From davidnicol@gmail.com Wed Feb 2 12:40:17 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77FEB3A6DB4 for ; Wed, 2 Feb 2011 12:40:17 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.362 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.362 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.237, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id enPFCLikmMiB for ; Wed, 2 Feb 2011 12:40:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-iw0-f182.google.com (mail-iw0-f182.google.com [209.85.214.182]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBD3A3A6D07 for ; Wed, 2 Feb 2011 12:40:16 -0800 (PST) Received: by iwn39 with SMTP id 39so383718iwn.13 for ; Wed, 02 Feb 2011 12:43:37 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=4/fidrcV92JcobfmJz6JiBpDAO2zh096FURrcgONIA0=; b=KUg2Dq5OJV57U5e9+pjky6iYM+xTDl1VebPcc5Oa4KUmPDJaK1/wzTy2eu5YY3+E2x Mbp4zvaxDjMqE+d+TzoYAEatPfUu6JWNRgE/uZu7d6Ezv0A5huobccY4YOr7BvqRTuGr qFW4TJMWv71vp4v4dlECd0UXW7h/J14CrOrtM= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; b=N6fcNsJotHq9cXXhEnz8aPtyRaAZgCSOwqp4Y7Wq2x5gxrVwqAZx+u8iqrVsJYKfzQ ra+gi1Erx/RYytp9XByTaUELqXm+LofY2ykiEdZKXMKYFjEYj7nnK94KJnfqEllA1cyi quutypWkZGHBtDIjBJlaGoQrx4dq+LmAaibuI= Received: by 10.42.178.135 with SMTP id bm7mr11767590icb.158.1296679416933; Wed, 02 Feb 2011 12:43:36 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.231.206.129 with HTTP; Wed, 2 Feb 2011 12:42:53 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <4D4705A4.2060304@mail-abuse.org> References: <20110125211457.GR68297@verdi> <20110126015631.GT68297@verdi> <20110126165239.GY68297@verdi> <0CD2E96F96F8E52D9B1DEDCE@lewes.staff.uscs.susx.ac.uk> <4D42F951.9060102@nortel.com> <4D43FEE6.7020807@tana.it> <20110129133708.GE68297@verdi> <4D4574F8.8030405@tana.it> <4D4705A4.2060304@mail-abuse.org> From: David Nicol Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2011 14:42:53 -0600 Message-ID: To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Subject: Re: [Asrg] What is Reputation Service X-BeenThere: asrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2011 20:40:17 -0000 equifax and such >> I have difficulties thinking of an existent "reputation service" at >> all :-) From davidnicol@gmail.com Mon Feb 14 11:09:20 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1D633A6D9C for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2011 11:09:20 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yGMThE2Gjuw0 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2011 11:09:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-yw0-f54.google.com (mail-yw0-f54.google.com [209.85.213.54]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 082BC3A6D9B for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2011 11:09:18 -0800 (PST) Received: by ywl2 with SMTP id 2so2296535ywl.13 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2011 11:09:42 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; bh=nkz41XgwzqV+Upq5g0ubxOEXtFg+5Gi9mhCJYBy4eAo=; b=t14Jv981d6WeskVuiB+62WZq9aNF20Cy1eBFFGlM5srJa8xs4+q4znvtVR14GF642A 404qiBuKq5IzsNr2+NOdfYUPG7NdFvK6WB6U21SFne4/Mh6kW+X0bwUjlabM63hNjxOn +zI9j43yCQTLwbSoCW+erHn5Q1pBR1/VgfGCU= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type; b=sqgiBXgLHLEikQ8EGCYpJ2Tfqa0NPtbwhJdrj2dvWVhAV9oAGSxmGvMFWtMRKD02wI kl8l7Na983zGzhCCy/XiW7ExMTRF7LCe53QpM1MOBUH6mOKv8uS92L5aaSNXAhfXmK7Z Z76wevK6vgfboytd2RKZ2z3NEpIQk4DLQxPGg= Received: by 10.42.169.4 with SMTP id z4mr5528034icy.71.1297710582050; Mon, 14 Feb 2011 11:09:42 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.42.151.1 with HTTP; Mon, 14 Feb 2011 11:09:22 -0800 (PST) From: David Nicol Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2011 13:09:22 -0600 Message-ID: To: John Levine , ASRG Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Subject: [Asrg] who's for a DNS resource record for representing arbitrary key/value data? X-BeenThere: asrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2011 19:09:20 -0000 http://www.rfc-archive.org/getrfc.php?rfc=5507&tag=Design-Choices-When-Expanding-the-DNS who's for a DNS resource record for representing sparse arbitrary key/value data in BTREE format? From johnl@iecc.com Mon Feb 14 11:53:46 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 057653A6A9D for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2011 11:53:46 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -111.048 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-111.048 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.151, BAYES_00=-2.599, HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI=-4.3, RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED=-4.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2oJjegRu25w8 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2011 11:53:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [64.57.183.53]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 925C73A6A19 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2011 11:53:44 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 42434 invoked from network); 14 Feb 2011 19:54:07 -0000 Received: from mail1.iecc.com (64.57.183.56) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 14 Feb 2011 19:54:07 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:cc:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:vbr-info; s=df66.4d59885e.k1102; i=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=qugtJiAYOkHP9QWJIt3C0si15MhVStjuThS2UG5paow=; b=aqm5v+lFvjPVqbd/k1lVPO6h303OhIXE2RZfOysmcBkeL9uqVso1QoFQukNoQPYiSw7HsjIx+FctbmHeUdLO/z3xMipgRDHT7C5y1ISmZ/YxYhWmCg9Xv2mUqcfvNYjTBe+TG+DwlSFF0S8c2GHI8/hbmgC9gWb8OuKpoimT4RU= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:cc:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:vbr-info; s=df66.4d59885e.k1102; olt=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=qugtJiAYOkHP9QWJIt3C0si15MhVStjuThS2UG5paow=; b=EIfKC0hVHitMIjxndlShVuWZ2HnCogcdTfJa9AFxr5irFOAFWGMhUhmOugmqgiQT3TQIflkvztNPlU0MECSAS4WpgDF3Q+PP6wr2yLMpBYEGL0DkY/3WS6Kxq56BMZRaJxdidOZiQNPVmSmlo1xiSjfz3xKnjaNRYgk2i3jmEhk= VBR-Info: md=iecc.com; mc=all; mv=dwl.spamhaus.org Date: 14 Feb 2011 19:54:06 -0000 Message-ID: <20110214195406.57187.qmail@joyce.lan> From: John Levine To: asrg@irtf.org In-Reply-To: Organization: Cc: X-Headerized: yes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Asrg] who's for a DNS resource record for representing arbitrary key/value data? X-BeenThere: asrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2011 19:53:46 -0000 >who's for a DNS resource record for representing sparse arbitrary >key/value data in BTREE format? RFC 5507 reiterates the IETF's conventional wisdom about the DNS, which is chronically somewhat detached from reality. The CW says that adding new record types is easy, and reusing TXT is nasty. On the Internet I use, adding new record types is painful, due to all of the software that has to be upgraded. The DNS servers are the easy part; what's hard is all of the cruddy web provisioning systems that don't believe that there are any records other than A, MX, TXT, and maybe CNAME. Using TXT records in distinctive name spaces has its problems, most notably that you can get very confused if someone uses a wildcard you're not expecting, but the problems are way less than trying to get everyone's provisioning system to handle a BTREE record type. I've been doing some experiments with B-tree records, will try and write them up when I get back from RSA. Short summary: the higher your message rate, the better the cache behavior. R's, John From darxus@chaosreigns.com Sat Feb 19 08:26:34 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F8D83A6F5D for ; Sat, 19 Feb 2011 08:26:34 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -7.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8eUjFHFqHVAc for ; Sat, 19 Feb 2011 08:26:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from panic.chaosreigns.com (panic.chaosreigns.com [64.71.152.40]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 698D13A6F58 for ; Sat, 19 Feb 2011 08:26:33 -0800 (PST) Received: by panic.chaosreigns.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id D044C144B29; Sat, 19 Feb 2011 11:27:09 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=chaosreigns.com; s=mail; t=1298132829; bh=UW6wW+rT2pLekEG2BtGzfnC/WmiOUHFfTko9SaYRdm4=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=eL2RZLk+ur5/Ke5qDYJqRGYHyLQsJEnUu228XMuLH+LyYp7fXyRKOQnZQXmYsCmh0 2T+cx9rihxPROx6xhBOi3wm90vgkkZA2m2ivgOkKEsvGxUaheyDENfaToX5o3ujSdD 4h/FjNzrkoWT0//a8L/tstJPnA/cEYj/ZYyL6ASU= Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2011 11:27:09 -0500 From: Darxus@chaosreigns.com To: asrg@irtf.org Message-ID: <20110219162709.GJ22937@chaosreigns.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Subject: [Asrg] Fwd: MTX Inquiry X-BeenThere: asrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2011 16:26:34 -0000 I thought you folks might find this interesting. It sounds to me like "Your spam solution sounds awesome! How can I more successfully get my spam through filters?" ----- Forwarded message from Kevin Friedman ----- Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 23:38:32 -0800 From: Kevin Friedman <******@MisterArcher.com> To: darxus@chaosreigns.com Subject: MTX Inquiry Hey Darxus! I love the notion behind MTX. �I'm a part-time journalist and budding entrepreneur... so I don't know if I could understand everything on your site. �But email delivery is an enormous issue. �And not only do I care about making sure my email gets delivered, but I also want to share my experiences with other entrepreneurs. � For small businesses, I think email should be one of their most powerful marketing tools. �However, because many ISPs make a lot of Type II errors in spam identification (incorrectly placing emails into spam when they should be delivered to the inbox)... lots of small businesses get frustrated. �So they spend a lot of money receiving email delivery consultation. Not sure if you can answer this, but why does ReturnPath determine email delivery for Hotmail and other huge ISPs... and they also provide consulting services for email delivery. �Feels like the mafia extorting small businesses in order to get emails delivered. I'd love to hear your thoughts here. �And also please let me know best practices so I can share with other entrepreneurs. �Thank you, Kevin ----- End forwarded message ----- -- "Wash daily from nose-tip to tail-tip; drink deeply, but never too deep; And remember the night is for hunting, and forget not the day is for sleep." - The Law of the Jungle, Rudyard Kipling http://www.ChaosReigns.com From martijn.grooten@virusbtn.com Tue Feb 22 11:52:02 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E47F3A67D2 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2011 11:52:02 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id W41BeJWBIB1I for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2011 11:51:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx2.sophos.com (mx2.sophos.com [195.166.81.53]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D57C3A67B0 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2011 11:51:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx2.sophos.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 0B91938448 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2011 19:52:42 +0000 (GMT) Received: from uk-exch2.green.sophos (uk-exch2.green.sophos [10.100.199.17]) by mx2.sophos.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFF1C38444 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2011 19:52:41 +0000 (GMT) Received: from UK-EXCHMBX1.green.sophos ([fe80:0000:0000:0000:e1bd:d3c1:23.222.229.221]) by uk-exch2.green.sophos ([10.100.199.17]) with mapi; Tue, 22 Feb 2011 19:52:41 +0000 From: Martijn Grooten To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2011 19:52:38 +0000 Thread-Topic: "uncaught spam" follow-up Thread-Index: AcvSyg6RB34z1zEyTaCOfCtJ18QhGQ== Message-ID: <18B53BA2A483AD45962AAD1397BE132537AECF235F@UK-EXCHMBX1.green.sophos> Accept-Language: en-US, en-GB Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-cr-hashedpuzzle: BNad BaYK BpWl BxJK CBDW CbBg DFlB Djh6 EKAL ER40 EWxr GrFt HLts Hjhx H2/I IAv8; 1; YQBzAHIAZwBAAGkAcgB0AGYALgBvAHIAZwA=; Sosha1_v1; 7; {680EE435-0320-4D2F-ACE2-CAC7193AA1D4}; bQBhAHIAdABpAGoAbgAuAGcAcgBvAG8AdABlAG4AQAB2AGkAcgB1AHMAYgB0AG4ALgBjAG8AbQA=; Tue, 22 Feb 2011 19:52:38 GMT; IgB1AG4AYwBhAHUAZwBoAHQAIABzAHAAYQBtACIAIABmAG8AbABsAG8AdwAtAHUAcAA= x-cr-puzzleid: {680EE435-0320-4D2F-ACE2-CAC7193AA1D4} acceptlanguage: en-US, en-GB Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [Asrg] "uncaught spam" follow-up X-BeenThere: asrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2011 19:52:02 -0000 Almost a year ago, I posted to the group about a little research project I = intended to set up, where I would compare spam that is easy to filter, i.e.= (almost) all spam-filters I use would block it, to spam that is missed by = some products. [1] I've finally found the time do have a little go at this. During a few weeks= in November, I looked at the geographical distribution of sending IP addre= sses in my total spam corpus and compared that with the sub-corpus of 'diff= icult' spam. The latter is defined as spam that is missed by at least two[2= ] filters, whereas I used a geoip-lookup to determine the country of origin= of a spam message. It resulted in the following distributions: All spam 1 Russian Federation 9.86% 2 India 7.67% 3 United States 7.35% 4 Brazil 5.86% 5 Vietnam 5.70% 6 Ukraine 4.84% 7 United Kingdom 3.94% 8 South Korea 2.92% 9 Italy 2.78% 10 Indonesia 2.54% Difficult spam 1 Russian Federation 11.09% 2 India 8.45% 3 Vietnam 5.22% 4 South Korea 4.94% 5 Ukraine 3.83% Brazil 3.83% 7 Indonesia 3.55% 8 China 3.52% 9 United States 3.41% 10 United Kingdom 3.26% Then, during a few weeks in December, I looked at the distribution of MIME-= types among two similarly defined corpora. All spam Text and HTML 34.4% Text 31.9% HTML 30.8% Image[3] 1.6% Other[4] 1.3% Difficult spam Text 52.3% Text and HTML 26.9% HTML 14.4% Other 5.1% Image 1.3% Now I am the first to answer the question 'what does this mean?' with 'not = much', but I wanted to share the results anyway. My gut feeling is that the fact that plain text messages are 'harder to fil= ter' has little to do with the fact that they are written in plain text; ra= ther, that it is a consequence of a certain spam campaign that for some rea= son gives filters more problems and just happens to send its messages in pl= ain text. The fact that spam from some several Asian and other non-Western countries = is 'harder to filter' may have to do with the fact that most filters are de= veloped in Western countries and that communication between local/regional = ISPs on which IP addresses to block may be easier. However, again that is o= nly a guess. I intend to continue to run tests like this. Suggestions, both on what to t= est as well as on how to interpret the results, are more than welcome. Martijn. [1] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/asrg/current/msg16306.html [2] to avoid the results being skewed by one of the (20) filters having som= e kind of issue; I am aware that spam-filters may use the same/similar tech= nologies so if one such technology (e.g. a blacklist) had an 'issue' this w= ould still have skewed the results. [3] messages with one or more embedded images, regardless of other MIME typ= es present. [4] including DSNs, attached ZIPs/PDFs/Docs, apparently broken MIME. Martijn Grooten, Anti-spam Test Director, www.virusbtn.com Tel: +44 1235 540235 / +44 7872 674989 VB2011: 5-7 October 2011, Barcelona, Spain Virus Bulletin Ltd, The Pentagon, Abingdon, OX14 3YP, England. Company Reg No: 2388295. VAT Reg No: GB 532 5598 33. From martijn.grooten@virusbtn.com Tue Feb 22 12:22:10 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 885463A67B0 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2011 12:22:10 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.700, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id doyoK68fHvV7 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2011 12:22:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx1.sophos.com (mx1.sophos.com [195.166.81.52]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0C0A3A68F4 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2011 12:22:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx1.sophos.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id E2437F8218 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2011 20:22:51 +0000 (GMT) Received: from uk-exch2.green.sophos (uk-exch2.green.sophos [10.100.199.17]) by mx1.sophos.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9637F8217 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2011 20:22:51 +0000 (GMT) Received: from UK-EXCHMBX1.green.sophos ([fe80:0000:0000:0000:e1bd:d3c1:23.222.229.221]) by uk-exch2.green.sophos ([10.100.199.17]) with mapi; Tue, 22 Feb 2011 20:22:51 +0000 From: Martijn Grooten To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2011 20:22:50 +0000 Thread-Topic: Call for Papers: VB2011, Barcelona (5-7 Oct 2011) Thread-Index: AcvSzkb+B3ugwdgOTbOLDx3oh1rxfA== Message-ID: <18B53BA2A483AD45962AAD1397BE132537AECF2366@UK-EXCHMBX1.green.sophos> Accept-Language: en-US, en-GB Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US, en-GB Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [Asrg] Call for Papers: VB2011, Barcelona (5-7 Oct 2011) X-BeenThere: asrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2011 20:22:10 -0000 See below. Deadline for abstract submissions is in two-and-a-half weeks. Martijn. Virus Bulletin is seeking submissions from those wishing to present papers at VB2011, the 21st Virus Bulletin International Conference, which will take place 5-7 October 2011 at the Hesperia Tower hotel, Barcelona, Spain. The conference will include a programme of 30-minute presentations running in two concurrent streams: Technical and Corporate. Submissions are invited on all subjects relevant to anti-malware and anti-spam. In particular, VB welcomes the submission of papers that will provide delegates with ideas, advice and/or practical techniques, and encourages presentations that include practical demonstrations of techniques or new technologies. Abstracts should be submitted via the online abstract submission system at http://www.virusbtn.com/conference/abstracts/ and must be submitted no later than FRIDAY 11th MARCH 2011. Further details of the paper submission and selection process, including a list of suggested topics for papers, can be found at http://www.virusbtn.com/conference/vb2011/call/. Virus Bulletin Ltd, The Pentagon, Abingdon, OX14 3YP, England. Company Reg No: 2388295. VAT Reg No: GB 532 5598 33. From Jose-Marcio.Martins@mines-paristech.fr Thu Feb 24 12:03:42 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E79CD3A67F9 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2011 12:03:42 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.249 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mTHST9ueT+62 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2011 12:03:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp-3.ensmp.fr (smtp-3.ensmp.fr [194.214.158.227]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED67D3A6802 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2011 12:03:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost.localdomain (joe.j-chkmail.org [88.168.143.55]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp-3.ensmp.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3/JMMC-11/Mar/2010) with ESMTP id p1OK4Sqk002208 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 24 Feb 2011 21:04:29 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <4D66B9CC.3050702@mines-paristech.fr> Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 21:04:28 +0100 From: Jose-Marcio Martins da Cruz User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.16) Gecko/20110104 Fedora/2.0.11-2.fc14 SeaMonkey/2.0.11 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF References: <18B53BA2A483AD45962AAD1397BE132537AECF235F@UK-EXCHMBX1.green.sophos> In-Reply-To: <18B53BA2A483AD45962AAD1397BE132537AECF235F@UK-EXCHMBX1.green.sophos> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Miltered: at cascavel with ID 4D66B9CC.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http : // j-chkmail dot ensmp dot fr)! X-j-chkmail-Enveloppe: 4D66B9CC.000 from joe.j-chkmail.org/joe.j-chkmail.org/88.168.143.55/localhost.localdomain/ Subject: Re: [Asrg] "uncaught spam" follow-up X-BeenThere: asrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: Jose-Marcio.Martins@mines-paristech.fr, Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 20:03:43 -0000 Hi Martijn, Martijn Grooten wrote: > > Difficult spam > 1 Russian Federation 11.09% > 2 India 8.45% > 3 Vietnam 5.22% > 4 South Korea 4.94% > 5 Ukraine 3.83% > Brazil 3.83% > 7 Indonesia 3.55% > 8 China 3.52% > 9 United States 3.41% > 10 United Kingdom 3.26% > > > Difficult spam > Text 52.3% > Text and HTML 26.9% > HTML 14.4% > Other 5.1% > Image 1.3% Some questions about difficult spam : * In what languages/charsets are they ? * "Text only" spams are written in english or other languages ? * "Text only" spams - what kind ? Phishings, scams or trivial porn, meds ? * "Text and html", are they trivial porn or some other specific kind of spam ? I think, as you, that filters developped by western countries are less able to handle spams from other countries. It's possible that the language and charset may have some influence. Jose-Marcio -- From c.v.wolfhausen@spamkiller.uceprotect.net Sat Feb 26 22:13:45 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 611153A68F6 for ; Sat, 26 Feb 2011 22:13:45 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.31 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.31 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-1.11, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tSS6MZD70MgO for ; Sat, 26 Feb 2011 22:13:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net (ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net [208.66.2.20]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A54263A6804 for ; Sat, 26 Feb 2011 22:13:43 -0800 (PST) Received: by ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net (UCEPROTECT, from userid 32767) id B971012EC6A; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 07:14:58 +0100 (CET) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; charset="iso-8859-1"; boundary="------------Boundary-00=_6NI9Y3L3LVC000000000" From: "Claus v. Wolfhausen" To: Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 07:14:50 +0100 (CET) Message-Id: <20110227061458.B971012EC6A@ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net> Subject: [Asrg] UCEPROTECT's comment on draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-07 X-BeenThere: asrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 06:16:25 -0000 --------------Boundary-00=_6NI9Y3L3LVC000000000 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable This is the official statement from the maintainers of the UCEPROTECT-Network=0D about this section of your RFC - Draft:=0D =0D 2.2.5. Conflict of Interest=0D =0D Some DNSBLs used for blocking/negative reputation have had a practise=0D of requiring fees or donations to charities from the listee for=0D delisting.=0D =0D It is generally considered entirely appropriate for a DNSBL to charge=0D for access to it by its users - the definition of a commercial DNSBL.=0D =0D However, the practise of requiring a listee to pay for delisting from=0D a negative connotation DNSBL steers perilously close to notions of=0D extortion, blackmail or a "protection racket". Even if such=0D accusations are entirely unjustified the practise causes uproar and=0D damage to the DNSBLs reputation, if not the entire DNSBL mechanism as=0D a whole. Colloquially, "it smells bad".=0D =0D Therefore, negative-connotation DNSBLs MUST not charge fees or=0D require donations for delisting or "faster handling", and it is=0D RECOMMENDED that such DNSBLs that do charge fees or require donations=0D not be used.=0D =0D We recommend that you remove the complete last sentence, because it refle= cts =0D only your personal opinion, how a DNSBL should be operated.=0D =0D Since you claim the document would be intended to provide guidance to=0D DNSBL operators so that they may be able to identify what features users = =0D would be interested in seeing as a part of a high-quality, well-managed DNSBL,=0D it is not your business to tell the operators they "MUST NOT" charge =0D delisting or "faster handling" fees.=0D The recommendation that such DNSBLs which are charging for removals=0D should not be used is a personal opinion and as such it has also no place= =0D in a guidance which is addressed to DNSBL operators.=0D =0D The main purpose of a DNSBL is to prevent spam to get delivered to the=0D users of said DNSBL.=0D =0D Delistings at UCEPROTECT-Network are free of charge and they happen =0D fully automatic 7 days after we have seen the last abuse originating from= =0D listed IPs.=0D For those that want a manual intervention (expedited express delisting) =0D a fee is charged here.=0D =0D People tend to ignore their faults and most are unwillig to learn from th= eir =0D faults if it has no or only minor consequences.=0D =0D This can be shown by checking the histories of many listees at blocklist=0D that allow free self-removals like the PSBL.=0D =0D It is not a big deal to find IPs that were removed 40 to 50 times per yea= r=0D and got relisted at PSBL after 2 or 3 days again.=0D =0D We at UCEPROTECT-Network made the expirience that people which did=0D not care about the security of their systems and got abused by spammers=0D learned an unforgettable lesson by dealing with our removal procedures:=0D =0D NEVER GO ONLINE AGAIN WITH AN UNSECURE SYSTEM.=0D =0D They would not have learned that lesson if they would have been able to =0D escape from ourlists immediatley free of charge like they did from others= =2E=0D =0D New listings of formerly listed static IPs are really rare at UCEPROTECT.= =0D =0D So UCEPROTECT was able to educate those former listees to take care=0D of their systems next time, which clearly prevents futher spam form those= =0D systems.=0D =0D That is a really important point, which is often not seen by people which had=0D never run a public DNSBL.=0D =0D Regards=0D =0D Claus von Wolfhausen=0D Technical Director=0D UCEPROTECT-Network=0D http://www.uceprotect.net --------------Boundary-00=_6NI9Y3L3LVC000000000 Content-Type: Text/HTML; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
This is the official statement from the maintainers of the= UCEPROTECT-Network
about this section of your RFC - Draft:
 
=

2.2.5.  Conflict of Interest

<= BR>
   Some DNSBLs used for blocking/negative reputation= have had a practise
   of requiring fees or donations to ch= arities from the listee for
   delisting.

  = ; It is generally considered entirely appropriate for a DNSBL to charge   for access to it by its users - the definition of a commer= cial DNSBL.

   However, the practise of requiring a list= ee to pay for delisting from
   a negative connotation DNSBL= steers perilously close to notions of
   extortion, blackma= il or a "protection racket".  Even if such
   accusatio= ns are entirely unjustified the practise causes uproar and
  = ; damage to the DNSBLs reputation, if not the entire DNSBL mechanism as   a whole.  Colloquially, "it smells bad".

 = ;  Therefore, negative-connotation DNSBLs MUST not charge fees or   require donations for delisting or "faster handling", and i= t is
   RECOMMENDED that such DNSBLs that do charge fees or = require donations
   not be used.
 
We recommend that you remove the complete last sentence, becaus= e it reflects
only your personal opinion, how a DNSBL should be operated.
 
Since you claim the document would be intended to provide guidance t= o
DNSBL operators so that they may be able to identify what features u= sers
would be interested in seeing as a part of a high-quality, well-mana= ged DNSBL,
it is not your business to tell the operators they "MUST NOT" charge=  
delisting or "faster handling" fees.
The recommendation that such DNSBLs which are charging for removals<= /DIV>
should not be used is a personal opinion and as such it has also no = place
in a guidance which is addressed to DNSBL operators.
 
The main purpose of a DNSBL is to prevent spam to get delivered to t= he
users of said DNSBL.
 
Delistings at UCEPROTECT-Network are free of charge and they happen =
fully automatic 7 days after we have seen the last abuse originating= from
listed IPs.
For those that want a manual intervention (expedited express delisti= ng)
a fee is charged here.
 
People tend to ignore their faults and most are unwillig to learn fr= om their
faults if it has no or only minor consequences.
 
This can be shown by checking the histories of many listees at block= list
that allow free self-removals like the PSBL.
 
It is not a big deal to find IPs that were removed 40 to 50 times pe= r year
and got relisted at PSBL after 2 or 3 days again.
 
We at UCEPROTECT-Network made the expirience that people which did
not care about the security of their systems and got abused by spamm= ers
learned an unforgettable lesson by dealing with our removal procedur= es:
 
NEVER GO ONLINE AGAIN WITH AN UNSECURE SYSTEM.
 
They would not have learned that lesson if they would have been able= to
escape from ourlists immediatley free of charge like they did from o= thers.
 
New listings of formerly listed static IPs are really rare at UCEPRO= TECT.
 
So UCEPROTECT was able to educate those former listees to take care<= /DIV>
of their systems next time, which clearly prevents futher spam form = those
systems.
 
That is a really important point, which is often not seen by people = which had
never run a public DNSBL.
 
Regards
 
Claus von Wolfhausen
Technical Director
UCEPROTECT-Network
--------------Boundary-00=_6NI9Y3L3LVC000000000-- From Jose-Marcio.Martins@mines-paristech.fr Sun Feb 27 03:21:45 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E01F93A69E5 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 03:21:45 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.85 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.85 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.400, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ouCgnOKZcRjB for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 03:21:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp-3.ensmp.fr (smtp-3.ensmp.fr [194.214.158.227]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 963453A6849 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 03:21:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost.localdomain (joe.j-chkmail.org [88.168.143.55]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp-3.ensmp.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3/JMMC-11/Mar/2010) with ESMTP id p1RBMcfw023273 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 27 Feb 2011 12:22:39 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <4D6A33FD.9080305@mines-paristech.fr> Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 12:22:37 +0100 From: Jose-Marcio Martins da Cruz User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.16) Gecko/20110104 Fedora/2.0.11-2.fc14 SeaMonkey/2.0.11 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF References: <20110227061458.B971012EC6A@ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net> In-Reply-To: <20110227061458.B971012EC6A@ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Miltered: at cascavel with ID 4D6A33FE.001 by Joe's j-chkmail (http : // j-chkmail dot ensmp dot fr)! X-j-chkmail-Enveloppe: 4D6A33FE.001 from joe.j-chkmail.org/joe.j-chkmail.org/88.168.143.55/localhost.localdomain/ Subject: Re: [Asrg] UCEPROTECT's comment on draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-07 X-BeenThere: asrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: Jose-Marcio.Martins@mines-paristech.fr, Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 11:21:46 -0000 Claus, Claus v. Wolfhausen wrote: > This is the official statement from the maintainers of the > UCEPROTECT-Network > about this section of your RFC - Draft: > We recommend that you remove the complete last sentence, because it > reflects > only your personal opinion, how a DNSBL should be operated. The same way as all you've said is only a personal opinion coming from a company who is part of the "racket protection" community. Just to counter your arguments, there are many alternative ways to "educate people" without "racketing them" : you can make harder and harder to be whitelisted people being frequently blacklisted. You could accept to remove immediately people being blacklisted for the first time or people who wasn't blacklisted in the last one or two year period... Otheway, your phrase : "That is a really important point, which is often not seen by people which had never run a public DNSBL." and mainly "often not seen by people which had never run a public DNSBL.". Well, you surely missed a point as you surely don't know who are all people in this list. I consider this a sign of useless arrogance against all of us. Either way, discussion about this draft took a very long time. You could be there while this was discussed. Where were you ? You are free and welcome to participate on all discussions in this list. Cheers, José-Marcio > Since you claim the document would be intended to provide guidance to > DNSBL operators so that they may be able to identify what features users > would be interested in seeing as a part of a high-quality, well-managed > DNSBL, > it is not your business to tell the operators they "MUST NOT" charge > delisting or "faster handling" fees. > The recommendation that such DNSBLs which are charging for removals > should not be used is a personal opinion and as such it has also no place > in a guidance which is addressed to DNSBL operators. > The main purpose of a DNSBL is to prevent spam to get delivered to the > users of said DNSBL. > Delistings at UCEPROTECT-Network are free of charge and they happen > fully automatic 7 days after we have seen the last abuse originating from > listed IPs. > For those that want a manual intervention (expedited express delisting) > a fee is charged here. > People tend to ignore their faults and most are unwillig to learn from > their > faults if it has no or only minor consequences. > This can be shown by checking the histories of many listees at blocklist > that allow free self-removals like the PSBL. > It is not a big deal to find IPs that were removed 40 to 50 times per year > and got relisted at PSBL after 2 or 3 days again. > We at UCEPROTECT-Network made the expirience that people which did > not care about the security of their systems and got abused by spammers > learned an unforgettable lesson by dealing with our removal procedures: > NEVER GO ONLINE AGAIN WITH AN UNSECURE SYSTEM. > They would not have learned that lesson if they would have been able to > escape from ourlists immediatley free of charge like they did from others. > New listings of formerly listed static IPs are really rare at UCEPROTECT. > So UCEPROTECT was able to educate those former listees to take care > of their systems next time, which clearly prevents futher spam form those > systems. > That is a really important point, which is often not seen by people > which had > never run a public DNSBL. > Regards > Claus von Wolfhausen > Technical Director > UCEPROTECT-Network > http://www.uceprotect.net > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@irtf.org > http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg -- From Jose-Marcio.Martins@mines-paristech.fr Sun Feb 27 05:39:17 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 932DE3A69A3 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 05:39:17 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.049 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.049 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.200, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ky2-JNEX06YT for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 05:39:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp-3.ensmp.fr (smtp-3.ensmp.fr [194.214.158.227]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A0E33A6856 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 05:39:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost.localdomain (joe.j-chkmail.org [88.168.143.55]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp-3.ensmp.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3/JMMC-11/Mar/2010) with ESMTP id p1RDeAN8024103 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 27 Feb 2011 14:40:11 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <4D6A543A.9000303@mines-paristech.fr> Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 14:40:10 +0100 From: Jose-Marcio Martins da Cruz User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.16) Gecko/20110104 Fedora/2.0.11-2.fc14 SeaMonkey/2.0.11 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Miltered: at cascavel with ID 4D6A543A.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http : // j-chkmail dot ensmp dot fr)! X-j-chkmail-Enveloppe: 4D6A543A.000 from joe.j-chkmail.org/joe.j-chkmail.org/88.168.143.55/localhost.localdomain/ Subject: [Asrg] How serious is uceprotect mail filtering ? X-BeenThere: asrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: Jose-Marcio.Martins@mines-paristech.fr, Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 13:39:17 -0000 Well, I just answered the post of Claus from uceprotect, and he was in Cc. My message was rejected by their mail filters with the following message. It seems to me that before uceprotect try to tell us something, they should hire people with enough professional skils in messaging systems and mail filtering. Well. I'm at home (my IP address is shown in the message). No message is sent from my personal IP address. I use the submission server at our domain. Well, the message says our domain have a bad reputation, based on this : http://www.blacklistalert.org/?q=jose-marcio.martins@mines-paristech.fr This web page says we are blacklisted at list.anonwhois.net, and if I follow the link, it says me : ******************************************* The website that sent you to this page (http://www.blacklistalert.org/?q=jose-marcio.martins@mines-paristech.fr) claims you were blacklisted but AnonWhois.org is not a blacklist. We are an informational list only but the people that created that site have never read our policy. ******************************************* It's quite clear, no ? Well surely uceprotect mail admins don't even have enough professional skills to manage a mail server. From there to manage a blacklist... Not serious... Well, I don't know why we're at anonwhois, but this is another problem... José-Marcio ************************************************************* The original message was received at Sun, 27 Feb 2011 12:22:39 +0100 (MET) from joe.j-chkmail.org [88.168.143.55] ----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors ----- (reason: 571 Access denied: 571 (V4.2-RULE-1203) Your Domain has a bad reputation on the net. See http://www....-marcio.martins@mines-paristech.fr, contact us using the form on our Website or give us a phonecall.) ----- Transcript of session follows ----- ... while talking to spamkiller.uceprotect.net.: >>> >>> RCPT To: <<< 571 Access denied: 571 (V4.2-RULE-1203) Your Domain has a bad reputation on the net. See http://www.blacklistalert.org/?q=jose-marcio.martins@mines-paristech.fr To have an exception made for jose-marcio.martins@mines-paristech.fr, contact us using the form on our Website or give us a phonecall. 554 5.0.0 Service unavailable >>> >>> DATA <<< 421 Service no longer available for you, closing transmission channel ----- Original message follows ----- Return-Path: Received: from localhost.localdomain (joe.j-chkmail.org [88.168.143.55]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp-3.ensmp.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3/JMMC-11/Mar/2010) with ESMTP id p1RBMcfw023273 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 27 Feb 2011 12:22:39 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <4D6A33FD.9080305@mines-paristech.fr> Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 12:22:37 +0100 From: Jose-Marcio Martins da Cruz ******************************************** -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Jose Marcio MARTINS DA CRUZ http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr Ecole des Mines de Paris 60, bd Saint Michel 75272 - PARIS CEDEX 06 mailto:Jose-Marcio.Martins@mines-paristech.fr From trblhelp@gmail.com Sun Feb 27 07:45:50 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9E683A6A03 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 07:45:50 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.345 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.345 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.034, BAYES_05=-1.11, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bh3N6YqZlcK2 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 07:45:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-yw0-f54.google.com (mail-yw0-f54.google.com [209.85.213.54]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EF343A6A02 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 07:45:46 -0800 (PST) Received: by ywf9 with SMTP id 9so1148736ywf.13 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 07:46:44 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=fxI5HMsm+J8YoeP8Q3PuP5iDksVQl+CSp28z1joyD6Q=; b=ct1/PbtSRSqG/U3BbwxlOe/S9wpXMahD65cEsyAAycHg3XEctULE/PtRWMeL43G8Az W3tpPf8w8n5dxTSRhfBUDA+if+24j5qHPeto/FZ7wbAZIbUok91C9o1+LZiUQ8R1ghnh 5i85aF8Vhh8iG7ApOjsrHDn4qZaNyNpQ9agC8= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; b=Uc5JLMbt1yi3ql4Ww25tJ99M5oO0i4Qy+f3rbezgLpxX+eHwkyfKSw7VMWD0TwbGQb OFrwWBQitc1pfv+3/fJYz/FQo7JcVn0Do1NdJl1LZUH0fhMNwuIPP8COOJe1CQnfqRJb NJlI0Ayw3hXGkRz8hph5KtixsVJou/YufqNe0= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.236.109.171 with SMTP id s31mr7982419yhg.2.1298821603297; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 07:46:43 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.147.39.3 with HTTP; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 07:46:43 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 09:46:43 -0600 Message-ID: From: TRBL Support To: Asrg@irtf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Subject: Re: [Asrg] UCEPROTECT's comment on draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-07 X-BeenThere: asrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 15:47:35 -0000 Claus v. Wolfhausen wrote: > We at UCEPROTECT-Network made the expirience that people which did > not care about the security of their systems and got abused by spammers > learned an unforgettable lesson by dealing with our removal procedures: > > NEVER GO ONLINE AGAIN WITH AN UNSECURE SYSTEM. > > They would not have learned that lesson if they would have been able to > escape from ourlists immediatley free of charge like they did from others. > > New listings of formerly listed static IPs are really rare at UCEPROTECT. > > So UCEPROTECT was able to educate those former listees to take care > of their systems next time, which clearly prevents futher spam form those > systems. > > That is a really important point, which is often not seen by people which had > never run a public DNSBL. As a counterpoint, I run a public DNSBL and I agree with the choice of wording used in the BCP draft. Watching the history of blacklists over the years, few things have caused more angst and accusations than requiring a delisting fee. Even SORBS has stopped requiring such a fee. I think there are many instances where, when you require a delisting fee, you set yourself up for accusations that this was a trap you have led listees into. You signed up for my list just so you can blacklist me! I think it is wise to avoid this line of discussion and not charge a fee. -- trblspamtrap dnsbl: http://www.trblspam.com simple, spamtrap driven, easy on, easy off From c.v.wolfhausen@spamkiller.uceprotect.net Sun Feb 27 07:53:53 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77A153A6A06 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 07:53:53 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.994 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.994 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.195, BAYES_00=-2.599, EXTRA_MPART_TYPE=1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1ioYevI5DLdG for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 07:53:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net (ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net [208.66.2.20]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4F9A3A694D for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 07:53:51 -0800 (PST) Received: by ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net (UCEPROTECT, from userid 32767) id DF84112EC69; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 16:54:57 +0100 (CET) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Multipart/related; charset="iso-8859-1"; type="multipart/alternative"; boundary="------------Boundary-00=_YH9AEH98WCW000000000" From: "Claus v. Wolfhausen" References: <20110227061458.B971012EC6A@ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net> To: Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 16:54:45 +0100 (CET) Message-Id: <20110227155457.DF84112EC69@ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net> Subject: Re: [Asrg] UCEPROTECT's comment on draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-07 X-BeenThere: asrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 15:53:54 -0000 --------------Boundary-00=_YH9AEH98WCW000000000 Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; boundary="------------Boundary-00=_YH9A9SD8WCW000000000" --------------Boundary-00=_YH9A9SD8WCW000000000 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear Jose-Marcio,=0D =0D You wrote:=0D =0D The same way as all you've said is only a personal opinion coming from a company who is part of the "racket protection" community.=0D =0D I strongly recommend that you avoid insulting words as "company who is pa= rt of the racket protection community", if you want to be taken serious by m= e.=0D =0D Sure my posting also just reflects an opinion, but it is an opinion that = is backed up by UCEPROTECT's broad userbase.=0D There is IMHO no reason for a discussion about how DNSBL's handle delisti= ngs as long as that is explicit stated into the DNSBL's policy.=0D We are known to have the most transparent policies and our users exactly know what they are doing and why they are doing it.=0D If our users would not agree to our policies, then ourlists would simply = not be used and then we would not have this discussion.=0D =0D The standard procedure at UCEPROTECT-Blocklists is that a listing automatically expires free of charge 7 days after we have seen the last abusive action originating from a listed IP.=0D Different to that, the optional immediate expedited express delisting requires manual work to be done, which is not offered free of charge by u= s.=20 =0D In our jurisdication one is free to charge for services offered, so it is neither racketeering nor extortion if we are charging listees for freely chosen optional services.=0D No one is forcing listees to order an expedited express delisting. They could simply fix their problem and wait for the free automatic expiration= =2E=0D =0D Just to counter your arguments, there are many alternative ways to "educa= te people" without "racketing them" : you can make harder and harder to be whitelisted people being frequently blacklisted. You could accept to remo= ve immediately people being blacklisted for the first time or people who was= n't blacklisted in the last one or two year period...=0D =0D You seem to defend people that were too negligent / incompetent / lazy / whatever to secure their systems in first place.=0D Those that get listed in a DNSBL missed to do so and therefore they are guilty for supporting spammers. It is their own fault, even if most of th= em blame others afterwards.=0D =0D I don't know of any jurisdiction where first-time offenders are explicit=20 not subject to prosecution" by the law.=0D So why should a DNSBL handle first-time offenders like they would be innocent people? =0D Anyway you made a point: It might be a good idea if we would punish second-time offenders harder than first-time offenders.=0D I would have no problem to increase listing period by a factor 100 for second-time offenders, but this was probably not what you wanted me to do :-)=0D =0D Otheway, your phrase : "That is a really important point, which is often = not seen by people which had never run a public DNSBL." and mainly "often not seen by people which had never run a public DNSBL.". Well, you surely mis= sed a point as you surely don't know who are all people in this list. I consi= der this a sign of useless arrogance against all of us.=0D =0D It is not necessary to know all the people in this list because logic tol= d me that there can't be many DNSBL-Operators here or they are really inhon= est =0D Otherwise they would have seen and mentioned also a big "Conflict of interests" at "commercial DNSBLs" in the "draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-= 07 : =0D Commercial DNSBLs which charge for usage have real problems to list their paying customers in situations where a big ISP which is customer of their= =20 commercial DNSBL" is also a big spammer hoster. =0D It was really interesting for me to see that this really big "Conflict of interests" was not also published in the draft.=0D =0D Either way, discussion about this draft took a very long time. You could = be there while this was discussed. Where were you ? You are free and welcome= to participate on all discussions in this list.=0D =0D I found the January changes to the draft yesterday as our search algorit= hm found an article from January 2011 on the listserver which mentioned UCEPROTECT.=0D Earlier versions of this draft (V6 and older) were known to me and they d= idn t contain such personal biased opinions like the new version.=0D I did therfore not see any reason to participate in this group earlier.=0D Drafts of "best practices" and also eventually resulting RFC's MUST ALWAY= S contain pure technical information only and if opinions are mentioned in them, then they MUST BE neutral.=0D For this Draft this means it MUST either mention "Conflicts of interests= " for any kind of DNSBLs or it MUST NOT mention any at all.=0D =0D Regards=0D =0D Claus von Wolfhausen=0D Technical Director=0D UCEPROTECT-Network=0D http://www.uceprotect.net=0D =20 --------------Boundary-00=_YH9A9SD8WCW000000000 Content-Type: Text/HTML; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear Jose-Marcio,
 
You wrote:
 
The same way as all you've said = is only a personal opinion coming from a company who is part of the "racket protection" c= ommunity.
 
I strongly recommend that you avoid insulting words as "co= mpany who is part of the racket protection community", if you want to be = taken serious by me.
 
Sure my posting also just reflects an opinion, but it is a= n opinion that is backed up by UCEPROTECT's broad userbase.
There is IMHO no reason for a discussion about how DNSBL's hand= le delistings as long as that is explicit stated into the DNSBL's policy.=
We are known to have the most transparent policies and our users exa= ctly know what they are doing and why they are doing it.
If our users would not agree to our policies, then ourlists would si= mply not be used and then we would not have this discussion.
=
 
The standard procedure at UCEPROTECT-Blocklists is that a listi= ng automatically expires free of charge 7 days after we have seen th= e last abusive action originating from a listed IP.
Different to that, the optional immediate expedited express del= isting requires manual work to be done, which is not offered free of char= ge by us.  
In our jurisdication one is free to charge for services offered= , so it is neither racketeering nor extortion if we are charging listees = for freely chosen optional services.
No one is forcing listees to order an expedited express delisti= ng. They could simply fix their problem and wait for the free automatic e= xpiration.
 
Just to counter your arguments, = there are many alternative ways to "educate people" without "racketing them" : you can ma= ke harder and harder to be whitelisted people being frequently blacklisted. You coul= d accept to remove immediately people being blacklisted for the first tim= e or people who = wasn't blacklisted in the last one or two year period...=
 
You seem to defend people that were too negligent / incomp= etent / lazy / whatever to secure their systems in first place.
Those that get listed in a DNSBL missed to do so and therefore = they are guilty for supporting spammers. It is their own fault, even= if most of them blame others afterwards.
 
I don't know of any jurisdiction where first-time offenders are expl= icit "not subject to prosecution" by the law.
So why should a DNSBL handle first-time offenders like they wou= ld be innocent people?
Anyway you made a point: It might be a good idea if we wou= ld punish second-time offenders harder than first-time offenders.
I would have no problem to increase listing period by a fa= ctor 100 for second-time offenders, but this was probably not w= hat you wanted me to do :-)
 
Otheway, your phrase : "That is = a really important point, which is often not seen by people which had never run a public = DNSBL." and mainly "often not seen by people which had never run a public=  DNSBL.". Well, = you surely missed a point as you surely don't know who are all people in = this list. I con= sider this a sign of useless arrogance against all of us.
&= nbsp;
It is not necessary to = know all the people in this list because logic told me that there can't b= e many DNSBL-Operators here or they are really inhonest.
Otherwise they wou= ld have seen and mentioned = also a big "Conflict of interests" at "commercial DNSBLs"&n= bsp;in the "draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-07":
Commercial DNSBLs which charge for usag= e have real problems to list their paying customers in situations wh= ere a big ISP which is customer of their "commercial DNSBL" is also a big= spammer hoster.
It was really interesting for me to see= that this really big "Conflict of interests" was not also published= in the draft.
<= SPAN style=3D"WIDOWS: 2; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; TEXT-INDENT: 0px; BORDER-C= OLLAPSE: separate; FONT: medium 'Times New Roman'; WHITE-SPACE: normal; O= RPHANS: 2; LETTER-SPACING: normal; COLOR: rgb(0,0,0); WORD-SPACING: 0px; = -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: = 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: = auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px" class=3DApple-style-span> 
Either way, discussion about this draf= t took a very long time. You could be there while this was discussed. Where were you ? Yo= u are free and welcome to participate on all discussions in this list.
 
I found the January changes to the  draft yesterday as our sear= ch algorithm found an article from January 2011 on the listserver wh= ich mentioned UCEPROTECT.
Earlier versions of this draft (V6 and older) were known to me and t= hey didn't contain such personal biased opinions like the new version.
I did therfore not see any reason to participate in this group earli= er.
Drafts of "best practices" and also eventually resulting R= FC's MUST ALWAYS contain pure technical information only a= nd if opinions are mentioned in them, then they MUST BE neutral.
For this Draft this means it MUST either mention  "Co= nflicts of interests" for any kind of DNSBLs or it MUST NOT mention = any at all.
 
Regards
 
Claus von Wolfhausen
Technical Director
UCEPROTECT-Network
--------------Boundary-00=_YH9A9SD8WCW000000000-- --------------Boundary-00=_YH9AEH98WCW000000000-- From c.v.wolfhausen@spamkiller.uceprotect.net Sun Feb 27 08:32:25 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13A113A6957 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 08:32:25 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.829 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.829 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.769, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0cIqsW4aWdtW for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 08:32:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net (ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net [208.66.2.20]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD15F3A694A for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 08:32:23 -0800 (PST) Received: by ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net (UCEPROTECT, from userid 32767) id D152F12EC69; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 17:33:35 +0100 (CET) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; charset="iso-8859-1"; boundary="------------Boundary-00=_HABA55A9RN0000000000" From: "Claus v. Wolfhausen" References: <4D6A6463.9090303@free.fr> To: Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 17:33:33 +0100 (CET) Message-Id: <20110227163335.D152F12EC69@ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net> Cc: josemarcio@free.fr Subject: Re: [Asrg] Fwd: How serious is uceprotect mail filtering ? X-BeenThere: asrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 16:32:25 -0000 --------------Boundary-00=_HABA55A9RN0000000000 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear Jose Marcio,=0D =0D You wrote:=0D >Another one...=0D =0D >Really uceprotect isn't something serious.=0D =0D Really? I guess 2,5 Million happy users will have a different opinion on that topic.=0D =0D >As long as people managing your mail servers doesn't have enough professional skills you should=0D >better go sell peanuts instead of managing a reputation list.=0D =0D I made the decision that people which believe they have to register their domains anonymous can not email me without being on my personal whitelist= =2E=0D What has my personal decision to do with UCEPROTECT or with the UCEPROTECT-DNSBL's?=0D =0D Reagrds=0D =0D Claus von Wolfhausen=0D Technical Director=0D UCEPROTECT-Network=0D http://www.uceprotect.net --------------Boundary-00=_HABA55A9RN0000000000 Content-Type: Text/HTML; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear Jose Marcio,
 
You wrote:
>Another one...
 
>Really uceprotect isn't something serious.
 
Really? I guess 2,5 Million happy users will have a different opinio= n on that topic.
 
>As long as people managing your mail servers doesn't have enough= professional skills you should
>better go sell peanuts instead of managing a reputation list.
 
I made the decision that people which believe they have to register = their domains anonymous can not email me without being on my personal whi= telist.
What has my personal decision to do with UCEPROTECT or with the= UCEPROTECT-DNSBL's?
 
Reagrds
 
Claus von Wolfhausen
Technical Director
UCEPROTECT-Network
--------------Boundary-00=_HABA55A9RN0000000000-- From Jose-Marcio.Martins@mines-paristech.fr Sun Feb 27 08:47:43 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC1AB3A6957 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 08:47:43 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.716 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.716 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.266, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id n2juJF5saGdl for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 08:47:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp-3.ensmp.fr (smtp-3.ensmp.fr [194.214.158.227]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A46EB3A694D for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 08:47:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost.localdomain (joe.j-chkmail.org [88.168.143.55]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp-3.ensmp.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3/JMMC-11/Mar/2010) with ESMTP id p1RGmbQw025482 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 27 Feb 2011 17:48:37 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <4D6A8066.8090209@mines-paristech.fr> Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 17:48:38 +0100 From: Jose-Marcio Martins da Cruz User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.16) Gecko/20110104 Fedora/2.0.11-2.fc14 SeaMonkey/2.0.11 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF References: <20110227061458.B971012EC6A@ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net> <20110227155457.DF84112EC69@ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net> In-Reply-To: <20110227155457.DF84112EC69@ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Miltered: at cascavel with ID 4D6A8065.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http : // j-chkmail dot ensmp dot fr)! X-j-chkmail-Enveloppe: 4D6A8065.000 from joe.j-chkmail.org/joe.j-chkmail.org/88.168.143.55/localhost.localdomain/ Cc: "Claus v. Wolfhausen" Subject: Re: [Asrg] UCEPROTECT's comment on draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-07 X-BeenThere: asrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: Jose-Marcio.Martins@mines-paristech.fr, Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 16:47:43 -0000 Dear Claus, Just a small answer... Claus v. Wolfhausen wrote: > Dear Jose-Marcio, > You wrote: > /The same way as all you've said is only a personal opinion coming from > a company who is part of the "racket protection" community./ > I strongly recommend that you avoid insulting words as "company who is > part of the racket protection community", if you want to be taken > serious by me. Your post just suggested people here doesn't know what they're talking about... So you looked for the same kind of answer. So, let's talk about... First, I'm not defending lazy/incompetent/... people. I'm just telling that people shall have a chance. Accidents may happen, and if it's quite rare... Also, I'd like just to talk the reasons your mail server rejected my message and how serious they are. I suppose my message was rejected by your blacklist... The rejection message, based on my domain name, points to two lists : http://www.blacklistalert.org/?q=jose-marcio.martins@mines-paristech.fr * list.anonwhois.net - well - they say our domain is using anonymous whois. Not sure, but either way, how is this related to sending spam ??? Our domain isn't anonymous. Check our website and you'll see what we do. Do a "whois mines-paristech.fr" and you'll get all information, name, telephone numbers, ... We're not anonymous. * apews.org - welll. One MX of our domain (so, in ingoing only mail server) in a site different of my one, is in the network 193.49.0.0/19, and all this is blacklisted as it seems it's a dynamic range of IP addresses. But... we own the 193.49.22.0/24 subnet. And ALL addresses there have reverse DNS declarations and NONE are dynamically assigned. Either way, none of these reasons are related to sending spam. I tried to go to your web site and, sure, you ask me to pay to be delisted. !!! No technical reason can justify your list to reject our messages. Now, I'm asking you : do you have any evidence of any of our networks sending spam ? Surely not !!! And ther's no reason for us to pay you even a single cent to be whitelisted. No, people at our domain aren't negligent/lazy/incompetent/... (as you said). Your technical staff, probably yes. Sorry, but I can't take you seriously... Best, JM > Sure my posting also just reflects an opinion, but it is an opinion that > is backed up by UCEPROTECT's broad userbase. > There is IMHO no reason for a discussion about how DNSBL's handle > delistings as long as that is explicit stated into the DNSBL's policy. > We are known to have the most transparent policies and our users exactly > know what they are doing and why they are doing it. > If our users would not agree to our policies, then ourlists would simply > not be used and then we would not have this discussion. > The standard procedure at UCEPROTECT-Blocklists is that a listing > automatically expires free of charge 7 days after we have seen the last > abusive action originating from a listed IP. > Different to that, the optional immediate expedited express delisting > requires manual work to be done, which is not offered free of charge by us. > In our jurisdication one is free to charge for services offered, so it > is neither racketeering nor extortion if we are charging listees for > freely chosen optional services. > No one is forcing listees to order an expedited express delisting. They > could simply fix their problem and wait for the free automatic expiration. > /Just to counter your arguments, there are many alternative ways to > "educate people" without "racketing them" : you can make harder and > harder to be whitelisted people being frequently blacklisted. You could > accept to remove immediately people being blacklisted for the first time > or people who wasn't blacklisted in the last one or two year period.../ > You seem to defend people that were too negligent / incompetent / lazy / > whatever to secure their systems in first place. > Those that get listed in a DNSBL missed to do so and therefore they are > guilty for supporting spammers. It is their own fault, even if most of > them blame others afterwards. > I don't know of any jurisdiction where first-time offenders are explicit > "not subject to prosecution" by the law. > So why should a DNSBL handle first-time offenders like they would be > innocent people? > Anyway you made a point: It might be a good idea if we would punish > second-time offenders harder than first-time offenders. > I would have no problem to increase listing period by a factor 100 for > second-time offenders, but this was probably not what you wanted me to > do :-) > /Otheway, your phrase : "That is a really important point, which is > often not seen by people which had never run a public DNSBL." and mainly > "often not seen by people which had never run a public DNSBL.". Well, > you surely missed a point as you surely don't know who are all people in > this list. I consider this a sign of useless arrogance against all of us./ > // > It is not necessary to know all the people in this list because logic > told me that there can't be many DNSBL-Operators here or they are really > inhonest. > Otherwise they would have seen and mentioned also a big "Conflict of > interests" at "commercial DNSBLs" in the > "draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-07": > Commercial DNSBLs which charge for usage have real problems to list > their paying customers in situations where a big ISP which is customer > of their "commercial DNSBL" is also a big spammer hoster. > It was really interesting for me to see that this really big "Conflict > of interests" was not also published in the draft. > /Either way, discussion about this draft took a very long time. You > could be there while this was discussed. Where were you ? You are free > and welcome to participate on all discussions in this list./ > I found the January changes to the draft yesterday as our search > algorithm found an article from January 2011 on the listserver which > mentioned UCEPROTECT. > Earlier versions of this draft (V6 and older) were known to me and they > didn't contain such personal biased opinions like the new version. > I did therfore not see any reason to participate in this group earlier. > Drafts of "best practices" and also eventually resulting RFC's MUST > ALWAYS contain pure technical information only and if opinions are > mentioned in them, then they MUST BE neutral. > For this Draft this means it MUST either mention "Conflicts of > interests" for any kind of DNSBLs or it MUST NOT mention any at all. > Regards > Claus von Wolfhausen > Technical Director > UCEPROTECT-Network > http://www.uceprotect.net > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@irtf.org > http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg -- From joseph.sniderman@thoroquel.org Sun Feb 27 09:07:17 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 766BC3A6A1A for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 09:07:17 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.8 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.8 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8EYsc9xDu5O7 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 09:07:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.thoroquel.org (mail.thoroquel.org [72.14.190.148]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EB103A694D for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 09:07:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from [IPv6:2604:8800:101:1::e] (epinephrine.home.thoroquel.com [IPv6:2604:8800:101:1::e]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.thoroquel.org (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-9.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id p1RH84MX009464 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Sun, 27 Feb 2011 17:08:07 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=thoroquel.org; s=thoroquel2a; t=1298826487; bh=NY+yOlJ7BBSDbg6HnqMRZ+r0v9vHjsOhExNaKupTvdk=; h=Message-ID:Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:OpenPGP: Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:CC:DomainKey-Signature; b=f/lcL3f0PaJSefQVEdDi/25yqI1m1OhyLBjXv6wLMFH3EbtQ9TLmc9ropW1OHqEbx 9/V9E6/z8vIFBIPpcEjGf0jTReLXdaYyLvcxzmaWHgxWwo4FLsBGLnmk3E2RbQHdHX 47loEw1U5Xl9HqX+MczUIWzm91vV0YxDF3U/kjHA+Q/dTRJxMz2Rfa/k5+rupzElkf A3bzmtntFK8gufWvlcwrJiLOli/vR4T3NwZu7W7bpBLQEslfXnqrm7U6TJ+vwuXY+m zINi/OOSgA9+EVyVM/uqs5/uHJbBgP7Ubcn6vxMLuQTKuLRiIf0ugXimPw7FfqKSxG 9rRr7HMDaPqLg== Message-ID: <4D6A84F1.1010809@thoroquel.org> Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 12:08:01 -0500 From: Joe Sniderman User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101208 Thunderbird/3.1.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@irtf.org References: <20110227061458.B971012EC6A@ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net> In-Reply-To: <20110227061458.B971012EC6A@ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1 OpenPGP: id=605721CA Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Asrg] UCEPROTECT's comment on draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-07 X-BeenThere: asrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 17:07:17 -0000 On 02/27/2011 01:14 AM, Claus v. Wolfhausen wrote: > This is the official statement from the maintainers of the > UCEPROTECT-Network > about this section of your RFC - Draft: > > 2.2.5. Conflict of Interest > > Some DNSBLs used for blocking/negative reputation have had a practise > of requiring fees or donations to charities from the listee for > delisting. > > It is generally considered entirely appropriate for a DNSBL to charge > for access to it by its users - the definition of a commercial DNSBL. > > However, the practise of requiring a listee to pay for delisting from > a negative connotation DNSBL steers perilously close to notions of > extortion, blackmail or a "protection racket". Even if such > accusations are entirely unjustified the practise causes uproar and > damage to the DNSBLs reputation, if not the entire DNSBL mechanism as > a whole. Colloquially, "it smells bad". > > Therefore, negative-connotation DNSBLs MUST not charge fees or > require donations for delisting or "faster handling", and it is > RECOMMENDED that such DNSBLs that do charge fees or require donations > not be used. > > We recommend that you remove the complete last sentence, because it reflects > > only your personal opinion, how a DNSBL should be operated. Charging to remove a negative reputation is also more or less equiv to charging to add a positive reputation (such as a commercial whitelist or vouching service). Both have merits, both sometimes smell bad or leave a bad taste, both are sometimes *incorrectly* termed as "extortion" or similar. -1 * -1 == +1 * +1 its the identical adjustment, merely expressed differently. If one expression of this type of adjustment is discouraged (ie pay to delist) so should the equivalent expressions (paid whitelistings, vouching services, accreditations etc) be discouraged. That said, it is a business policy decision more than a technical policy decision, and it does not make sense to recommend one way or the other. > Since you claim the document would be intended to provide guidance to > DNSBL operators so that they may be able to identify what features users > would be interested in seeing as a part of a high-quality, well-managed > DNSBL, > it is not your business to tell the operators they "MUST NOT" charge > delisting or "faster handling" fees. I would tend to agree with you on this. Particularly, this usage seems to go against RFC 2119 (section 6) which in relation to key words such as MUST, MUST NOT, etc, states: |> 6. Guidance in the use of these Imperatives |> |> |> Imperatives of the type defined in this memo must be used with care |> and sparingly. In particular, they MUST only be used where it is |> actually required for interoperation or to limit behavior which has |> potential for causing harm (e.g., limiting retransmisssions) For |> example, they must not be used to try to impose a particular method |> on implementors where the method is not required for |> interoperability. Charging for listing/delisting is not an interoperability issue per se, and "it smells bad" is on not the same type of harm as retransmissions or similar. OTOH, the draft does not source BCP 14 / RFC 2119, so perhaps changing the "MUST" to lowercase "must" or even a lowercase "should" for the sake of clarity would be an equally good option. > The recommendation that such DNSBLs which are charging for removals > should not be used is a personal opinion and as such it has also no place > in a guidance which is addressed to DNSBL operators. Under the heading of conflict of interest it does make sense to at least recommend disclosure of such policies, if in place. Any opportunity for the subject of reputation data to alter that reputation data by means of payment, could pose a conflict of interest, and is therefore something of which a DNSxL's users or potential users should be aware. As long as users of a DNSxL are fully informed of the potential conflict of interest, they can make informed decisions as to the trustworthiness and usefulness (or lack thereof) of the data provided. -- Joe Sniderman From steve@blighty.com Sun Feb 27 09:14:06 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D2873A6A19 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 09:14:06 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.8 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.8 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NeQzoznG3mqk for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 09:14:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from m.wordtothewise.com (m.wordtothewise.com [208.187.80.130]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5390E3A694D for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 09:14:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from platter.wordtothewise.com (184.wordtothewise.com [208.187.80.184]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: steve) by m.wordtothewise.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3DEE12DEB2 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 09:15:03 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=wordtothewise.com; s=1.wttw; t=1298826903; bh=BPqIRnBDA1PsL5L/BiHnv8XG+/B2sX7KNpEynu2aOH4=; h=Content-Type:Mime-Version:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-Id:References:To; b=ivyw/6Bfpcu/z1myybOUC1r96NUs7pALNpVTXZBtkcv7S76LrG45c2wzoqksLysVA sikQzF2tX0hVfEgKWs9fzPfv9RamiRNub8+IvLyw+ZdOo8W+1MNFnhdlfDFdLbJbeG LtcIG6ImAKVF+PpEYpDwbwb326D0TRz9mvhlVKvg= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082) From: Steve Atkins In-Reply-To: <4D6A84F1.1010809@thoroquel.org> Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 09:15:02 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <21846E25-4890-4B45-8B24-1333EA447A6F@blighty.com> References: <20110227061458.B971012EC6A@ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net> <4D6A84F1.1010809@thoroquel.org> To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082) Subject: Re: [Asrg] UCEPROTECT's comment on draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-07 X-BeenThere: asrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 17:14:06 -0000 On Feb 27, 2011, at 9:08 AM, Joe Sniderman wrote: > > Charging to remove a negative reputation is also more or less equiv to > charging to add a positive reputation (such as a commercial whitelist or > vouching service). Both have merits, both sometimes smell bad or leave > a bad taste, both are sometimes *incorrectly* termed as "extortion" or > similar. -1 * -1 == +1 * +1 its the identical adjustment, merely > expressed differently. No. Not even a little. One difference is that in the case of charging to remove a negative reputation, you have a business incentive to add negative listings for reasons that are dubious or even entirely false. Look at those blacklists that charge for removal, and look at the quality of the data. Another difference is that paying for a positive listing gives you that positive listing for a well-defined period of time, unless you do something pretty egregious. Paying for removal of a negative listing doesn't mean that you won't be relisted a couple of days later (just the opposite, in some cases - if you pay off $BLACKLIST once they're clear that you're likely to pay them off again, so repeated relistings can be profitable). There are many other differences between the two, both philosophical and operational. Cheers, Steve From joseph.sniderman@thoroquel.org Sun Feb 27 09:38:26 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8922C3A6A0F for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 09:38:26 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.8 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.8 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CNvZwBGJLGM2 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 09:38:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.thoroquel.org (mail.thoroquel.org [72.14.190.148]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18F7D3A6950 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 09:38:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from [IPv6:2604:8800:101:1::e] (epinephrine.home.thoroquel.com [IPv6:2604:8800:101:1::e]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.thoroquel.org (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-9.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id p1RHdFcR009499 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Sun, 27 Feb 2011 17:39:17 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=thoroquel.org; s=thoroquel2a; t=1298828357; bh=8FwKOV2SLFHxmLdCAs5tjUQhFA5OvR5LnIr9idxx/KE=; h=Message-ID:Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:OpenPGP: Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:CC:DomainKey-Signature; b=RUEoYL0g9sDInz+E767bgyR7a6sI9fxUBdYV3b47CWrdfHfSawDbz8CAwUKfA9ffB phKEjpAQf3uhCzPAkyfxLHYv/ykWXPZwik3tP59MdziGDqRESwBrjD+t0b+cYmRvl0 o8w3GRRWSx7q4NXQxfTDHgIun2E9iPGVSAoYCbkJ2ZOX6ssPClbXx0V2VVaXOE8jRS MptwC7a7+Zftd5fju1mN6U2LwdB+xmtE/O25hBQayUw534hIINToHVYPYd+mX5Eg/u z9Z7Z6C/wySnWkQpr4gfqyeldzNOsDYgTrEq/vlqLqYg8kxyCYi0cBVFx6aVazsyHg X38LzE96M8k4A== Message-ID: <4D6A8C42.7060102@thoroquel.org> Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 12:39:14 -0500 From: Joe Sniderman User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101208 Thunderbird/3.1.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@irtf.org References: <20110227061458.B971012EC6A@ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net> <4D6A84F1.1010809@thoroquel.org> <21846E25-4890-4B45-8B24-1333EA447A6F@blighty.com> In-Reply-To: <21846E25-4890-4B45-8B24-1333EA447A6F@blighty.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1 OpenPGP: id=605721CA Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Asrg] UCEPROTECT's comment on draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-07 X-BeenThere: asrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 17:38:26 -0000 On 02/27/2011 12:15 PM, Steve Atkins wrote: > > On Feb 27, 2011, at 9:08 AM, Joe Sniderman wrote: >> >> Charging to remove a negative reputation is also more or less equiv to >> charging to add a positive reputation (such as a commercial whitelist or >> vouching service). Both have merits, both sometimes smell bad or leave >> a bad taste, both are sometimes *incorrectly* termed as "extortion" or >> similar. -1 * -1 == +1 * +1 its the identical adjustment, merely >> expressed differently. > > No. Not even a little. > > One difference is that in the case of charging to remove a negative > reputation, you have a business incentive to add negative listings > for reasons that are dubious or even entirely false. That could equally be applied to whitelists: one could have an incentive to create bogus reasons for de-whitelisting. Of course doing so would destroy the credibility of the whitelist. A blacklist doing the same would destroy its own credibility as well. Both have the same potential problems, and potential merits. