostly falls >> into this category. I don't know, however, how much of the overall >> picture is accounted for by these. > > I don't see why one should expect any correlation between machine speed > and regularity of sending email. Many businesses will not splash out > for > admin staff machines, so it is they as well as aged parents who might > be > expected to have old kit :) I'm afraid I don't have much insight into how business e-mail patterns go. That's why I'm asking you for the statistics. :) Point taken, anyway - chalk this one up as another use-case to be considered. It could be that the business might set up it's own proof-of-work server cluster for internal use, rather than upgrading individual workstations, or else rent time as needed on a third-party's cluster. FWIW, I treat mailing lists as a special case of "regular correspondent", and as such I don't think it's necessary to distinguish them per se. You might like to consider this when compiling your statistics. >> For future work, it might be instructive to identify various non-spam >> use-cases which appear to have a high proof-of-work load - ie. on the >> "long tail" of the distribution curves presented - and consider >> practical ways of relieving or accommodating it. > > indeed so ... though you should note that there is not much difference > between spam viability thresholds and the average case, let alone > power- > users. For the brute-force proof-of-work scheme you assume in the paper, this is undoubtedly true. I'm asking for more statistics to try and reveal whether the ways we've thought of, for making it less brute-force, are viable. > For proof-of-work to look plausible (and not a high-risk strategy) I'd > like to see factors of a thousand or more between plausible workloads > for legitimate senders and any economically viable spamming activity > :-( For my own usage pattern, assuming proof-of-work is exempted for regular correspondents, this is approximately true. I talk almost exclusively to mailing lists and people I know pretty well. Occasionally I get a question from someone I don't know, but this is rare enough that I could, if necessary, give up 60 seconds of my PowerBook's CPU time to send a reply, without too much fuss - after all, it would have taken me at least that long to write it. I'd still be concerned about the time taken on a slower machine, though. However, looking instead at the mail I *receive*, I can see a number of remote systems which could, potentially, be heavily burdened by proof-of-work. However, these aren't as common as you might think. Forum update notifications? These come in frequently and from predictable sources, so I might as well whitelist them as a regular correspondent. The same goes for news and status mailings from my ISP and various other organisations. E-commerce transaction confirmations? If it only costs a fractional cent per PoW token (because you're managing the hardware in bulk), it disappears next to the cost of the currency handling. Remember, I'm imagining that you can centralise the effort and effectively rent space on someone else's cluster for this, so even small shops see the same kinds of low cost. In practice, most e-commerce systems I've seen use a double-opt-in e-mail registration process, very similar to mailing lists, so similar mechanisms could apply. As for tech support and sales enquiries, you're paying the staff sitting at the workstation at least national minimum wage (several dollars an hour), and they have a physical limit to how fast they can type and send mails. The cost of attaching tokens to those mails is miniscule in comparison. Whether it happens on the workstation or centrally is a matter of logistics - but if the workstation is already fast enough, the costs become essentially nil. Registration confirmations? Seriously, these are *supposed* to be rare. I'd like to know what kind of system processes more registrations than actual service, before I consider this to be a problem. I used to get e-cards from a few people. These are typically sent from the e-card vendor's system at present - a bad practice, but oh well. If the cost of generating proof-of-work is too high for the e-card vendor, they can get the sender to download the e-card and send it themselves. I'm not too worried about that. That leaves one big category: Web Mail. The likes of Hotmail and Yahoo don't charge for sending e-mail from their systems, except perhaps in terms of banner ads. They also handle ginormous amounts of said mail, which could make a proof-of-work switch-on relatively difficult for them. However, most of their clients are low-end home users, who, on average, may have relatively favourable contact patterns. For this, we could do with more statistics. Any more? -------------------------------------------------------------- from: Jonathan "Chromatix" Morton mail: chromi@chromatix.demon.co.uk website: http://www.chromatix.uklinux.net/ tagline: The key to knowledge is not to rely on people to teach you it. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue May 18 20:44:49 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 UAA01488 for ; Tue, 18 May 2004 20:44:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQF7l-00030c-Ok for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 20:39:59 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4J0dv0a011562 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 20:39:57 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQF7B-0002l5-5S for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 20:39:21 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA01290 for ; Tue, 18 May 2004 20:39:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQF78-0004Ie-TO for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 20:39:19 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQF6F-0004FN-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 20:38:24 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQF5e-0004C9-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 20:37:46 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQEvP-0008VP-9K; Tue, 18 May 2004 20:27:11 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQEre-0007Aw-3O for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 20:23:20 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA00394 for ; Tue, 18 May 2004 20:23:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQErc-00034h-33 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 20:23:16 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQEqf-00030y-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 20:22:18 -0400 Received: from sc1.scconsult.com ([66.73.230.190] helo=toaster.scconsult.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQEpo-0002xC-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 20:21:24 -0400 Received: from [192.168.254.12] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by toaster.scconsult.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED84F1138DC for ; Tue, 18 May 2004 20:21:22 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: bill@fireproof.scconsult.com Message-Id: To: asrg@ietf.org From: grsa@billmail.scconsult.com Subject: RE: [Asrg] 3. Proof-of-work analysis Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 20:21:20 -0400 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 At 10:53 PM -0700 5/17/04, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: >> Spamware could parallel connections to umpteen million recipients and >> send at full speed if all it had to do was wait. > >Absolutely, this code is not your standard mail client stuff. That depends on what you mean by 'mail client.' There are common modern MTA's that will parallelize quite heavily by default, and for most of a decade there have been transport agents designed for mailing lists with tunable parallelization. The class of spammers that seems to have the biggest problem with slow transaction times has a logically intrinsic problem there. These are the compromised machine users, who are not free to tune systems for broad parallelization and for whom longer per-host connect times and/or broad parallelization per harnessed zombie mean greater likelihood of getting caught and evicted from the machines they trespass on sooner than if they simply fire off all of their outbound data for a single target as if assuming that all responses will be positive. There is at least one spammer/ratware combination in operation right now that is actually sending the entire client-side part of an SMTP session in a single TCP segment. >> > Or for that matter just don't respond with a 250 to their HELO for N >> > seconds and if they continue talking anyhow drop the connection >> > (something like this is in the current beta sendmail, 8.13.0beta.) >> >> That works currently against spamware that pipelines illegally. If it >> becomes more common, that spamware will become less common. > >Problem is that there are lots of people using these techniques for >good reason. 'illegal' is a poor choice of language, SMTP is not an >act of parliament, nor is it a particularly great design. I'm not sure that you and Seth are understanding 'pipelines illegally' in the same way. There is a defined standard for when and how an SMTP client can pipeline which includes some carefully reasoned times when pipelining cannot be correct behavior. Spamware today breaks the natural rules about what can be pipelined, not just the social rules about whether a sender should try pipelining when the EHLO response isn't there. >If you >need to send out a million mails to your customers as Ebay does every >day you cannot wait around a minute while someone's idiot sendmail >script runs. 1. Yes, you can. It's a parallelization issue for the sender, and legitimate high-volume senders deal with 30-90 second delays per SMTP command all the time. It is an issue of system design and tuning. 2. Using Ebay as an example of a legitimate mailer is a cute bit of humor. I understand that they are a very different operation from the zombie herders, but it is of dubious value to look at the problem of spam technically only and reference chronically unethical high-volume mailers like Ebay, Verisign, Microsoft, Digital Impact, Topica, and Yahoo as a set that needs to fit within any technical approach. (and yes, that's a very incomplete list) It may be that in order to address the behavior of the Alan Ralsky's and Scott Richter's of the world, the big guys who are not doing anything that is criminal (at least not in the US and/or not yet proven in a court of law) and have names everyone knows will have to rework or even abandon their use of email as a broadcast medium. Spam is a problem in large part because of the non-uniform economies of scale that have existed for email and the unreasonable expectations of economies of scale extending into very large scales, i.e. that because there is not a tenfold difference in capital and operational cost between sending to one hundred and one thousand, that there should not be a tenfold increase in cost between a hundred thousand and a million. It is that sort of expectation which drives the 'legit' companies to cut corners on ethical list management and whine about being unable to handle delays (where 'handle' really means 'comfortably fund the needed resources to work with') and leads to the sort of behavior that the NYAG has documented: subcontracting layers leading from seemingly legitimate companies down to zombie rustlers. -- Bill Cole bill@scconsult.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue May 18 20:56:41 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 UAA02081 for ; Tue, 18 May 2004 20:56:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQFF8-0004Br-6T for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 20:47:34 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4J0lY9p016103 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 20:47:34 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQF90-0003A8-H9 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 20:41:14 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA01333 for ; Tue, 18 May 2004 20:41:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQF8y-0004Qf-9P for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 20:41:12 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQF83-0004ML-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 20:40:16 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQF76-0004IV-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 20:39:16 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQEvP-0008VX-Tq; Tue, 18 May 2004 20:27:11 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQEsb-0007Gy-O1 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 20:24:17 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA00419 for ; Tue, 18 May 2004 20:24:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQEsZ-000395-JW for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 20:24:15 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQEre-00035F-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 20:23:19 -0400 Received: from sc1.scconsult.com ([66.73.230.190] helo=toaster.scconsult.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQEqj-00031R-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 20:22:21 -0400 Received: from [192.168.254.12] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by toaster.scconsult.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22C861138DD for ; Tue, 18 May 2004 20:22:21 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: bill@fireproof.scconsult.com Message-Id: To: asrg@ietf.org From: Bill Cole Subject: RE: [Asrg] 3. Proof-of-work analysis Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 20:22:18 -0400 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 10:53 PM -0700 5/17/04, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: >> Spamware could parallel connections to umpteen million recipients and >> send at full speed if all it had to do was wait. > >Absolutely, this code is not your standard mail client stuff. That depends on what you mean by 'mail client.' There are common modern MTA's that will parallelize quite heavily by default, and for most of a decade there have been transport agents designed for mailing lists with tunable parallelization. The class of spammers that seems to have the biggest problem with slow transaction times has a logically intrinsic problem there. These are the compromised machine users, who are not free to tune systems for broad parallelization and for whom longer per-host connect times and/or broad parallelization per harnessed zombie mean greater likelihood of getting caught and evicted from the machines they trespass on sooner than if they simply fire off all of their outbound data for a single target as if assuming that all responses will be positive. There is at least one spammer/ratware combination in operation right now that is actually sending the entire client-side part of an SMTP session in a single TCP segment. >> > Or for that matter just don't respond with a 250 to their HELO for N >> > seconds and if they continue talking anyhow drop the connection >> > (something like this is in the current beta sendmail, 8.13.0beta.) >> >> That works currently against spamware that pipelines illegally. If it >> becomes more common, that spamware will become less common. > >Problem is that there are lots of people using these techniques for >good reason. 'illegal' is a poor choice of language, SMTP is not an >act of parliament, nor is it a particularly great design. I'm not sure that you and Seth are understanding 'pipelines illegally' in the same way. There is a defined standard for when and how an SMTP client can pipeline which includes some carefully reasoned times when pipelining cannot be correct behavior. Spamware today breaks the natural rules about what can be pipelined, not just the social rules about whether a sender should try pipelining when the EHLO response isn't there. >If you >need to send out a million mails to your customers as Ebay does every >day you cannot wait around a minute while someone's idiot sendmail >script runs. 1. Yes, you can. It's a parallelization issue for the sender, and legitimate high-volume senders deal with 30-90 second delays per SMTP command all the time. It is an issue of system design and tuning. 2. Using Ebay as an example of a legitimate mailer is a cute bit of humor. I understand that they are a very different operation from the zombie herders, but it is of dubious value to look at the problem of spam technically only and reference chronically unethical high-volume mailers like Ebay, Verisign, Microsoft, Digital Impact, Topica, and Yahoo as a set that needs to fit within any technical approach. (and yes, that's a very incomplete list) It may be that in order to address the behavior of the Alan Ralsky's and Scott Richter's of the world, the big guys who are not doing anything that is criminal (at least not in the US and/or not yet proven in a court of law) and have names everyone knows will have to rework or even abandon their use of email as a broadcast medium. Spam is a problem in large part because of the non-uniform economies of scale that have existed for email and the unreasonable expectations of economies of scale extending into very large scales, i.e. that because there is not a tenfold difference in capital and operational cost between sending to one hundred and one thousand, that there should not be a tenfold increase in cost between a hundred thousand and a million. It is that sort of expectation which drives the 'legit' companies to cut corners on ethical list management and whine about being unable to handle delays (where 'handle' really means 'comfortably fund the needed resources to work with') and leads to the sort of behavior that the NYAG has documented: subcontracting layers leading from seemingly legitimate companies down to zombie rustlers. -- Bill Cole bill@scconsult.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue May 18 21:43:06 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA04025 for ; Tue, 18 May 2004 21:43:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQG5b-0004Sp-Qk for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 21:41:47 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4J1flHY017123 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 21:41:47 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQFmt-0001AW-Js for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 21:22:27 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA03239 for ; Tue, 18 May 2004 21:22:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQFmq-0007d4-VM for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 21:22:25 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQFlv-0007Yh-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 21:21:28 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQFlO-0007UW-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 21:20:54 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQFbs-0007pr-N7; Tue, 18 May 2004 21:11:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQFYC-0006ib-Tt for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 21:07:16 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA02545 for ; Tue, 18 May 2004 21:07:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQFYA-0006St-D4 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 21:07:14 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQFXC-0006Pn-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 21:06:14 -0400 Received: from sc1.scconsult.com ([66.73.230.190] helo=toaster.scconsult.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQFWE-0006MF-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 21:05:14 -0400 Received: from [192.168.254.12] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by toaster.scconsult.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D00C1138EC for ; Tue, 18 May 2004 21:05:13 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: (Unverified) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: To: asrg@ietf.org From: Bill Cole Subject: Don't blame the list, blame me (was RE: [Asrg] 3. Proof-of-work analysis) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 21:05:10 -0400 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 8:22 PM -0400 5/18/04, Bill Cole wrote: [ the same thing twice in a minute] Demonstrating how odd mail software can be, one generally does not expect a MUA to kick back an error on a typo'd address during a send AND proceed to correct that formatting error on its own and complete the send. At least I didn't expect that. I apologize for the duplicate, and believe I have added a bit of idiot-proofing that clearly I need to prevent a recurrence. -- Bill Cole bill@scconsult.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue May 18 22:14:19 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA06169 for ; Tue, 18 May 2004 22:14:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQGZ9-0002Zc-RN for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 22:12:19 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4J2CJlo009892 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 22:12:19 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQGYB-0002DM-66 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 22:11:19 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA06004 for ; Tue, 18 May 2004 22:11:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQGY8-0004d1-3s for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 22:11:16 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQGXG-0004ZQ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 22:10:22 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQGWU-0004Vq-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 22:09:34 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQGN7-0008OA-Qx; Tue, 18 May 2004 21:59:53 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQG48-00042N-VR for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 21:40:16 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA03927 for ; Tue, 18 May 2004 21:40:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQG46-0001GU-66 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 21:40:14 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQG38-0001BI-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 21:39:14 -0400 Received: from mout.perfora.net ([217.160.230.41]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQG2C-00015U-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 21:38:16 -0400 Received: from [217.160.230.50] (helo=smtp.perfora.net) by mout.perfora.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1BQG2C-00015k-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 21:38:16 -0400 Received: from [68.245.111.190] (helo=solidmatrix.com) by smtp.perfora.net with asmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1BQG2B-0002hV-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 21:38:16 -0400 Message-ID: <40AABA83.70305@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 X-Provags-ID: perfora.net abuse@perfora.net auth:7051a7fa85b96745770cd89fa6d27f10 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] 0. Administrative - Registration open for 60th 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: Tue, 18 May 2004 21:38:11 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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 Registration has opened for the 60th IETF meeting in San Diego. The ASRG will hopefully be having a meeting there as well. More info on registration can be found here: http://www.ietf.org/meetings/IETF-60.html 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 May 18 22:15:07 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA06242 for ; Tue, 18 May 2004 22:15:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQGb4-0002uT-Ge for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 22:14:18 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4J2EIkE011180 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 22:14:18 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQGZA-0002Zq-Ry for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 22:12:20 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA06027 for ; Tue, 18 May 2004 22:12:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQGZ7-0004iM-U4 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 22:12:17 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQGYA-0004dL-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 22:11:18 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQGXZ-0004Zi-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 22:10:41 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQGNF-0008Ox-3Y; Tue, 18 May 2004 22:00:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQFua-0001qZ-Mz for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 21:30:24 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA03595 for ; Tue, 18 May 2004 21:30:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQFuY-0000V6-0G for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 21:30:22 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQFth-0000QD-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 21:29:30 -0400 Received: from mout.perfora.net ([217.160.230.40]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQFsr-0000ME-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 21:28:37 -0400 Received: from [217.160.230.50] (helo=smtp.perfora.net) by mout.perfora.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1BQFsr-0007Dd-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 21:28:37 -0400 Received: from [68.245.111.190] (helo=solidmatrix.com) by smtp.perfora.net with asmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1BQFso-0002KL-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 21:28:37 -0400 Message-ID: <40AAB82D.3090004@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 X-Provags-ID: perfora.net abuse@perfora.net auth:7051a7fa85b96745770cd89fa6d27f10 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] [Fwd: Yahoo! Mail Publishes Specification for DomainKeys] Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 21:28:13 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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 MARID list. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Yahoo! Mail Publishes Specification for DomainKeys Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 10:46:32 -0400 From: Larry Seltzer To: 'IETF MARID WG' (see http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys in particular) LJS Yahoo! Mail Publishes Specification for DomainKeys E-mail Authentication Solution Filed with IETF; Alpha Version of Open Source Code Available WHAT: On Tuesday, May 18, Yahoo! announces the publication of its specification on DomainKeys, a cryptographic e-mail authentication solution to help fight spam. DomainKeys: In order to attack spam at its roots, a powerful solution is needed that can verify the identity of the e-mail sender and put an end to spoofing and forgery. DomainKeys help fight spam by providing strong assurance of both the sender's identity and the integrity of the e-mail content through the use of public/private key cryptography. On Monday, May 17, the company filed the spec as an Internet-draft with the IETF (Internet Engineering Task Force) standards body to begin the standardization process. Additionally, Yahoo! is currently developing a reference implementation for DomainKeys that can be plugged into Message Transfer Agents (MTAs), such as qmail. An alpha version of this software will be released under a royalty free license at SourceForge.net. WHERE: The specification, license terms and FAQs are posted on Yahoo!'s Anti-Spam Resource Center: http://antispam.yahoo.com The alpha version of the software will be hosted at SourceForge.net at: http://sourceforge.net/index.php -- Yakov Shafranovich / asrg shaftek.org SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / research solidmatrix.com "There is nothing new under the sun" (Eccls. 1:9) _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue May 18 22:42:29 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (www.iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA07165 for ; Tue, 18 May 2004 22:42:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQGw3-00062q-KT for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 22:36:00 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4J2ZxEa023229 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 22:35:59 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQGqa-0004zH-04 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 22:30:20 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA06912 for ; Tue, 18 May 2004 22:30:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQGqW-0006T6-QH for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 22:30:16 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQGpa-0006Os-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 22:29:18 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQGoh-0006LH-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 22:28:23 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQGiX-0004Ij-J9; Tue, 18 May 2004 22:22:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQGcN-0003AH-A0 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 22:15:39 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA06357 for ; Tue, 18 May 2004 22:15:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQGcK-0005Ex-6H for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 22:15:36 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQGbS-00054N-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 22:14:43 -0400 Received: from mail3.sa.chariot.net.au ([203.87.94.14]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQGaG-0004my-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 22:13:28 -0400 Received: from mail.chariot.net.au (mail.chariot.net.au [203.87.95.38]) by mail3.sa.chariot.net.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEB11A46C2 for ; Wed, 19 May 2004 11:42:55 +0930 (CST) Received: from rebel (ppp48-14.lns1.adl2.internode.on.net [150.101.48.14]) by mail.chariot.net.au (Postfix) with SMTP id 82D605F740 for ; Wed, 19 May 2004 11:42:55 +0930 (CST) From: "Chris" To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] [ASRG]3 proposal - "Those Who Profit" Legal 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: Wed, 19 May 2004 11:42:25 +0930 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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 Another thought also. while I am in the typing mood. (I hope I am not recycling here) Any legal approach should have a "Those who profit from Spam" clause In other words let the law go after the profiteers not just the senders These are easy to trace as their details are invariably in the emails After all they are the ones who pay for the spam to be sent. without them it would not be sent period! In the case of 'affiliates' it would be required by the law for the "profit taker" to turn over the affilliates details so the affilliate can be prosecuted (if possible). Should a company fail to reign in affilliates, they may then become liable themselves. Again the affiliates details are contained in each email. and thus easily traceable. Regards Chris _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue May 18 22:43:06 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (www.iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA07187 for ; Tue, 18 May 2004 22:43:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQH0q-0006rU-64 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 22:40:56 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4J2eut4026377 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 22:40:56 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQGuY-0005p5-1M for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 22:34:26 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA06998 for ; Tue, 18 May 2004 22:34:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQGuU-0006m2-Nw for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 22:34:22 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQGtY-0006hr-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 22:33:25 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQGtK-0006dT-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 22:33:10 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQGiY-0004Ir-41; Tue, 18 May 2004 22:22:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQGcO-0003AJ-0n for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 22:15:40 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA06361 for ; Tue, 18 May 2004 22:15:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQGcK-0005F2-RS for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 22:15:36 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQGbT-00054V-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 22:14:43 -0400 Received: from mail3.sa.chariot.net.au ([203.87.94.14]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQGaG-0004mz-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 22:13:28 -0400 Received: from mail.chariot.net.au (mail.chariot.net.au [203.87.95.38]) by mail3.sa.chariot.net.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7298FA4699 for ; Wed, 19 May 2004 11:42:55 +0930 (CST) Received: from rebel (ppp48-14.lns1.adl2.internode.on.net [150.101.48.14]) by mail.chariot.net.au (Postfix) with SMTP id 27EF65F732 for ; Wed, 19 May 2004 11:42:55 +0930 (CST) From: "Chris" To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] [ASR] 0 -General Viruses now rival spam for inbox space Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 11:42:25 +0930 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi all Has anyone else noticed that they spend more time filtering out viruses (dont start the plural thread!) I cleaned out 20 this morning all from me to me (Grrr) Although this is not the anti email borne virus group [aebvg] I suggest anything that is ratified should also be able to minimise the spread of such. especially as such virus are prime candidates for 'trojanising' a machine for the spread of spam Regards Chris _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue May 18 23:07:42 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (www.iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA08063 for ; Tue, 18 May 2004 23:07:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQHOM-0001uU-1j for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 23:05:14 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4J35DTa007338 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 23:05:13 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQHGp-0000tA-PV for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 22:57:27 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA07627 for ; Tue, 18 May 2004 22:57:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQHGm-0000oT-Ag for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 22:57:24 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQHFj-0000js-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 22:56:19 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQHF8-0000fu-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 22:55:42 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQH9d-0008Fk-0j; Tue, 18 May 2004 22:50:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQ4pE-0005wf-Pk for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 09:40:08 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA14578 for ; Tue, 18 May 2004 09:40:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQ4pC-0000Sy-Ov for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 09:40:06 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQ4o9-00000a-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 09:39:02 -0400 Received: from sc1.scconsult.com ([66.73.230.190] helo=toaster.scconsult.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQ4n9-00077m-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 09:38:00 -0400 Received: from [192.168.254.12] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by toaster.scconsult.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B57D6113849 for ; Tue, 18 May 2004 09:37:50 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: bill@fireproof.scconsult.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: To: asrg@ietf.org From: Bill Cole Subject: RE: [Asrg] 3. Proof-of-work analysis Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 09:37:45 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 At 10:53 PM -0700 5/17/04, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: >> Spamware could parallel connections to umpteen million recipients and >> send at full speed if all it had to do was wait. > >Absolutely, this code is not your standard mail client stuff. That depends on what you mean by 'mail client.' There are common modern MTA's that will parallelize quite heavily by default, and for most of a decade there have been transport agents designed for mailing lists with tunable parallelization. The class of spammers that seems to have the biggest problem with slow transaction times has a logically intrinsic problem there. These are the compromised machine users, who are not free to tune systems for broad parallelization and for whom longer per-host connect times and/or broad parallelization per harnessed zombie mean greater likelihood of getting caught and evicted from the machines they trespass on sooner than if they simply fire off all of their outbound data for a single target as if assuming that all responses will be positive. There is at least one spammer/ratware combination in operation right now that is actually sending the entire client-side part of an SMTP session in a single TCP segment. >> > Or for that matter just don't respond with a 250 to their HELO for N >> > seconds and if they continue talking anyhow drop the connection >> > (something like this is in the current beta sendmail, 8.13.0beta.) >> >> That works currently against spamware that pipelines illegally. If it >> becomes more common, that spamware will become less common. > >Problem is that there are lots of people using these techniques for >good reason. 'illegal' is a poor choice of language, SMTP is not an >act of parliament, nor is it a particularly great design. I'm not sure that you and Seth are understanding 'pipelines illegally' in the same way. There is a defined standard for when and how an SMTP client can pipeline which includes some carefully reasoned times when pipelining cannot be correct behavior. Spamware today breaks the natural rules about what can be pipelined, not just the social rules about whether a sender should try pipelining when the EHLO response isn't there. >If you >need to send out a million mails to your customers as Ebay does every >day you cannot wait around a minute while someone's idiot sendmail >script runs. 1. Yes, you can. It's a parallelization issue for the sender, and legitimate high-volume senders deal with 30-90 second delays per SMTP command all the time. It is an issue of system design and tuning. 2. Using Ebay as an example of a legitimate mailer is a cute bit of humor. I understand that they are a very different operation from the zombie herders, but it is of dubious value to look at the problem of spam technically only and reference chronically unethical high-volume mailers like Ebay, Verisign, Microsoft, Digital Impact, Topica, and Yahoo as a set that needs to fit within any technical approach. (and yes, that's a very incomplete list) It may be that in order to address the behavior of the Alan Ralsky's and Scott Richter's of the world, the big guys who are not doing anything that is criminal (at least not in the US and/or not yet proven in a court of law) and have names everyone knows will have to rework or even abandon their use of email as a broadcast medium. Spam is a problem in large part because of the non-uniform economies of scale that have existed for email and the unreasonable expectations of economies of scale extending into very large scales, i.e. that because there is not a tenfold difference in capital and operational cost between sending to one hundred and one thousand, that there should not be a tenfold increase in cost between a hundred thousand and a million. It is that sort of expectation which drives the 'legit' companies to cut corners on ethical list management and whine about being unable to handle delays (where 'handle' really means 'comfortably fund the needed resources to work with') and leads to the sort of behavior that the NYAG has documented: subcontracting layers leading from seemingly legitimate companies down to zombie rustlers. -- Bill Cole bill@scconsult.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue May 18 23:08:21 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (www.iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA08101 for ; Tue, 18 May 2004 23:08:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQHQ0-0002Ix-4m for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 23:06:58 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4J36uSK008857 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 23:06:56 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQHKc-0001ei-Mu for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 23:01:23 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA07856 for ; Tue, 18 May 2004 23:01:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQHKZ-0001D3-5Q for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 23:01:19 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQHJf-00015p-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 23:00:24 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQHIg-0000yA-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 22:59:22 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQH9e-0008G4-Iq; Tue, 18 May 2004 22:50:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQDbL-0007jy-4x for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 19:02:24 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA26616 for ; Tue, 18 May 2004 19:02:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQDbH-000526-S5 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 19:02:19 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQDaD-0004xq-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 19:01:14 -0400 Received: from main.gmane.org ([80.91.224.249]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQDZG-0004sW-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 19:00:14 -0400 Received: from root by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1BQDZA-0006Fw-00 for ; Wed, 19 May 2004 01:00:08 +0200 Received: from client-82-2-92-5.mant.adsl.virgin.net ([82.2.92.5]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 19 May 2004 01:00:08 +0200 Received: from adam by client-82-2-92-5.mant.adsl.virgin.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 19 May 2004 01:00:08 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: asrg@ietf.org From: Adam Back Lines: 103 Message-ID: <40AA92E7.4090907@cypherspace.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org Cc: cypherpunks@minder.net, rah@shipwright.com, cryptography@metzdowd.com X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: client-82-2-92-5.mant.adsl.virgin.net User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4.1) Gecko/20031114 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 0.76.8.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] Re: 3. Proof-of-work analysis Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 23:49:11 +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 Here's a forward of parts of an email I sent to Richard with comments on his and Ben's paper (sent me a pre-print off-list a couple of weeks ago): One obvious comment is that the calculations do not take account of the CAMRAM approach of charging for introductions only. You mention this in the final para of conclusions as another possible. My presumption tho don't have hard stats to measure the effect is that much of email is to-and-fro between existing correspondents. So if I were only to incur the cost of creating a stamp at time of sending to a new recipient, I could bear a higher cost without running into limits. However the types of levels of cost envisaged are aesthetically unpleasing; I'd say 15 seconds is not very noticeable 15 mins is noticeable and 1.5 hrs is definately noticeable. Of course your other point that we don't know how spammers will adapt is valid. My presumption is that spam would continue apace, the best you could hope for would be that it is more targetted, that there are financial incentives in place to make it worth while buying demographics data. (After all when you consider the cost of sending junk paper mail is way higher, printing plus postage, and yet we still receive plenty of that). Also as you observe if the cost of spamming goes up, perhaps they'll just charge more. We don't know how elastic the demand curve is. Profitability, success rates etc are one part of it. There is an interplay also: if quantity goes down, perhaps the success rate on the remaining goes up. Another theory is that a sizeable chunk of spam is just a ponzi scheme: the person paying does not make money, but a lot of dummy's keep paying for it anyway. Another potential problem with proof-of-work on introductions only, is that if the introduction is fully automated without recipient opt-in, spammers could also benefit from this amortized cost. So I would say something like the sender sent a proof-of-work, and the recipient took some positive action, like replying, filing otherwise than junk or such should be the minimum to get white-listed. On the ebiz web site problem, I think these guys present a problem for the whole approach. An ebiz site will want to send lots of mail to apparent new recipients (no introductions only saving), a popular ebiz site may need to send lots of mail. Well it is ebiz so perhaps they just pass the cost on to the consumer and buy some more servers. Another possibility is the user has to opt-in by pre-white-listing them, however the integration to achieve this is currently missing and would seem a difficult piece of automation to retrofit. One of the distinguishing characteristics of a spammer is the imbalance between mail sent and mail received. Unfortunately I do not see a convenient way to penalize people who fall into this category. Also because of network effect concerns my current hashcash deployment is to use it as a way to reduce false positives, rather than directly requiring hashcash. Well over time this could come to the same thing, but it gives it a gentle start, so we'll see how long it is before the 1st genuine spam with hashcash attached. CAMRAM's approach is distinct and is literally going straight for the objective of bouncing mail without some kind of proof (hashcash or reverse-turing, or short term ability to reply to email challenge-response). Adam Richard Clayton wrote: > [...] Ben Laurie) and I have recently > been doing some sums on proof-of-work / client puzzles / hashcash > methods of imposing economic constraints upon the sending of spam... > > Ben wanted to know how big a proof was needed for a practical scheme > he was considering -- and I told him it wasn't going to work. We then > carefully worked through all the calculations, using the best data > that we could obtain -- and we did indeed come to the conclusion that > proof-of-work is not a viable proposal :( > Paper: > > http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rnc1/proofwork.pdf _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue May 18 23:08:54 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (www.iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA08131 for ; Tue, 18 May 2004 23:08:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQHQ1-0002JV-MI for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 23:06:58 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4J36v8o008888 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 23:06:57 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQHLa-0001hv-4e for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 23:02:22 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA07898 for ; Tue, 18 May 2004 23:02:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQHLW-0001Jf-L0 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 23:02:18 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQHKa-0001DL-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 23:01:21 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQHJn-00016m-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 23:00:31 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQH9f-0008GC-3a; Tue, 18 May 2004 22:50:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQEXf-0003rb-CG for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 20:02:39 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA29350 for ; Tue, 18 May 2004 20:02:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQEXd-0001eA-EX for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 20:02:37 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQEWi-0001Zn-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 20:01:41 -0400 Received: from out2.smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.26]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQEW2-0001Ts-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 20:00:58 -0400 X-Sasl-enc: FCAVUJbRsa2PVG6GcoFdGQ 1084924538 Received: from elvey.com (ns.nextbus.com [64.164.28.194]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18CF8B9BB74; Tue, 18 May 2004 19:55:37 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <40AAA276.8050904@elvey.com> From: Matthew Elvey User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.5 (Windows/20040207) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "william(at)elan.net" Subject: Re: [Asrg] 3.bc - Microbonds and bonds in general 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=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 16:55:34 -0700 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=AWL,HABEAS_SWE autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I like the Vanquish folks and their system and I've spoken with most of their staff at length. I suggested that they get code that validates a Vanquish microbond into SpamAssassin, but it hasn't happened - not even a bug filed about it in SA's bugzilla. (Just checked.) (Vanquish's imperfections were the C/R part and the bugs and the centralized 'bank'.) _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed May 19 00:57:32 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (www.iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA12690 for ; Wed, 19 May 2004 00:57:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQJ7U-0000Cu-L6 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 00:55:57 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4J4tug5000787 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 00:55:56 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQJ19-0007q1-3d for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 00:49:23 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA12209 for ; Wed, 19 May 2004 00:49:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQJ16-0004Ds-GT for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 00:49:20 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQIzZ-0003uK-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 00:47:46 -0400 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQIy6-0003Im-02 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 00:46:15 -0400 Received: from optimus22.ietf.org ([132.151.6.22] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by mx2.foretec.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1BQIi3-0000XO-NH for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 00:29:40 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQIcm-0004VL-0A; Wed, 19 May 2004 00:24:12 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQHlg-0005ga-Um for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 23:29:20 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA09198 for ; Tue, 18 May 2004 23:29:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQHle-0003xI-Vz for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 23:29:19 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQHki-0003qv-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 23:28:20 -0400 Received: from mail3.sa.chariot.net.au ([203.87.94.14]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQHjk-0003gI-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 23:27:20 -0400 Received: from mail.chariot.net.au (mail.chariot.net.au [203.87.95.38]) by mail3.sa.chariot.net.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE6E1A3BAD; Wed, 19 May 2004 12:56:48 +0930 (CST) Received: from rebel (ppp48-14.lns1.adl2.internode.on.net [150.101.48.14]) by mail.chariot.net.au (Postfix) with SMTP id F3D2C5F78E; Wed, 19 May 2004 12:56:47 +0930 (CST) From: "Chris" To: "Yakov Shafranovich" , "ASRG" Subject: [Asrg] 6 - Yahoo Domain Keys 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: <40AAB82D.3090004@solidmatrix.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 12:56:17 +0930 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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 Domian keys works for me :) Except I believe provision should be made for any intervening MTA's to add their own Domain Key thus allowing the injection point be traced for legacy mail systems. Regards Chris > -----Original Message----- > From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of Yakov > Shafranovich > Sent: Wednesday, 19 May 2004 10:58 AM > To: ASRG > Subject: [Asrg] [Fwd: Yahoo! Mail Publishes Specification for > DomainKeys] > > > From MARID list. > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Yahoo! Mail Publishes Specification for DomainKeys > Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 10:46:32 -0400 > From: Larry Seltzer > To: 'IETF MARID WG' > > > (see http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys in particular) > > LJS > > Yahoo! Mail Publishes Specification for DomainKeys > > E-mail Authentication Solution Filed with IETF; > > Alpha Version of Open Source Code Available > > WHAT: > > On Tuesday, May 18, Yahoo! announces the publication of its > specification on DomainKeys, > a cryptographic e-mail authentication solution to help fight spam. > > DomainKeys: In order to attack spam at its roots, a powerful solution is > needed that can > verify the identity of the e-mail sender and put an end to spoofing and > forgery. > DomainKeys help fight spam by providing strong assurance of both the > sender's identity > and the integrity of the e-mail content through the use of > public/private key > cryptography. > > On Monday, May 17, the company filed the spec as an Internet-draft with > the IETF > (Internet Engineering Task Force) standards body to begin the > standardization process. > > Additionally, Yahoo! is currently developing a reference implementation > for DomainKeys > that can be plugged into Message Transfer Agents (MTAs), such as qmail. > An alpha version > of this software will be released under a royalty free license at > SourceForge.net. > > WHERE: > > The specification, license terms and FAQs are posted on Yahoo!'s > Anti-Spam Resource > Center: http://antispam.yahoo.com > The alpha version of the software will be hosted at SourceForge.net at: > http://sourceforge.net/index.php > > -- > Yakov Shafranovich / asrg shaftek.org > SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / research solidmatrix.com > "There is nothing new under the sun" (Eccls. 1:9) > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing 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 May 19 06:17:11 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 GAA27968 for ; Wed, 19 May 2004 06:17:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQNwt-0003XK-KK for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 06:05:19 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4JA5JHI013589 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 06:05:19 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQNpl-0001r4-O3 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 05:57:57 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA26586 for ; Wed, 19 May 2004 05:57:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQNpg-0000TQ-Pe for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 05:57:52 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQNoo-0000Ju-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 05:56:59 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQNo1-00009J-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 05:56:09 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQNi5-0007p5-UV; Wed, 19 May 2004 05:50:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQNFk-0000iy-Fc for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 05:20:44 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA23403 for ; Wed, 19 May 2004 05:20:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQNFg-00014D-Ta for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 05:20:41 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQNEl-0000wL-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 05:19:44 -0400 Received: from anchor-post-35.mail.demon.net ([194.217.242.85]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQNEN-0000o8-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 05:19:19 -0400 Received: from gti.noc.demon.net ([195.11.55.101] helo=rnc1.al.cl.cam.ac.uk) by anchor-post-35.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1BQNEL-000NUF-0Z for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 10:19:17 +0100 Message-ID: To: asrg@ietf.org From: Richard Clayton Subject: Re: [Asrg] 3. Proof-of-work analysis References: <03A0F711-A929-11D8-B336-000393863768@chromatix.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <03A0F711-A929-11D8-B336-000393863768@chromatix.demon.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 M <7fPN0OjtGdv6AX1irDkRphaT6+> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 10:17:10 +0100 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 In article <03A0F711-A929-11D8-B336-000393863768@chromatix.demon.co.uk>, Jonathan Morton writes >> however I doubt that the systems at the top of the >> curve (sending lots of email per day) would have regular >> correspondents. >> Besides the people running mailing lists, they will be e-commerce >> systems sending acknowledgements, hospitals confirming appointments, >> fax >> delivery systems relaying incoming messages etc. > >Let's think about the statistical significance a bit. The Net-wide >average is about 3 people per host, in the paper we calculate this as 2.5 -- but given the nature of the figures we are using, 3 is just about as accurate :) >but most hosts have only one or two >people behind them. hmm... I think you're forgetting how many children use the Internet >The discrepancy may well be made up for by a small >number of hosts handling very large numbers of people. perhaps >As an example, Lancaster University provides a central UNIX-shell >cluster for all students, among the services of which was the official >e-mail system. Because it's a UNIX shell system, the mail is sent from >the members of the cluster, not from the terminal used to log on. So, >in theory, the Internet sees 10,000 students sharing three 4-way Sun >workstations (this, at least, was what the configuration used to be). sorry, you're not counting hosts here, but MTAs. I have no global figures on MTA populations to hand -- and I'm not sure if anyone else has that sort of data looking at RIPE I see that Lancaster has 144.88.0.0/16 (as well as a /20 and some IPv6 space). You aren't allowed /16s with just 4 hosts, so though I doubt that the 10K students are actually using 64K hosts, I suspect that the ratio of people to hosts is somewhere near the overall Internet average >In practice, about 60% of those students are off-campus and typically >use third-party ISPs for personal correspondence anyway, and an >increasingly large proportion of the remainder use personal computers >from their rooms - but you can see the principle. sorry, no -- the people with their own machines would generate their own proof-of-work. It just isn't plausible to think that a central cluster could do that for 10K legitimate users :( >And yes, I agree that this particular use-case is fairly pessimal in >terms of proof-of-work scenarios. However, intra-campus communications >are typically quite well-ordered, so (with careful management around >the beginning of the academic year) it could still be possible to use >the same three workstations in a proof-of-work world. we disagree --- unless of course you have in mind some sort of composite scheme where not all email carries a proof-of-work. As I tried to make clear, we have shown that simpleminded schemes are only marginally viable if at all -- but if you can realistically ensure that only a small proportion of legitimate email would incur a proof-of- work then your scheme would not fall at the first fence -- though Adam's point about latency times in sending any email that did need a proof-of- work calculation is one that should cause pause for thought -- that pause being several times longer that the calculation itself :) [big snip] >Occasionally I get a question from someone I don't know, but this is >rare enough that I could, if necessary, give up 60 seconds of my >PowerBook's CPU time to send a reply, without too much fuss - after >all, it would have taken me at least that long to write it. I'd still >be concerned about the time taken on a slower machine, though. 60 seconds implies that you limit people to 1440 emails per day. If you look again at the paper you will see that at this level the spammers who use zombies would be restricted to only about 5% of current activity (ie the solution would perceptually be no better than filtering) or alternatively (if you think spammers will purchase kit to do the proof- of-work sums "legitimately") you are forcing the price of spam up to around 0.1 cents/email -- which is not sufficient to remove a lot of topics from our mailboxes. To get the work factor high enough to have an impact, you need to be thinking in terms of an hour or so :( ... or of course you need to change the landscape by reducing the zombie population or by making the cost of spamming much higher (regulatory fines, prison terms etc). These latter approaches are probably not on topic here, leastwise not with the current subject line. [another big snip] >That leaves one big category: Web Mail. The likes of Hotmail and >Yahoo don't charge for sending e-mail from their systems, except >perhaps in terms of banner ads. They also handle ginormous amounts of >said mail, which could make a proof-of-work switch-on relatively >difficult for them. However, most of their clients are low-end home >users, who, on average, may have relatively favourable contact >patterns. For this, we could do with more statistics. Goodman & Rounthwaite have an interesting paper on using Captchas to limit webmail usage (one conclusion is that you need quite a number of them). It was presented at EC'04 yesterday, but the link on Joshua's home page is not currently working -- I expect he'll fix it when he gets home :( http://research.microsoft.com/~joshuago/ - -- richard Richard Clayton They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 iQA/AwUBQKsmFhfnRQV/feRLEQK9EQCgiczEy+CwfSn0lHD0gJsWibb0v0YAn3t9 FHfizxkay8VqZty3pWpWKfXe =W4rP -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed May 19 15:46:03 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA08113 for ; Wed, 19 May 2004 15:46:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQWll-0007xd-GI for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 15:30:25 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4JJUPGY030602 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 15:30:25 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQWEX-0004eu-B0 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 14:56:07 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA00813 for ; Wed, 19 May 2004 14:56:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQWEU-0001Mv-FD for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 14:56:02 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQWDY-0001Fg-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 14:55:05 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQWCo-00019N-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 14:54:18 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQVnF-0006Rd-3n; Wed, 19 May 2004 14:27:53 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQKrk-0005yE-91 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 02:47:48 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA16225 for ; Wed, 19 May 2004 02:47:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQKrg-0003e6-AT for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 02:47:44 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQKqa-0003Xc-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 02:46:37 -0400 Received: from main.gmane.org ([80.91.224.249]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQKqK-0003Qv-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 02:46:20 -0400 Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1BQKqK-0007wm-00 for ; Wed, 19 May 2004 08:46:20 +0200 Received: from client-82-2-92-5.mant.adsl.virgin.net ([82.2.92.5]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 19 May 2004 08:46:20 +0200 Received: from adam by client-82-2-92-5.mant.adsl.virgin.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 19 May 2004 08:46:20 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: asrg@ietf.org From: Adam Back Lines: 15 Message-ID: <40AB0282.3090901@cypherspace.org> References: <03A0F711-A929-11D8-B336-000393863768@chromatix.demon.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org Cc: asrg@ietf.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: client-82-2-92-5.mant.adsl.virgin.net User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4.1) Gecko/20031114 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en In-Reply-To: <03A0F711-A929-11D8-B336-000393863768@chromatix.demon.co.uk> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.76.8.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] Re: 3. Proof-of-work analysis Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 07:45:22 +0100 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jonathan Morton wrote: > That leaves one big category: Web Mail. The likes of Hotmail and Yahoo > don't charge for sending e-mail from their systems, except perhaps in > terms of banner ads. They also handle ginormous amounts of said mail, > which could make a proof-of-work switch-on relatively difficult for > them. However, most of their clients are low-end home users, who, on > average, may have relatively favourable contact patterns. For this, we > could do with more statistics. There is also possibility of the senders browser computing the token. See: http://www.lapo.it/HashCash.html Adam _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed May 19 15:46:14 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA08177 for ; Wed, 19 May 2004 15:46:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQWlm-0007yS-FE for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 15:30:27 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4JJUQlg030648 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 15:30:26 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQWEa-0004gO-4M for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 14:56:08 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA00823 for ; Wed, 19 May 2004 14:56:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQWEX-0001NF-7l for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 14:56:05 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQWDg-0001Gg-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 14:55:12 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQWD8-0001AP-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 14:54:38 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQVnG-0006SO-PW; Wed, 19 May 2004 14:27:54 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQKsS-00060d-In for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 02:48:32 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA16247 for ; Wed, 19 May 2004 02:48:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQKsO-0003lU-Nr for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 02:48:28 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQKrh-0003eL-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 02:47:45 -0400 Received: from dsl092-078-031.bos1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([66.92.78.31] helo=picorp.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQKqn-0003Qu-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 02:46:49 -0400 Received: (qmail 3791 invoked from network); 19 May 2004 06:47:28 -0000 Received: from client-82-2-92-5.mant.adsl.virgin.net (HELO cypherspace.org) (adam@82.2.92.5) by dsl092-078-031.bos1.dsl.speakeasy.net with (RC4-MD5 encrypted) SMTP; 19 May 2004 06:47:28 -0000 Message-ID: <40AB0282.3090901@cypherspace.org> From: Adam Back User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4.1) Gecko/20031114 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: gmane.ietf.asrg To: Jonathan Morton CC: asrg@ietf.org References: <03A0F711-A929-11D8-B336-000393863768@chromatix.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <03A0F711-A929-11D8-B336-000393863768@chromatix.demon.co.uk> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.76.8.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] Re: 3. Proof-of-work analysis Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 07:45:22 +0100 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jonathan Morton wrote: > That leaves one big category: Web Mail. The likes of Hotmail and Yahoo > don't charge for sending e-mail from their systems, except perhaps in > terms of banner ads. They also handle ginormous amounts of said mail, > which could make a proof-of-work switch-on relatively difficult for > them. However, most of their clients are low-end home users, who, on > average, may have relatively favourable contact patterns. For this, we > could do with more statistics. There is also possibility of the senders browser computing the token. See: http://www.lapo.it/HashCash.html Adam _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed May 19 15:58:56 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA09507 for ; Wed, 19 May 2004 15:58:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQWs5-00018O-TC for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 15:37:03 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4JJavMJ004353 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 15:36:57 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQWQI-0004kr-79 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 15:08:14 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA02510 for ; Wed, 19 May 2004 15:08:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQWQF-0003NH-6N for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 15:08:11 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQWPA-00039u-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 15:07:04 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQWOC-0002xL-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 15:06:04 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQVoW-0006iB-KD; Wed, 19 May 2004 14:29:12 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQTo3-00065m-Uy for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 12:20:36 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA21078 for ; Wed, 19 May 2004 12:20:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQTo2-0001he-9C for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 12:20:34 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQTme-0001bw-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 12:19:08 -0400 Received: from chiark.greenend.org.uk ([193.201.200.170] ident=mail) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQTm2-0001Wn-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 12:18:30 -0400 Received: by chiark.greenend.org.uk (Debian Exim 3.35 #1) with local id 1BQTlw-0007Nc-00; Wed, 19 May 2004 17:18:24 +0100 To: richard@highwayman.com From: Tony Finch Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 3. Proof-of-work analysis In-Reply-To: References: <03A0F711-A929-11D8-B336-000393863768@chromatix.demon.co.uk> <03A0F711-A929-11D8-B336-000393863768@chromatix.demon.co.uk> Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 17:18:24 +0100 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Richard Clayton wrote: > >Goodman & Rounthwaite have an interesting paper on using Captchas to >limit webmail usage (one conclusion is that you need quite a number of >them). It was presented at EC'04 yesterday, but the link on Joshua's >home page is not currently working -- I expect he'll fix it when he gets >home :( > http://research.microsoft.com/~joshuago/ Do they address the captcha-solving porn surfers attack? http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/23.17.html#subj4 Tony. -- f.a.n.finch http://dotat.at/ FITZROY: VARIABLE 3 OR LESS IN SOUTH, OTHERWISE NORTHEASTERLY 3 OR 4, OCCASIONALLY 5. FAIR. MODERATE WITH FOG PATCHES. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed May 19 16:01:49 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA09932 for ; Wed, 19 May 2004 16:01:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQWtT-00021C-Ky for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 15:38:24 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4JJcNK5007741 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 15:38:23 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQWV2-0007qr-Tq for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 15:13:08 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA03580 for ; Wed, 19 May 2004 15:13:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQWV1-0004QQ-JL for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 15:13:07 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQWTs-00049I-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 15:11:56 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQWSX-0003ri-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 15:10:33 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQVp6-0006tJ-AA; Wed, 19 May 2004 14:29:48 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQULK-0002GM-4I for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 12:54:58 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA23209 for ; Wed, 19 May 2004 12:54:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQULI-0004mr-8w for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 12:54:56 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQUKZ-0004ht-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 12:54:12 -0400 Received: from mail1.panix.com ([166.84.1.72]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQUJU-0004ct-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 12:53:04 -0400 Received: from panix5.panix.com (panix5.panix.com [166.84.1.5]) by mail1.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FD8A48D8E for ; Wed, 19 May 2004 12:53:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from sethb@localhost) by panix5.panix.com (8.11.6p2-a/8.8.8/PanixN1.1) id i4JGr3H11814; Wed, 19 May 2004 12:53:03 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200405191653.i4JGr3H11814@panix5.panix.com> From: Seth Breidbart To: asrg@ietf.org In-reply-to: (message from Richard Clayton on Wed, 19 May 2004 10:17:10 +0100) Subject: Re: [Asrg] 3. Proof-of-work analysis References: <03A0F711-A929-11D8-B336-000393863768@chromatix.demon.co.uk> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 12:53:03 -0400 (EDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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 Richard Clayton wrote: > 60 seconds implies that you limit people to 1440 emails per day. If > you look again at the paper you will see that at this level the > spammers who use zombies would be restricted to only about 5% of > current activity (ie the solution would perceptually be no better > than filtering) But it would be independent of filtering, so together they'd eliminate 99.75% of spam (assuming your statement of 95% effectiveness each). > or alternatively (if you think spammers will purchase kit to do the > proof- of-work sums "legitimately") you are forcing the price of > spam up to around 0.1 cents/email -- which is not sufficient to > remove a lot of topics from our mailboxes. That's a several order of magnitude increase in the price of spam so yes, I do think it would remove a lot of spam from my mailbox. Seth _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed May 19 18:00:39 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA22808 for ; Wed, 19 May 2004 18:00:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQZ2Y-00029d-Tk for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 17:55:55 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4JLtsGt008282 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 17:55:54 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQYqd-0006Ox-BT for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 17:43:35 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA21067 for ; Wed, 19 May 2004 17:43:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQYqa-0005Xw-OI for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 17:43:32 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQYpW-0005LU-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 17:42:26 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQYoS-00057H-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 17:41:21 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQYca-0000HK-9G; Wed, 19 May 2004 17:29:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQXsa-0006SU-4v for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 16:41:32 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA13754 for ; Wed, 19 May 2004 16:41:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQXsY-0002MS-3x for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 16:41:30 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQXrY-0002DI-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 16:40:28 -0400 Received: from chromatix.demon.co.uk ([80.177.102.173] helo=lithium.chromatix.org.uk) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQXqW-0001zv-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 16:39:24 -0400 Received: from arowana.chromatix.org.uk ([192.168.239.106]) by lithium.chromatix.org.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.31) id 1BQXqT-0006hv-Mr; Wed, 19 May 2004 21:39:21 +0100 In-Reply-To: <40AB0282.3090901@cypherspace.org> References: <03A0F711-A929-11D8-B336-000393863768@chromatix.demon.co.uk> <40AB0282.3090901@cypherspace.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v613) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <9FF2B97E-A9D4-11D8-B336-000393863768@chromatix.demon.co.uk> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: asrg@ietf.org From: Jonathan Morton Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 3. Proof-of-work analysis To: Adam Back X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.613) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 21:39:28 +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 > There is also possibility of the senders browser computing the token. > See: > > http://www.lapo.it/HashCash.html That doesn't work in my browser. Downloading the .jar makes it work locally, but about 10x slower than native (on my PowerBook G4). -------------------------------------------------------------- from: Jonathan "Chromatix" Morton mail: chromi@chromatix.demon.co.uk website: http://www.chromatix.uklinux.net/ tagline: The key to knowledge is not to rely on people to teach you it. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed May 19 18:36:32 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA25598 for ; Wed, 19 May 2004 18:36:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQZbJ-0003ev-H1 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 18:31:53 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4JMVnjR014065 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 18:31:49 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQZUt-0001c2-CR for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 18:25:11 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA25035 for ; Wed, 19 May 2004 18:25:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQZUq-00034I-BC for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 18:25:08 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQZU0-0002xv-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 18:24:17 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQZTM-0002rD-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 18:23:36 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQZK5-0004i5-E1; Wed, 19 May 2004 18:14:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQZAW-0007GY-49 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 18:04:08 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA23025 for ; Wed, 19 May 2004 18:04:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQZAT-0000jz-Ao for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 18:04:05 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQZ9X-0000dR-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 18:03:07 -0400 Received: from pcls2.std.com ([192.74.137.142] helo=TheWorld.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQZ8a-0000W6-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 18:02:08 -0400 Received: from world.std.com (root@world-e.std.com [69.38.147.5]) by TheWorld.com (8.12.8p1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i4JM28Zw006517; Wed, 19 May 2004 18:02:08 -0400 Received: (from bzs@localhost) by world.std.com (8.12.8p1/8.12.8) id i4JM27sI027005; Wed, 19 May 2004 18:02:07 -0400 (EDT) From: Barry Shein MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16555.55647.93366.968530@world.std.com> To: Adam Back Cc: asrg@ietf.org, cypherpunks@minder.net, rah@shipwright.com, cryptography@metzdowd.com Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 3. Proof-of-work analysis In-Reply-To: <40AA92E7.4090907@cypherspace.org> References: <40AA92E7.4090907@cypherspace.org> X-Mailer: VM 7.07 under Emacs 21.2.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 18:02:07 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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'm still amazed that anyone takes this proof-of-work/hashcash stuff seriously. At best it's the "War Games" approach, let's make the server play tic-tac-toe with itself to avoid nuclear holocaust, or the Bill Shatner logical paradox that makes the robot's head blow up. The Sphinx's riddle also comes to mind, works better for supernatural beings however. I realize the defense of the dumbest ideas is always that any criticism can be represented as rudeness, ``how rude of you not to see the brilliance of my ideas!'', so one goes on and on anyhow but I wonder if there's any way to disabuse this nonsense once and for all, particularly in the minds of those who think it's a good idea? In the words of someone famous whose name I'll leave out of this: This idea isn't right, why, it isn't even wrong! -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD The World | Public Access Internet | Since 1989 *oo* _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed May 19 18:36:34 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA25616 for ; Wed, 19 May 2004 18:36:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQZbM-0003fU-J1 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 18:31:52 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4JMVqLw014096 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 18:31:52 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQZVp-0001wE-R1 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 18:26:10 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA25069 for ; Wed, 19 May 2004 18:26:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQZVm-0003A5-QR for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 18:26:06 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQZUt-00034k-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 18:25:12 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQZUX-0002yV-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 18:24:49 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQZK7-0004jE-Gt; Wed, 19 May 2004 18:14:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQZCP-0007xA-L2 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 18:06:05 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA23298 for ; Wed, 19 May 2004 18:06:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQZCM-0000vn-Pc for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 18:06:02 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQZBQ-0000qL-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 18:05:05 -0400 Received: from chromatix.demon.co.uk ([80.177.102.173] helo=lithium.chromatix.org.uk) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQZAj-0000l6-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 18:04:21 -0400 Received: from arowana.chromatix.org.uk ([192.168.239.106]) by lithium.chromatix.org.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.31) id 1BQZAi-0000Qx-0N; Wed, 19 May 2004 23:04:20 +0100 In-Reply-To: References: <03A0F711-A929-11D8-B336-000393863768@chromatix.demon.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v613) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <7E9EC56E-A9E0-11D8-B336-000393863768@chromatix.demon.co.uk> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: asrg@ietf.org From: Jonathan Morton Subject: Re: [Asrg] 3. Proof-of-work analysis To: Richard Clayton X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.613) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 23:04:26 +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 >> As an example, Lancaster University provides a central UNIX-shell >> cluster for all students, among the services of which was the official >> e-mail system. Because it's a UNIX shell system, the mail is sent >> from >> the members of the cluster, not from the terminal used to log on. So, >> in theory, the Internet sees 10,000 students sharing three 4-way Sun >> workstations (this, at least, was what the configuration used to be). > > sorry, you're not counting hosts here, but MTAs. I have no global > figures on MTA populations to hand -- and I'm not sure if anyone else > has that sort of data On the contrary, I explicitly pointed out that the three physical machines involved were at least capable of running MUAs for up to 10000 students. The fact that the physical displays are scattered around the campus, and possibly the city to some extent, is irrelevant. The fact that many students use alternative e-mail systems is relevant, but a sufficiently high proportion do still use the UNIX shell. > looking at RIPE I see that Lancaster has 144.88.0.0/16 (as well as a > /20 > and some IPv6 space). You aren't allowed /16s with just 4 hosts, so > though I doubt that the 10K students are actually using 64K hosts, I > suspect that the ratio of people to hosts is somewhere near the overall > Internet average Most of the address space is taken by the labs and staff office computers. I purposefully left the staff (about 1000 or so) out of the population figure for that reason. It might also be reasonable to exclude the research students, as these often have assigned computers as well, but they are a relatively small section of the student population. FWIW, the bedroom LAN connections are behind a NAT system and do not contribute to the address space. My point is that there are a few systems that genuinely handle large numbers of users for e-mail. Web-mail systems and UNIX shells are probably the prime members of this group. I believe some vendors are actively pushing "thin client" systems, which would also fall into this category. >> And yes, I agree that this particular use-case is fairly pessimal in >> terms of proof-of-work scenarios. However, intra-campus >> communications >> are typically quite well-ordered, so (with careful management around >> the beginning of the academic year) it could still be possible to use >> the same three workstations in a proof-of-work world. > > we disagree --- unless of course you have in mind some sort of > composite > scheme where not all email carries a proof-of-work. ...which I do. I thought I'd made that clear. While I don't yet have a document describing exactly how it works, the essence is that high-value hashcash can be replaced by a low-value hashcash combined with a whitelisted signature. The signature is also included with high-value hashcash tokens so that whitelists can be built easily. The required hashcash value for return mail is indicated by another header. I don't have any strong opinion on how the whitelist should be built - that's a matter between the recipient and their MUA. In the case of Lancaster University, each student could be given a default whitelist upon enrolment that included various campus-wide and departmental mailing lists, along with relevant professors and admin staff. Study groups, friends, relatives, and clubs could then be added in the normal way. > Adam's point about latency times in sending any email that did need a > proof-of-work calculation is one that should cause pause for thought > -- that pause being several times longer that the calculation itself > :) Right. Sending latency is not really a problem for end-users with always-on connections, but it could easily be for a dial-up user, or for an e-commerce system. Some proof-of-work schemes - including hashcash - can precompute a token from the moment the recipient list is known, which might overlap the time the user spends creating the message. Even so, it's clear that an (on average) hour-long computation is going to be unacceptable - for one thing, it would drain up to half a typical laptop's battery. Ten minutes is probably pushing it, too, though it's still possibly acceptable. I consider 60 seconds to be the practical upper limit, and *that* has to fit into the midrange machines from a couple of years ago, which are still in common use. > 60 seconds implies that you limit people to 1440 emails per day. If you > look again at the paper you will see that at this level the spammers > who > use zombies would be restricted to only about 5% of current activity > (ie > the solution would perceptually be no better than filtering) or > alternatively (if you think spammers will purchase kit to do the proof- > of-work sums "legitimately") you are forcing the price of spam up to > around 0.1 cents/email -- which is not sufficient to remove a lot of > topics from our mailboxes. Reducing the capacity of the zombie network is bound to be worthwhile. I would also suggest that victims are more likely to notice their infected machine if it has high CPU usage than if it has high network usage. I would also suggest that 0.1c per mail would make for less frivolity than the present 0.001c per mail. Your paper says that 0.1c/mail was used by spammers as a price in the past. The pertinent question is: how far in the past, and what were the spamming levels like back then? > To get the work factor high enough to have an impact, you need to be > thinking in terms of an hour or so :( Strongly disagree. To make an impact, the worst-case I can think of would demand about a minute of work on average, and I would hope we could work with less. Your idea of "make an impact", however, seems to be equivalent to our idea of "virtually eliminate the problem single-handed". My idea of "make an impact" starts from "prevent the problem from getting even worse than at present" and works from there. -------------------------------------------------------------- from: Jonathan "Chromatix" Morton mail: chromi@chromatix.demon.co.uk website: http://www.chromatix.uklinux.net/ tagline: The key to knowledge is not to rely on people to teach you it. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed May 19 18:43:45 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA25975 for ; Wed, 19 May 2004 18:43:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQZcC-0003yz-N2 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 18:32:45 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4JMWi42015301 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 18:32:44 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQZWl-0002Jl-QX for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 18:27:12 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA25084 for ; Wed, 19 May 2004 18:26:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQZWe-0003Fb-Tw for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 18:27:01 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQZVn-0003AJ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 18:26:08 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQZVM-00034u-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 18:25:40 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQZK8-0004jZ-CA; Wed, 19 May 2004 18:14:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQZDQ-0008Ma-1j for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 18:07:08 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA23415 for ; Wed, 19 May 2004 18:07:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQZDN-00013i-77 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 18:07:05 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQZCQ-0000wQ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 18:06:06 -0400 Received: from rockridge.uits.indiana.edu ([129.79.1.74]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQZBi-0000qj-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 18:05:22 -0400 Received: from fontz.uits.indiana.edu (fontz.uits.indiana.edu [129.79.1.76]) by rockridge.uits.indiana.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10/IUPO) with ESMTP id i4JM5JbV015059 for ; Wed, 19 May 2004 17:05:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from [10.0.2.2] (dial-64-151-128-64.bton.kiva.net [64.151.128.64]) (authenticated bits=0) by fontz.uits.indiana.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10/IUPO) with ESMTP id i4JM5CSP021853 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 19 May 2004 17:05:18 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v613) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <6E936DBF-A9D5-11D8-88D5-000393DC31DA@bloomington.in.us> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed To: asrg@ietf.org From: Jim Witte X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.613) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] Spam and IPv6 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 15:45:15 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Does IPv6 add anything to the spam puzzle? Because with IPv6, the address space is so big that every person and his dog on Earth could potentially have a separate address. Would that make tracking/controlling stuff easier? Jim _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed May 19 18:44:11 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA26027 for ; Wed, 19 May 2004 18:44:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQZes-0004Wr-Vf for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 18:35:30 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4JMZUOE017410 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 18:35:30 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQZYm-0002hg-FZ for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 18:29:12 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA25207 for ; Wed, 19 May 2004 18:29:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQZYh-0003TY-0Q for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 18:29:07 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQZXm-0003NA-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 18:28:10 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQZWp-0003Gw-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 18:27:11 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQZK9-0004k4-0T; Wed, 19 May 2004 18:14:05 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQZDQ-0008Mc-Le for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 18:07:08 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA23418 for ; Wed, 19 May 2004 18:07:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQZDN-00013p-R7 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 18:07:05 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQZCQ-0000wY-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 18:06:07 -0400 Received: from rockridge.uits.indiana.edu ([129.79.1.74]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQZBm-0000ql-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 18:05:26 -0400 Received: from fontz.uits.indiana.edu (fontz.uits.indiana.edu [129.79.1.76]) by rockridge.uits.indiana.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10/IUPO) with ESMTP id i4JM5ObV015070 for ; Wed, 19 May 2004 17:05:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from [10.0.2.2] (dial-64-151-128-64.bton.kiva.net [64.151.128.64]) (authenticated bits=0) by fontz.uits.indiana.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10/IUPO) with ESMTP id i4JM5CSQ021853 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 19 May 2004 17:05:22 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v613) In-Reply-To: <20040519182510.5840.8742.Mailman@www1.ietf.org> References: <20040519182510.5840.8742.Mailman@www1.ietf.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <459BEE9A-A9D5-11D8-88D5-000393DC31DA@bloomington.in.us> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Jim Witte To: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.613) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] Re: Spam send/receive ratio Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 15:44:06 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > One of the distinguishing characteristics of a spammer is the > imbalance between mail sent and mail received. Unfortunately I do not > see a convenient way to penalize people who fall into this category. One idea about this (although I don't know how scalable it is) would be, if you could authenticate the sender ie DomainKeys or the like, then every sender would have a send/receive ratio (somewhere), which would be entered into the mail header in some way that it could not be spoofed (more protocol changes though). Then if a mail is received by the end-user's inbox, it could check the ratio, and decide whether to accept/reject/quarantine it. But I sill don't see a way to penalize senders who are rejected too often. Although perhaps it could be integrated into the 'delay' in creating the email-stamp/introduction-stamp (the more higher your send/receive ratio goes, the more it "costs" to send new stuff) Another possibility is of course law enforecement, but this would seem to require some centralization of the ratio information, and whose rejecting what. The send/receive ratio might also be a problem for mailing lists - maybe, I'd have to see statistics. Jim _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed May 19 18:45:53 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA26127 for ; Wed, 19 May 2004 18:45:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQZmr-0006ol-Di for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 18:43:45 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4JMhj0J026203 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 18:43:45 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQZeU-0004Uw-9M for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 18:35:06 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA25512 for ; Wed, 19 May 2004 18:35:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQZeR-00047v-8Z for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 18:35:03 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQZdV-00042B-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 18:34:06 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQZd5-0003wj-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 18:33:39 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQZXk-0002RI-GQ; Wed, 19 May 2004 18:28:08 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQZME-0005lZ-9c for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 18:16:16 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA24517 for ; Wed, 19 May 2004 18:16:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQZMB-00026s-Bj for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 18:16:11 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQZLV-00021g-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 18:15:30 -0400 Received: from pcls2.std.com ([192.74.137.142] helo=TheWorld.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQZKv-0001vP-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 18:14:53 -0400 Received: from world.std.com (root@world-e.std.com [69.38.147.5]) by TheWorld.com (8.12.8p1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i4JMErZw032390; Wed, 19 May 2004 18:14:53 -0400 Received: (from bzs@localhost) by world.std.com (8.12.8p1/8.12.8) id i4JMEqJl029609; Wed, 19 May 2004 18:14:52 -0400 (EDT) From: Barry Shein MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16555.56412.585254.961521@world.std.com> To: "Chris" Cc: "Yakov Shafranovich" , "ASRG" Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6 - Yahoo Domain Keys In-Reply-To: References: <40AAB82D.3090004@solidmatrix.com> X-Mailer: VM 7.07 under Emacs 21.2.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 18:14:52 -0400 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,DOMAIN_BODY autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit FWIW, I still think these sort of approaches might have some utility with authentication but will have little to no effect on spam so I wonder why they get so much attention on this list. As far as I can tell spammers have now become domain registries and just generate random-appearing, generated domains like www.fxbrezd.com (or, more often, .info or .somecountryyoudon'twanttoknowmoreabout.) For example, these whacko domains usually have functioning MX's. Which means they can just as easily set up SPF or Domain Key or similar services for those randomly generated domains. Also, much spam from hijacked PCs seems to use the hijacked PC's host, as in wasteofoxygen@dyn-83-155-31-99.ppp.tiscali.fr That sort of thing will get around these SPF/YDK approaches, right? And of course there's the whole problem of the envelope vs the header since these generally check the envelope but the user generally sees the header so can be spoofed anyhow. I realize this generally prompts a response about how there's some effort, somewhere, to extend all this into the header which is passed off as an answer but it quickly starts to sound like "oh we'll invent that too!" back-patching on an apparently weak idea. Again, I don't know for a fact that this is completely useless technology (like proof-of-work which is useless technology), but I think it's only potentially useful against certain types of scams, domain forgeries with malicious intent, in a very weak way, and as such really has little to nothing to do with spam per se except inasmuch as we can rationalize that ``anything which comes via email and might harm or annoy me'' is hereby spam.= -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD The World | Public Access Internet | Since 1989 *oo* _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed May 19 18:51:03 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA26542 for ; Wed, 19 May 2004 18:51:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQZoN-0007RU-PJ for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 18:45:19 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4JMjJwg028602 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 18:45:19 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQZiN-0005SK-EV for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 18:39:07 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA25801 for ; Wed, 19 May 2004 18:39:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQZiK-0004aU-G8 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 18:39:04 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQZhU-0004UD-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 18:38:12 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQZge-0004N8-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 18:37:20 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQZbX-0003gB-24; Wed, 19 May 2004 18:32:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQZS5-0000Px-FP for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 18:22:17 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA24889 for ; Wed, 19 May 2004 18:22:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQZS2-0002iO-8I for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 18:22:14 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQZRC-0002bY-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 18:21:22 -0400 Received: from main.gmane.org ([80.91.224.249]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQZQh-0002UF-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 18:20:51 -0400 Received: from root by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1BQZQb-0001Jb-00 for ; Thu, 20 May 2004 00:20:45 +0200 Received: from pcp09394639pcs.union01.nj.comcast.net ([69.141.77.58]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 20 May 2004 00:20:45 +0200 Received: from millenix by pcp09394639pcs.union01.nj.comcast.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 20 May 2004 00:20:45 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: asrg@ietf.org From: Philip Miller Lines: 37 Message-ID: <40ABDB39.2060301@zemos.net> References: <03A0F711-A929-11D8-B336-000393863768@chromatix.demon.co.uk> 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: pcp09394639pcs.union01.nj.comcast.net User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040413 Debian/1.6-5 X-Accept-Language: en, en-us In-Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] Re: 3. Proof-of-work analysis Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 18:10:01 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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 Richard Clayton wrote: > In article <03A0F711-A929-11D8-B336-000393863768@chromatix.demon.co.uk>, > Jonathan Morton writes > >>That leaves one big category: Web Mail. The likes of Hotmail and >>Yahoo don't charge for sending e-mail from their systems, except >>perhaps in terms of banner ads. They also handle ginormous amounts of >>said mail, which could make a proof-of-work switch-on relatively >>difficult for them. However, most of their clients are low-end home >>users, who, on average, may have relatively favourable contact >>patterns. For this, we could do with more statistics. > > Goodman & Rounthwaite have an interesting paper on using Captchas to > limit webmail usage (one conclusion is that you need quite a number of > them). It was presented at EC'04 yesterday, but the link on Joshua's > home page is not currently working -- I expect he'll fix it when he gets > home :( In addition to the favorable contact patterns, webmail providers have other options (that are not particularly restricted to webmail providers): 1. Ask/require their customers to download a small applet that would do the work on the client machine (obviously doesn't work when the client is something like an underpowered cell phone with WAP access) 2. Tell customers that mail delivery may be delayed unless they pay for service while the provider does the proof-of-work as cycles are available 3. Rate-limit customers both by login ID and by client host address or other identifying info If proof-of-work were implemented and demanded on a large (Internet) scale, I don't think webmail providers would suffer as much as they would appear to on the surface. I'd also like to note that any of these methods could be used by webmail providers to limit spam sent through their systems regardless of any receiving-end demand for proof-of-work. Philip Miller _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed May 19 18:56:02 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA26825 for ; Wed, 19 May 2004 18:56:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQZxL-0001bQ-IE for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 18:54:35 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4JMsZKC006152 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 18:54:35 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQZpD-0007hi-HA for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 18:46:11 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA26152 for ; Wed, 19 May 2004 18:46:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQZpA-0005PH-As for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 18:46:08 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQZoP-0005Hr-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 18:45:21 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQZnS-0005B7-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 18:44:22 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQZfP-0004fU-F1; Wed, 19 May 2004 18:36:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQZap-0003PI-Mp for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 18:31:19 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA25311 for ; Wed, 19 May 2004 18:31:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQZam-0003gt-Ej for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 18:31:16 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQZZj-0003al-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 18:30:12 -0400 Received: from argon.connectinternetsolutions.com ([193.110.243.33] helo=argon.connect.org.uk) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQZZH-0003UM-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 18:29:43 -0400 Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 1BQZZB-0004rS-95 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 23:29:37 +0100 In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [Asrg] 3. Proof-of-work analysis To: "ASRG" From: "Jon Kyme" X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.15.5] X-connectmail-Originating-IP: 82.69.7.27 Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 23:29:37 +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=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 > Richard Clayton wrote: > > > >Goodman & Rounthwaite have an interesting paper on using Captchas to > >limit webmail usage (one conclusion is that you need quite a number of > >them). It was presented at EC'04 yesterday, but the link on Joshua's > >home page is not currently working -- I expect he'll fix it when he gets > >home :( > > http://research.microsoft.com/~joshuago/ > > > Do they address the captcha-solving porn surfers attack? > http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/23.17.html#subj4 > Ah, this one again :-) I'd be very interested in any reference showing that that this "attack" has actually been exploited. cf. (may wrap) http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg09194.html _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed May 19 19:08:30 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (www.iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA27302 for ; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:08:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQZyK-0001v4-Rg for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 18:55:37 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4JMtaH8007373 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 18:55:36 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQZx0-0001ZR-AK for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 18:54:14 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA26742 for ; Wed, 19 May 2004 18:54:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQZwx-0006R3-4z for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 18:54:11 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQZw4-0006L5-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 18:53:17 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQZvj-0006EX-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 18:52:55 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQZp4-0007gb-OW; Wed, 19 May 2004 18:46:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQZhV-0005E4-Gm for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 18:38:13 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA25738 for ; Wed, 19 May 2004 18:38:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQZhS-0004U2-BJ for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 18:38:10 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQZgc-0004Mn-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 18:37:18 -0400 Received: from mail.crlf.net ([216.126.92.195]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQZfz-0004G8-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 18:36:39 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.crlf.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D054D1F07E; Wed, 19 May 2004 18:36:33 -0400 (EDT) From: David Maxwell To: Jim Witte Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spam and IPv6 Message-ID: <20040519223633.GE547@mail> References: <6E936DBF-A9D5-11D8-88D5-000393DC31DA@bloomington.in.us> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <6E936DBF-A9D5-11D8-88D5-000393DC31DA@bloomington.in.us> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 18:36:33 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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, 19 May 2004, Jim Witte wrote: > Does IPv6 add anything to the spam puzzle? Because with IPv6, the > address space is so big that every person and his dog on Earth could > potentially have a separate address. Would that make > tracking/controlling stuff easier? Concievably is makes blacklisting harder. When address space is not a scarce resource, it's likely to be easy to renumber your attack machines. (Quite aside from the IPv6 goals of making renumbering easier) Whitelisting wouldn't seem to change much. I've speculated before that running an MTA on IPv6 only might greatly reduce your incoming spam (and mail) until spammers decide to bother with IPv6. Certainly the number of zombie hosts on v6 would be lower as well - for now. -- David Maxwell, david@vex.net|david@maxwell.net --> Mastery of UNIX, like mastery of language, offers real freedom. The price of freedom is always dear, but there's no substitute. Personally, I'd rather pay for my freedom than live in a bitmapped, pop-up-happy dungeon like NT. - Thomas Scoville _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed May 19 19:22:36 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (www.iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA28408 for ; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:22:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQaM2-0007y0-SG for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:20:07 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4JNK6WX030624 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:20:06 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQaHl-0006lW-El for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:15:41 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA27932 for ; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:15:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQaHj-0001N1-Sg for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:15:39 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQaGO-00019i-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:14:18 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQaEg-0000pU-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:12:30 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQaBP-0005Ch-Pj; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:09:07 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQa4r-0002bZ-3g for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:02:21 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA27093 for ; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:02:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQa4n-0007O9-Oi for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:02:17 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQa3v-0007HT-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:01:24 -0400 Received: from xuxa.iecc.com ([208.31.42.42]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQa3K-00079H-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:00:46 -0400 Received: (qmail 22250 invoked by uid 100); 19 May 2004 23:00:41 -0000 Message-ID: <20040519230041.22249.qmail@xuxa.iecc.com> From: John Levine To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6 - Yahoo Domain Keys In-Reply-To: <16555.56412.585254.961521@world.std.com> Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA Cc: bzs@world.std.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: 19 May 2004 23:00:41 -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 >Also, much spam from hijacked PCs seems to use the hijacked >PC's host, as in wasteofoxygen@dyn-83-155-31-99.ppp.tiscali.fr > >That sort of thing will get around these SPF/YDK approaches, right? No, a valid DK signature tells you that the message really was signed by the domain in the From: line. If there's a zombie'd PC at tiscali.fr, and it sends mail through Tiscali's mail servers using a tiscali.fr address, and the servers sign it (which, with half decent volume checks they wouldn't) it'll pass DK checks. I agree that knowing that mail really came from woifnsdnskensk.com isn't very useful without a reputation system, but DK at least validates the actual mail that you see, not the envelope which you don't. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, Mayor "I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly. -- John R. Levine, IECC, POB 727, Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 330 5711 johnl@iecc.com, Mayor, http://johnlevine.com, Member, Provisional board, Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed May 19 19:22:51 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (www.iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA28468 for ; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:22:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQaM5-0007zN-9w for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:20:11 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4JNK98U030697 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:20:09 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQaID-0006mH-Gt for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:16:09 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA27995 for ; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:16:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQaIB-0001UB-TE for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:16:08 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQaHJ-0001KK-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:15:14 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQaFt-00011P-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:13:45 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQaBR-0005DP-Hs; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:09:09 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQa9T-0003nA-AW for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:07:07 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA27235 for ; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:07:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQa9P-00003t-Se for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:07:03 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQa8W-0007mR-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:06:09 -0400 Received: from xuxa.iecc.com ([208.31.42.42]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQa7t-0007h4-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:05:29 -0400 Received: (qmail 23515 invoked by uid 100); 19 May 2004 23:05:29 -0000 Message-ID: <20040519230529.23514.qmail@xuxa.iecc.com> From: John Levine To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] [Fwd: Yahoo! Mail Publishes Specification for DomainKeys] In-Reply-To: Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA Cc: william@completewhois.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: 19 May 2004 23:05:29 -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 >Big problem I have with it is that yahoo domain keys breaks with email >forwarders, mail lists and roaming users (and they fully acknoledge that >it does not work with them and say there is no good work-around). That >makes it no-go as far as I concerned for initial deployment unless >changes are made. Are you sure you read the same DK document as the rest of us? Forwarding works fine if it doesn't mess with the message other than prepending headers. Roaming users work fine if they sign in the MUA. Mailing lists are an issue but there are some ideas to deal with that. 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 Wed May 19 19:43:31 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (www.iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA29314 for ; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:43:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQaeB-0004AT-FY for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:38:51 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4JNcpKh016019 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:38:51 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQacU-0002qV-Ph for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:37:06 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA29035 for ; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:37:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQacS-00040j-SU for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:37:04 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQabU-0003uc-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:36:05 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQaae-0003p5-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:35:12 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQaN0-0008Ev-5x; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:21:06 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQaIC-0006mF-KN for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:16:08 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA27992 for ; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:16:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQaIA-0001U6-US for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:16:07 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQaHI-0001KA-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:15:14 -0400 Received: from main.gmane.org ([80.91.224.249]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQaFt-00011O-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:13:46 -0400 Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1BQaFu-0001uU-00 for ; Thu, 20 May 2004 01:13:46 +0200 Received: from pcp09394639pcs.union01.nj.comcast.net ([69.141.77.58]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 20 May 2004 01:13:46 +0200 Received: from millenix by pcp09394639pcs.union01.nj.comcast.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 20 May 2004 01:13:46 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: asrg@ietf.org From: Philip Miller Lines: 92 Message-ID: <40ABEA25.5060901@zemos.net> References: <40AAB82D.3090004@solidmatrix.com> <16555.56412.585254.961521@world.std.com> 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: pcp09394639pcs.union01.nj.comcast.net User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040413 Debian/1.6-5 X-Accept-Language: en, en-us In-Reply-To: <16555.56412.585254.961521@world.std.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] Re: 6 - Yahoo Domain Keys Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 19:13:41 -0400 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,DOMAIN_BODY autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Barry, You wrote: > FWIW, I still think these sort of approaches might have some utility > with authentication but will have little to no effect on spam so I > wonder why they get so much attention on this list. It will have little immediate effect on the *volume* of spam sent. However, it will have an effect on certain characteristics of the spam that is received. I'll get into specifics as I go along. > As far as I can tell spammers have now become domain registries and > just generate random-appearing, generated domains like www.fxbrezd.com > (or, more often, .info or .somecountryyoudon'twanttoknowmoreabout.) These types of things could potentially be blacklisted. Has anyone created a functioning BL of domain registrars, rather than domains? > For example, these whacko domains usually have functioning MX's. Functioning MX's would mean no rejection by Hector Santos's Call Back Verification. However, having a functioning MX gives us something beyond a domain name: an assigned or hijacked IP address, which can be traced, (black/block)listed, and/or dealt with by an upstream provider. It's easier to hunt down a real person if you can find where IP packets are being routed, compared to having just falsified whois records. > Which means they can just as easily set up SPF or Domain Key or > similar services for those randomly generated domains. SPF simply says that they control the domain they're using, which is an improvement over the present state. In this case, if they're using zombies, they need some way to ensure that all of those zombies end up authorized by the SPF records. Perhaps SPF lookup libraries should keep a count of the total hosts authorized by the domain in question, which could be cross-referenced to an external list or other reputation service. I.e. domains that list a lot of sending hosts would need a much better reputation for their mail to be accepted than domains that list a very restricted set. > Also, much spam from hijacked PCs seems to use the hijacked > PC's host, as in wasteofoxygen@dyn-83-155-31-99.ppp.tiscali.fr And no ISP worth its salt would authorize any host to send as an internal host name, so spammers can't play the pin-it-on-the-ISP game. > That sort of thing will get around these SPF/YDK approaches, right? Wrong. See above. > And of course there's the whole problem of the envelope vs the header > since these generally check the envelope but the user generally sees > the header so can be spoofed anyhow. I realize this generally prompts > a response about how there's some effort, somewhere, to extend all > this into the header which is passed off as an answer but it quickly > starts to sound like "oh we'll invent that too!" back-patching on an > apparently weak idea. There's not that much 'invention' to go into it, once something more primitive than 2822.From is authenticated. Either messages claiming a given domain will only come from hosts that can send return-paths in the domain, or there will be others, or they could come from anywhere. Since only certain hosts are authorized, the domain owner can enforce local-part policy, so we need only worry about the domain. > Again, I don't know for a fact that this is completely useless > technology (like proof-of-work which is useless technology), but I ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I still haven't seen proof of that, from you or others... > think it's only potentially useful against certain types of scams, > domain forgeries with malicious intent, in a very weak way, and as > such really has little to nothing to do with spam per se except > inasmuch as we can rationalize that ``anything which comes via email > and might harm or annoy me'' is hereby spam. Since this group has largely agreed that a formal, consensus definition of spam is non-existent, any methods that can be used to hinder messages that any people might not want is in scope as 'anti-spam research'. You are using useful here to mean 'volume of spam (by my as-yet-unstated definition) will decrease'. I and others look at a much broader range of things as useful: 1. Practically eliminate receipt of DSNs about messages that were never sent 2. Protect domain owners (both large providers and joe-job targets) from accusations of abuse by letting them point to their DNS records and say 'you can see from that record that we did not authorize the transmission of that message' 3. Provide domain-name level accountability for messages. Really, any domain, appearing anywhere in the message, will do, so long as you can point to them and say "that domain said that they have no problem with their name being attached to this message" Sincerely, Philip Miller _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed May 19 19:43:34 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (www.iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA29332 for ; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:43:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQaeB-0004Am-Iw for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:38:51 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4JNcp7V016032 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:38:51 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQacX-0002r4-Ba for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:37:09 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA29042 for ; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:37:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQacV-000414-Il for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:37:07 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQabY-0003v8-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:36:08 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQabJ-0003pR-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:35:53 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQaN1-0008F7-0q; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:21:07 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQaIS-0006nK-6z for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:16:24 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA28025 for ; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:16:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQaIQ-0001Vb-IZ for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:16:22 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQaI0-0001Oo-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:15:56 -0400 Received: from mail3.panix.com ([166.84.1.74]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQaH3-0001D0-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:14:57 -0400 Received: from panix5.panix.com (panix5.panix.com [166.84.1.5]) by mail3.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF2B998203 for ; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:14:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from sethb@localhost) by panix5.panix.com (8.11.6p2-a/8.8.8/PanixN1.1) id i4JNEpx06794; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:14:51 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200405192314.i4JNEpx06794@panix5.panix.com> From: Seth Breidbart To: asrg@ietf.org In-reply-to: <16555.56412.585254.961521@world.std.com> (message from Barry Shein on Wed, 19 May 2004 18:14:52 -0400) Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6 - Yahoo Domain Keys References: <40AAB82D.3090004@solidmatrix.com> <16555.56412.585254.961521@world.std.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: Wed, 19 May 2004 19:14:51 -0400 (EDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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 Barry Shein wrote: > Also, much spam from hijacked PCs seems to use the hijacked > PC's host, as in wasteofoxygen@dyn-83-155-31-99.ppp.tiscali.fr > > That sort of thing will get around these SPF/YDK approaches, right? No; tiscali.fr is unlikely to publish that dyn-83-155-31-99.ppp.tiscali.fr is an authorized sender of email from its domain. Seth _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed May 19 19:57:52 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (www.iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA29920 for ; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:57:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQai5-0005MM-GC for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:42:53 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4JNgrGk020598 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:42:53 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQadX-0003cG-9m for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:38:11 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA29074 for ; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:38:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQadV-00047d-Hm for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:38:09 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQacW-00041H-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:37:08 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQacK-0003vV-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:36:56 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQaN1-0008FM-Un; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:21:07 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQaLD-0007hZ-3d for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:19:15 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA28099 for ; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:19:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQaLB-0001oa-Fp for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:19:13 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQaKF-0001iA-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:18:15 -0400 Received: from newgiles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ([205.150.200.131] helo=mail.nitros9.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQaJm-0001bU-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:17:47 -0400 Received: from newgiles.nitros9.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.nitros9.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04F9E16CC4 for ; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:23:04 -0400 (EDT) From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6 - Yahoo Domain Keys In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 19 May 2004 18:14:52 EDT." <16555.56412.585254.961521@world.std.com> Message-Id: <20040519232304.04F9E16CC4@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, 19 May 2004 19:23:03 -0400 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,DOMAIN_BODY autolearn=no version=2.60 Barry Shein wrote: > As far as I can tell spammers have now become domain registries and > just generate random-appearing, generated domains like www.fxbrezd.com > (or, more often, .info or .somecountryyoudon'twanttoknowmoreabout.) > For example, these whacko domains usually have functioning MX's. > > Which means they can just as easily set up SPF or Domain Key or > similar services for those randomly generated domains. Blacklist the DNS IP. > Also, much spam from hijacked PCs seems to use the hijacked > PC's host, as in wasteofoxygen@dyn-83-155-31-99.ppp.tiscali.fr > > That sort of thing will get around these SPF/YDK approaches, right? Yes and no. It depends on how it's implemented. > Again, I don't know for a fact that this is completely useless > technology (like proof-of-work which is useless technology), but I > think it's only potentially useful against certain types of scams, > domain forgeries with malicious intent, in a very weak way, and as > such really has little to nothing to do with spam per se except > inasmuch as we can rationalize that ``anything which comes via email > and might harm or annoy me'' is hereby spam.= Is there a better suggestion on the table? This isn't to say we should do something nonsensical, simply because it's better than nothing. But it does have some applicability, a number of domains are implementing it, and the implementors are strong proponents. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed May 19 19:58:15 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (www.iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA29955 for ; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:58:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQaqU-0007BL-Kd for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:51:34 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4JNpYEP027602 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:51:34 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQahI-00059H-Mq for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:42:04 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA29296 for ; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:42:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQahG-0004d7-WF for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:42:02 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQagQ-0004VK-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:41:11 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQafX-0004N8-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:40:15 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQadU-0003bd-IM; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:38:08 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQaOt-0000Bt-GG for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:23:03 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA28503 for ; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:23:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQaOr-0002R2-MF for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:23:01 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQaNs-0002Dn-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:22:00 -0400 Received: from main.gmane.org ([80.91.224.249]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQaMZ-00020e-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:20:40 -0400 Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1BQaMa-0001z5-00 for ; Thu, 20 May 2004 01:20:40 +0200 Received: from pcp09394639pcs.union01.nj.comcast.net ([69.141.77.58]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 20 May 2004 01:20:40 +0200 Received: from millenix by pcp09394639pcs.union01.nj.comcast.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 20 May 2004 01:20:40 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: asrg@ietf.org From: Philip Miller Lines: 45 Message-ID: <40ABEBC1.2080703@zemos.net> References: <20040519182510.5840.8742.Mailman@www1.ietf.org> <459BEE9A-A9D5-11D8-88D5-000393DC31DA@bloomington.in.us> 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: pcp09394639pcs.union01.nj.comcast.net User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040413 Debian/1.6-5 X-Accept-Language: en, en-us In-Reply-To: <459BEE9A-A9D5-11D8-88D5-000393DC31DA@bloomington.in.us> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] Re: Spam send/receive ratio Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 19:20:33 -0400 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 Jim, You wrote: >> One of the distinguishing characteristics of a spammer is the >> imbalance between mail sent and mail received. Unfortunately I do not >> see a convenient way to penalize people who fall into this category. I don't agree with that characteristic as generally defining, but with some large exceptions, it could be. I'll accept it for purposes of discussion. > One idea about this (although I don't know how scalable it is) would > be, if you could authenticate the sender ie DomainKeys or the like, then > every sender would have a send/receive ratio (somewhere), which would be > entered into the mail header in some way that it could not be spoofed > (more protocol changes though). Then if a mail is received by the > end-user's inbox, it could check the ratio, and decide whether to > accept/reject/quarantine it. Not too many protocol changes, if the entire check were out-of-band. The only problem with it is that there either needs to be some trusted 3rd-party that would keep the counts (hah!) or some distributed system that could produce accurate, Internet-wide, statistics on demand (and double hah!). It would be nice and elegant, it's just a complete impossibility. > But I sill don't see a way to penalize senders who are rejected too > often. Although perhaps it could be integrated into the 'delay' in > creating the email-stamp/introduction-stamp (the more higher your > send/receive ratio goes, the more it "costs" to send new stuff) Another > possibility is of course law enforecement, but this would seem to > require some centralization of the ratio information, and whose > rejecting what. You would either increase their costs/delays to send, or you would reject outright. > The send/receive ratio might also be a problem for mailing lists - > maybe, I'd have to see statistics. Mailing lists, in a hybrid system, could be easily white-listed by any number of means. The registration messages should, in theory, have a perfect 1:1 send:receive ratio. Of course, if someone were trying to make subscribing to a particular list impossible, he could get it to send out numerous registration confirmation messages to skew the ratio. Sincerely, Philip Miller _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed May 19 20:00:11 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (www.iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA00045 for ; Wed, 19 May 2004 20:00:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQawR-0008Vg-Q3 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:57:43 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4JNvhn8032698 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:57:43 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQakN-00065p-WD for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:45:16 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA29452 for ; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:45:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQakM-00052F-3S for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:45:14 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQajW-0004vN-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:44:22 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQaiv-0004nV-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:43:45 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQaeM-0004BK-6N; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:39:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQaXj-0001qq-Iv for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:32:11 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA28907 for ; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:32:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQaXh-0003V0-R0 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:32:09 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQaWm-0003ON-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:31:12 -0400 Received: from [216.226.168.57] (helo=sv-IAS2.fjcs.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQaW4-0003C3-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:30:28 -0400 Received: from goui815 ([172.16.75.250]) by sv-IAS2.fjcs.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.0); Wed, 19 May 2004 16:29:55 -0700 Message-ID: <000b01c43df9$303d20c0$fa4b10ac@fpcad.fujitsupc.com> From: "George Ou" To: "Barry Shein" , "Chris" Cc: "Yakov Shafranovich" , "ASRG" References: <40AAB82D.3090004@solidmatrix.com> <16555.56412.585254.961521@world.std.com> Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6 - Yahoo Domain Keys MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 May 2004 23:29:55.0604 (UTC) FILETIME=[31460540:01C43DF9] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 16:29:53 -0700 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,DOMAIN_BODY autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ----- Original Message ----- From: "Barry Shein" To: "Chris" Cc: "Yakov Shafranovich" ; "ASRG" Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2004 3:14 PM Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6 - Yahoo Domain Keys > As far as I can tell spammers have now become domain registries and > just generate random-appearing, generated domains like www.fxbrezd.com > (or, more often, .info or .somecountryyoudon'twanttoknowmoreabout.) > For example, these whacko domains usually have functioning MX's. > > Which means they can just as easily set up SPF or Domain Key or > similar services for those randomly generated domains. But they only get to spew spam from fxbrezd.com once with their brand spanking new SPF/CallerID/Domain Key for a few days. Once it becomes clear that fxbrezd.com is a spammer, then you permanently blacklist that entire domain and announce it to the entire world so that no one else will ever receive mail from fxbrezd.com again. Yes, they can still register 1000s of domains, but its a bit more difficult. From that point on, the registrars need to be pressured to track these people down and the law needs to severely penalize them. Additionally, at least you won't be receiving junk from the hundreds of thousands of zombies out there. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed May 19 20:00:13 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (www.iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA00062 for ; Wed, 19 May 2004 20:00:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQawU-00005M-L1 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:57:46 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4JNvkXt000323 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:57:46 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQaq6-00079E-AZ for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:51:10 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA29651 for ; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:51:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQaq4-0005iW-Cl for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:51:08 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQap7-0005c3-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:50:09 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQao5-0005VO-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:49:05 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQaeM-0004BS-Lb; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:39:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQaXp-0001qu-6U for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:32:17 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA28914 for ; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:32:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQaXn-0003V9-I4 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:32:15 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQaWn-0003Od-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:31:14 -0400 Received: from sj-iport-5.cisco.com ([171.68.10.87]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQaWB-0003H6-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:30:35 -0400 Received: from sj-core-4.cisco.com (171.68.223.138) by sj-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 19 May 2004 16:29:13 -0700 Received: from mbaugher-w2k07.cisco.com (sjc-vpn3-1086.cisco.com [10.21.68.62]) by sj-core-4.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id i4JNU0Vi019711; Wed, 19 May 2004 16:30:03 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <6.0.0.22.2.20040519162859.0429b910@mira-sjc5-6.cisco.com> X-Sender: mbaugher@mira-sjc5-6.cisco.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.0.22 To: William Leibzon From: Mark Baugher Subject: Re: [Asrg] [Fwd: Yahoo! Mail Publishes Specification for DomainKeys] Cc: ASRG In-Reply-To: References: <40AAB82D.3090004@solidmatrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 16:30:31 -0700 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 At 11:46 AM 5/19/2004, William Leibzon wrote: >Big problem I have with it is that yahoo domain keys breaks with email >forwarders, mail lists and roaming users (and they fully acknoledge that >it does not work with them and say there is no good work-around). That >makes it no-go as far as I concerned for initial deployment unless >changes are made. You're assuming that there's no way to fix the break. >And frankly, I'm less then satisfied after so many promises and lots of >wait for it. Its long document (which I ready fully) that primarily just >pounds on rather old idea of entering public key in dns and using private >key to add signed header to email, this idea had been around for at least >4 years (possibly more) and I thought they found ways around above listed What is new is the signing of the header. I don't believe that this has been practiced since the days of PGP. I don't know about PEM. Mark >and other similar problems when email content must be changed in process >of tranmission by intermediate server, but unfortunetly they did not. Nor >do they address entering keys too well, again we're back to reusing TXT >(where as what we need is standard for entering public keys in DNS and >this is needed not only for email but for several others things and in >general would come usefull, there have been drafts about this actually). > >On Tue, 18 May 2004, Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > > > From MARID list. > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > > Subject: Yahoo! Mail Publishes Specification for DomainKeys > > Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 10:46:32 -0400 > > From: Larry Seltzer > > To: 'IETF MARID WG' > > > > > > (see http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys in particular) > > > > LJS > > > > Yahoo! Mail Publishes Specification for DomainKeys > > > > E-mail Authentication Solution Filed with IETF; > > > > Alpha Version of Open Source Code Available > > > > WHAT: > > > > On Tuesday, May 18, Yahoo! announces the publication of its > > specification on DomainKeys, > > a cryptographic e-mail authentication solution to help fight spam. > > > > DomainKeys: In order to attack spam at its roots, a powerful solution is > > needed that can > > verify the identity of the e-mail sender and put an end to spoofing and > > forgery. > > DomainKeys help fight spam by providing strong assurance of both the > > sender's identity > > and the integrity of the e-mail content through the use of > > public/private key > > cryptography. > > > > On Monday, May 17, the company filed the spec as an Internet-draft with > > the IETF > > (Internet Engineering Task Force) standards body to begin the > > standardization process. > > > > Additionally, Yahoo! is currently developing a reference implementation > > for DomainKeys > > that can be plugged into Message Transfer Agents (MTAs), such as qmail. > > An alpha version > > of this software will be released under a royalty free license at > > SourceForge.net. > > > > WHERE: > > > > The specification, license terms and FAQs are posted on Yahoo!'s > > Anti-Spam Resource > > Center: http://antispam.yahoo.com > > The alpha version of the software will be hosted at SourceForge.net at: > > http://sourceforge.net/index.php > > > > -- > > Yakov Shafranovich / asrg shaftek.org > > SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / research solidmatrix.com > > "There is nothing new under the sun" (Eccls. 1:9) > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Asrg mailing list > > Asrg@ietf.org > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > > > > >_______________________________________________ >Asrg mailing list >Asrg@ietf.org >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed May 19 20:06:17 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (www.iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA00308 for ; Wed, 19 May 2004 20:06:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQb3d-0002uw-QF for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 20:05:11 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4K0591G011209 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 20:05:09 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQayv-0001dP-NZ for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 20:00:18 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA00089 for ; Wed, 19 May 2004 20:00:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQayt-0006jp-Oi for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 20:00:15 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQaxw-0006d5-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:59:16 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQaxZ-0006WH-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:58:53 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQaqv-0007Fz-EZ; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:52:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQafc-0004sG-Bp for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:40:20 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA29189 for ; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:40:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQafa-0004Nb-IU for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:40:18 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQaeZ-0004Fe-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:39:16 -0400 Received: from sj-iport-4.cisco.com ([171.68.10.86]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQae1-000483-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:38:41 -0400 Received: from mbaugher-w2k07.cisco.com (sjc-vpn3-1086.cisco.com [10.21.68.62]) by sj-core-4.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id i4JNc2Vi026424; Wed, 19 May 2004 16:38:03 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <6.0.0.22.2.20040519163600.03b1e2a8@mira-sjc5-6.cisco.com> X-Sender: mbaugher@mira-sjc5-6.cisco.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.0.22 To: Barry Shein From: Mark Baugher Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 3. Proof-of-work analysis Cc: Adam Back , asrg@ietf.org, cypherpunks@minder.net, rah@shipwright.com, cryptography@metzdowd.com In-Reply-To: <16555.55647.93366.968530@world.std.com> References: <40AA92E7.4090907@cypherspace.org> <16555.55647.93366.968530@world.std.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 16:38:32 -0700 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 At 03:02 PM 5/19/2004, Barry Shein wrote: >I'm still amazed that anyone takes this proof-of-work/hashcash stuff >seriously. I think it's grounded in some well-accepted DoS defence principles that are found in cookie protocols like Photuris and ISAKMP. Mark >At best it's the "War Games" approach, let's make the server play >tic-tac-toe with itself to avoid nuclear holocaust, or the Bill >Shatner logical paradox that makes the robot's head blow up. > >The Sphinx's riddle also comes to mind, works better for supernatural >beings however. > >I realize the defense of the dumbest ideas is always that any >criticism can be represented as rudeness, ``how rude of you not to see >the brilliance of my ideas!'', so one goes on and on anyhow but I >wonder if there's any way to disabuse this nonsense once and for all, >particularly in the minds of those who think it's a good idea? > >In the words of someone famous whose name I'll leave out of this: This >idea isn't right, why, it isn't even wrong! > > >-- > -Barry Shein > >Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com >Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD >The World | Public Access Internet | Since 1989 *oo* > >_______________________________________________ >Asrg mailing list >Asrg@ietf.org >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed May 19 20:07:16 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (www.iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA00388 for ; Wed, 19 May 2004 20:07:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQb4F-00037f-Re for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 20:05:48 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4K05lxP011999 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 20:05:47 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQb2f-0002fP-8T for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 20:04:09 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA00254 for ; Wed, 19 May 2004 20:04:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQb2d-0007Cm-95 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 20:04:07 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQb1l-00076m-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 20:03:14 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQb1W-00070N-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 20:02:58 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQayf-0001bd-D7; Wed, 19 May 2004 20:00:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQar5-0007GS-FZ for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:52:11 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA29685 for ; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:52:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQar3-0005oy-EO for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:52:09 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQaq9-0005j9-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:51:13 -0400 Received: from smtp-1.star.net.uk ([212.125.75.70]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQapb-0005d2-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 19:50:39 -0400 Received: (qmail 10270 invoked from network); 19 May 2004 23:50:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO matt-dev.int.star.co.uk) (195.216.14.9) by smtp-1.star.net.uk with SMTP; 19 May 2004 23:50:01 -0000 Received: (qmail 8932 invoked from network); 18 May 2004 23:36:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?10.2.100.178?) (10.2.100.178) by matt?dev.int.star.co.uk with SMTP; 18 May 2004 23:36:21 -0000 From: Matt Sergeant X-X-Sender: matt@localhost.localdomain To: John Levine cc: "asrg@ietf.org" , "bzs@world.std.com" Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6 - Yahoo Domain Keys In-Reply-To: <20040519230041.22249.qmail@xuxa.iecc.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 00:50:38 +0100 (BST) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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 19 May 2004, John Levine wrote: > >Also, much spam from hijacked PCs seems to use the hijacked > >PC's host, as in wasteofoxygen@dyn-83-155-31-99.ppp.tiscali.fr > > > >That sort of thing will get around these SPF/YDK approaches, right? > > No, a valid DK signature tells you that the message really was signed > by the domain in the From: line. If there's a zombie'd PC at > tiscali.fr, and it sends mail through Tiscali's mail servers using a > tiscali.fr address, and the servers sign it (which, with half decent > volume checks they wouldn't) it'll pass DK checks. > > I agree that knowing that mail really came from woifnsdnskensk.com > isn't very useful without a reputation system, but DK at least > validates the actual mail that you see, not the envelope which you > don't. Unless the spec has changed since last time I read it, there's nothing in DK to say "mails from this domain are always signed with DomainKeys". Without that spammy just has to omit the DK header to get his mail through. The problem as I see it is that DK is a whitelist system (where SPF is really a blacklist system). It tells you that the mail is "valid" according to the signature. Mail without a DK header tells you nothing. And so once spammers start publishing domainkeys we're pretty much back to square 1. Matt. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed May 19 20:24:41 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 UAA00869 for ; Wed, 19 May 2004 20:24:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQbIn-0006BY-HM for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 20:20:49 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4K0KnZe023776 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 20:20:49 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQb9S-0004UC-NA for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 20:11:10 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA00482 for ; Wed, 19 May 2004 20:11:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQb9Q-0000Bo-Lo for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 20:11:08 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQb8W-00005h-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 20:10:13 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQb7q-0007mw-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 20:09:30 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQb4U-0003AO-VC; Wed, 19 May 2004 20:06:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQb0t-00028G-IA for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 20:02:19 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA00215 for ; Wed, 19 May 2004 20:02:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQb0r-0006zX-I2 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 20:02:17 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQazv-0006sI-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 20:01:20 -0400 Received: from pcls2.std.com ([192.74.137.142] helo=TheWorld.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQaza-0006kj-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 20:00:58 -0400 Received: from world.std.com (root@world-e.std.com [69.38.147.5]) by TheWorld.com (8.12.8p1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i4K00wZw016490; Wed, 19 May 2004 20:00:58 -0400 Received: (from bzs@localhost) by world.std.com (8.12.8p1/8.12.8) id i4K00vjt002694; Wed, 19 May 2004 20:00:57 -0400 (EDT) From: Barry Shein MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16555.62777.198072.74186@world.std.com> To: Jim Witte Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spam and IPv6 In-Reply-To: <6E936DBF-A9D5-11D8-88D5-000393DC31DA@bloomington.in.us> References: <6E936DBF-A9D5-11D8-88D5-000393DC31DA@bloomington.in.us> X-Mailer: VM 7.07 under Emacs 21.2.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 20:00:57 -0400 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 On May 19, 2004 at 15:45 jswitte@bloomington.in.us (Jim Witte) wrote: > Does IPv6 add anything to the spam puzzle? Because with IPv6, the > address space is so big that every person and his dog on Earth could > potentially have a separate address. Would that make > tracking/controlling stuff easier? > > Jim Well, we could insist that everyone use an IPv6 address which is an MD5 hash of their DNA (or at least an index into a table which holds that info.) I think we'd have to better understand address allocation policies and procedures in a world where IPv6 was widely deployed. For much of the life of DNS up until a few years ago we lived in the illusion that a domain was something which could be tied back to an owner of that domain, at least approximately, forgery notwithstanding. I don't think that's true any longer and we have what appear to be rogue registrars (possibly owned and operated by the spammers) assigning domains with near-zero reality friction. I could imagine similar things happening in a vast address space such as IPv6, clouds of billions of addrs being routed in virtually unaccountable ways. Add in NAT and other forms of identity deconstruction and IPv6 addresses could become about as effervescent as a Tony Soprano cell phone caller-id. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD The World | Public Access Internet | Since 1989 *oo* _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed May 19 21:25:07 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (www.iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA03668 for ; Wed, 19 May 2004 21:25:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQc7v-0002Lu-Vc for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 21:13:39 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4K1Ddq6009037 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 21:13:39 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQc2f-00010J-Nk for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 21:08:13 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA03049 for ; Wed, 19 May 2004 21:08:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQc2d-0007Nn-8f for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 21:08:11 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQc1t-0007F3-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 21:07:26 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQc0b-0006y0-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 21:06:05 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQbtk-0007G5-NB; Wed, 19 May 2004 20:59:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQbq6-0005n7-Vl for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 20:55:15 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA02418 for ; Wed, 19 May 2004 20:55:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQbq4-0005aE-G4 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 20:55:12 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQbp5-0005QU-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 20:54:12 -0400 Received: from pcls1.std.com ([192.74.137.141] helo=TheWorld.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQboE-0005FP-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 20:53:18 -0400 Received: from world.std.com (root@world-e.std.com [69.38.147.5]) by TheWorld.com (8.12.8p1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i4K0qPDV028825; Wed, 19 May 2004 20:52:25 -0400 Received: (from bzs@localhost) by world.std.com (8.12.8p1/8.12.8) id i4K0qPcF023968; Wed, 19 May 2004 20:52:25 -0400 (EDT) From: Barry Shein MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16556.329.61386.357764@world.std.com> To: Philip Miller Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6 - Yahoo Domain Keys In-Reply-To: <40ABEA25.5060901@zemos.net> References: <40AAB82D.3090004@solidmatrix.com> <16555.56412.585254.961521@world.std.com> <40ABEA25.5060901@zemos.net> X-Mailer: VM 7.07 under Emacs 21.2.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 20:52:25 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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 Without going point by point (because that gets tiresome, fast): I agree with you that a valid motivation for SPF/DK kinds of solutions is to "protect" (for some value of protect) domain owners. I have little doubt that a billion msgs per day (more) get forged with the domain of ISPs whose names you hear on prime time TV commercials and many of those cause consequences for those ISPs. [just a minute have to block a few hundred stock pumping IP addrs] Even as a smaller ISP we've suffered such consequences, irate victims, inappropriate blocking, even subpoenas, etc., when itn the end none of it ever passed thru here. None of that, to me, is strictly spam, even if it might be A Good Thing to eradicate. Something that has concerned me is... [damn, there they go again, be right back...] where was I? Oh, right, is exactly this problem of judging what is a spam problem and what isn't? For example, should we require a valid DUN identifier to do business via email? That's essentially what an SSL certificate is, one has to present a valid DUN to get a cert. Maybe anyone offering prescription drugs should be required to include a valid pharmaceutical license. I'm not going into a libertarian space here, just that fraud etc is a very, very, very big problem. And it does drag us further and further into trying to validate the content of a message, perhaps even its worthiness tho I don't think that's a problem with SPF/DK per se. [Again! ok, that was only 25 /24's blocked, progress?] I'll leave that on one observation which is to note that neither the (paper) postal system or phone system has developed a reliable, general way to authenticate "senders" in over 200 and 100 years respectively. In the case of the postal system they offer it as an option (which I suppose is what ANI for the phone system is also) but I wouldn't view that observation too flippantly. And one point by point: >> Again, I don't know for a fact that this is completely useless >> technology (like proof-of-work which is useless technology), but I > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >I still haven't seen proof of that, from you or others... We have to prove that something WON'T work now? [oh there goes the cheap software jerk...] How easily we go through the looking glass... But I believe some compelling criticisms have been raised. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD The World | Public Access Internet | Since 1989 *oo* _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed May 19 21:26:16 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (www.iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA03734 for ; Wed, 19 May 2004 21:26:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQcIa-0004N0-Br for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 21:24:40 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4K1Oe78016791 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 21:24:40 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQc7V-0002Ga-3s for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 21:13:13 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA03218 for ; Wed, 19 May 2004 21:13:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQc7S-0000C3-F3 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 21:13:10 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQc6S-00003y-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 21:12:09 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQc5W-0007ki-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 21:11:10 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQc1U-0000UI-Ks; Wed, 19 May 2004 21:07:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQbts-0007G9-KA for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 20:59:08 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA02570 for ; Wed, 19 May 2004 20:59:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQbtq-00065w-03 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 20:59:06 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQbss-0005yB-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 20:58:06 -0400 Received: from pcls2.std.com ([192.74.137.142] helo=TheWorld.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQbrw-0005qZ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 20:57:08 -0400 Received: from world.std.com (root@world-e.std.com [69.38.147.5]) by TheWorld.com (8.12.8p1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i4K0v8Zw026720; Wed, 19 May 2004 20:57:08 -0400 Received: (from bzs@localhost) by world.std.com (8.12.8p1/8.12.8) id i4K0v8XA002463; Wed, 19 May 2004 20:57:08 -0400 (EDT) From: Barry Shein MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16556.612.191252.768845@world.std.com> To: Seth Breidbart Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6 - Yahoo Domain Keys In-Reply-To: <200405192314.i4JNEpx06794@panix5.panix.com> References: <40AAB82D.3090004@solidmatrix.com> <16555.56412.585254.961521@world.std.com> <200405192314.i4JNEpx06794@panix5.panix.com> X-Mailer: VM 7.07 under Emacs 21.2.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 20:57:08 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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 Well, everyone keeps saying this but I don't particularly see why this should be the case. I'm sure some, even many, such ISPs will do as you say but are you really going to vouchsafe for all those broadband and dialup ISPs currently a source of so many problems? How many tens of millions of exceptions will we need for the result to be severely diminished? On May 19, 2004 at 19:14 sethb@panix.com (Seth Breidbart) wrote: > Barry Shein wrote: > > > Also, much spam from hijacked PCs seems to use the hijacked > > PC's host, as in wasteofoxygen@dyn-83-155-31-99.ppp.tiscali.fr > > > > That sort of thing will get around these SPF/YDK approaches, right? > > No; tiscali.fr is unlikely to publish that > dyn-83-155-31-99.ppp.tiscali.fr is an authorized sender of email from > its domain. > > Seth > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD The World | Public Access Internet | Since 1989 *oo* _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed May 19 21:26:47 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (www.iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA03774 for ; Wed, 19 May 2004 21:26:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQcIr-0004Qy-MF for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 21:25:08 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4K1OvxJ017039 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 21:24:57 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQc8Z-0002N5-Ii for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 21:14:19 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA03269 for ; Wed, 19 May 2004 21:14:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQc8W-0000LQ-SQ for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 21:14:16 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQc7c-0000Di-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 21:13:20 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQc78-00005H-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 21:12:50 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQc2X-0000yf-GQ; Wed, 19 May 2004 21:08:05 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQbyi-0007z3-6i for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 21:04:08 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA02765 for ; Wed, 19 May 2004 21:04:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQbyf-0006gs-Kw for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 21:04:05 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQbxh-0006Yw-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 21:03:06 -0400 Received: from pcls2.std.com ([192.74.137.142] helo=TheWorld.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQbwg-0006M0-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 21:02:02 -0400 Received: from world.std.com (world-e.std.com [69.38.147.5]) by TheWorld.com (8.12.8p1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i4K123vB003471; Wed, 19 May 2004 21:02:03 -0400 Received: (from bzs@localhost) by world.std.com (8.12.8p1/8.12.8) id i4K121Ub029369; Wed, 19 May 2004 21:02:01 -0400 (EDT) From: Barry Shein MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16556.898.797391.37361@world.std.com> To: "George Ou" Cc: "Barry Shein" , "Chris" , "Yakov Shafranovich" , "ASRG" Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6 - Yahoo Domain Keys In-Reply-To: <000b01c43df9$303d20c0$fa4b10ac@fpcad.fujitsupc.com> References: <40AAB82D.3090004@solidmatrix.com> <16555.56412.585254.961521@world.std.com> <000b01c43df9$303d20c0$fa4b10ac@fpcad.fujitsupc.com> X-Mailer: VM 7.07 under Emacs 21.2.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 21:01:54 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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 May 19, 2004 at 16:29 george_ou@netzero.com (George Ou) wrote: > But they only get to spew spam from fxbrezd.com once with their brand > spanking new SPF/CallerID/Domain Key for a few days. Once it becomes clear > that fxbrezd.com is a spammer, then you permanently blacklist that entire > domain and announce it to the entire world so that no one else will ever > receive mail from fxbrezd.com again. Yes, they can still register 1000s of > domains, but its a bit more difficult. From that point on, the registrars > need to be pressured to track these people down and the law needs to > severely penalize them. Additionally, at least you won't be receiving junk > from the hundreds of thousands of zombies out there. The optimism is touching, particularly the part about "the law needs to severely penalize them". That's a big hole you're filling in with a worldview that unfortunately hasn't had much credence thus far. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD The World | Public Access Internet | Since 1989 *oo* _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed May 19 22:02:39 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (www.iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA05376 for ; Wed, 19 May 2004 22:02:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQcrZ-0003w1-Mp for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 22:00:49 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4K20nSX015123 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 22:00:49 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQcjP-000298-9I for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 21:52:23 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA04892 for ; Wed, 19 May 2004 21:52:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQcjM-0005Xu-BT for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 21:52:20 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQciX-0005Pk-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 21:51:30 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQchg-0005Gg-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 21:50:36 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQcWU-0007dz-4F; Wed, 19 May 2004 21:39:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQcRx-0006RH-Vi for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 21:34:21 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA04201 for ; Wed, 19 May 2004 21:34:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQcRv-00037Z-4L for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 21:34:19 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQcRA-0002xq-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 21:33:32 -0400 Received: from mail1.panix.com ([166.84.1.72]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQcQI-0002mh-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 21:32:38 -0400 Received: from panix5.panix.com (panix5.panix.com [166.84.1.5]) by mail1.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3ACD4871C for ; Wed, 19 May 2004 21:32:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from sethb@localhost) by panix5.panix.com (8.11.6p2-a/8.8.8/PanixN1.1) id i4K1Wak22818; Wed, 19 May 2004 21:32:36 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200405200132.i4K1Wak22818@panix5.panix.com> From: Seth Breidbart To: asrg@ietf.org In-reply-to: <16556.612.191252.768845@world.std.com> (message from Barry Shein on Wed, 19 May 2004 20:57:08 -0400) Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6 - Yahoo Domain Keys References: <40AAB82D.3090004@solidmatrix.com> <16555.56412.585254.961521@world.std.com> <200405192314.i4JNEpx06794@panix5.panix.com> <16556.612.191252.768845@world.std.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: Wed, 19 May 2004 21:32:36 -0400 (EDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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 Barry Shein top-posted: > Well, everyone keeps saying this but I don't particularly see why this > should be the case. I'm sure some, even many, such ISPs will do as you > say but are you really going to vouchsafe for all those broadband and > dialup ISPs currently a source of so many problems? The ones that are too fucking cheap, stupid, and/or lazy to do anything about their infected lusers spamming and emitting worms? They're going to go to a lot of extra effort to allow their idiot lusers to spam? I don't think so. Seth _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu May 20 00:05:41 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 AAA11078 for ; Thu, 20 May 2004 00:05:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQefd-0004dO-9w for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 23:56:37 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4K3ubSe017812 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 23:56:37 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQecN-0003Mi-JB for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 23:53:15 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA10547 for ; Wed, 19 May 2004 23:53:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQecL-0007Yd-EV for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 23:53:13 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQebP-0007Qj-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 23:52:16 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQead-0007JU-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 23:51:27 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQeKn-0008OF-Ij; Wed, 19 May 2004 23:35:05 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQeIz-0007of-3k for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 23:33:13 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA09976 for ; Wed, 19 May 2004 23:33:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQeIx-0004sP-2H for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 23:33:11 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQeHz-0004is-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 23:32:12 -0400 Received: from sparkle.rodents.montreal.qc.ca ([216.46.5.7] ident=rcurv7sVwVpcsvO9d3jUlKsrjE7Hovv7aGdRONaQ2S6) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQeH9-0004Ve-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 23:31:19 -0400 Received: (from mouse@localhost) by Sparkle.Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA (8.8.8/8.8.8) id XAA17107; Wed, 19 May 2004 23:31:07 -0400 (EDT) From: der Mouse Message-Id: <200405200331.XAA17107@Sparkle.Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Erik-Conspiracy: There is no Conspiracy - and if there were I wouldn't be part of it anyway. To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6 - Yahoo Domain Keys In-Reply-To: <40ABEA25.5060901@zemos.net> References: <40AAB82D.3090004@solidmatrix.com> <16555.56412.585254.961521@world.std.com> <40ABEA25.5060901@zemos.net> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 23:25:51 -0400 (EDT) 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,DOMAIN_BODY autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > Has anyone created a functioning BL of domain registrars, rather than > domains? I doubt it, if only because it is hard to tell when the same registrar is used across TLDs. Some TLDs have no whois servers at all (or at least if they do, whois.iana.org doesn't show them, which amounts to the same thing); others have them but don't report registrar identity in any useful form (and have proven totally impervious to requests that this be fixed - .biz, .org, and .info come to mind as the most notable offenders in my experience). Is "R17-LROR" the same registrar as "ENOM, INC." (to pick the two handiest examples)? I don't know and I don't see any way to find out, short of filing a lawsuit so as to invoke discovery powers. /~\ The ASCII der Mouse \ / Ribbon Campaign X Against HTML mouse@rodents.montreal.qc.ca / \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu May 20 00:12:36 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 AAA11324 for ; Thu, 20 May 2004 00:12:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQetU-00080j-U8 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 00:10:57 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4K4Aud9030788 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 00:10:56 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQekH-0005Yf-EC for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 00:01:25 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA10878 for ; Thu, 20 May 2004 00:01:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQekF-0000wx-4W for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 00:01:23 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQejT-0000o5-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 00:00:36 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQeiQ-0000ek-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 23:59:30 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQed8-0003w5-69; Wed, 19 May 2004 23:54:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQeOz-0000k8-53 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 23:39:25 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA10285 for ; Wed, 19 May 2004 23:39:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQeOx-0005mU-3P for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 23:39:23 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQeNz-0005eX-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 23:38:24 -0400 Received: from cwhois1.completewhois.com ([216.151.192.222] helo=mail.completewhois.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQeNd-0005VQ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 19 May 2004 23:38:02 -0400 Received: by mail.completewhois.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id 6CA0418A1C; Wed, 19 May 2004 20:44:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.completewhois.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65BED4C06B for ; Wed, 19 May 2004 20:44:38 -0700 (PDT) From: William Leibzon To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] [Fwd: Yahoo! Mail Publishes Specification for DomainKeys] In-Reply-To: <20040519230529.23514.qmail@xuxa.iecc.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 20:44:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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 19 May 2004, John Levine wrote: > >Big problem I have with it is that yahoo domain keys breaks with email > >forwarders, mail lists and roaming users (and they fully acknoledge that > >it does not work with them and say there is no good work-around). That > >makes it no-go as far as I concerned for initial deployment unless > >changes are made. > > Are you sure you read the same DK document as the rest of us? http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys/draft-delany-domainkeys-base-00.txt > Forwarding works fine if it doesn't mess with the message other than > prepending headers. That is simplest forwarder and yes, it does work there. Many forwarders do lot more then that unfortunetly, reseting Sender, adding some "X-..." headers, etc. Note also that I usually the word "forwarder" to mean just any mail relaying server, including mail list server. > Roaming users work fine if they sign in the MUA. Yes, if roaming user has private key. But since multiple private keys are allowed, I'll accept that roaming user problem is not an issue with this proposal. > Mailing lists are an issue but there are some ideas to deal with that. To me its the biggest issue of all. Mail lists are EXTREMELY popular and almost all mail list sofware modifies headers (sometimes changes "From" and "To" and supposed to reset Sender and add List- headers). As such deployment would mean that those using domain keys would not be able to use mail lists until their software is somewhow modified to deal with domain keys (which might take quite some time). On Wed, 19 May 2004, Mark Baugher wrote: > You're assuming that there's no way to fix the break. Actually no, I'm not. But knowing what domain keys would be about before time and as such that these problems would exist, I was just hoping to see specs that have dealt with these issues better. Perhaps I was too hopefull and a bit unhappy that I had to read 30 pages and main details could fit in 2 and did not solve some important problems and that yet again proposal reused TXT record instead of propoing exact details on new dns record to store public keys (which would be really really usefull). Going back to maillist problem and similar, in my opinion, the way solve these problems (when modification of email headers by intermediate MTA would cause domain-keys verification to fail) is to have multiple signatures for different parts of the email, with first one being signature for content of the email (or even for each MIME part) and then separate signature(s) for email headers with signature line that also includes info on exactly which headers it is for, then when new headers are added, they can be ignored when trying to verify this hash/signature. --- William Leibzon _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu May 20 00:25:06 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 AAA11945 for ; Thu, 20 May 2004 00:25:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQf5P-0003FY-Hc for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 00:23:55 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4K4NFpR012488 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 00:23:15 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQezh-0002Fd-Ko for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 00:17:21 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA11467 for ; Thu, 20 May 2004 00:17:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQezf-0003LU-5z for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 00:17:19 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQeye-0003Bq-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 00:16:17 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQeyF-00033r-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 00:15:51 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQetb-00082s-7S; Thu, 20 May 2004 00:11:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQemD-0006Ey-83 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 00:03:25 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA10947 for ; Thu, 20 May 2004 00:03:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQemA-0001H3-Qp for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 00:03:22 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQelP-00018C-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 00:02:36 -0400 Received: from pcls3.std.com ([192.74.137.143] helo=TheWorld.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQekp-0000ys-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 00:02:00 -0400 Received: from world.std.com (root@world-e.std.com [69.38.147.5]) by TheWorld.com (8.12.8p1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i4K420ii018977; Thu, 20 May 2004 00:02:00 -0400 Received: (from bzs@localhost) by world.std.com (8.12.8p1/8.12.8) id i4K420VT028780; Thu, 20 May 2004 00:02:00 -0400 (EDT) From: Barry Shein MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16556.11704.106558.444315@world.std.com> To: Seth Breidbart Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6 - Yahoo Domain Keys In-Reply-To: <200405200132.i4K1Wak22818@panix5.panix.com> References: <40AAB82D.3090004@solidmatrix.com> <16555.56412.585254.961521@world.std.com> <200405192314.i4JNEpx06794@panix5.panix.com> <16556.612.191252.768845@world.std.com> <200405200132.i4K1Wak22818@panix5.panix.com> X-Mailer: VM 7.07 under Emacs 21.2.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 00:02:00 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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 Well I suppose but isn't there some way of effectively wildcarding? Can't they just set it up so...ok, "it"...SPF yes, easy anyhow, DK no because they have to work on each msg, but hell someone will just stick that in whatever they use for a mail server. It's not like it's saying a lot, just that slug@cable-098390.crackhouse.com is one of ours. Maybe some of this stuff needs more analysis in terms of non-cooperative or even anti-cooperative participants. How many times do we need to beaten over the head with *that* fact? I know...just blacklist miscreant isps...we see how well that's worked thus far. On May 19, 2004 at 21:32 sethb@panix.com (Seth Breidbart) wrote: > Barry Shein top-posted: > > > Well, everyone keeps saying this but I don't particularly see why this > > should be the case. I'm sure some, even many, such ISPs will do as you > > say but are you really going to vouchsafe for all those broadband and > > dialup ISPs currently a source of so many problems? > > The ones that are too fucking cheap, stupid, and/or lazy to do > anything about their infected lusers spamming and emitting worms? > They're going to go to a lot of extra effort to allow their idiot > lusers to spam? I don't think so. > > Seth > > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD The World | Public Access Internet | Since 1989 *oo* _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu May 20 00:26:05 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 AAA12084 for ; Thu, 20 May 2004 00:26:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQf5p-0003UE-MV for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 00:23:41 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4K4Nf85013397 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 00:23:41 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQf4a-0002tx-KL for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 00:22:24 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA11792 for ; Thu, 20 May 2004 00:22:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQf4Y-00049Z-5C for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 00:22:22 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQf3Z-00040z-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 00:21:22 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQf34-0003sh-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 00:20:50 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQeva-0000l4-Bf; Thu, 20 May 2004 00:13:06 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQess-0007Wq-GT for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 00:10:18 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA11198 for ; Thu, 20 May 2004 00:10:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQesq-0002J5-2B for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 00:10:16 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQeru-0002BW-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 00:09:18 -0400 Received: from cwhois1.completewhois.com ([216.151.192.222] helo=mail.completewhois.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQerS-00023l-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 00:08:51 -0400 Received: by mail.completewhois.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id 21D1818A1C; Wed, 19 May 2004 21:15:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.completewhois.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 185B24C06B; Wed, 19 May 2004 21:15:37 -0700 (PDT) From: William Leibzon To: Philip Miller Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 6 - Yahoo Domain Keys In-Reply-To: <40ABEA25.5060901@zemos.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 21:15:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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, 19 May 2004, Philip Miller wrote: > These types of things could potentially be blacklisted. Has anyone created a > functioning BL of domain registrars, rather than domains? How seriously is this needed? Completewhois has most of what is necessary and could do this but it'd require additional investment in time to program the proper transformation to create daily static dnsbl list (which I estimate at least 20 hours of programming time), plus additional necessary work to provide documentation and support and hardware to run this all. This is beginning to exchaust my resources and I'd only be willing proceed and invest in programming of this functionality if at least dozen other people tell me for certain that they would use it and in the help with at least documentation. > SPF simply says that they control the domain they're using, which is an > improvement over the present state. In this case, if they're using zombies, > they need some way to ensure that all of those zombies end up authorized by > the SPF records. SPF records for INADDR space will allow ISPs to tell if particular computer should be running mail server or not. SPF for direct domains can override negative response for for those few who actually do want to run mail server on their broadband line and do not have an ISP that is cooperative enough to whitelist that ip. ---- William Leibzom william@completewhois.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu May 20 00:47:39 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (www.iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA12977 for ; Thu, 20 May 2004 00:47:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQfR6-0000aI-VF for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 00:45:41 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4K4jeuQ002244 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 00:45:40 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQfNx-0007yP-Ti for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 00:42:26 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA12793 for ; Thu, 20 May 2004 00:42:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQfNv-0007G0-C0 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 00:42:23 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQfN1-00077K-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 00:41:28 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQfMX-0006yQ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 00:40:57 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQfGp-0006MD-P2; Thu, 20 May 2004 00:35:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQfDR-0005WJ-KK for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 00:31:33 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA12372 for ; Thu, 20 May 2004 00:31:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQfDP-0005bi-2g for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 00:31:31 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQfCS-0005SJ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 00:30:32 -0400 Received: from [216.226.168.57] (helo=sv-IAS2.fjcs.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQfC3-0005I2-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 00:30:07 -0400 Received: from goui815 ([172.16.75.250]) by sv-IAS2.fjcs.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.0); Wed, 19 May 2004 21:29:37 -0700 Message-ID: <000d01c43e23$10332020$fa4b10ac@fpcad.fujitsupc.com> From: "George Ou" To: "Barry Shein" Cc: "Barry Shein" , "Chris" , "Yakov Shafranovich" , "ASRG" References: <40AAB82D.3090004@solidmatrix.com><16555.56412.585254.961521@world.std.com><000b01c43df9$303d20c0$fa4b10ac@fpcad.fujitsupc.com> <16556.898.797391.37361@world.std.com> Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6 - Yahoo Domain Keys MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 May 2004 04:29:37.0315 (UTC) FILETIME=[0F355F30:01C43E23] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 21:29:38 -0700 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ----- Original Message ----- From: "Barry Shein" To: "George Ou" Cc: "Barry Shein" ; "Chris" ; "Yakov Shafranovich" ; "ASRG" Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2004 6:01 PM Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6 - Yahoo Domain Keys > On May 19, 2004 at 16:29 george_ou@netzero.com (George Ou) wrote: > > But they only get to spew spam from fxbrezd.com once with their brand > > spanking new SPF/CallerID/Domain Key for a few days. Once it becomes clear > > that fxbrezd.com is a spammer, then you permanently blacklist that entire > > domain and announce it to the entire world so that no one else will ever > > receive mail from fxbrezd.com again. Yes, they can still register 1000s of > > domains, but its a bit more difficult. From that point on, the registrars > > need to be pressured to track these people down and the law needs to > > severely penalize them. Additionally, at least you won't be receiving junk > > from the hundreds of thousands of zombies out there. > > The optimism is touching, particularly the part about "the law needs > to severely penalize them". That's a big hole you're filling in with a > worldview that unfortunately hasn't had much credence thus far. > > -- > -Barry Shein I realize that my optimism may be misguided, and the more I look into these things the more jaded I become like yourself. However, should we not try at all? Right now, the government makes laws that have little or no use in the fight against spam. If we force the spammer to at least make bulk purchases of Domain names, rather than using anonymous zombies with impunity, there is a much better chance we can track down who is doing the spamming and try to make some partially effective laws. I'm sure any of these anti-spam measures have counter measures, but does that mean we don't even try? Having a reliable domain authentication system in SMTP that is widely used may not be the solution, but at least a step in the right direction. George _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu May 20 01:30:27 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (www.iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA14773 for ; Thu, 20 May 2004 01:30:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQg2S-0001c7-Nw for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 01:24:16 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4K5OGwE006203 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 01:24:16 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQg1c-0001JN-4w for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 01:23:24 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA14487 for ; Thu, 20 May 2004 01:23:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQg1Z-00064j-8E for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 01:23:21 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQg0h-0005vh-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 01:22:28 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQfzv-0005mu-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 01:21:39 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQfuU-0007tt-Ia; Thu, 20 May 2004 01:16:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQfmJ-0005U4-Qc for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 01:07:35 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA14018 for ; Thu, 20 May 2004 01:07:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQfmG-0003iD-P4 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 01:07:32 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQflN-0003Y5-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 01:06:38 -0400 Received: from out2.smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.26]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQfkr-0003O5-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 01:06:05 -0400 X-Sasl-enc: rfXZ7y82hK4JelmXwM8Kyw 1085029505 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 17A0BBAC159; Thu, 20 May 2004 01:05:03 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <40AC314F.9030501@elvey.com> From: Matthew Elvey User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.7b) Gecko/20040421 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] [Fwd: Yahoo! Mail Publishes Specification for DomainKeys] References: <40AAB82D.3090004@solidmatrix.com> In-Reply-To: <40AAB82D.3090004@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, 19 May 2004 21:17:19 -0700 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 Apropos Yahoo's DK I-D wannabe- http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys/draft-delany-domainkeys-base-00.txt posted to this thread: It fails to meet IETF requirements for publication as an I-D, or for serious consideration by this group. This text is not allowed: "This document may not be modified, and derivative works of it may not be created. This document may only be posted in an Internet-Draft." I discussed DK with John Levine privately. My conclusions as a result of the conversation*: DK requires orders of magnitude more work to adopt, though not as much as SPF+SRS. DK is about as reliant on blacklists/reputation services as other proposals. Without them, CSV is not easier for a spammer to circumvent than DK or SPF. They all require that something be put in a DNS entry for a domain that costs approximately nothing to put there beyond the cost of the domain itself. DKs aren't signed by CAs, remember. Exploit: A spammer would have control of the DNS server for the responsible domain, and a BotNet spamming node would spam with a valid DK. The DK would be in the zombie worm that created the BotNet, or even communicated via IRC. So, I think DK is shown to be about as trivial to circumvent as the 40% solution / CSV+++. As has been said before, all the extant I-Ds, including this one, and C-ID can only work against spamers long term in conjunction with either A)RHSBLs or B)mandatory (but not necessarily monopoly/oligopoly) reputation services. *(Don't want to quote from private email without asking for an OK, so here's just what I said that stood.) _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu May 20 02:44:09 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (www.iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA01142 for ; Thu, 20 May 2004 02:44:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQhGR-0000FG-2c for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 02:42:47 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4K6gkdO000932 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 02:42:46 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQhG3-0008WT-K4 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 02:42:23 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA01103 for ; Thu, 20 May 2004 02:42:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQhFz-000316-RD for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 02:42:19 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQhF1-0002ro-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 02:41:20 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQhE5-0002j9-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 02:40:21 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQh9v-000730-L6; Thu, 20 May 2004 02:36:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQh6S-0006Q1-2N for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 02:32:28 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA00678 for ; Thu, 20 May 2004 02:32:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQh6O-0001SU-6g for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 02:32:24 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQh5Y-0001JU-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 02:31:33 -0400 Received: from mail3.sa.chariot.net.au ([203.87.94.14]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQh51-00019q-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 02:30:59 -0400 Received: from mail.chariot.net.au (mail.chariot.net.au [203.87.95.38]) by mail3.sa.chariot.net.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7D9FA41F7 for ; Thu, 20 May 2004 16:00:26 +0930 (CST) Received: from rebel (ppp136-119.lns1.adl2.internode.on.net [150.101.136.119]) by mail.chariot.net.au (Postfix) with SMTP id 55ECB5F74B for ; Thu, 20 May 2004 16:00:26 +0930 (CST) From: "Chris" To: "ASRG" Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6 - Yahoo Domain Keys 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 V6.00.2800.1409 In-Reply-To: <000d01c43e23$10332020$fa4b10ac@fpcad.fujitsupc.com> Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 15:59:57 +0930 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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 Hmmm after skimming thru all that's been said and that's a lot. I get the feeling of being caught in a whirlpool. I am of the opinion and have stated it before, there is no single solution and nothing is perfect, and can never be because Spam is different to different people. So the first step to my mind is to take away anonymity. If you want to say something be prepared to stand by it. Whether it be Spam, something controversial or a virus. it doesnt matter. (you want anonymity go to a news group or forum) So whats the next step ? Better filters. its easier if you know the source of the email. Better Laws. its easier if you know the source of the email. something else altogether. its probably easier if you know the source of the email. Well you get my drift. Zombies are another problem. but at least if the machine is more reliably traced it can be more reliably stopped. and if the machine was zombified by an email borne virus. tracing the origin of the virus is MUCH EASIER. Domain Keys gives us this traceability and with the addition of "MTA DomainKeys" people hiding behind "legacy" systems can be traced to the injection point. and probably further using the injection points logs. Most Importantly Domain Keys can be grafted onto SMTP without any major changes just a software upgrade. its only one more header. You watch there will be all sorts of software avaliable soon marked "DomainKey Ready". If we stand by and argue semantics. we will be left behind. Regards Chris _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu May 20 04:32:07 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA04979 for ; Thu, 20 May 2004 04:32:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQiuw-0001RF-7I for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 04:28:42 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4K8SfA8005526 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 04:28:42 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQiqp-0000dd-B4 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 04:24:27 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA04734 for ; Thu, 20 May 2004 04:24:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQiqm-0004YK-Dm for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 04:24:24 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQipn-0004Nc-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 04:23:23 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQiom-00047G-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 04:22:20 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQijf-0007pd-DF; Thu, 20 May 2004 04:17:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQij7-0007aF-VF for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 04:16:30 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA04492 for ; Thu, 20 May 2004 04:16:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQij5-0003Bs-6p for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 04:16:27 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQii9-00031V-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 04:15:29 -0400 Received: from mail3.sa.chariot.net.au ([203.87.94.14]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQihN-0002he-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 04:14:41 -0400 Received: from mail.chariot.net.au (mail.chariot.net.au [203.87.95.38]) by mail3.sa.chariot.net.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBCD6A402A; Thu, 20 May 2004 17:44:10 +0930 (CST) Received: from rebel (ppp136-119.lns1.adl2.internode.on.net [150.101.136.119]) by mail.chariot.net.au (Postfix) with SMTP id 260115F71D; Thu, 20 May 2004 17:44:10 +0930 (CST) From: "Chris" To: "Mark Delany" , Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6 - Yahoo Domain Keys 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 V6.00.2800.1409 In-Reply-To: <20040520065656.31568.qmail@snake.corp.yahoo.com> Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 17:43:41 +0930 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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 Good Day Mark I should have read the draft a little closer, your section on Border MTA's is really what I was trying to get at. As I have said source validation is only the first step. but it is a marked improvement on what we have today. I hope your Draft allows this group and others to become more focused in their continual debate. Regards Chris > -----Original Message----- > From: Mark Delany [mailto:markd@yahoo-inc.com] > Sent: Thursday, 20 May 2004 4:27 PM > To: Chris > Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6 - Yahoo Domain Keys > > > On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 12:56:17PM +0930, Chris allegedly wrote: > > > Except I believe provision should be made for any intervening > MTA's to add > > their own Domain Key > > thus allowing the injection point be traced for legacy mail systems. > > As it happens, I agree. This is the reason why the spec specifically > says that current implementations must look for the last Signature in > the headers. Why? So we can issue a follow-on spec that allows for > multiple signatures without breaking earlier implementations. > > Additional signatures can do things like: > > o Prove the right to use or replace an envelope address > o Prove that an email was relayed thru a domain > o Prove that a list has forwarded an email > o You tell me? > > We have this stuff in mind, we just don't want to scare people too > much. One step at a time. > > > Mark. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu May 20 04:33:17 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA05078 for ; Thu, 20 May 2004 04:33:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQix8-0001jJ-61 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 04:30:58 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4K8UwDC006644 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 04:30:58 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQisn-00016z-UN for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 04:26:29 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA04820 for ; Thu, 20 May 2004 04:26:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQisl-0004t9-2k for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 04:26:27 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQirr-0004jc-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 04:25:31 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQirM-0004Zz-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 04:25:01 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQijf-0007pl-VU; Thu, 20 May 2004 04:17:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQij8-0007aH-MI for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 04:16:30 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA04495 for ; Thu, 20 May 2004 04:16:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQij5-0003Bx-UO for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 04:16:28 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQii9-00031d-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 04:15:30 -0400 Received: from mail3.sa.chariot.net.au ([203.87.94.14]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQihN-0002hf-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 04:14:41 -0400 Received: from mail.chariot.net.au (mail.chariot.net.au [203.87.95.38]) by mail3.sa.chariot.net.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D1E5A412C; Thu, 20 May 2004 17:44:12 +0930 (CST) Received: from rebel (ppp136-119.lns1.adl2.internode.on.net [150.101.136.119]) by mail.chariot.net.au (Postfix) with SMTP id AFBD55F716; Thu, 20 May 2004 17:44:11 +0930 (CST) From: "Chris" To: "Jim Witte" , Subject: RE: [Asrg] Re: Spam send/receive ratio 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 V6.00.2800.1409 In-Reply-To: <459BEE9A-A9D5-11D8-88D5-000393DC31DA@bloomington.in.us> 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: Thu, 20 May 2004 17:43:43 +0930 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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 > > > One of the distinguishing characteristics of a spammer is the > > imbalance between mail sent and mail received. Totally Unforgivable Rubbish (TUR for short) I recieve maybe a hundred emails each day. but when I send out to my mail list I send tens of thousands under the above 'criteria' I automatically become a "spammer" when in fact I simply have a lot of potential customers ALL on a double opt in list. This is very blinkered reasoning. Regards Chris > -----Original Message----- > From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of Jim > Witte > Sent: Thursday, 20 May 2004 6:14 AM > To: asrg@ietf.org > Subject: [Asrg] Re: Spam send/receive ratio > > > > One of the distinguishing characteristics of a spammer is the > > imbalance between mail sent and mail received. Unfortunately I do not > > see a convenient way to penalize people who fall into this category. > > One idea about this (although I don't know how scalable it is) would > be, if you could authenticate the sender ie DomainKeys or the like, > then every sender would have a send/receive ratio (somewhere), which > would be entered into the mail header in some way that it could not be > spoofed (more protocol changes though). Then if a mail is received by > the end-user's inbox, it could check the ratio, and decide whether to > accept/reject/quarantine it. > > But I sill don't see a way to penalize senders who are rejected too > often. Although perhaps it could be integrated into the 'delay' in > creating the email-stamp/introduction-stamp (the more higher your > send/receive ratio goes, the more it "costs" to send new stuff) > Another possibility is of course law enforecement, but this would seem > to require some centralization of the ratio information, and whose > rejecting what. > > The send/receive ratio might also be a problem for mailing lists - > maybe, I'd have to see statistics. > > Jim > > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing 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 May 20 04:33:48 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA05126 for ; Thu, 20 May 2004 04:33:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQixm-0001t0-Ge for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 04:31:38 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4K8VclA007251 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 04:31:38 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQito-0001HY-Se for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 04:27:32 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA04848 for ; Thu, 20 May 2004 04:27:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQitm-00053f-1w for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 04:27:30 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQisq-0004tr-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 04:26:33 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQisV-0004jy-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 04:26:11 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQijg-0007pt-SD; Thu, 20 May 2004 04:17:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQij9-0007aJ-GV for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 04:16:31 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA04498 for ; Thu, 20 May 2004 04:16:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQij6-0003C2-KW for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 04:16:28 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQiiA-00031l-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 04:15:31 -0400 Received: from mail3.sa.chariot.net.au ([203.87.94.14]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQihN-0002hg-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 04:14:41 -0400 Received: from mail.chariot.net.au (mail.chariot.net.au [203.87.95.38]) by mail3.sa.chariot.net.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE124A4062; Thu, 20 May 2004 17:44:11 +0930 (CST) Received: from rebel (ppp136-119.lns1.adl2.internode.on.net [150.101.136.119]) by mail.chariot.net.au (Postfix) with SMTP id B5F775F71D; Thu, 20 May 2004 17:44:10 +0930 (CST) From: "Chris" To: "William Leibzon" , "ASRG" Subject: RE: [Asrg] [Fwd: Yahoo! Mail Publishes Specification for DomainKeys] 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 V6.00.2800.1409 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: Thu, 20 May 2004 17:43:42 +0930 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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 > > Big problem I have with it is that yahoo domain keys breaks with email > forwarders, mail lists and roaming users I don't understand why you say this. Roaming users still have to log into an ISP somewhere to send their email. if The ISP is prepared to let them access the mail system the ISP becomes responsible for what they do. So they should at the very least validate them. Mail forwarders can sign the mail. they must accept responsibilty for the forwarding as above. Mailing lists must also be held accountable for what they send. they are simply another 'injection point' and can validate the sender before inserting it into the list. > email content must be changed in process > of tranmission Why 'must' content be changed? headers need to be added and those should be signed off as well as the previous mta's signature. granted this additional signing increases the load especially for the MTR, but if Spam is reduced then the initial load would be reduced anyway. If content MUST be changed then the authority changing the content becomes the owner. and therefore responsible for the 'new' email. Regards Chris > -----Original Message----- > From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of > William Leibzon > Sent: Thursday, 20 May 2004 4:17 AM > To: ASRG > Subject: Re: [Asrg] [Fwd: Yahoo! Mail Publishes Specification for > DomainKeys] > > > And frankly, I'm less then satisfied after so many promises and lots of > wait for it. Its long document (which I ready fully) that primarily just > pounds on rather old idea of entering public key in dns and using private > key to add signed header to email, this idea had been around for at least > 4 years (possibly more) and I thought they found ways around above listed > and other similar problems when email content must be changed in process > of tranmission by intermediate server, but unfortunetly they did not. Nor > do they address entering keys too well, again we're back to reusing TXT > (where as what we need is standard for entering public keys in DNS and > this is needed not only for email but for several others things and in > general would come usefull, there have been drafts about this actually). > > On Tue, 18 May 2004, Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > > > From MARID list. > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > > Subject: Yahoo! Mail Publishes Specification for DomainKeys > > Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 10:46:32 -0400 > > From: Larry Seltzer > > To: 'IETF MARID WG' > > > > > > (see http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys in particular) > > > > LJS > > > > Yahoo! Mail Publishes Specification for DomainKeys > > > > E-mail Authentication Solution Filed with IETF; > > > > Alpha Version of Open Source Code Available > > > > WHAT: > > > > On Tuesday, May 18, Yahoo! announces the publication of its > > specification on DomainKeys, > > a cryptographic e-mail authentication solution to help fight spam. > > > > DomainKeys: In order to attack spam at its roots, a powerful > solution is > > needed that can > > verify the identity of the e-mail sender and put an end to spoofing and > > forgery. > > DomainKeys help fight spam by providing strong assurance of both the > > sender's identity > > and the integrity of the e-mail content through the use of > > public/private key > > cryptography. > > > > On Monday, May 17, the company filed the spec as an Internet-draft with > > the IETF > > (Internet Engineering Task Force) standards body to begin the > > standardization process. > > > > Additionally, Yahoo! is currently developing a reference implementation > > for DomainKeys > > that can be plugged into Message Transfer Agents (MTAs), such as qmail. > > An alpha version > > of this software will be released under a royalty free license at > > SourceForge.net. > > > > WHERE: > > > > The specification, license terms and FAQs are posted on Yahoo!'s > > Anti-Spam Resource > > Center: http://antispam.yahoo.com > > The alpha version of the software will be hosted at SourceForge.net at: > > http://sourceforge.net/index.php > > > > -- > > Yakov Shafranovich / asrg shaftek.org > > SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / research solidmatrix.com > > "There is nothing new under the sun" (Eccls. 1:9) > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Asrg mailing list > > Asrg@ietf.org > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu May 20 04:59:50 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 EAA06361 for ; Thu, 20 May 2004 04:59:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQjNN-0006aO-G3 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 04:58:05 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4K8w5hu025317 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 04:58:05 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQjKt-00068k-Uj for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 04:55:32 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA06204 for ; Thu, 20 May 2004 04:55:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQjKq-0002KO-QC for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 04:55:28 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQjJs-0002A4-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 04:54:29 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQjJh-00020F-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 04:54:17 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQjEf-00052M-Jl; Thu, 20 May 2004 04:49:05 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQjAQ-0004Ol-32 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 04:44:42 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA05596 for ; Thu, 20 May 2004 04:44:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQjAN-0000KE-4y for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 04:44:39 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQj9Y-00008W-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 04:43:49 -0400 Received: from cust.92.136.adsl.cistron.nl ([195.64.92.136] helo=purgatory.unfix.org ident=postfix) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQj8d-0007jB-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 04:42:51 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by purgatory.unfix.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F162A7FDC; Thu, 20 May 2004 10:42:50 +0200 (CEST) Received: from purgatory.unfix.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (purgatory [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with SMTP id 01545-20; Thu, 20 May 2004 10:42:35 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [9.4.70.109] (pat.zurich.ibm.com [195.176.20.45]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by purgatory.unfix.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 540257F67; Thu, 20 May 2004 10:42:35 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spam and IPv6 From: Jeroen Massar To: Barry Shein Cc: Jim Witte , asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <16555.62777.198072.74186@world.std.com> References: <6E936DBF-A9D5-11D8-88D5-000393DC31DA@bloomington.in.us> <16555.62777.198072.74186@world.std.com> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-udSS8CIvO4pioVv3q0KP" Organization: Unfix Message-Id: <1085042549.22699.3130.camel@segesta.zurich.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.5 (1.4.5-7) X-Virus-Scanned: purgatory.unfix.org - http://unfix.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, 20 May 2004 10:42:30 +0200 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 --=-udSS8CIvO4pioVv3q0KP Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, 2004-05-20 at 02:00, Barry Shein wrote: > On May 19, 2004 at 15:45 jswitte@bloomington.in.us (Jim Witte) wrote: > > Does IPv6 add anything to the spam puzzle? Because with IPv6, the=20 > > address space is so big that every person and his dog on Earth could=20 > > potentially have a separate address. Would that make=20 > > tracking/controlling stuff easier? > >=20 > > Jim >=20 > Well, we could insist that everyone use an IPv6 address which is an > MD5 hash of their DNA (or at least an index into a table which holds > that info.) ROTFL, never heard of hierarchy I guess? Also how are you going to force a person who is already doing something bad to conform to that? :) Seriously, you should really read up on how IPv6 addresses are allocated, thus please read up. I'd suggest you read: Steve Deerings IPv6 masterclass: http://www.isoc.nl/activ/2002-Masterclass-IETF-IPv6.htm (dutch domain but in english...) Cisco's ABC Of IP Version 6 http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/sw/iosswrel/ios_abcs_ios_the_abcs_ip_ve= rsion_6_listing.html > I think we'd have to better understand address allocation policies and > procedures in a world where IPv6 was widely deployed. There is already enough deployment to understand this, one could even quite easily understand it from the allocation documents. Every ISP gets something in the range of a /20 till a /32 (older /35). Every endsite, may that be a user or a complete organisation gets a /48. Thus if you have a spammer from say 2001:db8:1::1/48 you simply block that /48, if the ISP then decides to move him to another /48, block the /32. Bingo, presto done, now they need to move to another ISP. Also a good thing about IPv6 is that ISP's usually only have one prefix, main reason for this is less routing, but that also makes sure that one ISP can't easily use multiple seperate prefixes to do their evil work from unless they have requested multiple of them. Of course a spammer can get multiple, and then a lot of /48's but I think that most ISP's won't give out a /48 so quickly, thus if they do it is quite easy to see that those ISP's are also in the game -> block. On another note I already have seen the following scenario: IPv4 spammer spams a dual stack (IPv4+IPv6) host, which is an openrelay. Destination emails have a MX that does IPv6, thus the spam comes in on IPv6. There is one problem here, how to trace them, especially with the many tunnel brokers and other odd setups out there that allow people to quite anonymously sign up, that is a big problem as they can hide quite well and you need to cooperation of that TB to get it sorted. Or more easy, just insert a prefix into the BGP tables, most ISP's don't filter at all so that is quite doable, long live RIS and GRH for those cases though. And a third one: 6to4. Every Windows box and most Linux/BSD boxes support this, IPv4: aa.bb.cc.dd (dec->hex) -> 2002::::/48 et tada you made a IPv6 address from a IPv4 address but these are of course traceable. Greets, Jeroen --=-udSS8CIvO4pioVv3q0KP Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Jeroen Massar / http://unfix.org/~jeroen/ iD8DBQBArG91KaooUjM+fCMRAqAnAKCHkFkge33dA9LHQYC0RW/M04aYggCffH2H flB1rxuDZn5Dsi2C2OjhNoo= =Kj9k -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-udSS8CIvO4pioVv3q0KP-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu May 20 12:13:26 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (www.iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA28551 for ; Thu, 20 May 2004 12:13:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQpol-0002Ro-Ks for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 11:50:47 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4KFolM0009403 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 11:50:47 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQpbl-0005GP-GX for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 11:37:21 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA24765 for ; Thu, 20 May 2004 11:37:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQpbk-0005JE-G5 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 11:37:20 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQpau-0005AM-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 11:36:28 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQpZt-000515-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 11:35:25 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQp6g-0004Ta-H6; Thu, 20 May 2004 11:05:14 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQnbJ-0007Nk-Ik for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 09:28:45 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA16306 for ; Thu, 20 May 2004 09:28:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQnbH-0000zQ-Ns for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 09:28:43 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQnaO-0000ll-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 09:27:48 -0400 Received: from chiark.greenend.org.uk ([193.201.200.170] ident=mail) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQnZR-0000Yy-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 09:26:49 -0400 Received: by chiark.greenend.org.uk (Debian Exim 3.35 #1) with local id 1BQnZQ-00037z-00; Thu, 20 May 2004 14:26:48 +0100 To: millenix@zemos.net From: Tony Finch Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: blacklisting throwaway domains, was Re: [Asrg] Re: 6 - Yahoo Domain Keys In-Reply-To: <40ABEA25.5060901@zemos.net> References: <40AAB82D.3090004@solidmatrix.com> <16555.56412.585254.961521@world.std.com> <16555.56412.585254.961521@world.std.com> Message-Id: Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 14:26:48 +0100 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,DOMAIN_BODY autolearn=no version=2.60 Philip Miller wrote: > >> As far as I can tell spammers have now become domain registries and >> just generate random-appearing, generated domains like www.fxbrezd.com >> (or, more often, .info or .somecountryyoudon'twanttoknowmoreabout.) > >These types of things could potentially be blacklisted. Has anyone created a >functioning BL of domain registrars, rather than domains? It's easier to blacklist nameservers than registrars -- working out a domain's name servers is much simpler than getting to grips with whois. You need the right kind of blacklist for this purpose, because it must target nameservers that are only used for spam domains. Fortunately such a blacklist already exists: the SBL. SpamAssassin 3.0 includes a module that checks the nameservers of any URL in the message against the SBL, and this has proved to be very effective. The same technique should work well against the nameservers of domains in email addresses. Tony. -- f.a.n.finch http://dotat.at/ THE MULL OF GALLOWAY TO MULL OF KINTYRE INCLUDING THE FIRTH OF CLYDE AND THE NORTH CHANNEL: WEST 3 OR 4 VEERING NORTHWEST 4 OR 5. VARIABLE CLOUD AMOUNTS, RISK LIGHT SHOWER. MAINLY GOOD. SLIGHT TO MODERATE BECOMING MODERATE. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu May 20 12:34:35 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (www.iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA29855 for ; Thu, 20 May 2004 12:34:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQq8y-0001tO-E7 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 12:11:40 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4KGBeVL007274 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 12:11:40 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQpmh-0001wu-6j for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 11:48:39 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA26104 for ; Thu, 20 May 2004 11:48:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQpmg-0006zL-2P for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 11:48:38 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQpl2-0006df-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 11:46:57 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQpiy-0006Kc-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 11:44:48 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQp7w-0004gg-0X; Thu, 20 May 2004 11:06:32 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQobg-00065T-37 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 10:33:12 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA20388 for ; Thu, 20 May 2004 10:33:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQobd-00077u-7T for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 10:33:09 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQoZV-0006Wi-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 10:30:58 -0400 Received: from newgiles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ([205.150.200.131] helo=mail.nitros9.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQoWO-0005vD-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 10:27:44 -0400 Received: from newgiles.nitros9.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.nitros9.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA6DC16CC4 for ; Thu, 20 May 2004 10:33:21 -0400 (EDT) From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: Spam send/receive ratio In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 20 May 2004 17:43:43 +0930." Message-Id: <20040520143321.BA6DC16CC4@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, 20 May 2004 10:33:21 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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: > > > One of the distinguishing characteristics of a spammer is the > > > imbalance between mail sent and mail received. > > Totally Unforgivable Rubbish (TUR for short) > > I recieve maybe a hundred emails each day. but when I send out to my mail > list I send tens of thousands Really? That's not how mailing lists work, so far as I know. The *list* re-sends the message to tens of thousands of recipients. You don't. Since each recipient has opted-in to the list, this isn't a problem. > under the above 'criteria' I automatically become a "spammer" when in fact I > simply have a lot of potential customers ALL on a double opt in list. No. You match a distinguishing characteristic of spammers. This doesn't mean you're a spammer. It just means that your behavior overlaps with that of spammers. This isn't news. Everyone uses SMTP to send mail, and so do spammers. This doesn't make everyone using SMTP a spammer. Spammers have additional distinguishing characteristics which you don't match. Ergo, you're not a spammer. In other news, is everyone with a tattoo a criminal? I've seen "wanted" posters which list "tattos" as "distinguishing characteristics" of a criminal. > This is very blinkered reasoning. Please blink more often. It might clarify your vision. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu May 20 14:01:10 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 OAA07570 for ; Thu, 20 May 2004 14:01:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQreP-00076h-2z for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 13:48:13 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4KHmDsH027319 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 13:48:13 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQrcB-00066X-DO for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 13:45:55 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA06128 for ; Thu, 20 May 2004 13:45:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQrc8-0003cZ-VM for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 13:45:53 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQrbC-0003YH-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 13:44:55 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQram-0003Ui-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 13:44:28 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQrQf-0003UH-UN; Thu, 20 May 2004 13:34:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQrDy-0000Bc-1s for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 13:20:54 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA03894 for ; Thu, 20 May 2004 13:20:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQrDw-0000nC-1G for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 13:20:52 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQrD6-0000jl-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 13:20:00 -0400 Received: from mxout-04.mxes.net ([65.77.21.94]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQrCK-0000eC-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 13:19:12 -0400 Received: from exuma.irbs.com (exuma.irbs.com [216.86.160.252]) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FA9D3C2911 for ; Thu, 20 May 2004 13:19:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.irbs.com (localhost.irbs.com [127.0.0.1]) by exuma.irbs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6F741741C for ; Thu, 20 May 2004 13:19:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: by exuma.irbs.com (Postfix, from userid 2500) id BF56517418; Thu, 20 May 2004 13:19:05 -0400 (EDT) From: John Capo To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] [Fwd: Yahoo! Mail Publishes Specification for DomainKeys] Message-ID: <20040520171905.GA36075@exuma.irbs.com> Reply-To: jc@irbs.com References: <40AAB82D.3090004@solidmatrix.com> <40AC314F.9030501@elvey.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <40AC314F.9030501@elvey.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 13:19:05 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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 Quoting Matthew Elvey (matthew@elvey.com): > > DK requires orders of magnitude more > work to adopt, though not as much as SPF+SRS. Nod. > > DK is about as reliant on blacklists/reputation services as other > proposals. Without them, CSV is not easier for a spammer to circumvent > than DK or SPF. They all require that something be put in a DNS entry > for a domain that costs approximately nothing to put there beyond the > cost of the domain itself. DKs aren't signed by CAs, remember. > Exploit: A spammer would have control of the DNS server for the > responsible domain, and a BotNet spamming node would spam with a valid > DK. The DK would be in the zombie worm that created the BotNet, or even > communicated via IRC. > > So, I think DK is shown to be about as trivial to circumvent as the 40% > solution / CSV+++. Unless I'm missing something I think its even easier to circumvent and Yahoo! seems to agree: 6.5 Envelope audit [ To be discussed: Identify the preconditions in the base document that allow for envelope auditing to protect against replay and joe-jobs ] All that is signed is what is received by the signing MTA. Get a Yahoo! throwaway account. Send email from Yahoo! to yourself at another account. Strip headers added in transit and you have a DK signed message that can be wrapped in a new envelope and it will verify as signed by Yahoo!. If widely adopted, DK or something like it might go a long way towards stopping phishing. But the phisher can still register a domain that looks like paypal.com, valued-paypal-customer.com, and sign that himself and the naive user will still get sucked into the fraud. John Capo Tuffmail.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu May 20 17:08:22 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 RAA24293 for ; Thu, 20 May 2004 17:08:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQtxX-00082v-E6 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 16:16:07 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4KKG7EZ030929 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 16:16:07 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQtmw-0005DT-Et for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 16:05:10 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA17525 for ; Thu, 20 May 2004 16:05:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQtmu-0006WV-SB for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 16:05:08 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQtm3-0006TR-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 16:04:16 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQtlY-0006PE-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 16:03:44 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQtd6-0002eH-GM; Thu, 20 May 2004 15:55:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQsCt-0007rT-Aj for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 14:23:51 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA09136 for ; Thu, 20 May 2004 14:23:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQsCq-0007Oi-JF for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 14:23:48 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQsBt-0007Gd-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 14:22:49 -0400 Received: from main.gmane.org ([80.91.224.249]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQsAv-00076r-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 14:21:49 -0400 Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1BQsAo-0005Ci-00 for ; Thu, 20 May 2004 20:21:42 +0200 Received: from client-81-107-204-48.glfd.adsl.virgin.net ([81.107.204.48]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 20 May 2004 20:21:42 +0200 Received: from adam by client-81-107-204-48.glfd.adsl.virgin.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 20 May 2004 20:21:42 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: asrg@ietf.org From: Adam Back Lines: 63 Message-ID: <40ACF6F4.5010908@cypherspace.org> References: <03A0F711-A929-11D8-B336-000393863768@chromatix.demon.co.uk> <7E9EC56E-A9E0-11D8-B336-000393863768@chromatix.demon.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org Cc: asrg@ietf.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: client-81-107-204-48.glfd.adsl.virgin.net User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4.1) Gecko/20031114 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en In-Reply-To: <7E9EC56E-A9E0-11D8-B336-000393863768@chromatix.demon.co.uk> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.76.8.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] Re: 3. Proof-of-work analysis Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 19:20:36 +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 Jonathan Morton wrote: > ...which I do. I thought I'd made that clear. > > While I don't yet have a document describing exactly how it works, the > essence is that high-value hashcash can be replaced by a low-value > hashcash combined with a whitelisted signature. The signature is also > included with high-value hashcash tokens so that whitelists can be built > easily. The required hashcash value for return mail is indicated by > another header. CAMRAM proposes to do something like this. Their whitelists are based on signatures. btw I've been working on an extensible v1 hashcash format, and your comments about hashing sigs also occurred to me in that context. See thread on apr 18-19 on: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.mail.spam.hashcash my motivation for having hashcash of signatures was that verifying a signature costs order of 2ms (on 3 Ghz P4) where as verifying a hashcash takes order of 20ns O(10^5) higher cost (rough calc based on openssl speed dsa1024 and openssl speed sha1). So one could have eg a 12 bit stamp (est 5ms to produce) to defend against people wasting the servers time. ie the server would verify the hashcash before verifying the signature. Of course other reasons to sign hashcash tokens, hashcash auth signature keys etc are to facilitate the CAMRAM like logic where signatures are introduced as whitelisting mechanisms. > Reducing the capacity of the zombie network is bound to be worthwhile. > I would also suggest that victims are more likely to notice their > infected machine if it has high CPU usage than if it has high network > usage. > > I would also suggest that 0.1c per mail would make for less frivolity > than the present 0.001c per mail. Your paper says that 0.1c/mail was > used by spammers as a price in the past. The pertinent question is: > how far in the past, and what were the spamming levels like back then? > My idea of > "make an impact" starts from "prevent the problem from getting even > worse than at present" and works from there. Well I think we can make a negative-proof for just about all current anti-spam systems. Ie "this doesn't work in the limit and here's why and how a spammer can work around or adapt to your anti-spam system". blacklists, whitelists, keyword filter, bayesian filter, traded checksums, the works. Well that should be self-evident given the volume of spam despite these attempts. So I'd say hashcash is still an interesting ingredient into the mix. > Strongly disagree. To make an impact, the worst-case I can think of > would demand about a minute of work on average, and I would hope we > could work with less. > > Your idea of "make an impact", however, seems to be equivalent to our > idea of "virtually eliminate the problem single-handed". Adam _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu May 20 17:08:40 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 RAA24348 for ; Thu, 20 May 2004 17:08:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQtzY-0008VO-MJ for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 16:18:12 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4KKICBo032691 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 16:18:12 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQtns-0005O5-Qf for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 16:06:08 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA17570 for ; Thu, 20 May 2004 16:06:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQtnr-0006Z7-5R for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 16:06:07 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQtmw-0006Ws-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 16:05:11 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQtmG-0006Tc-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 16:04:28 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQtd7-0002eb-DP; Thu, 20 May 2004 15:55:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQsDD-0007ve-8V for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 14:24:11 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA09197 for ; Thu, 20 May 2004 14:24:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQsDA-0007Rc-Fp for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 14:24:08 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQsCN-0007Km-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 14:23:19 -0400 Received: from dsl092-078-031.bos1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([66.92.78.31] helo=picorp.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQsBT-0007AD-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 14:22:23 -0400 Received: (qmail 5535 invoked from network); 20 May 2004 18:23:17 -0000 Received: from client-81-107-204-48.glfd.adsl.virgin.net (HELO cypherspace.org) (adam@81.107.204.48) by dsl092-078-031.bos1.dsl.speakeasy.net with (RC4-MD5 encrypted) SMTP; 20 May 2004 18:23:17 -0000 Message-ID: <40ACF6F4.5010908@cypherspace.org> From: Adam Back User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4.1) Gecko/20031114 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: gmane.ietf.asrg To: Jonathan Morton CC: asrg@ietf.org References: <03A0F711-A929-11D8-B336-000393863768@chromatix.demon.co.uk> <7E9EC56E-A9E0-11D8-B336-000393863768@chromatix.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <7E9EC56E-A9E0-11D8-B336-000393863768@chromatix.demon.co.uk> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.76.8.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] Re: 3. Proof-of-work analysis Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 19:20:36 +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 Jonathan Morton wrote: > ...which I do. I thought I'd made that clear. > > While I don't yet have a document describing exactly how it works, the > essence is that high-value hashcash can be replaced by a low-value > hashcash combined with a whitelisted signature. The signature is also > included with high-value hashcash tokens so that whitelists can be built > easily. The required hashcash value for return mail is indicated by > another header. CAMRAM proposes to do something like this. Their whitelists are based on signatures. btw I've been working on an extensible v1 hashcash format, and your comments about hashing sigs also occurred to me in that context. See thread on apr 18-19 on: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.mail.spam.hashcash my motivation for having hashcash of signatures was that verifying a signature costs order of 2ms (on 3 Ghz P4) where as verifying a hashcash takes order of 20ns O(10^5) higher cost (rough calc based on openssl speed dsa1024 and openssl speed sha1). So one could have eg a 12 bit stamp (est 5ms to produce) to defend against people wasting the servers time. ie the server would verify the hashcash before verifying the signature. Of course other reasons to sign hashcash tokens, hashcash auth signature keys etc are to facilitate the CAMRAM like logic where signatures are introduced as whitelisting mechanisms. > Reducing the capacity of the zombie network is bound to be worthwhile. > I would also suggest that victims are more likely to notice their > infected machine if it has high CPU usage than if it has high network > usage. > > I would also suggest that 0.1c per mail would make for less frivolity > than the present 0.001c per mail. Your paper says that 0.1c/mail was > used by spammers as a price in the past. The pertinent question is: > how far in the past, and what were the spamming levels like back then? > My idea of > "make an impact" starts from "prevent the problem from getting even > worse than at present" and works from there. Well I think we can make a negative-proof for just about all current anti-spam systems. Ie "this doesn't work in the limit and here's why and how a spammer can work around or adapt to your anti-spam system". blacklists, whitelists, keyword filter, bayesian filter, traded checksums, the works. Well that should be self-evident given the volume of spam despite these attempts. So I'd say hashcash is still an interesting ingredient into the mix. > Strongly disagree. To make an impact, the worst-case I can think of > would demand about a minute of work on average, and I would hope we > could work with less. > > Your idea of "make an impact", however, seems to be equivalent to our > idea of "virtually eliminate the problem single-handed". Adam _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu May 20 17:51:32 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA28730 for ; Thu, 20 May 2004 17:51:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQvKN-0003kd-Uc for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 17:43:48 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4KLhlpQ014415 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 17:43:47 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQv8X-0006zq-Mj for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 17:31:33 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA27242 for ; Thu, 20 May 2004 17:31:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQv8V-0001dl-A5 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 17:31:31 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQv6K-0001Fh-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 17:29:17 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQv2X-0000k8-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 17:25:21 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQuln-0006fi-5A; Thu, 20 May 2004 17:08:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQtxP-00081f-Oc for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 16:15:59 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA18177 for ; Thu, 20 May 2004 16:15:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQtxO-00071t-0p for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 16:15:58 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQtwS-0006zN-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 16:15:01 -0400 Received: from mout.perfora.net ([217.160.230.41]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQtvk-0006xW-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 16:14:16 -0400 Received: from [217.160.230.50] (helo=smtp.perfora.net) by mout.perfora.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1BQtvj-0005up-00; Thu, 20 May 2004 16:14:15 -0400 Received: from [68.245.116.154] (helo=solidmatrix.com) by smtp.perfora.net with asmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1BQtvi-0002QC-00; Thu, 20 May 2004 16:14:15 -0400 Message-ID: <40AD115E.7030500@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] [Fwd: Yahoo! Mail Publishes Specification for DomainKeys] References: <40AAB82D.3090004@solidmatrix.com> <40AC314F.9030501@elvey.com> In-Reply-To: <40AC314F.9030501@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 X-Provags-ID: perfora.net abuse@perfora.net auth:7051a7fa85b96745770cd89fa6d27f10 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 16:13:18 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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: > Apropos Yahoo's DK I-D wannabe- > http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys/draft-delany-domainkeys-base-00.txt > posted to this thread: > It fails to meet IETF requirements for publication as an I-D, or for > serious consideration by this group. > > This text is not allowed: > "This document may not be modified, and derivative works of it may not > be created. This document may only be posted in an Internet-Draft." > Slight correction: it meets the IETF requirements for publication as an ID. HOWEVER, it does not meet the IETF requirements for a standards track ID. There is a slight difference. I am not involved with the DK/IETF discussions but my hunch is that the Yahoo guys are waiting to see if they can proceed in the IETF Standards process before modifing the ID. Same as what took place with the SPF ID - the -00 draft has the same problem, the current -01 draft does not. I would assume that they are probably discussing things with the ADs at the IETF. Yakov -- Yakov Shafranovich / asrg shaftek.org SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / research solidmatrix.com "And this too shall come to pass" (Unknown) _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu May 20 17:56:49 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 RAA29044 for ; Thu, 20 May 2004 17:56:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQvL2-0003xP-0i for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 17:44:28 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4KLiRt8015203 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 17:44:27 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQvAQ-0007zY-3W for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 17:33:30 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA27458 for ; Thu, 20 May 2004 17:33:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQvAN-0001rw-NO for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 17:33:27 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQv8y-0001i9-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 17:32:01 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQv70-0001MT-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 17:29:58 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQuoC-0007kR-JU; Thu, 20 May 2004 17:10:32 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQuIf-0000cg-Rg for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 16:37:57 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA20202 for ; Thu, 20 May 2004 16:37:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQuIa-0001Qj-Qn for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 16:37:52 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQuHb-0001IJ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 16:36:52 -0400 Received: from mout.perfora.net ([217.160.230.40]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQuGf-0001Cc-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 16:35:53 -0400 Received: from [217.160.230.50] (helo=smtp.perfora.net) by mout.perfora.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1BQuGf-00030q-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 16:35:53 -0400 Received: from [68.245.116.154] (helo=solidmatrix.com) by smtp.perfora.net with asmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1BQuGd-0003rW-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 16:35:53 -0400 Message-ID: <40AD1697.1030406@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 Subject: Re: [Asrg] [Fwd: Yahoo! Mail Publishes Specification for DomainKeys] References: <40AAB82D.3090004@solidmatrix.com> <40AC314F.9030501@elvey.com> In-Reply-To: <40AC314F.9030501@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 X-Provags-ID: perfora.net abuse@perfora.net auth:7051a7fa85b96745770cd89fa6d27f10 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 16:35:35 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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: > As has been said before, all the extant I-Ds, including this one, and > C-ID can only work against spamers long term in conjunction with > either > A)RHSBLs or > B)mandatory (but not necessarily monopoly/oligopoly) reputation services. > Reputation/accrediation/trust stuff is something that the ASRG should probably be looking into. We had some discussions on this in the SMTP-VERIFY subgroup before. 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 Thu May 20 18:38:18 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 SAA03009 for ; Thu, 20 May 2004 18:38:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQw71-000170-Df for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 18:34:03 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4KMY3dj004274 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 18:34:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQw1D-0008CK-4s for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 18:28:03 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA02282 for ; Thu, 20 May 2004 18:27:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQw1A-0005sM-CP for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 18:28:00 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQw0E-0005oC-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 18:27:03 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQvzH-0005lW-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 18:26:03 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQvnd-0002Rv-19; Thu, 20 May 2004 18:14:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQvfz-00069w-NC for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 18:06:07 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA29961 for ; Thu, 20 May 2004 18:06:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQvfw-0004SC-VN for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 18:06:05 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQvew-0004La-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 18:05:03 -0400 Received: from out2.smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.26]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQveA-0004Ik-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 18:04:14 -0400 X-Sasl-enc: qehBamaQ3XI28g+NYYXPBg 1085090652 Received: from [10.30.13.78] (pat_11.qualcomm.com [192.35.156.11]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0F8FBB03A4; Thu, 20 May 2004 18:04:11 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <40AD2B5F.9060105@elvey.com> From: Matthew Elvey User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.7) Gecko/20040514 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Yakov Shafranovich , ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] [Fwd: Yahoo! Mail Publishes Specification for DomainKeys] References: <40AAB82D.3090004@solidmatrix.com> <40AC314F.9030501@elvey.com> <40AD115E.7030500@solidmatrix.com> In-Reply-To: <40AD115E.7030500@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=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, 20 May 2004 15:04:15 -0700 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 My statement is based on http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt : Mandatory Statements ==================== All Internet-Drafts must begin with ONE of the following three statements: This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026 except that the right to produce derivative works is not granted. This document is an Internet-Draft and is NOT offered in accordance with Section 10 of RFC2026, and the author does not provide the IETF with any rights other than to publish as an Internet-Draft On 5/20/04 1:13 PM, Yakov Shafranovich sent forth electrons to convey: > Matthew Elvey wrote: > >> Apropos Yahoo's DK I-D wannabe- >> http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys/draft-delany-domainkeys-base-00.txt >> posted to this thread: >> It fails to meet IETF requirements for publication as an I-D, or for >> serious consideration by this group. >> >> This text is not allowed: >> "This document may not be modified, and derivative works of it may not >> be created. This document may only be posted in an Internet-Draft." >> > > Slight correction: it meets the IETF requirements for publication as > an ID. HOWEVER, it does not meet the IETF requirements for a standards > track ID. There is a slight difference. > > I am not involved with the DK/IETF discussions but my hunch is that > the Yahoo guys are waiting to see if they can proceed in the IETF > Standards process before modifing the ID. Same as what took place with > the SPF ID - the -00 draft has the same problem, the current -01 draft > does not. I would assume that they are probably discussing things with > the ADs at the IETF. > > Yakov > -- > Yakov Shafranovich / asrg shaftek.org > SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / research solidmatrix.com > "And this too shall come to pass" (Unknown) _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu May 20 18:42:54 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 SAA03312 for ; Thu, 20 May 2004 18:42:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQwAQ-00022h-OU for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 18:37:34 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4KMbY6r007839 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 18:37:34 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQw4p-0000jl-Rr for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 18:31:48 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA02494 for ; Thu, 20 May 2004 18:31:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQw4m-000690-N8 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 18:31:44 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQw3K-00062k-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 18:30:15 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQw2i-0005za-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 18:29:36 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQvyH-0006se-Tp; Thu, 20 May 2004 18:25:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQvmd-00020w-D7 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 18:12:59 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA01096 for ; Thu, 20 May 2004 18:12:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQvma-00053C-Hd for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 18:12:56 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQvlk-0004xd-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 18:12:04 -0400 Received: from anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net ([194.217.242.92]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQvkt-0004re-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 18:11:11 -0400 Received: from gti.noc.demon.net ([195.11.55.101] helo=rnc1.al.cl.cam.ac.uk) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1BQvkt-000Bl7-0Y for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 23:11:11 +0100 Message-ID: To: asrg@ietf.org From: Richard Clayton Subject: Re: [Asrg] 3. Proof-of-work analysis References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 M <7fPN0OjtGdv6AX1irDkRphaT6+> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 23:09:53 +0100 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 In article , Richard Clayton writes >We've doubtless duplicated the figures on the back of many an >envelope, but it is clearly useful to have the analysis in the formal >literature where our assumptions and figures can be considered and >possibly even improved upon by others. > >Paper: > > http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rnc1/proofwork.pdf we're grateful (albeit a little embarrassed) for the consideration given to one of our figures by Ted Wobber (MS Research) who has pointed out a tenfold error in our sum involving an 0.0023% response rate :-( we'll be revising our text accordingly -- since this will weaken our statements about the "economic argument" ... though it does _not_ affect our analysis based on use of zombies - -- richard Richard Clayton They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 iQA/AwUBQK0ssRfnRQV/feRLEQLzZACfXoI+9TDPrstnN5ibMUF32DnMWSoAnArB 72faEuAyyNOCvhWtxJ43o9a+ =QVP+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu May 20 20:00:53 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 UAA07125 for ; Thu, 20 May 2004 20:00:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQxLd-0003Zo-44 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 19:53:13 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4KNrDDC013743 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 19:53:13 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQxJi-000318-Md for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 19:51:14 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA06834 for ; Thu, 20 May 2004 19:51:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQxJh-0003tV-04 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 19:51:13 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQxIm-0003pf-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 19:50:17 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQxIO-0003lb-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 19:49:52 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQx9q-00011x-0A; Thu, 20 May 2004 19:41:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQx67-00088Y-4d for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 19:37:11 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA06148 for ; Thu, 20 May 2004 19:37:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQx65-0002uv-AW for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 19:37:09 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQx5C-0002r3-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 19:36:14 -0400 Received: from mout.perfora.net ([217.160.230.40]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQx4g-0002nD-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 19:35:42 -0400 Received: from 000-095-757.area3.spcsdns.net[68.245.116.154] (helo=solidmatrix.com) by mrelay.perfora.net with ESMTP (Nemesis), id 1BQx4X-3MIg-0MKz5u-0002Do; Thu, 20 May 2004 19:35:33 -0400 Message-ID: <40AD40B2.50409@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] [Fwd: Yahoo! Mail Publishes Specification for DomainKeys] References: <40AAB82D.3090004@solidmatrix.com> <40AC314F.9030501@elvey.com> <40AD115E.7030500@solidmatrix.com> <40AD2B5F.9060105@elvey.com> In-Reply-To: <40AD2B5F.9060105@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: Thu, 20 May 2004 19:35:14 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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 See RFC 3667, section 5.2(b) which changed that. It seems that the secretariat did not yet update the ID guidelines to match RFC 3667. Yakov Matthew Elvey wrote: > My statement is based on http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt : > > Mandatory Statements > ==================== > > All Internet-Drafts must begin with ONE of the following three > statements: > > This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to > all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. > > This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to > all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026 except that the > right to produce derivative works is not granted. > > This document is an Internet-Draft and is NOT offered in > accordance with Section 10 of RFC2026, and the author does not > provide the IETF with any rights other than to publish as an > Internet-Draft > > > On 5/20/04 1:13 PM, Yakov Shafranovich sent forth electrons to convey: > >> Matthew Elvey wrote: >> >>> Apropos Yahoo's DK I-D wannabe- >>> http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys/draft-delany-domainkeys-base-00.txt >>> posted to this thread: >>> It fails to meet IETF requirements for publication as an I-D, or for >>> serious consideration by this group. >>> >>> This text is not allowed: >>> "This document may not be modified, and derivative works of it may not >>> be created. This document may only be posted in an Internet-Draft." >>> >> >> Slight correction: it meets the IETF requirements for publication as >> an ID. HOWEVER, it does not meet the IETF requirements for a standards >> track ID. There is a slight difference. >> >> I am not involved with the DK/IETF discussions but my hunch is that >> the Yahoo guys are waiting to see if they can proceed in the IETF >> Standards process before modifing the ID. Same as what took place with >> the SPF ID - the -00 draft has the same problem, the current -01 draft >> does not. I would assume that they are probably discussing things with >> the ADs at the IETF. >> >> Yakov -- Yakov Shafranovich / asrg shaftek.org SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / research solidmatrix.com "And this too shall come to pass" (Unknown) _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu May 20 20:02:32 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA07263 for ; Thu, 20 May 2004 20:02:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQxT8-0005oe-4t for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 20:00:58 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4L00wsg022352 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 20:00:58 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQxOO-0004Mn-Fw for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 19:56:04 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA06980 for ; Thu, 20 May 2004 19:56:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQxOM-0004Bw-L0 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 19:56:02 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQxNS-00049Y-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 19:55:07 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQxMw-00046q-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 19:54:34 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQxKT-00039x-4k; Thu, 20 May 2004 19:52:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQx9w-00013C-7Q for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 19:41:08 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA06329 for ; Thu, 20 May 2004 19:41:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQx9u-0003Cl-Ep for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 19:41:06 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQx91-00039P-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 19:40:12 -0400 Received: from chromatix.demon.co.uk ([80.177.102.173] helo=lithium.chromatix.org.uk) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQx8j-00035k-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 19:39:53 -0400 Received: from arowana.chromatix.org.uk ([192.168.239.106]) by lithium.chromatix.org.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.31) id 1BQx8h-00077I-NJ; Fri, 21 May 2004 00:39:51 +0100 In-Reply-To: <40ACF6F4.5010908@cypherspace.org> References: <03A0F711-A929-11D8-B336-000393863768@chromatix.demon.co.uk> <7E9EC56E-A9E0-11D8-B336-000393863768@chromatix.demon.co.uk> <40ACF6F4.5010908@cypherspace.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v613) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <0287788B-AAB7-11D8-B336-000393863768@chromatix.demon.co.uk> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: asrg@ietf.org From: Jonathan Morton Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 3. About hashcash v1 (was: Proof-of-work analysis) To: Adam Back X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.613) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 00:40:00 +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 >> ...which I do. I thought I'd made that clear. >> >> While I don't yet have a document describing exactly how it works, the >> essence is that high-value hashcash can be replaced by a low-value >> hashcash combined with a whitelisted signature. The signature is also >> included with high-value hashcash tokens so that whitelists can be >> built >> easily. The required hashcash value for return mail is indicated by >> another header. > > CAMRAM proposes to do something like this. Their whitelists are based > on signatures. > > btw I've been working on an extensible v1 hashcash format, and your > comments about hashing sigs also occurred to me in that context. See > thread on apr 18-19 on: > > http://news.gmane.org/gmane.mail.spam.hashcash I hadn't seen the v1 format before, it looks like a worthwhile development. I have some comments on it, though. Instead of separating the random and count fields, I would include the sender's address in the stamp as well as the recipient's. As well as genuinely eliminating the collision problem, having a monolithic "salt" means it is easier to implement an ultra-efficient generator - just add one and redo the block, instead of potentially lengthening a string. Taking the time to pseudo-implement SHA-1 for the 6502 tends to concentrate the mind on efficiency, and made me realise that the present implementation is far from efficient - especially on x86. I might end up fixing your SHA-1 implementation to be more efficient - if so, I'll send it back-channel. I would also strongly suggest to keep the hashcash header format simple and monopurpose. Some of your later examples are no longer human-readable, and could even be relatively difficult to machine-parse. The plain v1 format, with optional extensions, is much better than that. I feel that signatures can most cleanly be added in separate headers, especially if they sign the hash (which prevents replaying the signature) rather than the hash covering the signature. > So one could have eg a 12 bit stamp (est 5ms to produce) to defend > against people wasting the servers time. ie the server would verify > the hashcash before verifying the signature. The aforementioned 6502 would take about 80 seconds to produce that 12-bit stamp. I was thinking of more like 8 bits, which could allow 8-bit microcontrollers (many of which can usefully run TCP stacks) to use a hashcash/signature system. To be fair, I don't think many people receive mail from 8-bit machines, so this could be a minor issue. Anyway, I was thinking of signing the hashcash, rather than hashing on the signature. The signature is still only valid if the hashcash is, which actually strengthens the signature because it must be unique and tailored to the recipient. -------------------------------------------------------------- from: Jonathan "Chromatix" Morton mail: chromi@chromatix.demon.co.uk website: http://www.chromatix.uklinux.net/ tagline: The key to knowledge is not to rely on people to teach you it. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu May 20 21:54:02 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (www.iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA12279 for ; Thu, 20 May 2004 21:54:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQzDY-0005ub-MU for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 21:53:01 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4L1r0x9022726 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 21:53:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQz9k-0005JO-KX for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 21:49:04 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA12082 for ; Thu, 20 May 2004 21:49:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQz9h-00055o-OA for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 21:49:01 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQz8i-00050i-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 21:48:01 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQz7j-0004ve-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 21:46:59 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQz4t-0003wo-5h; Thu, 20 May 2004 21:44:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BQyuU-0001W2-7c for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 21:33:20 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA11691 for ; Thu, 20 May 2004 21:33:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BQyuR-0003w9-F5 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 21:33:15 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BQytg-0003r8-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 21:32:29 -0400 Received: from mail3.sa.chariot.net.au ([203.87.94.14]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BQysv-0003iU-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 21:31:41 -0400 Received: from mail.chariot.net.au (mail.chariot.net.au [203.87.95.38]) by mail3.sa.chariot.net.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D9A9A40C1; Fri, 21 May 2004 11:01:04 +0930 (CST) Received: from rebel (ppp137-78.lns1.adl2.internode.on.net [150.101.137.78]) by mail.chariot.net.au (Postfix) with SMTP id 4074E5F75C; Fri, 21 May 2004 11:01:03 +0930 (CST) From: "Chris" To: "Alan DeKok" , Subject: RE: [Asrg] Re: Spam send/receive ratio 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 V6.00.2800.1409 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <20040520143321.BA6DC16CC4@mail.nitros9.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 11:00:33 +0930 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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 *list* re-sends the message to tens of thousands of recipients. > You don't. Since each recipient has opted-in to the list, this isn't > a problem. > HOW is a receiving MTA going to know this? it just sees the volume discrepency and says 'Spammer'. Just like some befuddled people see tattoos and think 'criminal'. > > In other news, is everyone with a tattoo a criminal? I've seen > "wanted" posters which list "tattos" as "distinguishing > characteristics" of a criminal. > Huh. So if I have a tattoo I am *more likely* to be a criminal then. most criminals have hair. should that be listed as a distinguishing feature? Ever heard of white collar crime... thats the stuff that costs billions of dollars and ruins country economies. nary a tattoo in sight. I stick to very blinkered. with no apology. No doubt volume is an indicator that SHOULD be used. but only at the injection point not at the receiving point. the receiver has no way of knowing that volume may mean spam. But the ISP who suddenly sees an upsurge in mail originating from a client could spool that mail and confirm with the client that such volumes is in fact intended. Even this would catch me as I only do a mail out on average once a year. but at least I could respond to the (automatically generated) mail with some sort of verification that Yes I intended to send those emails please let them pass. A no would pobably mean I have been zombified. and no mail should be allowed out until the problem is resolved. A simple turing test would stop the zombified machine automatically responding a yes to the validation email. Chris > -----Original Message----- > From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of Alan > DeKok > Sent: Friday, 21 May 2004 12:03 AM > To: asrg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: Spam send/receive ratio > > > "Chris" wrote: > > > > One of the distinguishing characteristics of a spammer is the > > > > imbalance between mail sent and mail received. > > > > Totally Unforgivable Rubbish (TUR for short) > > > > I recieve maybe a hundred emails each day. but when I send out > to my mail > > list I send tens of thousands > > Really? That's not how mailing lists work, so far as I know. > > The *list* re-sends the message to tens of thousands of recipients. > You don't. Since each recipient has opted-in to the list, this isn't > a problem. > > > under the above 'criteria' I automatically become a "spammer" > when in fact I > > simply have a lot of potential customers ALL on a double opt in list. > > No. You match a distinguishing characteristic of spammers. This > doesn't mean you're a spammer. It just means that your behavior > overlaps with that of spammers. > > This isn't news. Everyone uses SMTP to send mail, and so do > spammers. This doesn't make everyone using SMTP a spammer. > > Spammers have additional distinguishing characteristics which you > don't match. Ergo, you're not a spammer. > > In other news, is everyone with a tattoo a criminal? I've seen > "wanted" posters which list "tattos" as "distinguishing > characteristics" of a criminal. > > > This is very blinkered reasoning. > > Please blink more often. It might clarify your vision. > > Alan DeKok. > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri May 21 01:45:00 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (www.iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA23241 for ; Fri, 21 May 2004 01:45:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BR2ov-0004Kt-1f for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 01:43:49 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4L5hn4m016667 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 01:43:49 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BR2nP-000402-Pn for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 01:42:15 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA23125 for ; Fri, 21 May 2004 01:42:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BR2nM-0006a0-KQ for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 01:42:12 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BR2mR-0006U1-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 01:41:16 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BR2m0-0006OE-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 01:40:48 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BR2hN-0002SN-JE; Fri, 21 May 2004 01:36:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BR2dg-0001kr-Ls for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 01:32:12 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA22795 for ; Fri, 21 May 2004 01:32:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BR2dd-0005TP-J3 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 01:32:09 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BR2cf-0005Mv-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 01:31:09 -0400 Received: from mout.perfora.net ([217.160.230.40]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BR2bh-0005Fy-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 01:30:09 -0400 Received: from [217.160.230.50] (helo=smtp.perfora.net) by mout.perfora.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1BR2bj-0005Qc-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 01:30:11 -0400 Received: from [68.245.116.154] (helo=solidmatrix.com) by smtp.perfora.net with asmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1BR2bi-0000Pd-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 01:30:11 -0400 Message-ID: <40AD93DE.7070202@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 X-Provags-ID: perfora.net abuse@perfora.net auth:7051a7fa85b96745770cd89fa6d27f10 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] [Fwd: CID draft published] Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 01:30:06 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From the MARID list. -------- Original Message -------- The Caller-ID draft showed up in the ID repository although it hasn't yet made it to the ID announce list: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-atkinson-callerid-00.txt -- Yakov Shafranovich / asrg shaftek.org SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / research solidmatrix.com "There is nothing new under the sun" (Eccls. 1:9) _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri May 21 02:48:35 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 CAA09596 for ; Fri, 21 May 2004 02:48:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BR3lq-0007ye-Ov for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 02:44:42 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4L6igxN030665 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 02:44:42 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BR3ey-00069P-4F for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 02:37:36 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA09025 for ; Fri, 21 May 2004 02:37:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BR3eu-0005j9-E6 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 02:37:32 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BR3dy-0005bz-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 02:36:34 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BR3dM-0005UW-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 02:35:56 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BR3Vr-00045y-1A; Fri, 21 May 2004 02:28:11 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BR3ON-0000ps-D6 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 02:20:27 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA07780 for ; Fri, 21 May 2004 02:20:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BR3OJ-0003K3-FB for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 02:20:23 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BR3M9-000363-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 02:18:09 -0400 Received: from mout.perfora.net ([217.160.230.41]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BR3LB-0002wH-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 02:17:09 -0400 Received: from [217.160.230.50] (helo=smtp.perfora.net) by mout.perfora.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1BR3LC-00014G-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 02:17:10 -0400 Received: from [68.245.116.154] (helo=solidmatrix.com) by smtp.perfora.net with asmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1BR3LA-0001lG-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 02:17:10 -0400 Message-ID: <40AD9EE1.2010000@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 X-Provags-ID: perfora.net abuse@perfora.net auth:7051a7fa85b96745770cd89fa6d27f10 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] Stepping down from the ASRG Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 02:17:05 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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 ASRG Members, I am writing to inform you that I am stepping down from my position as a co-chair of the ASRG. Unfortunately, my time constraints have increased to a point where it is impossible to me to continue ASRG work. It has been a very exciting and unique experience for me personally, and I want to thank all of you for contributing to it. I hope that my small contribution to the IETF and IRTF communities has made an impact on this group and the future of the Internet. Sincerely, Yakov Shafranovich Former co-chair, ASRG -- Yakov Shafranovich / asrg shaftek.org SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / research solidmatrix.com "And this too shall come to pass" (Unknown) _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri May 21 03:27:00 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 DAA12188 for ; Fri, 21 May 2004 03:27:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BR4Jm-0007qQ-92 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 03:19:46 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4L7JkG9030154 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 03:19:46 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BR4Ga-0006dA-8w for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 03:16:28 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA11491 for ; Fri, 21 May 2004 03:16:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BR4GY-0003NR-4S for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 03:16:26 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BR4Fi-0003Fi-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 03:15:35 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BR4F9-00035v-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 03:14:59 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BR42p-0003Ny-Sr; Fri, 21 May 2004 03:02:15 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BR3ye-0002Wi-BI for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 02:57:56 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA10424 for ; Fri, 21 May 2004 02:57:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BR3ya-0000pK-63 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 02:57:52 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BR3xZ-0000cU-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 02:56:49 -0400 Received: from mail3.sa.chariot.net.au ([203.87.94.14]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BR3wb-0000Ln-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 02:55:49 -0400 Received: from mail.chariot.net.au (mail.chariot.net.au [203.87.95.38]) by mail3.sa.chariot.net.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF1CCA3D46; Fri, 21 May 2004 16:25:17 +0930 (CST) Received: from rebel (ppp137-78.lns1.adl2.internode.on.net [150.101.137.78]) by mail.chariot.net.au (Postfix) with SMTP id 91E525F71F; Fri, 21 May 2004 16:25:16 +0930 (CST) From: "Chris" To: "Yakov Shafranovich" , "ASRG" Subject: RE: [Asrg] Stepping down from the ASRG Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 In-Reply-To: <40AD9EE1.2010000@solidmatrix.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 16:24:46 +0930 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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 for one will be sad to see you go. a voice of reason amidst so much clammer. I hope you continue to succeed in all you do. and thank you for so helpful when I needed it. Warm Regards Chris > -----Original Message----- > From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of Yakov > Shafranovich > Sent: Friday, 21 May 2004 3:47 PM > To: ASRG > Subject: [Asrg] Stepping down from the ASRG > > > ASRG Members, > > I am writing to inform you that I am stepping down from my position as a > co-chair of the ASRG. Unfortunately, my time constraints have increased > to a point where it is impossible to me to continue ASRG work. > > It has been a very exciting and unique experience for me personally, and > I want to thank all of you for contributing to it. I hope that my small > contribution to the IETF and IRTF communities has made an impact on this > group and the future of the Internet. > > Sincerely, > Yakov Shafranovich > Former co-chair, ASRG > > -- > Yakov Shafranovich / asrg shaftek.org > SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / research solidmatrix.com > "And this too shall come to pass" (Unknown) > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing 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 May 21 03:57:55 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (www.iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA13276 for ; Fri, 21 May 2004 03:57:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BR4p0-0006pY-2F for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 03:52:02 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4L7q1rV026254 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 03:52:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BR4ce-0003wH-F4 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 03:39:16 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA12671 for ; Fri, 21 May 2004 03:39:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BR4cc-0006Ug-6I for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 03:39:14 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BR4bc-0006N9-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 03:38:12 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BR4ad-0006EW-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 03:37:11 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BR4Sk-0001Wb-SG; Fri, 21 May 2004 03:29:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BR4NN-0000JA-GN for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 03:23:29 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA12005 for ; Fri, 21 May 2004 03:23:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BR4NL-0004XI-8D for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 03:23:27 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BR4MN-0004P7-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 03:22:28 -0400 Received: from mail3.sa.chariot.net.au ([203.87.94.14]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BR4Lk-0004FH-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 03:21:49 -0400 Received: from mail.chariot.net.au (mail.chariot.net.au [203.87.95.38]) by mail3.sa.chariot.net.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3F30A3ECF for ; Fri, 21 May 2004 16:51:17 +0930 (CST) Received: from rebel (ppp137-78.lns1.adl2.internode.on.net [150.101.137.78]) by mail.chariot.net.au (Postfix) with SMTP id 448CE5F708 for ; Fri, 21 May 2004 16:51:17 +0930 (CST) From: "Chris" To: "ASRG" Subject: [Asrg] 0 General: Forum Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 In-Reply-To: <40AD9EE1.2010000@solidmatrix.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 16:50:49 +0930 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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 has chosen to step down from his role as co-chair and this saddens me. Now while I have no idea how to replace someone as pivotal as Yakov, can I please put forward a hopefully helpful suggestion? I am in the process of setting up a very small hosting service and it would honour me if the members of this group would consider allowing me to host this group in the form of a forum. The forum could be hosted on its own domain and use the phpbb2 forum package. The reason I put this forward is I find that BB style forums are so much easier to deal with than mailing lists Threads and topics can all be logically organised. I am sure many of you have used such forums and can decide whether that type of forum would be suitable. As for my own role I would not provide any other role than support and maintenance handing over administration to the sitting chair. with full access to the virtual website. Regards Chris > -----Original Message----- > From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of Yakov > Shafranovich > Sent: Friday, 21 May 2004 3:47 PM > To: ASRG > Subject: [Asrg] Stepping down from the ASRG > > > ASRG Members, > > I am writing to inform you that I am stepping down from my position as a > co-chair of the ASRG. Unfortunately, my time constraints have increased > to a point where it is impossible to me to continue ASRG work. > > It has been a very exciting and unique experience for me personally, and > I want to thank all of you for contributing to it. I hope that my small > contribution to the IETF and IRTF communities has made an impact on this > group and the future of the Internet. > > Sincerely, > Yakov Shafranovich > Former co-chair, ASRG > > -- > Yakov Shafranovich / asrg shaftek.org > SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / research solidmatrix.com > "And this too shall come to pass" (Unknown) > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing 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 May 21 03:58:47 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (www.iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA13341 for ; Fri, 21 May 2004 03:58:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BR4rH-0007FC-03 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 03:54:25 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4L7sM3c027841 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 03:54:22 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BR4mO-00062Y-Ef for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 03:49:20 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA13044 for ; Fri, 21 May 2004 03:49:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BR4mL-00001A-UZ for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 03:49:18 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BR4lL-0007iE-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 03:48:16 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BR4lD-0007c2-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 03:48:08 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BR4ca-0003vf-Vl; Fri, 21 May 2004 03:39:12 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BR4V0-0001yf-VK for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 03:31:22 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA12423 for ; Fri, 21 May 2004 03:31:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BR4Uy-0005Wm-ID for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 03:31:20 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BR4UJ-0005Q9-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 03:30:40 -0400 Received: from cwhois1.completewhois.com ([216.151.192.222] helo=mail.completewhois.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BR4Tm-0005FE-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 03:30:06 -0400 Received: by mail.completewhois.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id 5CDF018A02; Fri, 21 May 2004 00:36:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.completewhois.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 574354C06D; Fri, 21 May 2004 00:36:57 -0700 (PDT) From: William Leibzon To: Chris Cc: ASRG Subject: RE: [Asrg] [Fwd: Yahoo! Mail Publishes Specification for DomainKeys] 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: Fri, 21 May 2004 00:36:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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're missing the point. You can't assume that everybody would start running DomainKeys systems all over the world. As such any proposal should ensure that if sender system is using it, that the MTA server on the recepient side can safely verify the email even if somewhere in between it passed through MTA systems which have no idea about what this proposal is about. Domainkeys in the way its been published does not meet this criteria as there are many cases when intermediate MTAs change or add additional headers. On Thu, 20 May 2004, Chris wrote: > > > > Big problem I have with it is that yahoo domain keys breaks with email > > forwarders, mail lists and roaming users > > I don't understand why you say this. > > Roaming users still have to log into an ISP somewhere to send their email. > if The ISP is prepared to let them access the mail system the ISP becomes > responsible for what they do. So they should at the very least validate > them. > > Mail forwarders can sign the mail. they must accept responsibilty for the > forwarding as above. > > Mailing lists must also be held accountable for what they send. they are > simply another 'injection point' and can validate the sender before > inserting it into the list. > > > email content must be changed in process > > of tranmission > > Why 'must' content be changed? > > headers need to be added and those should be signed off as well as the > previous mta's signature. granted this additional signing increases the load > especially for the MTR, but if Spam is reduced then the initial load would > be reduced anyway. > > If content MUST be changed then the authority changing the content becomes > the owner. and therefore responsible for the 'new' email. > > Regards > Chris > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of > > William Leibzon > > Sent: Thursday, 20 May 2004 4:17 AM > > To: ASRG > > Subject: Re: [Asrg] [Fwd: Yahoo! Mail Publishes Specification for > > DomainKeys] > > > > > > And frankly, I'm less then satisfied after so many promises and lots of > > wait for it. Its long document (which I ready fully) that primarily just > > pounds on rather old idea of entering public key in dns and using private > > key to add signed header to email, this idea had been around for at least > > 4 years (possibly more) and I thought they found ways around above listed > > and other similar problems when email content must be changed in process > > of tranmission by intermediate server, but unfortunetly they did not. Nor > > do they address entering keys too well, again we're back to reusing TXT > > (where as what we need is standard for entering public keys in DNS and > > this is needed not only for email but for several others things and in > > general would come usefull, there have been drafts about this actually). > > > > On Tue, 18 May 2004, Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > > > > > From MARID list. > > > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > > > Subject: Yahoo! Mail Publishes Specification for DomainKeys > > > Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 10:46:32 -0400 > > > From: Larry Seltzer > > > To: 'IETF MARID WG' > > > > > > > > > (see http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys in particular) > > > > > > LJS > > > > > > Yahoo! Mail Publishes Specification for DomainKeys > > > > > > E-mail Authentication Solution Filed with IETF; > > > > > > Alpha Version of Open Source Code Available > > > > > > WHAT: > > > > > > On Tuesday, May 18, Yahoo! announces the publication of its > > > specification on DomainKeys, > > > a cryptographic e-mail authentication solution to help fight spam. > > > > > > DomainKeys: In order to attack spam at its roots, a powerful > > solution is > > > needed that can > > > verify the identity of the e-mail sender and put an end to spoofing and > > > forgery. > > > DomainKeys help fight spam by providing strong assurance of both the > > > sender's identity > > > and the integrity of the e-mail content through the use of > > > public/private key > > > cryptography. > > > > > > On Monday, May 17, the company filed the spec as an Internet-draft with > > > the IETF > > > (Internet Engineering Task Force) standards body to begin the > > > standardization process. > > > > > > Additionally, Yahoo! is currently developing a reference implementation > > > for DomainKeys > > > that can be plugged into Message Transfer Agents (MTAs), such as qmail. > > > An alpha version > > > of this software will be released under a royalty free license at > > > SourceForge.net. > > > > > > WHERE: > > > > > > The specification, license terms and FAQs are posted on Yahoo!'s > > > Anti-Spam Resource > > > Center: http://antispam.yahoo.com > > > The alpha version of the software will be hosted at SourceForge.net at: > > > http://sourceforge.net/index.php > > > > > > -- > > > Yakov Shafranovich / asrg shaftek.org > > > SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / research solidmatrix.com > > > "There is nothing new under the sun" (Eccls. 1:9) > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Asrg mailing list > > > Asrg@ietf.org > > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Asrg mailing list > > Asrg@ietf.org > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri May 21 04:04:02 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (www.iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA13503 for ; Fri, 21 May 2004 04:04:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BR4ua-0008Jy-LG for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 03:57:48 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4L7vmdV031985 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 03:57:48 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BR4qH-00070F-N6 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 03:53:21 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA13159 for ; Fri, 21 May 2004 03:53:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BR4qF-0000Yv-7i for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 03:53:19 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BR4pJ-0000Rn-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 03:52:22 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BR4oi-0000Kg-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 03:51:44 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BR4cd-0003w4-Ot; Fri, 21 May 2004 03:39:15 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BR4Yo-0002df-LI for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 03:35:18 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA12492 for ; Fri, 21 May 2004 03:35:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BR4Ym-0005zU-46 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 03:35:16 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BR4Xr-0005sa-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 03:34:20 -0400 Received: from cwhois1.completewhois.com ([216.151.192.222] helo=mail.completewhois.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BR4XA-0005f7-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 03:33:36 -0400 Received: by mail.completewhois.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id 0F41618A02; Fri, 21 May 2004 00:40:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.completewhois.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 084D34C06D; Fri, 21 May 2004 00:40:33 -0700 (PDT) From: William Leibzon To: Yakov Shafranovich Cc: ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] Stepping down from the ASRG In-Reply-To: <40AD9EE1.2010000@solidmatrix.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 00:40:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 This is a sad day for ASRG. Its been better with both you and John in the head then its been when this all originally started and you definetly done enourmous work in planning and organizing the group activities and keeping people here informed of new developments. I wish you well. On Fri, 21 May 2004, Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > ASRG Members, > > I am writing to inform you that I am stepping down from my position as a > co-chair of the ASRG. Unfortunately, my time constraints have increased > to a point where it is impossible to me to continue ASRG work. > > It has been a very exciting and unique experience for me personally, and > I want to thank all of you for contributing to it. I hope that my small > contribution to the IETF and IRTF communities has made an impact on this > group and the future of the Internet. > > Sincerely, > Yakov Shafranovich > Former co-chair, ASRG > > -- > Yakov Shafranovich / asrg shaftek.org > SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / research solidmatrix.com > "And this too shall come to pass" (Unknown) > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing 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 May 21 04:20:30 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (www.iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA14197 for ; Fri, 21 May 2004 04:20:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BR5E9-0004jQ-5G for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 04:18:01 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4L8I1GX018183 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 04:18:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BR57e-000387-S3 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 04:11:18 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA13773 for ; Fri, 21 May 2004 04:11:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BR57c-0002o6-9B for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 04:11:16 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BR56h-0002hB-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 04:10:20 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BR55z-0002aX-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 04:09:35 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BR50b-0001Mw-Ny; Fri, 21 May 2004 04:04:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BR4s9-0007QQ-N7 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 03:55:17 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA13189 for ; Fri, 21 May 2004 03:55:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BR4s6-0000nv-SG for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 03:55:14 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BR4rA-0000ft-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 03:54:17 -0400 Received: from mail3.sa.chariot.net.au ([203.87.94.14]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BR4qF-0000SJ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 03:53:19 -0400 Received: from mail.chariot.net.au (mail.chariot.net.au [203.87.95.38]) by mail3.sa.chariot.net.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4A55A40E9; Fri, 21 May 2004 17:22:48 +0930 (CST) Received: from rebel (ppp137-78.lns1.adl2.internode.on.net [150.101.137.78]) by mail.chariot.net.au (Postfix) with SMTP id 59C425F72B; Fri, 21 May 2004 17:22:47 +0930 (CST) From: "Chris" To: "William Leibzon" , "Chris" Cc: "ASRG" Subject: RE: [Asrg] [Fwd: Yahoo! Mail Publishes Specification for DomainKeys] Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 In-Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 17:22:19 +0930 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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 Ok I am with you now. But the draft is really only in its initial stage. the Author states that quite emphatically. So it is far too early to say "It won't work because" There may be problems that need to be overcome. and can be. Perhaps for the problem you mention do not include the "normal" headers in the Domain Key digest but add some special headers e.g. DK-FROM: someone@example.com ; the original sender DK-SENTBY: someone@myemailforwarders.com ; for mail forwarding roaming etc.. Then sign the message body and the special headers. leave the rest alone. software that knows how to deal with DomainKeys can use those fields. other software is on its own. if an intervening MTA changes those headers or changes the body then the mail could be seen as tainted and then refused. Regards Chris > -----Original Message----- > From: William Leibzon [mailto:william@completewhois.com] > Sent: Friday, 21 May 2004 5:07 PM > To: Chris > Cc: ASRG > Subject: RE: [Asrg] [Fwd: Yahoo! Mail Publishes Specification for > DomainKeys] > > > > You're missing the point. You can't assume that everybody would start > running DomainKeys systems all over the world. As such any proposal > should ensure that if sender system is using it, that the MTA server on > the recepient side can safely verify the email even if somewhere in > between it passed through MTA systems which have no idea about what > this proposal is about. Domainkeys in the way its been published does > not meet this criteria as there are many cases when intermediate MTAs > change or add additional headers. > > On Thu, 20 May 2004, Chris wrote: > > > > > > > Big problem I have with it is that yahoo domain keys breaks with email > > > forwarders, mail lists and roaming users > > > > I don't understand why you say this. > > > > Roaming users still have to log into an ISP somewhere to send > their email. > > if The ISP is prepared to let them access the mail system the > ISP becomes > > responsible for what they do. So they should at the very least validate > > them. > > > > Mail forwarders can sign the mail. they must accept > responsibilty for the > > forwarding as above. > > > > Mailing lists must also be held accountable for what they send. they are > > simply another 'injection point' and can validate the sender before > > inserting it into the list. > > > > > email content must be changed in process > > > of tranmission > > > > Why 'must' content be changed? > > > > headers need to be added and those should be signed off as well as the > > previous mta's signature. granted this additional signing > increases the load > > especially for the MTR, but if Spam is reduced then the initial > load would > > be reduced anyway. > > > > If content MUST be changed then the authority changing the > content becomes > > the owner. and therefore responsible for the 'new' email. > > > > Regards > > Chris > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of > > > William Leibzon > > > Sent: Thursday, 20 May 2004 4:17 AM > > > To: ASRG > > > Subject: Re: [Asrg] [Fwd: Yahoo! Mail Publishes Specification for > > > DomainKeys] > > > > > > > > > And frankly, I'm less then satisfied after so many promises > and lots of > > > wait for it. Its long document (which I ready fully) that > primarily just > > > pounds on rather old idea of entering public key in dns and > using private > > > key to add signed header to email, this idea had been around > for at least > > > 4 years (possibly more) and I thought they found ways around > above listed > > > and other similar problems when email content must be changed > in process > > > of tranmission by intermediate server, but unfortunetly they > did not. Nor > > > do they address entering keys too well, again we're back to > reusing TXT > > > (where as what we need is standard for entering public keys in DNS and > > > this is needed not only for email but for several others things and in > > > general would come usefull, there have been drafts about this > actually). > > > > > > On Tue, 18 May 2004, Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > > > > > > > From MARID list. > > > > > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > > > > Subject: Yahoo! Mail Publishes Specification for DomainKeys > > > > Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 10:46:32 -0400 > > > > From: Larry Seltzer > > > > To: 'IETF MARID WG' > > > > > > > > > > > > (see http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys in particular) > > > > > > > > LJS > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Mail Publishes Specification for DomainKeys > > > > > > > > E-mail Authentication Solution Filed with IETF; > > > > > > > > Alpha Version of Open Source Code Available > > > > > > > > WHAT: > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, May 18, Yahoo! announces the publication of its > > > > specification on DomainKeys, > > > > a cryptographic e-mail authentication solution to help fight spam. > > > > > > > > DomainKeys: In order to attack spam at its roots, a powerful > > > solution is > > > > needed that can > > > > verify the identity of the e-mail sender and put an end to > spoofing and > > > > forgery. > > > > DomainKeys help fight spam by providing strong assurance of both the > > > > sender's identity > > > > and the integrity of the e-mail content through the use of > > > > public/private key > > > > cryptography. > > > > > > > > On Monday, May 17, the company filed the spec as an > Internet-draft with > > > > the IETF > > > > (Internet Engineering Task Force) standards body to begin the > > > > standardization process. > > > > > > > > Additionally, Yahoo! is currently developing a reference > implementation > > > > for DomainKeys > > > > that can be plugged into Message Transfer Agents (MTAs), > such as qmail. > > > > An alpha version > > > > of this software will be released under a royalty free license at > > > > SourceForge.net. > > > > > > > > WHERE: > > > > > > > > The specification, license terms and FAQs are posted on Yahoo!'s > > > > Anti-Spam Resource > > > > Center: http://antispam.yahoo.com > > > > The alpha version of the software will be hosted at > SourceForge.net at: > > > > http://sourceforge.net/index.php > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Yakov Shafranovich / asrg shaftek.org > > > > SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / research solidmatrix.com > > > > "There is nothing new under the sun" (Eccls. 1:9) > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Asrg mailing list > > > > Asrg@ietf.org > > > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Asrg mailing list > > > Asrg@ietf.org > > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri May 21 04:38:05 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (www.iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA15112 for ; Fri, 21 May 2004 04:38:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BR5Pb-0007Py-T0 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 04:29:51 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4L8TpcG028514 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 04:29:51 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BR5FO-0004sL-1I for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 04:19:18 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA13979 for ; Fri, 21 May 2004 04:19:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BR5FL-0003rl-8I for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 04:19:15 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BR5EN-0003fq-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 04:18:16 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BR5DR-0003X0-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 04:17:17 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BR52d-0001tJ-0w; Fri, 21 May 2004 04:06:07 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BR4y9-0000hc-9N for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 04:01:29 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA13434 for ; Fri, 21 May 2004 04:01:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BR4y6-0001Xr-Ma for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 04:01:26 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BR4x2-0001Qd-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 04:00:21 -0400 Received: from cwhois1.completewhois.com ([216.151.192.222] helo=mail.completewhois.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BR4wa-0001JV-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 03:59:53 -0400 Received: by mail.completewhois.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id 0D0D918A02; Fri, 21 May 2004 01:06:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.completewhois.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09A274C06D; Fri, 21 May 2004 01:06:50 -0700 (PDT) From: William Leibzon To: Chris Cc: ASRG Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0 General: Forum 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: Fri, 21 May 2004 01:06:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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 IETF requires work to be done through email lists as such web forum format would not be acceptable. G-maine list archive for this mail list is at http://news.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.asrg.general/ and it allows to view the posts in more thread-like format and easier to search for particular messages. Additionally quite a number of subscribers prefer email list format over the web based forums. In the future its possible that IETF would use software that allows for some integration between mail lists and web forums. Currently there is a shortage of available packages that can do it and those available are all in early beta testing, such as phpbb m2f project (for more info see see http://m2f.sourceforge.net/index.php which tries to integrage phpBB forums with majordomo mail lists). I have it running on one of our servers and can in theory set up such forum for asrg, but it really would not work properly unless the maillist is also running on same system, plus I think IETF is running on mailman and not on majordomo On Fri, 21 May 2004, Chris wrote: > > Yakov has chosen to step down from his role as co-chair and this saddens me. > > Now while I have no idea how to replace someone as pivotal as Yakov, can I > please put forward a hopefully helpful suggestion? > > I am in the process of setting up a very small hosting service and it would > honour me if the members of this group would consider allowing me to host > this group in the form of a forum. > > The forum could be hosted on its own domain and use the phpbb2 forum > package. > > The reason I put this forward is I find that BB style forums are so much > easier to deal with than mailing lists > Threads and topics can all be logically organised. > > I am sure many of you have used such forums and can decide whether that type > of forum would be suitable. > > As for my own role I would not provide any other role than support and > maintenance handing over administration to the sitting chair. with full > access to the virtual website. > > > Regards > Chris > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of Yakov > > Shafranovich > > Sent: Friday, 21 May 2004 3:47 PM > > To: ASRG > > Subject: [Asrg] Stepping down from the ASRG > > > > > > ASRG Members, > > > > I am writing to inform you that I am stepping down from my position as a > > co-chair of the ASRG. Unfortunately, my time constraints have increased > > to a point where it is impossible to me to continue ASRG work. > > > > It has been a very exciting and unique experience for me personally, and > > I want to thank all of you for contributing to it. I hope that my small > > contribution to the IETF and IRTF communities has made an impact on this > > group and the future of the Internet. > > > > Sincerely, > > Yakov Shafranovich > > Former co-chair, ASRG > > > > -- > > Yakov Shafranovich / asrg shaftek.org > > SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / research solidmatrix.com > > "And this too shall come to pass" (Unknown) > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Asrg mailing list > > Asrg@ietf.org > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri May 21 05:33:39 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 FAA18530 for ; Fri, 21 May 2004 05:33:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BR67i-00035c-Lm for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 05:15:26 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4L9FQRR011870 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 05:15:26 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BR63p-0001zt-0D for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 05:11:25 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA17370 for ; Fri, 21 May 2004 05:11:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BR63l-0004Be-F7 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 05:11:21 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BR62t-00043n-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 05:10:28 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BR62L-0003vi-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 05:09:54 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BR5qu-0006ZT-TG; Fri, 21 May 2004 04:58:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BR5bk-00022g-Og for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 04:42:24 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA15404 for ; Fri, 21 May 2004 04:42:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BR5bh-0007JG-KF for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 04:42:21 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BR5aj-00079F-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 04:41:22 -0400 Received: from mail3.sa.chariot.net.au ([203.87.94.14]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BR5Zr-0006rq-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 04:40:27 -0400 Received: from mail.chariot.net.au (mail.chariot.net.au [203.87.95.38]) by mail3.sa.chariot.net.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6C6FA3B8A; Fri, 21 May 2004 18:09:56 +0930 (CST) Received: from rebel (ppp137-78.lns1.adl2.internode.on.net [150.101.137.78]) by mail.chariot.net.au (Postfix) with SMTP id 9FD285F72F; Fri, 21 May 2004 18:09:55 +0930 (CST) From: "Chris" To: "William Leibzon" Cc: "ASRG" Subject: RE: [Asrg] 0 General: Forum Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 In-Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 18:09:28 +0930 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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 wasnt aware that the ietf 'requires' it > messages. Additionally quite a number of subscribers prefer email list > format over the web based forums. Hmmm I for one would prefer it the other way round. that way everything is centralised I would get email notifications only when activity occurs on a thread I am interested in. but it would be helpful if it was a system that went both ways. it wouldn't be hard to do regardless of the maillist used. any posts on the forum would also be sent out to the maillist as it is now. any messages from the mail list would be automatically inserted into the forum. But I am too busy to do that myself now, perhaps if there was enough interest I could make time for it. I actually fully intend creating a "forum to news to forum" interface for another project I am involved in so perhaps they will crossover. Regards Chris > -----Original Message----- > From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of > William Leibzon > Sent: Friday, 21 May 2004 5:37 PM > To: Chris > Cc: ASRG > Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0 General: Forum > > > > IETF requires work to be done through email lists as such web > forum format > would not be acceptable. G-maine list archive for this mail list is at > http://news.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.asrg.general/ and it allows to view the > posts in more thread-like format and easier to search for particular > messages. Additionally quite a number of subscribers prefer email list > format over the web based forums. > > In the future its possible that IETF would use software that allows for > some integration between mail lists and web forums. Currently there is a > shortage of available packages that can do it and those available are all > in early beta testing, such as phpbb m2f project (for more info see > see http://m2f.sourceforge.net/index.php which tries to integrage phpBB > forums with majordomo mail lists). I have it running on one of > our servers and can in theory set up such forum for asrg, but it > really would not work properly unless the maillist is also > running on same > system, plus I think IETF is running on mailman and not on majordomo > > On Fri, 21 May 2004, Chris wrote: > > > > > Yakov has chosen to step down from his role as co-chair and > this saddens me. > > > > Now while I have no idea how to replace someone as pivotal as > Yakov, can I > > please put forward a hopefully helpful suggestion? > > > > I am in the process of setting up a very small hosting service > and it would > > honour me if the members of this group would consider allowing > me to host > > this group in the form of a forum. > > > > The forum could be hosted on its own domain and use the phpbb2 forum > > package. > > > > The reason I put this forward is I find that BB style forums are so much > > easier to deal with than mailing lists > > Threads and topics can all be logically organised. > > > > I am sure many of you have used such forums and can decide > whether that type > > of forum would be suitable. > > > > As for my own role I would not provide any other role than support and > > maintenance handing over administration to the sitting chair. with full > > access to the virtual website. > > > > > > Regards > > Chris > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org]On > Behalf Of Yakov > > > Shafranovich > > > Sent: Friday, 21 May 2004 3:47 PM > > > To: ASRG > > > Subject: [Asrg] Stepping down from the ASRG > > > > > > > > > ASRG Members, > > > > > > I am writing to inform you that I am stepping down from my > position as a > > > co-chair of the ASRG. Unfortunately, my time constraints have > increased > > > to a point where it is impossible to me to continue ASRG work. > > > > > > It has been a very exciting and unique experience for me > personally, and > > > I want to thank all of you for contributing to it. I hope > that my small > > > contribution to the IETF and IRTF communities has made an > impact on this > > > group and the future of the Internet. > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > Yakov Shafranovich > > > Former co-chair, ASRG > > > > > > -- > > > Yakov Shafranovich / asrg shaftek.org > > > SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / research solidmatrix.com > > > "And this too shall come to pass" (Unknown) > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Asrg mailing list > > > Asrg@ietf.org > > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Asrg mailing list > > Asrg@ietf.org > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri May 21 05:57:06 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 FAA19919 for ; Fri, 21 May 2004 05:57:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BR6b4-0003Df-4I for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 05:45:46 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4L9jkld012334 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 05:45:46 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BR6T9-0000n2-3U for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 05:37:35 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA18802 for ; Fri, 21 May 2004 05:37:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BR6T5-0000K7-BV for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 05:37:31 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BR6S3-00009q-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 05:36:28 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BR6QX-0007ha-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 05:34:53 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BR69J-0003Tj-5b; Fri, 21 May 2004 05:17:05 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BR64n-0002Dn-U7 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 05:12:26 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA17456 for ; Fri, 21 May 2004 05:12:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BR64k-0004KN-Il for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 05:12:22 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BR63p-0004CK-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 05:11:25 -0400 Received: from sparkle.rodents.montreal.qc.ca ([216.46.5.7] ident=xXUsyYMDIU4KwksqLbA9boafOwHhaYaE6yxh6LnNbdY) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BR63G-00044A-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 05:10:50 -0400 Received: (from mouse@localhost) by Sparkle.Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA12936; Fri, 21 May 2004 05:10:51 -0400 (EDT) From: der Mouse Message-Id: <200405210910.FAA12936@Sparkle.Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Erik-Conspiracy: There is no Conspiracy - and if there were I wouldn't be part of it anyway. To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0 General: Forum In-Reply-To: References: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 05:04:46 -0400 (EDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > I am in the process of setting up a very small hosting service and it > would honour me if the members of this group would consider allowing > me to host this group in the form of a forum. I'm not sure what "a forum" is, nor how it differs from what we have now, but as long as a normal mailing list interface is available it's fine with me. (If no mailing list interface is available, I for one won't be using it.) > The reason I put this forward is I find that BB style forums are so > much easier to deal with than mailing lists This sounds as though what you have in mind has an interface that's fairly drastically different from a mailing list. I have nothing against that, as long as the mailing list interface is also available. > Threads and topics can all be logically organised. This is also true of email, if you pick the right user agent - or so I hear; it's not something I want, so it's not something I've sought out myself, or implemented in my own user agent. /~\ The ASCII der Mouse \ / Ribbon Campaign X Against HTML mouse@rodents.montreal.qc.ca / \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri May 21 11:49:37 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 LAA10238 for ; Fri, 21 May 2004 11:49:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BRCER-0007EQ-2T for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 11:46:47 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4LFkl1J027798 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 11:46:47 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BRC6X-0004T1-5n for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 11:38:37 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA09553 for ; Fri, 21 May 2004 11:38:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BRC6W-0006e9-6J for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 11:38:36 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BRC5b-0006cd-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 11:37:39 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BRC5I-0006bI-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 11:37:20 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BRBrU-0000Fa-J6; Fri, 21 May 2004 11:23:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BRBgh-00069u-Vr for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 11:11:56 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA07939 for ; Fri, 21 May 2004 11:11:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BRBgf-0003Of-5l for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 11:11:53 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BRBfd-00039u-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 11:10:50 -0400 Received: from newgiles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ([205.150.200.131] helo=mail.nitros9.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BRBed-0002wI-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 11:09:47 -0400 Received: from newgiles.nitros9.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.nitros9.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDEC716CC4 for ; Fri, 21 May 2004 11:15:26 -0400 (EDT) From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: Spam send/receive ratio In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 21 May 2004 11:00:33 +0930." Message-Id: <20040521151526.CDEC716CC4@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, 21 May 2004 11:15:26 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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: > > The *list* re-sends the message to tens of thousands of recipients. > > You don't. Since each recipient has opted-in to the list, this isn't > > a problem. > > HOW is a receiving MTA going to know this? It sees the mail coming from the list, so any concerns about volume are associated with the list, and not with the original submitter. That was your original point, I believe. That you would be marked a spammer because of the list exploding your traffic to tens of thousands of people. But it's not you, it's the list. > it just sees the volume discrepency and says 'Spammer'. Dumb MTA's may closely monitor the list, due to the volume of traffic coming from it. However, there are ways for the MTA to tell that the traffic is NOT spam: - users at the MTA's domain send messages to the list - so the MTA communicates with the list's MX's - lists are long-lived, as opposed to spamvertized addresses - little spam comes from lists > Huh. So if I have a tattoo I am *more likely* to be a criminal then. No. The relationship is the inverse of what you said, which is an important distinction: Criminals are more likely to have tattoos than the average person. The distinction is critical to a proper understanding of the problem. > most criminals have hair. should that be listed as a distinguishing feature? Most non-criminals have hair, too. Therefore it's not a distinguishing feature of criminals. This shouldn't be rocket science. > Ever heard of white collar crime... thats the stuff that costs billions of > dollars and ruins country economies. nary a tattoo in sight. You're misunderstanding statistics, correlation, causation, overlapping sets, and inverse problems. You're not alone. These are difficult problems for anyone. Criminals are more likely to have tattoos than the average person, but not all criminals have tattoos, and not all tattooed people are criminals. > I stick to very blinkered. with no apology. Then I'll apologize for pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. > No doubt volume is an indicator that SHOULD be used. but only at the > injection point not at the receiving point. the receiver has no way of > knowing that volume may mean spam. The receiver doesn't have visibility into the injection point. The receiver sees only what it receives. And large volumes of traffic from someone the reciever has never communicated with before is a strong indicator that the traffic may be spam. At the minimum, the receiver should treat the traffic with more suspicion that low-volume traffic, or traffic from well-known sources. > But the ISP who suddenly sees an upsurge in mail originating from a client > could spool that mail and confirm with the client that such volumes is in > fact intended. And the recipient can do the same thing. > A simple turing test would stop the zombified machine automatically > responding a yes to the validation email. Please describe such a test that would work in practice. Here, "work" means not only be practical as a turing test, but also be something that the end user would respond to. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri May 21 12:58:38 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (www.iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA15145 for ; Fri, 21 May 2004 12:58:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BRDG4-0000gh-7L for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 12:52:35 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4LGqW3E002643 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 12:52:32 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BRD7X-0007B8-VR for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 12:43:46 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA14168 for ; Fri, 21 May 2004 12:43:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BRD7W-00036r-Cc for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 12:43:42 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BRD6c-00032T-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 12:42:46 -0400 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BRD5o-0002zA-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 12:41:56 -0400 Received: from optimus22.ietf.org ([132.151.6.22] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by mx2.foretec.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1BRD5q-0000iv-24 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 12:41:58 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BRCvH-0003PP-47; Fri, 21 May 2004 12:31:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BRCYu-0004Jy-Pd for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 12:07:57 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA11448 for ; Fri, 21 May 2004 12:07:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BRCYt-0000ka-F6 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 12:07:55 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BRCXc-0000XY-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 12:06:38 -0400 Received: from mail.crlf.net ([216.126.92.195]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BRCVG-0000Id-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 12:04:10 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.crlf.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EB4B1F080; Fri, 21 May 2004 12:04:11 -0400 (EDT) From: David Maxwell To: Chris Cc: Alan DeKok , asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: Spam send/receive ratio Message-ID: <20040521160411.GI547@mail> References: <20040520143321.BA6DC16CC4@mail.nitros9.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2i Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 12:04:11 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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, 21 May 2004, Chris wrote: > Someone that Chris wasn't polite enough to attribute, wrote: > > In other news, is everyone with a tattoo a criminal? I've seen > > "wanted" posters which list "tattos" as "distinguishing > > characteristics" of a criminal. > > Huh. So if I have a tattoo I am *more likely* to be a criminal then. No, you're only more likly to be _that_ criminal, which you probably don't match the description of in a dozen other ways. He said "of a criminal", not "of criminals". Tattoos are a way to confirm that you've recognized that person, but probably not the best way to go about finding him in a crowd. -- 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 Fri May 21 20:18:23 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA15025 for ; Fri, 21 May 2004 20:18:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BRKB4-0006Cc-IO for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 20:15:50 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4M0FoMq023833 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 20:15:50 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BRK6F-0004vN-7l for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 20:10:51 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA14500 for ; Fri, 21 May 2004 20:10:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BRK6D-0006Fz-3a for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 20:10:49 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BRK5D-0006At-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 20:09:48 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BRK4I-00066P-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 20:08:50 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BRJun-00020D-5A; Fri, 21 May 2004 19:59:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BRJlt-0000dL-5I for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 19:49:49 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA13366 for ; Fri, 21 May 2004 19:49:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BRJlr-0004Ay-9d for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 19:49:47 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BRJkv-00045d-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 19:48:50 -0400 Received: from out2.smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.26]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BRJkV-00040u-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 21 May 2004 19:48:23 -0400 X-Sasl-enc: pxq35JJvQIEiOsQBqWWB3g 1085183296 Received: from elvey.com (ns.nextbus.com [64.164.28.194]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A1DBBB8A2E; Fri, 21 May 2004 19:48:14 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <40AE953A.8050007@elvey.com> From: Matthew Elvey User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.5 (Windows/20040207) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: der Mouse Cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0 General: Forum References: <200405210910.FAA12936@Sparkle.Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA> In-Reply-To: <200405210910.FAA12936@Sparkle.Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA> X-Habeas-SWE-1: winter into spring X-Habeas-SWE-2: brightly anticipated X-Habeas-SWE-3: like Habeas SWE (tm) X-Habeas-SWE-4: Copyright 2002 Habeas (tm) X-Habeas-SWE-5: Sender Warranted Email (SWE) (tm). The sender of this X-Habeas-SWE-6: email in exchange for a license for this Habeas X-Habeas-SWE-7: warrant mark warrants that this is a Habeas Compliant X-Habeas-SWE-8: Message (HCM) and not spam. Please report use of this X-Habeas-SWE-9: mark in spam to . Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 16:48:10 -0700 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=AWL,HABEAS_SWE autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 5/21/2004 2:04 AM, der Mouse sent forth electrons to convey: >>Threads and topics can all be logically organised. >> >> > >This is also true of email, if you pick the right user agent - or so I >hear; it's not something I want, so it's not something I've sought out >myself, or implemented in my own user agent. > > I use threaded mode to read ASRG mail, and it works pretty well. One of the key things I'd want to see in an alternative forum would be support for expressing support for notable posts - omething like slashcode (what /. runs on). BB offers just polls. Support for what I attempted here: http://asrg.sp.am/wiki?OpinionMatrix would be nice. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat May 22 01:19:23 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (www.iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA28467 for ; Sat, 22 May 2004 01:19:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BROtJ-0005dW-BA for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 22 May 2004 01:17:49 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4M5HnvP021625 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 22 May 2004 01:17:49 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BROpd-0004Oi-2H for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 22 May 2004 01:14:01 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA28256 for ; Sat, 22 May 2004 01:13:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BROpa-0001IR-1W for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 22 May 2004 01:13:58 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BROob-0001Cf-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 22 May 2004 01:12:58 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BROoH-000175-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 22 May 2004 01:12:37 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BROhu-0002xE-Ed; Sat, 22 May 2004 01:06:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BROYA-0001Zc-RS for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 22 May 2004 00:55:59 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA27716 for ; Sat, 22 May 2004 00:55:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BROY8-00077N-1r for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 22 May 2004 00:55:56 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BROXE-00071E-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 22 May 2004 00:55:00 -0400 Received: from xuxa.iecc.com ([208.31.42.42]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BROWZ-0006vD-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 22 May 2004 00:54:19 -0400 Received: (qmail 2533 invoked by uid 100); 22 May 2004 04:54:15 -0000 Message-ID: <20040522045415.2532.qmail@xuxa.iecc.com> From: John Levine To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] 0 General: Forum In-Reply-To: Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA Cc: asrg@rebel.com.au Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 22 May 2004 04:54:15 -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 autolearn=no version=2.60 >I am in the process of setting up a very small hosting service and it would >honour me if the members of this group would consider allowing me to host >this group in the form of a forum. Thanks, but if the list moves, the only place it's likely to move to is my majordomo2 server at asrg.sp.am where the subgroup lists live now. 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 May 22 03:20:26 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA17738 for ; Sat, 22 May 2004 03:20:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BRQjo-00054w-TJ for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 22 May 2004 03:16:09 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4M7G8aL019472 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 22 May 2004 03:16:08 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BRQXm-0002ph-IR for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 22 May 2004 03:03:42 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA16928 for ; Sat, 22 May 2004 03:03:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BRQXi-0007nq-E0 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 22 May 2004 03:03:38 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BRQWD-0007VH-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 22 May 2004 03:02:06 -0400 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BRQVz-0007NT-01 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 22 May 2004 03:01:51 -0400 Received: from optimus22.ietf.org ([132.151.6.22] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by mx2.foretec.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1BRQVD-000477-Aq for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 22 May 2004 03:01:06 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BRQRK-0001N3-Rt; Sat, 22 May 2004 02:57:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BRQNd-0000Zl-O4 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 22 May 2004 02:53:15 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA16146 for ; Sat, 22 May 2004 02:53:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BRQNZ-0006Ak-89 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 22 May 2004 02:53:09 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BRQMd-00063Q-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 22 May 2004 02:52:12 -0400 Received: from mail3.sa.chariot.net.au ([203.87.94.14]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BRQMG-0005vl-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 22 May 2004 02:51:48 -0400 Received: from mail.chariot.net.au (mail.chariot.net.au [203.87.95.38]) by mail3.sa.chariot.net.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C766A3C6A; Sat, 22 May 2004 16:21:11 +0930 (CST) Received: from rebel (ppp137-78.lns1.adl2.internode.on.net [150.101.137.78]) by mail.chariot.net.au (Postfix) with SMTP id AB8495F704; Sat, 22 May 2004 16:21:09 +0930 (CST) From: "Chris" To: "Alan DeKok" , Subject: RE: [Asrg] Re: Spam send/receive ratio Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <20040521151526.CDEC716CC4@mail.nitros9.org> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 22 May 2004 16:20:39 +0930 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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 > > > > HOW is a receiving MTA going to know this? > > It sees the mail coming from the list, so any concerns about volume > are associated with the list, and not with the original submitter. > ? perhaps confusion here over the meaning of "list" I am talking about a mailing list of my customers I am not talking about a list such as this ASRG list. on my mailing list I am the submitter. I sent the mail. But it makes no difference either way. > > You're misunderstanding statistics, correlation, causation, > overlapping sets, and inverse problems. You're not alone. These are > difficult problems for anyone. > No what I was saying is that using the statistics of mail volume to try and pinpoint a spammer is a bogus test. Statistics can and are misused all the time. Mail Volume is just such a statistic. My example was of my mailing list so I will continue... Say I send out twenty emails a day. The general number of service emails to my clients. I develop a new piece of software so I decide to pen a special invitation to my clients and tell them thay can get the software at a special invitation only price of $x dollars. I include the URL of the order form for conveniance. Now your good intentioned MTA say "hey I got mail from xyz, I'll check his volumes". and it comes up with "normal volume = 20, last hours volume = 5000". "Ooops" the MTA says "Spammer alert" and tosses my email. Perhaps it also looked for other statistically telltale clues such as an embedded URL and/or a perhaps the words '/special.*price/' and combined with the sudden high volume it decides 'spam!'. The MTA has made a bad decision which the recipient may not have appreciated, especially when he eventually gets to my site and is forced to pay full price because the mail didn't get thru. My argument is simple. Mail Volumes can *in no way* be used to indicate spam. it is simply flawed logic. Again to return to the Tattoo 'statistic'. Imagine a Judge in a murder trial telling the jury that statistically more murderers have tattoos. and as the defendant has a tattoo he is more likely to be the murderer. The statistic may be absolutely correct, BUT the inference cannot be used in the decision making process. to do so is seriously flawed. A judge who said that could and should be disbarred for incompetance. > > > A simple turing test would stop the zombified machine automatically > > responding a yes to the validation email. > > Please describe such a test that would work in practice. > > Here, "work" means not only be practical as a turing test, but also > be something that the end user would respond to. The end user is not relevant to this discussion. the only purposes of this test is the sender's ISP confirming that *HIS* client in fact intended to send out such volumes of mail. remembering that we are talking about an unusual volume. If I was to write such a volume check it would go like this... Stats would be kept of the average volume of all mail sent from all clients. As a client starts sending mail, a counter would be incremented. after a period of time this count would be tested against the average for that client for that time period. should the average exceed previous averages then the mail would start to spool. After another period of time the counts would again be tested. IF the number of sends has dropped, the mail would be sent and it would be assumed it was a simple spike, perhaps birthday invitations. IF the count continued to exceed expectations then spooling would be continued. an e-mail or other form of contact would be dispatched to the client. This email would contain a simple turing test something like numbers embedded into an image or perhaps a stronger test. the recipient would have to respond with the correct answer. This is to prevent a zombified machine from intercepting the validation email and responding to it. If the response was correct the spooled mail would be sent. This is not designed to prevent a spammer. it is designed to prevent someones account being misused by a third party. Chris > -----Original Message----- > From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of Alan > DeKok > Sent: Saturday, 22 May 2004 12:45 AM > To: asrg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: Spam send/receive ratio > > > "Chris" wrote: > > > The *list* re-sends the message to tens of thousands of recipients. > > > You don't. Since each recipient has opted-in to the list, this isn't > > > a problem. > > > > HOW is a receiving MTA going to know this? > > It sees the mail coming from the list, so any concerns about volume > are associated with the list, and not with the original submitter. > > That was your original point, I believe. That you would be marked a > spammer because of the list exploding your traffic to tens of > thousands of people. But it's not you, it's the list. > > > it just sees the volume discrepency and says 'Spammer'. > > Dumb MTA's may closely monitor the list, due to the volume of > traffic coming from it. However, there are ways for the MTA to tell > that the traffic is NOT spam: > > - users at the MTA's domain send messages to the list > - so the MTA communicates with the list's MX's > - lists are long-lived, as opposed to spamvertized addresses > - little spam comes from lists > > > Huh. So if I have a tattoo I am *more likely* to be a criminal then. > > No. The relationship is the inverse of what you said, which is an > important distinction: Criminals are more likely to have tattoos than > the average person. > > The distinction is critical to a proper understanding of the problem. > > > most criminals have hair. should that be listed as a > distinguishing feature? > > Most non-criminals have hair, too. Therefore it's not a > distinguishing feature of criminals. > > This shouldn't be rocket science. > > > Ever heard of white collar crime... thats the stuff that costs > billions of > > dollars and ruins country economies. nary a tattoo in sight. > > You're misunderstanding statistics, correlation, causation, > overlapping sets, and inverse problems. You're not alone. These are > difficult problems for anyone. > > Criminals are more likely to have tattoos than the average person, > but not all criminals have tattoos, and not all tattooed people are > criminals. > > > I stick to very blinkered. with no apology. > > Then I'll apologize for pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. > > > No doubt volume is an indicator that SHOULD be used. but only at the > > injection point not at the receiving point. the receiver has no way of > > knowing that volume may mean spam. > > The receiver doesn't have visibility into the injection point. The > receiver sees only what it receives. > > And large volumes of traffic from someone the reciever has never > communicated with before is a strong indicator that the traffic may be > spam. At the minimum, the receiver should treat the traffic with more > suspicion that low-volume traffic, or traffic from well-known sources. > > > But the ISP who suddenly sees an upsurge in mail originating > from a client > > could spool that mail and confirm with the client that such > volumes is in > > fact intended. > > And the recipient can do the same thing. > > > A simple turing test would stop the zombified machine automatically > > responding a yes to the validation email. > > Please describe such a test that would work in practice. > > Here, "work" means not only be practical as a turing test, but also > be something that the end user would respond to. > > Alan DeKok. > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat May 22 09:06:45 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA05261 for ; Sat, 22 May 2004 09:06:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BRWB3-0002FJ-97 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 22 May 2004 09:04:37 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4MD4bsC008633 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 22 May 2004 09:04:37 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BRW2z-0001BL-Nv for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 22 May 2004 08:56:17 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA04913 for ; Sat, 22 May 2004 08:56:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BRW2y-0000RK-Cx for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 22 May 2004 08:56:16 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BRW26-0000Ho-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 22 May 2004 08:55:23 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BRW1A-00008N-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 22 May 2004 08:54:24 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BRVpD-0006yW-BF; Sat, 22 May 2004 08:42:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BRVie-0005cE-2i for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 22 May 2004 08:35:16 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA04187 for ; Sat, 22 May 2004 08:35:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BRVic-0004oW-SA for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 22 May 2004 08:35:14 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BRVhe-0004dG-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 22 May 2004 08:34:14 -0400 Received: from newgiles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ([205.150.200.131] helo=mail.nitros9.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BRVgh-0004T1-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 22 May 2004 08:33:20 -0400 Received: from newgiles.nitros9.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.nitros9.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F08BE16E1C for ; Sat, 22 May 2004 08:38:56 -0400 (EDT) From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: Spam send/receive ratio In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 22 May 2004 16:20:39 +0930." Message-Id: <20040522123856.F08BE16E1C@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, 22 May 2004 08:38:56 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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: > No what I was saying is that using the statistics of mail volume to try and > pinpoint a spammer is a bogus test. When used alone. I never said it should be used alone. In fact, I said the exact opposite. > Now your good intentioned MTA say "hey I got mail from xyz, I'll check his > volumes". and it comes up with "normal volume = 20, last hours volume = > 5000". "Ooops" the MTA says "Spammer alert" and tosses my email. Then it's not "my good intentioned MTA". It's an MTA you invented by explicitly ignoring my statements about how MTA's should deal with high-volume spam. I hate it when people read my messages, and conclude that I believe the exact opposite of what I've said. Can you please explain why you're arguing that I believe high-volume to be a near-perfect indicator of spam? I just can't understand how you come to that decision. > Perhaps it also looked for other statistically telltale clues such > as an embedded URL and/or a perhaps the words '/special.*price/' and > combined with the sudden high volume it decides 'spam!'. If an MTA decides that a message is spam, that's it's perogative. In this (badly defined, hypothetical) case, I could agree that the "spam" determination is probably not the bes thing to do. > My argument is simple. Mail Volumes can *in no way* be used to indicate > spam. it is simply flawed logic. By the same argument, the word "v**gr*" cannot be used to indicate spam, because normal people use it in normal messages. The reality is different. Keywords are strongly correlated with "spamminess" of a message. But they're not perfectly correlated. Similarly, suddenly receiving a high volume of mail from a host which usually sneds low-volume traffic is strongly correlated with spam from zombied machines, or a new account buy a spammer, etc. See the ASRG archives for ISP admins discussion of this exact scenario. > Again to return to the Tattoo 'statistic'. Imagine a Judge in a murder trial > telling the jury that statistically more murderers have tattoos. and as the > defendant has a tattoo he is more likely to be the murderer. The first statement may be correct. The second does not follow from the first. You are arguing from flawed logic. I tried to explain why in my previous message, and it looks like I failed to communicate. Please read books by Marilyn Vos Savant on logic, or Jon Paulos Allen. I suggest: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0679726012/102-9321111-1748922?v=glance http://www.alibris.com/search/search.cfm?qwork=5268032&matches=21&qsort=r > The statistic may be absolutely correct, There is no statistic in your argument. There is simply flawed logic. Correlation does not imply causation. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat May 22 22:03:20 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA09094 for ; Sat, 22 May 2004 22:03:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BRiE6-0004Gp-Vg for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 22 May 2004 21:56:35 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4N1uY3N016416 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 22 May 2004 21:56:34 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BRi8Z-0002mC-G3 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 22 May 2004 21:50:51 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA08582 for ; Sat, 22 May 2004 21:50:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BRi8W-00040H-I4 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 22 May 2004 21:50:48 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BRi7X-0003nU-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 22 May 2004 21:49:48 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BRi6X-0003VE-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 22 May 2004 21:48:45 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BRi11-000123-Pt; Sat, 22 May 2004 21:43:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BRhu6-0007pH-QU for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 22 May 2004 21:35:57 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA08071 for ; Sat, 22 May 2004 21:35:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BRhu4-0000jD-4M for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 22 May 2004 21:35:52 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BRhtB-0000Wj-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 22 May 2004 21:34:57 -0400 Received: from mail3.sa.chariot.net.au ([203.87.94.14]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BRhsY-00006y-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 22 May 2004 21:34:18 -0400 Received: from mail.chariot.net.au (mail.chariot.net.au [203.87.95.38]) by mail3.sa.chariot.net.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id B79C8A403A; Sun, 23 May 2004 11:03:40 +0930 (CST) Received: from rebel (ppp137-78.lns1.adl2.internode.on.net [150.101.137.78]) by mail.chariot.net.au (Postfix) with SMTP id B66D15F70D; Sun, 23 May 2004 11:03:39 +0930 (CST) From: "Chris" To: "Alan DeKok" Cc: Subject: RE: [Asrg] Re: Spam send/receive ratio 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 V6.00.2800.1409 In-Reply-To: <20040522123856.F08BE16E1C@mail.nitros9.org> 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, 23 May 2004 11:03:10 +0930 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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 > > No what I was saying is that using the statistics of mail > volume to try and > > pinpoint a spammer is a bogus test. > > When used alone. I never said it should be used alone. In fact, I > said the exact opposite. I never said you did. alone its useless, combined with other "triggers" its still useless. All I said is that no matter how it is used "Mail Volume" is unreliable to the point it should not be considered. Perhaps you could quieten this critic if you explain how Mail Volume can be used to *reliably* detect spam. I have tried my best to explain why it would fail. surely a counter point is required at this stage. Anti Spam systems that chuck out the baby with the bathwater should not be considered as acceptable(IMHO). As a mail user I would prefer to skim through a few spam mails KNOWING I haven't lost anything important, than getting no spam and missing out on a vital business/personal message. You include another example V*gra If you were a medical student discussing some of the finer points of V*gra with a collegue, would you not wish for your mail to go through. or should the word be censored from this moment forward. Chris > -----Original Message----- > From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of Alan > DeKok > Sent: Saturday, 22 May 2004 10:09 PM > To: asrg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: Spam send/receive ratio > > > "Chris" wrote: > > No what I was saying is that using the statistics of mail > volume to try and > > pinpoint a spammer is a bogus test. > > When used alone. I never said it should be used alone. In fact, I > said the exact opposite. > > > Now your good intentioned MTA say "hey I got mail from xyz, > I'll check his > > volumes". and it comes up with "normal volume = 20, last hours volume = > > 5000". "Ooops" the MTA says "Spammer alert" and tosses my email. > > Then it's not "my good intentioned MTA". It's an MTA you invented > by explicitly ignoring my statements about how MTA's should deal with > high-volume spam. I hate it when people read my messages, and > conclude that I believe the exact opposite of what I've said. > > Can you please explain why you're arguing that I believe high-volume > to be a near-perfect indicator of spam? I just can't understand how > you come to that decision. > > > Perhaps it also looked for other statistically telltale clues such > > as an embedded URL and/or a perhaps the words '/special.*price/' and > > combined with the sudden high volume it decides 'spam!'. > > If an MTA decides that a message is spam, that's it's perogative. > > In this (badly defined, hypothetical) case, I could agree that the > "spam" determination is probably not the bes thing to do. > > > My argument is simple. Mail Volumes can *in no way* be used to indicate > > spam. it is simply flawed logic. > > By the same argument, the word "v**gr*" cannot be used to indicate > spam, because normal people use it in normal messages. > > The reality is different. Keywords are strongly correlated with > "spamminess" of a message. But they're not perfectly correlated. > Similarly, suddenly receiving a high volume of mail from a host which > usually sneds low-volume traffic is strongly correlated with spam from > zombied machines, or a new account buy a spammer, etc. See the ASRG > archives for ISP admins discussion of this exact scenario. > > > Again to return to the Tattoo 'statistic'. Imagine a Judge in a > murder trial > > telling the jury that statistically more murderers have > tattoos. and as the > > defendant has a tattoo he is more likely to be the murderer. > > The first statement may be correct. The second does not follow from > the first. You are arguing from flawed logic. I tried to explain why > in my previous message, and it looks like I failed to communicate. > > Please read books by Marilyn Vos Savant on logic, or Jon Paulos > Allen. > > I suggest: > > http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0679726012/102-93211 11-1748922?v=glance http://www.alibris.com/search/search.cfm?qwork=5268032&matches=21&qsort=r > The statistic may be absolutely correct, There is no statistic in your argument. There is simply flawed logic. Correlation does not imply causation. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat May 22 22:03:50 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA09117 for ; Sat, 22 May 2004 22:03:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BRiEF-0004JJ-70 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 22 May 2004 21:56:43 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4N1uh2M016557 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 22 May 2004 21:56:43 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BRiBY-0003gl-0b for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 22 May 2004 21:53:56 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA08614 for ; Sat, 22 May 2004 21:53:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BRiBV-0004be-1Z for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 22 May 2004 21:53:53 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BRiAU-0004Oa-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 22 May 2004 21:52:51 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BRiA4-0004CR-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 22 May 2004 21:52:24 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BRi12-00012C-8S; Sat, 22 May 2004 21:43:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BRhu7-0007pI-Gf for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 22 May 2004 21:35:55 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA08075 for ; Sat, 22 May 2004 21:35:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BRhu4-0000jI-Mc for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 22 May 2004 21:35:52 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BRhtB-0000Wr-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 22 May 2004 21:34:58 -0400 Received: from mail3.sa.chariot.net.au ([203.87.94.14]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BRhsY-00007K-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 22 May 2004 21:34:18 -0400 Received: from mail.chariot.net.au (mail.chariot.net.au [203.87.95.38]) by mail3.sa.chariot.net.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id 679E5A403B for ; Sun, 23 May 2004 11:03:41 +0930 (CST) Received: from rebel (ppp137-78.lns1.adl2.internode.on.net [150.101.137.78]) by mail.chariot.net.au (Postfix) with SMTP id 00B645F71E for ; Sun, 23 May 2004 11:03:41 +0930 (CST) From: "Chris" To: Subject: [ASRG] 0 - General, Reliability of Transport 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 V6.00.2800.1409 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, 23 May 2004 11:03:12 +0930 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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 Is there a mention in our Charter about the *reliability of transport*? From what I have seen over the months there is two camps within this group 1/ Those that believe Spam should be stopped at any cost 2/ Those that believe Spam should be countered but not at the expense of losing possibly important messages I am quite solidly in the second group (am I alone). It seems to me that this is a paramount consideration. and this group should support one or the other to the exclusion of the other. As I see it as a major sticking point amongst proponents. As a mail user I want to see a message that I send reach its destination without wondering if it ever made it because I somehow triggered a spam filter. This should include that any system must have a suitable reporting system (bounce) so that I am made aware of any errors in transit. This reporting system must of course not be useable by spammers to probe the filter to break it. Which I understand is a major risk. Regards Chris _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat May 22 23:13:18 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 XAA10731 for ; Sat, 22 May 2004 23:13:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BRjEb-0007jN-2Q for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 22 May 2004 23:01:09 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4N3196U029712 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 22 May 2004 23:01:09 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BRj9X-0006ov-3W for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 22 May 2004 22:55:55 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA10396 for ; Sat, 22 May 2004 22:55:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BRj9T-0002Tb-Gl for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 22 May 2004 22:55:51 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BRj8X-0002Gj-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 22 May 2004 22:54:54 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BRj7t-00023j-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 22 May 2004 22:54:13 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BRj5l-0005rD-D9; Sat, 22 May 2004 22:52:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BRj2o-00054i-8I for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 22 May 2004 22:48:58 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA10080 for ; Sat, 22 May 2004 22:48:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BRj2k-0000u8-ML for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 22 May 2004 22:48:54 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BRj1n-0000hN-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 22 May 2004 22:47:56 -0400 Received: from mail1.panix.com ([166.84.1.72]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BRj1M-0000Ui-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 22 May 2004 22:47:29 -0400 Received: from panix5.panix.com (panix5.panix.com [166.84.1.5]) by mail1.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBA2E48713 for ; Sat, 22 May 2004 22:47:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from sethb@localhost) by panix5.panix.com (8.11.6p2-a/8.8.8/PanixN1.1) id i4N2lOa27083; Sat, 22 May 2004 22:47:24 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200405230247.i4N2lOa27083@panix5.panix.com> From: Seth Breidbart To: asrg@ietf.org In-reply-to: Subject: Re: [ASRG] 0 - General, Reliability of Transport 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: Sat, 22 May 2004 22:47:24 -0400 (EDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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 "Chris" wrote: >From what I have seen over the months there is two camps within this group > > 1/ Those that believe Spam should be stopped at any cost > 2/ Those that believe Spam should be countered but not at the expense of > losing possibly important messages > > I am quite solidly in the second group (am I alone). There are a few others with you. There are a few in group 1. Most of us are somewhere around 1.5. The simple reasoning: anything that blocks no real email isn't going to block most spam. Therefore, the user's mailbox will be full of spam. The user, paging through a mailbox containing mostly spam, will accidentally delete some fraction of real messages because they look too spammy. Therefore, it's better for the filter to block a (smaller) percentage of real email and a lot more spam, so that more real email actually ends up in the user's brain (the true destination). Given the choice between a message of mine being accidentally deleted because the Subject header wasn't instantly screaming "I'm not spam" and a message being rejected by an overly zealous filter, I'd instantly choose the second because that way I _know_ there was a problem. Seth _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun May 23 00:52:31 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA15161 for ; Sun, 23 May 2004 00:52:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BRkty-0002Ns-6F for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 00:47:58 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4N4lwqH009164 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 00:47:58 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BRkrG-0001t6-RQ for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 00:45:10 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA14797 for ; Sun, 23 May 2004 00:45:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BRkrD-0004Bf-Bw for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 00:45:07 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BRkpN-0003f9-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 00:43:14 -0400 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BRkoQ-0003Q7-04 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 00:42:14 -0400 Received: from optimus22.ietf.org ([132.151.6.22] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by mx2.foretec.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1BRkiF-0002d5-8f for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 00:35:51 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BRkeW-0007gk-Tl; Sun, 23 May 2004 00:32:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BRkbf-0007DA-Vb for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 00:29:03 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA14476 for ; Sun, 23 May 2004 00:29:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BRkbd-0000ZK-D8 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 00:29:01 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BRkad-0000Lu-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 00:28:00 -0400 Received: from plounts.uits.indiana.edu ([129.79.1.73]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BRkaS-00008r-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 00:27:48 -0400 Received: from mail-relay.iu.edu (logchain.uits.indiana.edu [129.79.1.77]) by plounts.uits.indiana.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10/IUPO) with ESMTP id i4N4ReuE010673 for ; Sat, 22 May 2004 23:27:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from [10.0.2.2] (dial-64-151-128-186.bton.kiva.net [64.151.128.186]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail-relay.iu.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10/IUPO) with ESMTP id i4N4RYhw007369 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Sat, 22 May 2004 23:27:37 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v613) In-Reply-To: <20040522160016.11341.60605.Mailman@www1.ietf.org> References: <20040522160016.11341.60605.Mailman@www1.ietf.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <7FC9A772-AC71-11D8-A9CF-000393DC31DA@bloomington.in.us> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Jim Witte To: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.613) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] Re: 0 General: Forum Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 22 May 2004 23:27:28 -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 > One of the key things I'd want to see in an alternative forum would be > support for expressing support for notable posts - omething like > slashcode (what /. runs on). BB offers just polls. Support for what I But Oh God, not Slashcode please.. It's horribly not-up-to-spec with the current HTML/CSS specs from what I've heard, could stand a complete XML/client-side-XSLT overhaul, and I *absolutely* hate the commenting forum. The main problem with the commenting forum is that it is linear, unlike the usenet, which is (2-level) hierarachical. Yes, I know, technically the Slashcode forum is hierarchical, but there is NO way to "collapse" a topic, and so no-one really uses it that way. What this leads to (on Slashdot) is (among other things) a great amount of redundant information/ideas. Jim Witte Indiana University CS (Aside which has little or nothing to do with ASRG and everything to do with Slashdot and Slashcode [feel free to stop reading now.] If others want to continue this discussion, email me privately, or go to my Yahoo group formed for purposes of this discussion at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Slashdotreform/ ) In addition, the moderation system could be better: they keep incrementally improving it by adding "friend points", "trusted moderator points" and whatnot, but IMO the whole system needs to be based on something totally different. Not that I know what that would be, but my mind keeps coming back to the "circle-of-trust" concept employed by some cryptographic schemes. Basically, instead of having a small group of limited moderators, basically *everyone* would moderate what they thought was good, what was redundant (this could include sub-comment blocks somehow), and then some complicated algorithm would assign a weighting to each post you access, based on what posts you've liked before, whose moderated those, following this "moderation chain" back as far as you want (or as far as computationally feasible) I haven't worked the idea out fully at ALL, but another thing might be to allow posts to reference each other (as in a Wiki - I'm using Wiki loosely - referring both to "traditional" Wikis that hyperlink everything, and to "collaborative editing" projects that I've heard about), and then use a "hub/authority" algorithm based on the linking for weighting, as I'm told Google does (or did). That idea would have to change in some what for the purpose of comment moderation, as you're not going to have traditional "web hubs" that link to many, many different topics. But perhaps if the moderation weighting could be used as a "hub score". I don't know. Nor do I know if any of these ideas are even remotely computationally feasible. (yes, they say that at any one time half the people on /. are moderators, but they are limited by karma, and you don't get to be moderator unless you have karma. That means that if you just read, and rarely post, because you figure that no-one will read your comment, or add it's discussion [due to the linear nature of the list], or just have little to say, you almost never have karma. Of course, (some of) the crowd on /. is a tad bit juvenile also in their comments (or they are karma whoring, whatever all that entails). That probably wouldn't happen with ASRG. I think a better system for /. would be either a Usenet-based system where people could start different threads of discussion on different aspects/implications of stories, or a Wiki-type authoring system, where instead of just repeating what someone else had said, a person could *add* something to the discussion, perhaps even in the *middle* of what someone else has already said. Aside from the problem of potentially generating very long sentences, could get rather incomprehensible. Then possibly add some "editors" who could clean up the discussion in terms of sentence-structure and flow, as a traditional copy-editor does. Apart from the benefit of making the comment forum on /. a more "productive" place for generating ideas, overhauling it as I suggest (or in some other way, but just something different from how it is now) could quite possibly encourage the development of small to medium sized groups of people with similar interests who could actually *do* something about so many of the things talked about on /. - such as writing letters to Congresspeople, arranging meetings with Congresspeople, getting together to make well-informed recommendations to international bodies [WTO, ICANN, ICC, etc], or the like. As it is now, /. does *very* little to encourage people to actually form groups to *do* anything. (CmdrTaco - are you here?) There is NO private-messaging capability, no "special interest group" formation systems, etc. Slashdot is supposed to focus on issues that don't get covered by other media. It does. But news is only really useful if people *do* something with it, especially the kinds of things /. is concerned with (encroachment upon civil liberties, patenting madness, stupid governmental ideas, etc). But while /. does a very good job of reporting on these things, it seemingly does NOTHING to facilitate the formation of action-groups to try to affect these very issues. Now, /. may see itself as nothing more than a journalistic avenue and not an avenue for social change, but I beg to differ. The main difference between the web and tradition print journalism is exactly the one that Slashdot has (tried) to exploit: that the web is a medium through which communities can form, and actions can be coordinated. But in it's 7 (?) year history, I have seen very little of this second function being seriously undertaken. Jim _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun May 23 01:45:28 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (www.iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA16569 for ; Sun, 23 May 2004 01:45:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BRljH-0004Jc-Td for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 01:41:00 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4N5exDI016584 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 01:40:59 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BRleu-00039p-Om for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 01:36:28 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA16374 for ; Sun, 23 May 2004 01:36:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BRleS-0000HR-Iv for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 01:36:00 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BRldV-00003V-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 01:35:01 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BRlce-0007dO-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 01:34:08 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BRlXi-0001sh-0U; Sun, 23 May 2004 01:29:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BRlTr-0000oj-RQ for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 01:25:03 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA16100 for ; Sun, 23 May 2004 01:25:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BRlTo-0005bP-P6 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 01:25:00 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BRlSt-0005Nh-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 01:24:04 -0400 Received: from [213.37.42.116] (helo=chema.homelinux.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BRlSO-00058v-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 01:23:32 -0400 Received: by chema.homelinux.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 2738492AFE; Sun, 23 May 2004 07:23:00 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 0 General: Forum From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jos=E9_Mar=EDa?= Mateos To: asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <7FC9A772-AC71-11D8-A9CF-000393DC31DA@bloomington.in.us> References: <20040522160016.11341.60605.Mailman@www1.ietf.org> <7FC9A772-AC71-11D8-A9CF-000393DC31DA@bloomington.in.us> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-QO+uhC1GFilNA+BJtb3T" Message-Id: <1085289780.17919.35.camel@chema.homelinux.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.6 Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 07:23:00 +0200 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 --=-QO+uhC1GFilNA+BJtb3T Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable El dom, 23-05-2004 a las 06:27, Jim Witte escribi=F3: > But Oh God, not Slashcode please.. It's horribly not-up-to-spec with=20 > the current HTML/CSS specs from what I've heard, could stand a complete=20 > XML/client-side-XSLT overhaul, and I *absolutely* hate the commenting=20 > forum. Not necessarily. There have been attempts to produce XHTML 1.0 compliant code using Slashcode. Right now I can only find this[1], but I read a longer article about it in Slashdot several months ago. Regards. [1] http://www.slashcode.com/articles/02/09/17/2237203.shtml?tid=3D24 --=20 ** Blog Overflow: http://chema.homelinux.org ** No software patents in Europe http://EuropeSwPatentFree.hispalinux.es - EuropeSwPatentFree --=-QO+uhC1GFilNA+BJtb3T Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Esta parte del mensaje =?ISO-8859-1?Q?est=E1?= firmada digitalmente -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBAsDU09P6GbSlI+hkRAuCFAJ4lA3oWcBjcwek98gLKT04jL3i4JgCgxbKo opLHqN0nPg/wqyrUmi//rmo= =eMMH -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-QO+uhC1GFilNA+BJtb3T-- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun May 23 05:46:38 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (www.iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA07902 for ; Sun, 23 May 2004 05:46:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BRpV5-0003Gt-6I for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 05:42:35 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4N9gZlO012574 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 05:42:35 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BRpTl-0002xP-Tf for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 05:41:13 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA07830 for ; Sun, 23 May 2004 05:41:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BRpTi-0005EG-9T for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 05:41:10 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BRpSk-0004za-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 05:40:11 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BRpSM-0004l6-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 05:39:46 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BRpPh-0001m2-Kv; Sun, 23 May 2004 05:37:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BRpM4-0000cF-4G for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 05:33:16 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA07676 for ; Sun, 23 May 2004 05:33:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BRpM0-0003Cs-Mm for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 05:33:12 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BRpL2-0002y5-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 05:32:13 -0400 Received: from c3p0.cc.swin.edu.au ([136.186.1.30] helo=swin.edu.au) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BRpK7-0002UO-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 05:31:16 -0400 Received: from swin.edu.au (www.caia.swin.edu.au [136.186.229.16]) by swin.edu.au (8.9.3p2-20030918/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA944050; Sun, 23 May 2004 19:30:44 +1000 (EST) Message-ID: <40B06F43.3658B18D@swin.edu.au> From: grenville armitage Organization: Centre for Advanced Internet Architectures, Swinburne University of Technology X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.2 i386) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 0 General: Forum References: <20040522160016.11341.60605.Mailman@www1.ietf.org> <7FC9A772-AC71-11D8-A9CF-000393DC31DA@bloomington.in.us> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 19:30:43 +1000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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 > > One of the key things I'd want to see in an alternative forum would be > > support for expressing support for notable posts - omething like > > slashcode (what /. runs on). BB offers just polls. Support for what I A lot of good technical work's been done through ASCII email lists. What exactly is broken with email working group lists (as opposed to broken with the subject(s) of discussion) that will be solved by moving to web-based "forums" ? (E.g. "Expressions of support" should be in the form of articulated argument, not click-to-vote. This is handled today quite well by email.) cheers, gja -- Grenville Armitage http://caia.swin.edu.au I come from a LAN downunder. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun May 23 08:11:30 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA13865 for ; Sun, 23 May 2004 08:11:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BRrnP-0005sx-Eh for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 08:09:40 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4NC9dOr022621 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 08:09:39 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BRrmd-0005iJ-E2 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 08:08:51 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA13801 for ; Sun, 23 May 2004 08:08:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BRrmc-0004x7-2w for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 08:08:50 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BRrlf-0004gL-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 08:07:52 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BRrka-0004Kr-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 08:06:44 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BRriu-0004Zg-VH; Sun, 23 May 2004 08:05:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BRrdS-0003aT-DH for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 07:59:22 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA13625 for ; Sun, 23 May 2004 07:59:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BRrdR-0002hS-GQ for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 07:59:21 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BRrcS-0002SM-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 07:58:21 -0400 Received: from mail1.nber.org ([207.113.108.7]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BRrc6-0002DR-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 07:57:58 -0400 Received: from mail1 (root@localhost) by mail1.nber.org (8.12.8/8.12.8) with SMTP id i4NBvw7a015570 for ; Sun, 23 May 2004 07:57:58 -0400 Received: from nber5.nber.org (nber5.nber.org [207.113.108.99]) by mail1.nber.org (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i4NBvvjX015556; Sun, 23 May 2004 07:57:57 -0400 From: Daniel Feenberg To: Chris cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [ASRG] 0 - General, Reliability of Transport In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 07:57:56 -0400 (EDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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, 23 May 2004, Chris wrote: > > Is there a mention in our Charter about the *reliability of transport*? > > >From what I have seen over the months there is two camps within this group > > > 1/ Those that believe Spam should be stopped at any cost > 2/ Those that believe Spam should be countered but not at the expense of > losing possibly important messages > > I am quite solidly in the second group (am I alone). > A third group includes: 3/ Those who believe that mail should be delivered or rejected at the SMTP stage, but not discarded or returned to the envelope from. A demand that spam detection never make a type II error is hardly different from a demand that spam be tolerated. The 3rd group ensures that mail will not be lost, even if some is not delivered. It does rule out (1) spam detection at the MUA level, (2) spam detection as a low priority background process on the MTA and (3) the sending of discard notices to forged envelope from addresses. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun May 23 10:19:03 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (www.iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA18770 for ; Sun, 23 May 2004 10:19:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BRtnG-0002qc-6O for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 10:17:38 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4NEHcXp010942 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 10:17:38 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BRtjM-00028h-OF for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 10:13:36 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA18304 for ; Sun, 23 May 2004 10:13:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BRtjK-0006IS-Cl for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 10:13:34 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BRtiP-00061p-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 10:12:38 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BRtht-0005kx-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 10:12:05 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BRtfu-0001MP-Fe; Sun, 23 May 2004 10:10:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BRtaZ-0000RZ-Eg for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 10:04:31 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA17196 for ; Sun, 23 May 2004 10:04:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BRtaX-0003qu-C1 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 10:04:29 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BRtZY-0003Zb-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 10:03:28 -0400 Received: from pigeon.verisign.com ([65.205.251.71]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BRtYd-0003JR-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 10:02:31 -0400 Received: from mou1wnexc01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.53]) by pigeon.verisign.com (8.12.11/) with ESMTP id i4NE2Uba011194; Sun, 23 May 2004 07:02:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mou1wnexc01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) id ; Sun, 23 May 2004 07:02:30 -0700 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: Yakov Shafranovich , ASRG Subject: RE: [Asrg] Stepping down from the ASRG 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: Sun, 23 May 2004 07:02:27 -0700 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Thank you for all your efforts in this group. Before you took the group over it was on the verge of failure, it since revived and has made a significant contribution to addressing the spam problem. > -----Original Message----- > From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org]On > Behalf Of Yakov > Shafranovich > Sent: Friday, May 21, 2004 2:17 AM > To: ASRG > Subject: [Asrg] Stepping down from the ASRG > > > ASRG Members, > > I am writing to inform you that I am stepping down from my > position as a > co-chair of the ASRG. Unfortunately, my time constraints have > increased > to a point where it is impossible to me to continue ASRG work. > > It has been a very exciting and unique experience for me > personally, and > I want to thank all of you for contributing to it. I hope > that my small > contribution to the IETF and IRTF communities has made an > impact on this > group and the future of the Internet. > > Sincerely, > Yakov Shafranovich > Former co-chair, ASRG > > -- > Yakov Shafranovich / asrg shaftek.org > SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / research solidmatrix.com > "And this too shall come to pass" (Unknown) > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing 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 May 23 10:20:26 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (www.iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA18832 for ; Sun, 23 May 2004 10:20:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BRtoC-00030A-GI for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 10:18:39 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4NEIaJj011530 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 10:18:36 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BRtn3-0002lp-GP for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 10:17:25 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA18665 for ; Sun, 23 May 2004 10:17:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BRtn1-0007Mp-8Y for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 10:17:23 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BRtm2-000763-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 10:16:23 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BRtl8-0006dE-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 10:15:26 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BRtfv-0001Ml-Ph; Sun, 23 May 2004 10:10:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BRtab-0000Rb-R1 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 10:04:34 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA17201 for ; Sun, 23 May 2004 10:04:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BRtaZ-0003rE-K3 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 10:04:31 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BRtZa-0003Zw-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 10:03:30 -0400 Received: from pigeon.verisign.com ([65.205.251.71]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BRtYf-0003Jj-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 10:02:33 -0400 Received: from mou1wnexc01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (verisign.com [65.205.251.53]) by pigeon.verisign.com (8.12.11/) with ESMTP id i4NE2UbZ011194; Sun, 23 May 2004 07:02:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mou1wnexc01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) id ; Sun, 23 May 2004 07:02:30 -0700 Message-ID: From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: William Leibzon , Chris Cc: ASRG Subject: RE: [Asrg] 0 General: Forum 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: Sun, 23 May 2004 07:02:28 -0700 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 > > IETF requires work to be done through email lists as such web > forum format would not be acceptable. I have been told that the only restriction is that the work be done using the Internet. This is in any case the IRTF and the group could decide to work in any way the chairs thought useful. Phill _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun May 23 10:35:05 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (www.iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA19963 for ; Sun, 23 May 2004 10:35:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BRu17-0004zU-6K for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 10:31:57 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4NEVv2O019180 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 10:31:57 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BRu0K-0004pF-Ow for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 10:31:08 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA19232 for ; Sun, 23 May 2004 10:31:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BRu0H-0003DS-Vc for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 10:31:06 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BRtyh-0002nx-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 10:29:28 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BRtxn-0002XZ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 10:28:31 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BRtvO-0003vP-Sk; Sun, 23 May 2004 10:26:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BRtq0-0003Es-FB for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 10:20:28 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA18828 for ; Sun, 23 May 2004 10:20:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BRtpy-0000Nt-3y for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 10:20:26 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BRtp4-00007E-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 10:19:31 -0400 Received: from newgiles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ([205.150.200.131] helo=mail.nitros9.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BRtoD-0007eQ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 10:18:37 -0400 Received: from newgiles.nitros9.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.nitros9.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEC1416E1C for ; Sun, 23 May 2004 10:24:20 -0400 (EDT) From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: Spam send/receive ratio In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 23 May 2004 11:03:10 +0930." Message-Id: <20040523142420.DEC1416E1C@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, 23 May 2004 10:24:20 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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: > Perhaps you could quieten this critic if you explain how Mail Volume can be > used to *reliably* detect spam. Did you read my previous messages? > I have tried my best to explain why it would fail. surely a counter point is > required at this stage. Did you read my previous messages? > Anti Spam systems that chuck out the baby with the bathwater should not be > considered as acceptable(IMHO). Did you read my previous messages? Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun May 23 10:51:06 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (www.iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA21069 for ; Sun, 23 May 2004 10:51:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BRuIk-0008Qb-Rw for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 10:50:10 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4NEoArF032391 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 10:50:10 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BRuH6-0008CL-DA for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 10:48:28 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA20959 for ; Sun, 23 May 2004 10:48:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BRuH3-00010x-SJ for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 10:48:25 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BRuGB-0000kw-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 10:47:32 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BRuFL-0000Rn-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 10:46:39 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BRuDm-0007Qd-Cr; Sun, 23 May 2004 10:45:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BRuBE-0006vs-J9 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 10:42:24 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA20356 for ; Sun, 23 May 2004 10:42:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BRuBC-0006aI-1A for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 10:42:22 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BRu9v-0006EO-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 10:41:04 -0400 Received: from mail.ncsa.uiuc.edu ([141.142.2.28]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BRu8t-0005p5-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 10:39:59 -0400 X-Envelope-From: byurcik@ncsa.uiuc.edu X-Envelope-To: Received: from pecos.ncsa.uiuc.edu (pecos.ncsa.uiuc.edu [141.142.4.6]) by mail.ncsa.uiuc.edu (8.11.7/8.11.7) with SMTP id i4NEdwx32666 for ; Sun, 23 May 2004 09:39:58 -0500 From: Bill Yurcik To: asrg@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <20040523142420.DEC1416E1C@mail.nitros9.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-NCSA-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the help@ncsa.uiuc.edu for more information X-NCSA-MailScanner: Found to be clean Subject: [Asrg] available Internet metrics for spam security Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 09:39:57 -0500 (CDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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 am looking for Internet metrics on spam but with a security focus such as number of open relays currently detected, current number/type of malware propagating via spam, port activity via spammers, or anything else that may be suggested as an indicator of spam security. I am especially interested in spam security trends. I know this may be naive but I am new to the list and thought it wouldn't hurt to ask as a newbie. - Bill Yurcik NCSA Security Research _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun May 23 12:53:25 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA24838 for ; Sun, 23 May 2004 12:53:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BRwAH-00015U-QA for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 12:49:33 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4NGnXed004176 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 12:49:33 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BRw9K-0000sD-5j for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 12:48:34 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA24707 for ; Sun, 23 May 2004 12:48:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BRw9I-0001RL-FD for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 12:48:32 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BRw8N-0001By-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 12:47:35 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BRw81-0000wH-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 12:47:13 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BRw3w-0008Ti-WA; Sun, 23 May 2004 12:43:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BRw0c-0007ye-HM for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 12:39:34 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA24361 for ; Sun, 23 May 2004 12:39:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BRw0a-0006gO-QY for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 12:39:32 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BRvyd-0006F9-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 12:37:32 -0400 Received: from sparkle.rodents.montreal.qc.ca ([216.46.5.7] ident=kgKCCMCESmyhmrKQmVUz4ll9ysiaNdDpZLS5fEJIRSf) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BRvyA-0005zQ-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 12:37:02 -0400 Received: (from mouse@localhost) by Sparkle.Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA05015; Sun, 23 May 2004 12:36:55 -0400 (EDT) From: der Mouse Message-Id: <200405231636.MAA05015@Sparkle.Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Erik-Conspiracy: There is no Conspiracy - and if there were I wouldn't be part of it anyway. To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: Spam send/receive ratio In-Reply-To: References: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 12:28:59 -0400 (EDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit >>> [...] the statistics of mail volume [...] > alone its useless, combined with other "triggers" its still useless. I disagree. If I were setting up my ideal ISP, one thing it would include is watching the outgoing email volume from each account. A sudden spike would cause throttling and flagging for human attention. The human could then reopen the throttle, block the account, check with the owner, whatever. "Useless"? Maybe. I haven't had the luxury of being able to try it. But I suspect it wouldn't be. As Alan said, did you actually read the message you're responding to? It looks more as though you picked out one point, carried it to an extreme not supported by the message you took it from, and then argued against that extreme. /~\ The ASCII der Mouse \ / Ribbon Campaign X Against HTML mouse@rodents.montreal.qc.ca / \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun May 23 13:05:09 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA25235 for ; Sun, 23 May 2004 13:05:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BRwIB-00024F-N0 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 12:57:43 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4NGvhpV007942 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 12:57:43 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BRwDC-0001bz-IR for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 12:52:34 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA24827 for ; Sun, 23 May 2004 12:52:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BRwDA-0002UZ-NQ for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 12:52:32 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BRwCF-0002Ea-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 12:51:36 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BRwBa-0001yQ-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 12:50:54 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BRw9m-0000xZ-GL; Sun, 23 May 2004 12:49:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BRw7m-0000eN-8w for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 12:46:58 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA24673 for ; Sun, 23 May 2004 12:46:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BRw7k-0000vT-J9 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 12:46:56 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BRw6v-0000eg-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 12:46:06 -0400 Received: from sparkle.rodents.montreal.qc.ca ([216.46.5.7] ident=SW6gPtPJLzHYmyzwiO3l2CsIY0SxqbeAjsR5g2yVy4i) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BRw63-0000MK-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 12:45:11 -0400 Received: (from mouse@localhost) by Sparkle.Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA05041; Sun, 23 May 2004 12:45:08 -0400 (EDT) From: der Mouse Message-Id: <200405231645.MAA05041@Sparkle.Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Erik-Conspiracy: There is no Conspiracy - and if there were I wouldn't be part of it anyway. To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [ASRG] 0 - General, Reliability of Transport In-Reply-To: References: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 12:37:08 -0400 (EDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > From what I have seen over the months there is two camps within this group > 1/ Those that believe Spam should be stopped at any cost > 2/ Those that believe Spam should be countered but not at the expense > of losing possibly important messages > I am quite solidly in the second group (am I alone). I doubt there is anyone here in camp 1; they can just turn off their SMTP servers and go home, their goal achieved. (There may be some who _say_ they're in camp 1, but if they haven't just shut off their mailers, they apparently don't actually mean it.) As Daniel pointed out, there's a third group, those who believe that spam should be SMTP-level rejected, never silently dropped, thereby avoiding losing ham. I hold myself to belong to this group. There's a fourth group, too, those who believe spam should be countered to the point at which the chance of the defenses mistaking a ham for a spam is less than the chance of a human, deleting spam, making the same mistake. I hold myself to belong to this group as well. /~\ The ASCII der Mouse \ / Ribbon Campaign X Against HTML mouse@rodents.montreal.qc.ca / \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun May 23 22:24:13 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (www.iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA20685 for ; Sun, 23 May 2004 22:24:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BS52t-0007Fr-S3 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 22:18:32 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4O2IVBk027887 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 22:18:31 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BS4xX-0006Bt-QC for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 22:12:59 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA20303 for ; Sun, 23 May 2004 22:12:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BS4xU-0002Lc-Fl for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 22:12:56 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BS4wa-00025Z-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 22:12:01 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BS4vf-0001pl-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 22:11:03 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BS4nt-0004IY-FD; Sun, 23 May 2004 22:03:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BS4ju-0003pH-94 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 21:58:54 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA19841 for ; Sun, 23 May 2004 21:58:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BS4jr-0006OO-9J for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 21:58:51 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BS4it-00068L-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 21:57:51 -0400 Received: from mail3.sa.chariot.net.au ([203.87.94.14]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BS4hs-0005dz-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 21:56:48 -0400 Received: from mail.chariot.net.au (mail.chariot.net.au [203.87.95.38]) by mail3.sa.chariot.net.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id 349D4A481E; Mon, 24 May 2004 11:26:10 +0930 (CST) Received: from rebel (ppp137-78.lns1.adl2.internode.on.net [150.101.137.78]) by mail.chariot.net.au (Postfix) with SMTP id 3C4825F760; Mon, 24 May 2004 11:26:09 +0930 (CST) From: "Chris" To: "der Mouse" Cc: Subject: RE: [Asrg] Re: Spam send/receive ratio 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 V6.00.2800.1409 In-Reply-To: <200405231636.MAA05015@Sparkle.Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA> Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 11:25:41 +0930 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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 Have you read the thread or just picked out something to comment on? > >>> [...] the statistics of mail volume [...] > > alone its useless, combined with other "triggers" its still useless. > > I disagree. If I were setting up my ideal ISP, one thing it would > include is watching the outgoing email volume from each account. A > sudden spike would cause throttling and flagging for human attention. > The human could then reopen the throttle, block the account, check with > the owner, whatever. If you had read the thread you would have seen this is exactly what I said it was at most useable for. and in fact went on to outline how this would be applied (at Alans request) which included an automated turing test to allow the sender to confirm whether or not they in fact intended to send that quantity of mail. This rather lengthy explanation was only two or three mailings ago. unfortunately at the receiving end mail volumes is in fact *useless*. It fails for the reasons I have stated in this thread. Regardles of Alans protestations to the contrary he has not outlined how it would/could work. only drawn references to statistics and not outlined how those statistics would and could be applied. > > "Useless"? Maybe. I haven't had the luxury of being able to try it. > But I suspect it wouldn't be. > Read the thread you will at least see why I think it is useless. No-one has yet come up with a counter point or example of how it could work. > > As Alan said, did you actually read the message you're responding to? > It looks more as though you picked out one point, carried it to an > extreme not supported by the message you took it from, and then argued > against that extreme. > Quite the opposite but I did leave out what had been gone over before. It seems you only read Alans mail and took his word for it. I can only respond on what needs to be responded about. WE ALL skip portions of messages we don't feel are necessary to respond to. If we didnt we would spend our days responding to longer and longer messages and nothing would be achieved. Not that I am saying anything is actually being achieved. Disappointingly it is not. Chris > -----Original Message----- > From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of der > Mouse > Sent: Monday, 24 May 2004 1:59 AM > To: asrg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: Spam send/receive ratio > > > >>> [...] the statistics of mail volume [...] > > alone its useless, combined with other "triggers" its still useless. > > I disagree. If I were setting up my ideal ISP, one thing it would > include is watching the outgoing email volume from each account. A > sudden spike would cause throttling and flagging for human attention. > The human could then reopen the throttle, block the account, check with > the owner, whatever. > > "Useless"? Maybe. I haven't had the luxury of being able to try it. > But I suspect it wouldn't be. > > As Alan said, did you actually read the message you're responding to? > It looks more as though you picked out one point, carried it to an > extreme not supported by the message you took it from, and then argued > against that extreme. > > /~\ The ASCII der Mouse > \ / Ribbon Campaign > X Against HTML mouse@rodents.montreal.qc.ca > / \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing 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 May 23 22:27:57 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (www.iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA20771 for ; Sun, 23 May 2004 22:27:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BS55v-0007Y8-MN for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 22:21:39 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4O2Ldbq029016 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 22:21:39 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BS4zS-0006bt-S1 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 22:14:58 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA20370 for ; Sun, 23 May 2004 22:14:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BS4zP-0002qv-K6 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 22:14:55 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BS4yS-0002bg-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 22:13:57 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BS4xg-0002MW-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 22:13:08 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BS4nu-0004Ih-0o; Sun, 23 May 2004 22:03:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BS4ju-0003qT-Up for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 21:58:57 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA19844 for ; Sun, 23 May 2004 21:58:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BS4jr-0006OT-Tm for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 21:58:52 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BS4it-00068T-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 21:57:52 -0400 Received: from mail3.sa.chariot.net.au ([203.87.94.14]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BS4hs-0005e0-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 21:56:48 -0400 Received: from mail.chariot.net.au (mail.chariot.net.au [203.87.95.38]) by mail3.sa.chariot.net.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2D54A482C; Mon, 24 May 2004 11:26:11 +0930 (CST) Received: from rebel (ppp137-78.lns1.adl2.internode.on.net [150.101.137.78]) by mail.chariot.net.au (Postfix) with SMTP id 681925F779; Mon, 24 May 2004 11:26:10 +0930 (CST) From: "Chris" To: "Alan DeKok" Cc: Subject: RE: [Asrg] Re: Spam send/receive ratio 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 V6.00.2800.1409 In-Reply-To: <20040523142420.DEC1416E1C@mail.nitros9.org> Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 11:25:42 +0930 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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,LINES_OF_YELLING autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > Perhaps you could quieten this critic if you explain how Mail > Volume can be > > used to *reliably* detect spam. > > Did you read my previous messages? > Perhaps there is more to this thread than I have. the earliest copy of the thread that I have is the one I originally responded to. If you have an earlier item which outlined how mail volumes could be adequately used I would appreciate a copy of it. IN REVIEW... > You're misunderstanding statistics, correlation, causation, > overlapping sets, and inverse problems. You're not alone. These are > difficult problems for anyone. > Criminals are more likely to have tattoos than the average person, > but not all criminals have tattoos, and not all tattooed people are > criminals. This is as close to an explanation of how it would work that I have seen from you. apart from being condescending it does not explain how such theories/methods could actually be applied. THIS... >> Dumb MTA's may closely monitor the list, due to the volume of >> traffic coming from it. However, there are ways for the MTA to tell >> that the traffic is NOT spam: >> - users at the MTA's domain send messages to the list >> - so the MTA communicates with the list's MX's >> - lists are long-lived, as opposed to spamvertized addresses >> - little spam comes from lists Is your only other explanation. It seems to discuss mailing lists such as the ASRG. as it was not relevant and I believe a misunderstanding as to what I meant by the word "list" I pointed out this miscommunication and moved on. But lets look at it anyway. >> Dumb MTA's may closely monitor the list, due to the volume of >> traffic coming from it. Who's dumb MTA does this? should every ISP watch every mail list in case a user joins it? If not why can't a spammer put up false "authoritive list monitor" for the list they want to spam to. >> - users at the MTA's domain send messages to the list So the MTA MUST TRACK every outgoing message and remember its destination. for how long? >> - so the MTA communicates with the list's MX's I assume you mean after a message is received. and it compares it to the sent mail for this reciever to see if they sent to it. How would one ever join a list. the initial mail would always be dropped because the user hasn't sent to the list before. (I joined the ASRG from a web page, Didn't you?) >> - lists are long-lived, as opposed to spamvertized addresses Irrelevant. A new list is not long lived, its new. >> - little spam comes from lists Very true. and easily blocked by the end user. Hardly worth all the resources you are suggesting throwing at them and where was the "volume watch" in all of this? remember we are talking about a "Volume Spike" as the telltale sign most discussion lists (such as the ASRG's) send out a fairly consistant volume roughly equal to the number of members. AND THEN THERE WAS THIS... One more item I didnt respond to I didn't think it was a reasonable statement so I didn't. But I will now. >> Can you please explain why you're arguing that I believe high-volume >> to be a near-perfect indicator of spam? I just can't understand how >> you come to that decision. Where in any of my mailings did I say this? "near perfect indicator" I never at any stage said any such thing, or even came close to it. I only ever said that the use of mail volumes as any sort of indicator is flawed. Even combined with as many other indicators as you want to throw at it I don't believe it has any use. I EVEN GAVE EXAMPLES OF WHEN IT WOULD FAIL eg: the special deal for software to my clients. It has all the hallmarks of spam using many common indicators and if you added the volume check (even if that only accounted for 10 percentage points of the test) it may push the filter into the spam range. as the list is a double opt in list this is quite obviously a false positive. Do not attempt to twist my words into some sort of personal attack. Chris > -----Original Message----- > From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of Alan > DeKok > Sent: Sunday, 23 May 2004 11:54 PM > To: asrg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: Spam send/receive ratio > > > "Chris" wrote: > > Perhaps you could quieten this critic if you explain how Mail > Volume can be > > used to *reliably* detect spam. > > Did you read my previous messages? > > > I have tried my best to explain why it would fail. surely a > counter point is > > required at this stage. > > Did you read my previous messages? > > > Anti Spam systems that chuck out the baby with the bathwater > should not be > > considered as acceptable(IMHO). > > Did you read my previous messages? > > Alan DeKok. > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun May 23 22:28:28 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (www.iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA20808 for ; Sun, 23 May 2004 22:28:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BS56y-0007kK-TV for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 22:22:45 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4O2MiS2029771 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 22:22:44 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BS51L-0006zC-CN for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 22:16:55 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA20390 for ; Sun, 23 May 2004 22:16:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BS51H-0003O8-VI for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 22:16:52 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BS50J-00036K-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 22:15:51 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BS4zI-0002lV-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 22:14:48 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BS4nu-0004Ip-Mn; Sun, 23 May 2004 22:03:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BS4jv-0003qY-HW for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 21:58:55 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA19847 for ; Sun, 23 May 2004 21:58:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BS4js-0006OY-IO for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 21:58:52 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BS4iv-00068b-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 21:57:53 -0400 Received: from mail3.sa.chariot.net.au ([203.87.94.14]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BS4hs-0005e1-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 21:56:48 -0400 Received: from mail.chariot.net.au (mail.chariot.net.au [203.87.95.38]) by mail3.sa.chariot.net.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FC76A4830; Mon, 24 May 2004 11:26:12 +0930 (CST) Received: from rebel (ppp137-78.lns1.adl2.internode.on.net [150.101.137.78]) by mail.chariot.net.au (Postfix) with SMTP id A26B05F739; Mon, 24 May 2004 11:26:11 +0930 (CST) From: "Chris" To: "Daniel Feenberg" Cc: Subject: RE: [ASRG] 0 - General, Reliability of Transport 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 V6.00.2800.1409 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: Mon, 24 May 2004 11:25:43 +0930 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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 am quite solidly in the second group (am I alone). > > > > A third group includes: > > 3/ Those who believe that mail should be delivered or rejected at the SMTP > stage, but not discarded or returned to the envelope from. Initial filtering CAN and should be done at the SMTP level such as DomainKeys SPF etc. the assumption is forged return addresses = spam. thats an acceptable assumption (domain validation must also account for forwarding). I also believe that virus filtering be added at the SMTP stage. I received over 200 viruses today alone. Other filtering can be at the SMTP stage to keep blatant spam off the network. > but not discarded or So who holds the mail if its not discarded and for what purpose? > or returned to the envelope from. Failing to return the mail helps stop spammers from probing the system, it also prevents legitimate senders from knowing their mail failed to go through. Spammers will always be able to probe the system by simply setting up some test accounts so nothing is gained at all. > > A demand that spam detection never make a type II error is hardly > different from a demand that spam be tolerated. The 3rd group ensures that > mail will not be lost, even if some is not delivered. It does rule out (1) > spam detection at the MUA level, (2) spam detection as a low priority > background process on the MTA and (3) the sending of discard notices to > forged envelope from addresses. What you are describing is group 1. (1) To rule out spam detection at the MUA is to say "we know better than you" to the recipient. so is firmly group 1. (2) Spam detection has to become priority at all steps MUA and MTA, currently its mostly at the MUA level some of that burden should be lifted. (3) With Domain Keys or SPF (etc.) forged return addresses are not an issue. If my machine has been zombified and is sending out spam I would WANT TO KNOW so I can fix it. Even if domain validation is only good to the ISP level if I start receiving spam alerts I can ask my ISP whats going on and they can use their logs to trace the real culprit. either way the source is quickly identified. Both the group 1 and group 2 camps are broad in their implementation. its the overriding emphasis that concerns me. I personally see group 1 as a holier than thou approach. (no offense intended) but it assumes that the filter writer knows better than the end user as to whats good for them. Chris _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun May 23 22:29:55 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (www.iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA20886 for ; Sun, 23 May 2004 22:29:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BS58T-0007sx-05 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 22:24:17 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4O2OGao030300 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 22:24:16 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BS53M-0007GN-QB for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 22:19:00 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA20526 for ; Sun, 23 May 2004 22:18:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BS53J-0003vh-LN for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 22:18:57 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BS52Q-0003gH-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 22:18:03 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BS51n-0003QW-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 22:17:23 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BS4nv-0004Iy-81; Sun, 23 May 2004 22:03:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BS4jw-0003qa-7z for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 21:58:56 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA19850 for ; Sun, 23 May 2004 21:58:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BS4jt-0006Od-7M for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 21:58:53 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BS4iv-00068j-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 21:57:54 -0400 Received: from mail3.sa.chariot.net.au ([203.87.94.14]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BS4hs-0005e2-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sun, 23 May 2004 21:56:48 -0400 Received: from mail.chariot.net.au (mail.chariot.net.au [203.87.95.38]) by mail3.sa.chariot.net.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B534A3D66; Mon, 24 May 2004 11:26:13 +0930 (CST) Received: from rebel (ppp137-78.lns1.adl2.internode.on.net [150.101.137.78]) by mail.chariot.net.au (Postfix) with SMTP id 88A125F742; Mon, 24 May 2004 11:26:12 +0930 (CST) From: "Chris" To: "der Mouse" Cc: Subject: RE: [ASRG] 0 - General, Reliability of Transport 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 V6.00.2800.1409 In-Reply-To: <200405231645.MAA05041@Sparkle.Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA> Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 11:25:44 +0930 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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 > > > From what I have seen over the months there is two camps within > this group > > > 1/ Those that believe Spam should be stopped at any cost > > 2/ Those that believe Spam should be countered but not at the expense > > of losing possibly important messages > > > I am quite solidly in the second group (am I alone). > > I doubt there is anyone here in camp 1; they can just turn off their > SMTP servers and go home, their goal achieved. (There may be some who > _say_ they're in camp 1, but if they haven't just shut off their > mailers, they apparently don't actually mean it.) I disagree some seem to agree with RTBL's and that is a camp 1 initiative > > As Daniel pointed out, there's a third group, those who believe that > spam should be SMTP-level rejected, never silently dropped, thereby > avoiding losing ham. I hold myself to belong to this group. See my response to Daniel > > There's a fourth group, too, those who believe spam should be countered > to the point at which the chance of the defenses mistaking a ham for a > spam is less than the chance of a human, deleting spam, making the same > mistake. I hold myself to belong to this group as well. Well lets call this 1a, You are saying drop all spam that reasonably *looks* like spam because the user may confuse it as spam as well and drop it anyway. Shouldn't that grey area spam be passed on to the user for final determination (i.e. camp 2). how do you know whether or not an end user reads all his spam to make sure he doesnt miss anything important. I do. For me all obvious spam gets dropped. but I cannot afford to drop an email from a customer just because that customer says "hi there" in the subject. With source validation (DK,SPF etc) I would not need to worry about scanning as many spams as I currently have to, as this would be done at the SMTP level. Chris _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon May 24 01:42:39 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA29107 for ; Mon, 24 May 2004 01:42:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BS89S-0002GS-AC for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 24 May 2004 01:37:31 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4O5bU0c008698 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 24 May 2004 01:37:30 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BS87M-0001ik-Gr for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 24 May 2004 01:35:20 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA28846 for ; Mon, 24 May 2004 01:35:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BS87J-0002zY-6M for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 24 May 2004 01:35:17 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BS86V-0002iv-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 24 May 2004 01:34:28 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BS85e-0002QF-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 24 May 2004 01:33:34 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BS7vT-0000HH-4J; Mon, 24 May 2004 01:23:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BS7pp-00080S-E8 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 24 May 2004 01:17:13 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA28073 for ; Mon, 24 May 2004 01:17:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BS7pm-0005ic-6b for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 24 May 2004 01:17:10 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BS7ot-0005Rr-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 24 May 2004 01:16:16 -0400 Received: from mail3.sa.chariot.net.au ([203.87.94.14]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BS7oQ-00059M-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 24 May 2004 01:15:46 -0400 Received: from mail.chariot.net.au (mail.chariot.net.au [203.87.95.38]) by mail3.sa.chariot.net.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06E20A3F73; Mon, 24 May 2004 14:45:15 +0930 (CST) Received: from rebel (ppp137-78.lns1.adl2.internode.on.net [150.101.137.78]) by mail.chariot.net.au (Postfix) with SMTP id 3EC9A5F778; Mon, 24 May 2004 14:45:14 +0930 (CST) From: "Chris" To: "grenville armitage" Cc: Subject: RE: [Asrg] Re: 0 General: Forum 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 V6.00.2800.1409 In-Reply-To: <40B06F43.3658B18D@swin.edu.au> Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 14:44:47 +0930 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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 Unfortunately I am saddled with MS outlook and its threading is woefull. I get two distinct threads for the same subject line Its not really threading but grouping. Being able to group discussions logically seems like a good idea to me. For example discussions on sender identification can be grouped together and then SPF, DK and others split into sub groups Filtering technology can be another forum, etc. etc. Logically the top levels would be the six top discussion levels already designated. Also notifications are better dealt with. I for example can be notified whenever a comment is made about DK but not receive a notification about SPF, but I can sign on to SPF at will. Notification are only sent once, not one for every time someone makes a comment. (less mail traffic) As far as Polling goes I hadn't even thought about it. but phpBB handles "articulated polling" quite well if a poll is started it is easy to add comments for and against. although to my mind polling would be done after all arguments are placed Sub commitees can be easily established with multiple levels of permissions. So say a sub committee is put together to flesh out NSMPT (new smtp), other list members may be barred frome viewing the discussions altogether, or perhaps allowed "read only" access. All these things can be done now (more or less), I just like the fact it is all in the same place and consistant. But I think John has the final say, and it appears to me he has decided against any change. So Be It. Regards Chris > -----Original Message----- > From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of > grenville armitage > Sent: Sunday, 23 May 2004 7:01 PM > To: asrg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 0 General: Forum > > > > > > One of the key things I'd want to see in an alternative forum would be > > > support for expressing support for notable posts - omething like > > > slashcode (what /. runs on). BB offers just polls. Support > for what I > > A lot of good technical work's been done through ASCII email > lists. What exactly > is broken with email working group lists (as opposed to broken > with the subject(s) > of discussion) that will be solved by moving to web-based > "forums" ? (E.g. "Expressions > of support" should be in the form of articulated argument, not > click-to-vote. This is > handled today quite well by email.) > > cheers, > gja > -- > Grenville Armitage > http://caia.swin.edu.au > I come from a LAN downunder. > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing 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 May 24 02:23:16 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA14170 for ; Mon, 24 May 2004 02:23:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BS8qX-0000td-CD for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 24 May 2004 02:22:01 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4O6M19N003445 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 24 May 2004 02:22:01 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BS8j9-0007pz-4k for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 24 May 2004 02:14:23 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA13292 for ; Mon, 24 May 2004 02:14:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BS8j5-00068b-FL for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 24 May 2004 02:14:19 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BS8gu-0005bN-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 24 May 2004 02:12:05 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BS8fz-0005Kg-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 24 May 2004 02:11:07 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BS8XP-00053m-Gv; Mon, 24 May 2004 02:02:15 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BS8SX-0004Gz-3q for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 24 May 2004 01:57:13 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA29595 for ; Mon, 24 May 2004 01:57:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BS8ST-0001Ed-T3 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 24 May 2004 01:57:09 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BS8RZ-0000xt-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 24 May 2004 01:56:14 -0400 Received: from sparkle.rodents.montreal.qc.ca ([216.46.5.7] ident=cJDN5yJcpCS3oGbYcbW3Rfab2XYyKyYn59xU5tUAjGj) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BS8R6-0000hB-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 24 May 2004 01:55:44 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by Sparkle.Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA (8.8.8/8.8.8) id BAA17430; Mon, 24 May 2004 01:55:39 -0400 (EDT) From: der Mouse Message-Id: <200405240555.BAA17430@Sparkle.Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Erik-Conspiracy: There is no Conspiracy - and if there were I wouldn't be part of it anyway. To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [ASRG] 0 - General, Reliability of Transport In-Reply-To: References: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 01:30:17 -0400 (EDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit [Replying to two different messages here, but both from "Chris" and in the same thread.] [Chris (replying to me)] >> I doubt there is anyone here in camp 1; they can just turn off their >> SMTP servers and go home, their goal achieved. (There may be some >> who _say_ they're in camp 1, but if they haven't just shut off their >> mailers, they apparently don't actually mean it.) > I disagree some seem to agree with RTBL's and that is a camp 1 > initiative Let's go back and check out just what camp 1 is. >>> 1/ Those that believe Spam should be stopped at any cost You appear to be confusing "at any cost" with something more like "at a cost I think is unreasonable". [six lines quoted from Chris replying to "Daniel Feenberg" ] > What you are describing is group 1. > (1) To rule out spam detection at the MUA is to say "we know better > than you" to the recipient. so is firmly group 1. > I personally see group 1 as a holier than thou approach. [...] it > assumes that the filter writer knows better than the end user as to > whats good for them. This is not an issue of which camp someone falls into, but rather an issue of whether the mail admin chooses to give users control. _Every_ spam filtering technique has false positives - yes, even DK, SPF, etc; people make configuration mistakes and software has bugs, even if the procedures are theoretically perfect (and while I don't believe they are, I can't cite examples off the top of my head). Strictly, thus, camp 2 ("Those that believe Spam should be countered but not at the expense of losing possibly important messages") must do no filtering at all, including human JHD filtering, because any such filtering will eventually lose a "possibly important message". (Such people will presumably be taking non-filtering tacks on spam, such as legal approaches; while such things have value, I'm not sure this is the place for discussing them.) "At any cost" means "at any cost", and the simplest, easiest, and most effective way to stop spam is to stop all email. There, problem solved - for people who really do mean "at any cost". RTBLs are not camp 1. They are for people who think some costs, like dropping all email, are too high, but who also finds find the costs of not risking any ham stoppage to be too high as well, and are trying to find a point that stops enough spam to keep them happy at a low enough cost to keep them happy. That they find that balance point on the side of rejecting or dropping more mail than you do does not mean that they want to stop spam "at any cost". Just at a cost you find unacceptable. >> As Daniel pointed out, there's a third group, those who believe that >> spam should be SMTP-level rejected, never silently dropped, thereby >> avoiding losing ham. I hold myself to belong to this group. [see below for why I quoted these three lines in full] >> There's a fourth group, too, those who believe spam should be >> countered to the point at which the chance of the defenses mistaking >> a ham for a spam is less than the chance of a human, deleting spam, >> making the same mistake. I hold myself to belong to this group as >> well. > Well lets call this 1a, You are saying drop all spam that ... No. Go back and reread my "third group" (this is why I quoted it in full above). I am arguing for dropping _nothing_. Reject, or accept and deliver; do not drop. (And I believe that's what my filters do.) In view of my "fourth group"'s description, I can see how you made this mistake, because I was comparing the chance of ham being _lost_ due to human error to the chance of ham being misidentified as spam, and thus dropped, bounced, or whatever, due to software tripping on ham. Unless all identified-as-spam is silently dropped, contrary to my position (per my self-identification with my "third group"), these are not really as comparable as I made them sound; my apologies for the confusion. /~\ The ASCII der Mouse \ / Ribbon Campaign X Against HTML mouse@rodents.montreal.qc.ca / \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon May 24 05:58:30 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (www.iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA23560 for ; Mon, 24 May 2004 05:58:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BSC4w-0002cV-Nh for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 24 May 2004 05:49:06 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4O9n6hY010065 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 24 May 2004 05:49:06 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BSC0P-0001wb-2a for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 24 May 2004 05:44:25 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA22971 for ; Mon, 24 May 2004 05:44:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BSC0L-0005Jf-KL for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 24 May 2004 05:44:21 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BSBzG-0004zn-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 24 May 2004 05:43:14 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BSByJ-0004ft-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 24 May 2004 05:42:15 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BSBka-00086P-Fh; Mon, 24 May 2004 05:28:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BSBez-00078v-3e for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 24 May 2004 05:22:19 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA22073 for ; Mon, 24 May 2004 05:22:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BSBeu-0006M3-OK for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 24 May 2004 05:22:12 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BSBdv-00063j-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 24 May 2004 05:21:11 -0400 Received: from main.gmane.org ([80.91.224.249]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BSBco-0005V1-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 24 May 2004 05:20:02 -0400 Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1BSBcj-0001aa-00 for ; Mon, 24 May 2004 11:19:57 +0200 Received: from client-81-107-204-48.glfd.adsl.virgin.net ([81.107.204.48]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 24 May 2004 11:19:57 +0200 Received: from adam by client-81-107-204-48.glfd.adsl.virgin.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 24 May 2004 11:19:57 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: asrg@ietf.org From: Adam Back Lines: 37 Message-ID: <40B1BDED.6080203@cypherspace.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: client-81-107-204-48.glfd.adsl.virgin.net User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4.1) Gecko/20031114 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 0.76.8.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] Re: 3. Proof-of-work analysis Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 10:18:37 +0100 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Richard Clayton wrote: > we're grateful (albeit a little embarrassed) for the consideration given > to one of our figures by Ted Wobber (MS Research) who has pointed out a > tenfold error in our sum involving an 0.0023% response rate :-( Well that's a little better. For hashcash. Of course it would still be desirable to have a factor 1000 margin of safety or similar. > we'll be revising our text accordingly -- since this will weaken our > statements about the "economic argument" ... though it does _not_ affect > our analysis based on use of zombies I'm wondering about the zombie argument. So clearly it is valid, spammers can and do obtain zombies through viruses etc. However it is somewhat demanding of a threat model on any anti-spam system to say that it should remain secure if the spammers 0wn some significant fraction of user machines. For example consider the following anti-spam systems and the effect of owning the machines: - signature based / verified sender -- broken, spammer just installs malware on zombie which abuses the users credential - white-list based -- broken (more limited perhaps can only reach the set of users who have white-listed the zombie owners) spammer harvests white-listed pairs of addresses and optionally sends from the same zombie harvested from. (You see this with the virus payload that sends from random pairs from address book -- where you frequently receive virus propagation and/or spam mail from people who's email addresses your recognize.) likely similar problems apply to most other anti-spam approaches if the person you are defending against 0wns lots of machines. Adam _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon May 24 08:01:00 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (www.iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA29774 for ; Mon, 24 May 2004 08:01:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BSE1a-0002GB-OM for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 24 May 2004 07:53:47 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4OBrknU008687 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 24 May 2004 07:53:46 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BSDjq-00005m-4Q for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 24 May 2004 07:35:26 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA28469 for ; Mon, 24 May 2004 07:35:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BSDjp-0001xO-GY for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 24 May 2004 07:35:25 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BSDiz-0001ea-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 24 May 2004 07:34:33 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BSDiZ-0001Kd-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 24 May 2004 07:34:07 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BSDZm-0007Jc-HC; Mon, 24 May 2004 07:25:02 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BSDLn-0005e1-NP for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 24 May 2004 07:10:35 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA26883 for ; Mon, 24 May 2004 07:10:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BSDLj-0001P3-8t for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 24 May 2004 07:10:31 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BSDKp-000147-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 24 May 2004 07:09:36 -0400 Received: from sokol.elan.net ([216.151.192.200]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BSDJz-0000iU-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 24 May 2004 07:08:43 -0400 Received: from sokol.elan.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.11/8.12.5) with ESMTP id i4OCRc0F016401; Mon, 24 May 2004 05:27:38 -0700 Received: from localhost (william@localhost) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.11/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id i4OCRbkG016397; Mon, 24 May 2004 05:27:37 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: sokol.elan.net: william owned process doing -bs From: "william(at)elan.net" To: Adam Back cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 3. Proof-of-work analysis In-Reply-To: <40B1BDED.6080203@cypherspace.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: Mon, 24 May 2004 05:27:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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 While I agree with you that "owned" machines is a security problem due to the fact that it gives ability to fully impersonate that user, its also that fact that makes it easy to tell which machine is "owned" and likely embarasses user enough to clean it up quickly (rather then current zombie emails coming from unknown joe user on dynamic ip). Spammers actually already started using user settings setup in outlook or mozilla on zombie computer to relay authenticated spam emails from zombie infected machines though ISP mail server, but that does not seem to provide good results because number of emails they can send is often limited as ISPs would notice if thousands emails started showing up and authenticated emails often lead to showing up identify of zombie user and that leads to quicker repair or disconnection of the infected pc. So current use of zombies is primarily based on the notion that you can send 10,000 - 100,000 emails from that zombie pc in only few minutes and then move on to another computer and primary there is ability to send very high number of messages through that computer and avoid that being flagged by ISP. Additionally the fact is while number of zombies seems too high, if you count it as percent of total hosts it would be well less then 0.001%. As such using ONLY zombie PCs to send emails to whitelists users will likely not provide any signifacant reach to spammers. On Mon, 24 May 2004, Adam Back wrote: > I'm wondering about the zombie argument. So clearly it is valid, > spammers can and do obtain zombies through viruses etc. However it is > somewhat demanding of a threat model on any anti-spam system to say that > it should remain secure if the spammers 0wn some significant fraction of > user machines. > > For example consider the following anti-spam systems and the effect of > owning the machines: > > - signature based / verified sender -- broken, spammer just installs > malware on zombie which abuses the users credential > > - white-list based -- broken (more limited perhaps can only reach the > set of users who have white-listed the zombie owners) spammer harvests > white-listed pairs of addresses and optionally sends from the same > zombie harvested from. (You see this with the virus payload that sends > from random pairs from address book -- where you frequently receive > virus propagation and/or spam mail from people who's email addresses > your recognize.) > > likely similar problems apply to most other anti-spam approaches if the > person you are defending against 0wns lots of machines. > > Adam _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon May 24 09:24:14 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 JAA04803 for ; Mon, 24 May 2004 09:24:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BSFNc-0007S9-NT for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 24 May 2004 09:20:38 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4ODKabO028649 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 24 May 2004 09:20:36 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BSFD8-0005bn-Mj for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 24 May 2004 09:09:46 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA03749 for ; Mon, 24 May 2004 09:09:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BSFD6-0000jC-Un for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 24 May 2004 09:09:45 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BSFCL-0000Q4-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 24 May 2004 09:08:58 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BSFBW-00005k-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 24 May 2004 09:08:06 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BSExy-0003TI-Ov; Mon, 24 May 2004 08:54:06 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BSEoY-00022k-Nd for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 24 May 2004 08:44:22 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA02371 for ; Mon, 24 May 2004 08:44:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BSEoX-0000iX-Fg for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 24 May 2004 08:44:21 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BSEnc-0000Nk-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 24 May 2004 08:43:25 -0400 Received: from anchor-post-36.mail.demon.net ([194.217.242.86] helo=anchor-post-37.mail.demon.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BSEmc-00002W-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 24 May 2004 08:42:22 -0400 Received: from gti.noc.demon.net ([195.11.55.101] helo=rnc1.al.cl.cam.ac.uk) by anchor-post-37.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1BSEmb-000IAe-0b for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 24 May 2004 13:42:21 +0100 Message-ID: To: asrg@ietf.org From: Richard Clayton Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 3. Proof-of-work analysis References: <40B1BDED.6080203@cypherspace.org> In-Reply-To: <40B1BDED.6080203@cypherspace.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 M <7fPN0OjtGdv6AX1irDkRphaT6+> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 13:41:06 +0100 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 In article <40B1BDED.6080203@cypherspace.org>, Adam Back writes >Richard Clayton wrote: >> it does _not_ affect our analysis based on use of zombies > >I'm wondering about the zombie argument. So clearly it is valid, >spammers can and do obtain zombies through viruses etc. If you include insecure end-users along with the zombies, then you're looking at a very substantial part of the current problem. I've seen estimates of 70% >However it is >somewhat demanding of a threat model on any anti-spam system to say that >it should remain secure if the spammers 0wn some significant fraction of >user machines. I think it is important that we use a threat model that is a good approximation to the Real World, not just one that a particular system is good at countering :) It seems quite realistic to assume that there are currently several million machines which are 0wned by the bad guys. I can see nothing on the horizon that suggests that end-user security is going to undergo a major step change this decade ... so we must plan to cope with this sort of level of problem. Viewing these numbers as a fraction (circa one in two hundred) is not very illuminating -- the total number is more significant. However, it does show (because you need to deal with more than 199 in 200 people) the sort of penetration you need for education or platform change or whatever solution you think will effectively address the issue. >For example consider the following anti-spam systems and the effect of >owning the machines: > >- signature based / verified sender -- broken, spammer just installs >malware on zombie which abuses the users credential yes indeed -- and if there is money involved (paying per email, paying for certs which then get revoked when the credential is misused) then you end up with a million or more very unhappy people... now you might imagine them ganging up on their service providers (hardware, software, connectivity) but that just means that the whole community eventually bears the cost since it will not be coming from the insecure individual's pockets :( >- white-list based -- broken (more limited perhaps can only reach the >set of users who have white-listed the zombie owners) spammer harvests >white-listed pairs of addresses and optionally sends from the same >zombie harvested from. (You see this with the virus payload that sends >from random pairs from address book -- where you frequently receive >virus propagation and/or spam mail from people who's email addresses >your recognize.) there seems to be an assumption that spams will come from different senders and hence there must be whitelist entries... ... why should the spammmers (who provide a service to many clients) not set up <1> whitelist entry for <1> sender and still send you spams If they have many millions of sender machines you won't spot the pattern in people requesting whitelist relationships with you :( Of course clever designs will address this, but only, I suspect at the cost of significant human decision-making input :( >likely similar problems apply to most other anti-spam approaches if the >person you are defending against 0wns lots of machines. so perhaps that means that spam won't have a technical solution ? That conclusion doesn't faze me, but clearly it upsets many technical people who provide solutions in other spheres and would like to provide one here :( - -- richard Richard Clayton They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 iQA/AwUBQLHtYhfnRQV/feRLEQLwIACgiar5ABrU+uhtDfj8Pgi/6y8kuhkAoOKV KmqH6YsegM/A5CJQ5mwiVTZr =Cwm6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon May 24 09:33:14 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 JAA05217 for ; Mon, 24 May 2004 09:33:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BSFQN-0007kf-29 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 24 May 2004 09:23:27 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4ODNROe029790 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 24 May 2004 09:23:27 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BSFJa-0006fe-39 for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 24 May 2004 09:16:26 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA04306 for ; Mon, 24 May 2004 09:16:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BSFJY-0002xW-D7 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 24 May 2004 09:16:24 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BSFIY-0002er-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 24 May 2004 09:15:22 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BSFHS-000252-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 24 May 2004 09:14:14 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BSFBT-00059U-By; Mon, 24 May 2004 09:08:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BSEzE-0003dD-Q5 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 24 May 2004 08:55:24 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA02971 for ; Mon, 24 May 2004 08:55:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BSEzD-0004Ac-6I for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 24 May 2004 08:55:23 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BSEyK-0003rV-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 24 May 2004 08:54:29 -0400 Received: from anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net ([194.217.242.92]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BSExL-0003X3-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 24 May 2004 08:53:27 -0400 Received: from gti.noc.demon.net ([195.11.55.101] helo=rnc1.al.cl.cam.ac.uk) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1BSExJ-000MCi-0Y for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 24 May 2004 13:53:25 +0100 Message-ID: To: asrg@ietf.org From: Richard Clayton Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 3. Proof-of-work analysis References: <40B1BDED.6080203@cypherspace.org> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 M <7fPN0OjtGdv6AX1irDkRphaT6+> Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 13:53:08 +0100 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 In article , william(at)elan.net writes >While I agree with you that "owned" machines is a security problem due >to the fact that it gives ability to fully impersonate that user, its also >that fact that makes it easy to tell which machine is "owned" and likely >embarasses user enough to clean it up quickly (rather then current zombie >emails coming from unknown joe user on dynamic ip). addressing proof-of-work schemes specifically -- one must note very carefully that if the main use of zombies becomes the performing of calculations and not the sending of email, then it will become much harder than today to tell which machines are 0wned -- because they will not be creating lots of spurious email traffic >Spammers actually already started using user settings setup in outlook >or mozilla on zombie computer to relay authenticated spam emails from >zombie infected machines though ISP mail server, yes, there have been reports of this for several years, but there was a step change in activity last September when one particular spammer started doing this on an industrial scale.... >but that does not seem >to provide good results because number of emails they can send is often >limited as ISPs would notice if thousands emails started showing up ... as the figures in the paper show, ISPs already have numerous customers who are already sending thousands of emails a day [assuming of course that the email passes through the ISP and does not go direct]. At present, ISPs can detect spamming activity through their smarthosts fairly effectively (though in fact I suspect few do more than examine the "top 50" details from their daily mail summaries); see my slides from a relevant talk: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rnc1/talks/040203-Extrusion.pdf The related academic paper is currently in "to appear" state. >and authenticated emails often lead to showing up identify of zombie user >and that leads to quicker repair or disconnection of the infected pc. yes -- though the authentication issue can be complex to repair if no- one realises that that is the mechanism. Certainly last September it took several iterations to get the customer properly locked down because other things (update all the patches, fix config issues [there are always out-of-date patches, there are always config issues]) were done before the actual mechanism was detected >So current use of zombies is primarily based on the notion that you can >send 10,000 - 100,000 emails from that zombie pc in only few minutes and >then move on to another computer some spammers send considerably less and considerably more slowly. Their mental model seems to be that this reduces their risk of detection. Since they don't write academic papers about their tactics, it is hard to assess or critique their analysis :( - -- richard Richard Clayton They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 iQA/AwUBQLHwNBfnRQV/feRLEQIVkwCfRTks81BlvWkde3p2gWEBXXfFdmEAoIXC Jl/LR9rZ56aPEZnyGIsUtOdU =X9R+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon May 24 11:09:19 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (www.iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA12726 for ; Mon, 24 May 2004 11:09:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BSGw3-00055Z-1U for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 24 May 2004 11:00:15 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4OF0F3s019559 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 24 May 2004 11:00:15 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BSGbp-00024q-Lv for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 24 May 2004 10:39:21 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA10770 for ; Mon, 24 May 2004 10:39:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BSGbn-0001r4-4u for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 24 May 2004 10:39:19 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BSGau-0001np-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 24 May 2004 10:38:25 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BSGa0-0001kz-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 24 May 2004 10:37:28 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BSGO3-0008NB-0u; Mon, 24 May 2004 10:25:07 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BSGDb-0006dO-8w for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 24 May 2004 10:14:19 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA08511 for ; Mon, 24 May 2004 10:14:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BSGDY-0007dS-E3 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 24 May 2004 10:14:16 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BSGCZ-0007Yv-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 24 May 2004 10:13:16 -0400 Received: from newgiles.striker.ottawa.on.ca ([205.150.200.131] helo=mail.nitros9.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BSGBb-0007Su-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 24 May 2004 10:12:15 -0400 Received: from newgiles.nitros9.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.nitros9.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEE5116E1C for ; Mon, 24 May 2004 10:17:59 -0400 (EDT) From: "Alan DeKok" To: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: Spam send/receive ratio In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 24 May 2004 11:25:42 +0930." Message-Id: <20040524141759.AEE5116E1C@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, 24 May 2004 10:17:59 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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: > >> Can you please explain why you're arguing that I believe high-volume > >> to be a near-perfect indicator of spam? I just can't understand how > >> you come to that decision. > > Where in any of my mailings did I say this? "near perfect indicator" I never > at any stage said any such thing, or even came close to it. Sorry, you did. You (paraphrased) said "in YOUR mta, it would see a high volume of messages, and discard them as spam." Any rational person would conclude that that statement was meant to describe my position, and was meant to describe an MTA which used volume as the sole (i.e. perfect) indicator, for messages being spam. Can you explain why when I say "imperfect, but useful as part of a system", you re-phrase it as "perfect, and usable only by itself"? Your prejudice against using mail volume is so high that it is preventing you from understanding my messages. > Do not attempt to twist my words into some sort of personal attack. Oh, I'm clear it's not personal. You're careful to not make it personal. But it's still annoying when I respond to what you've written, and your response is to re-define what you've said to mean something else, and then attack my response as not addressing that new topic. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon May 24 12:35:28 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 MAA18412 for ; Mon, 24 May 2004 12:35:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BSIHK-0005Ob-Nj for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 24 May 2004 12:26:19 -0400 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i4OGQIiE020716 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 24 May 2004 12:26:18 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BSI09-0001t6-Bw for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 24 May 2004 12:08:33 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA16966 for ; Mon, 24 May 2004 12:08:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BSI07-0002rN-Sn for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 24 May 2004 12:08:31 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BSHz9-0002m0-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 24 May 2004 12:07:31 -0400 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BSHyi-0002hA-00 for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 24 May 2004 12:07:04 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BSHjD-0006ud-OZ; Mon, 24 May 2004 11:51:03 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BSHLP-00019K-12 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 24 May 2004 11:26:27 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA13730 for ; Mon, 24 May 2004 11:26:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BSHLO-0005mF-3I for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 24 May 2004 11:26:26 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BSHKc-0005hl-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 24 May 2004 11:25:38 -0400 Received: from sokol.elan.net ([216.151.192.200]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BSHJw-0005cA-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 24 May 2004 11:24:56 -0400 Received: from sokol.elan.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.11/8.12.5) with ESMTP id i4OGhpB5024407; Mon, 24 May 2004 09:43:51 -0700 Received: from localhost (william@localhost) by sokol.elan.net (8.12.11/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id i4OGhobR024404; Mon, 24 May 2004 09:43:51 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: sokol.elan.net: william owned process doing -bs From: "william(at)elan.net" To: Richard Clayton cc: asrg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: 3. Proof-of-work analysis In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 09:43:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 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, 24 May 2004, Richard Clayton wrote: > >So current use of zombies is primarily based on the notion that you can > >send 10,000 - 100,000 emails from that zombie pc in only few minutes and > >then move on to another computer > > some spammers send considerably less and considerably more slowly. Their > mental model seems to be that this reduces their risk of detection. > > Since they don't write academic papers about their tactics, it is hard > to assess or critique their analysis :( Well, we can look at the some released numbers, lets just take latest article to appear on CNET on this topic (read it yourself its good article and based on interviews with John Levine, Brian Martin, etc): http://news.com.com/Attack+of+Comcast%27s+Internet+zombies/2010-1034_3-5218178.html "Attack of Comcast's Internet zombies May 24, 2004, 4:00 AM PT By Declan McCullagh Comcast's high-speed Internet subscribers have long been rumored to be an unusually persistent source of junk e-mail. Now someone from Comcast is confirming it. 'We're the biggest spammer on the Internet,' network engineer Sean Lutner said at a meeting of an antispam working group in Washington, D.C., last week. Lutner said Comcast users send out about 800 million messages a day, but a mere 100 million flow through the company's official servers. Almost all of the remaining 700 million represent spam erupting from so-called zombie computers--a breathtaking figure that adds up to six or seven spam-o-grams for each American family every day. ... Brian Martin, a computer security consultant in Denver, experienced Comcast zombies firsthand. Last year, a Comcast subscriber apparently infected by zombieware disgorged approximately 10,000 e-mail messages an hour to Martin's e-mail address ..." _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg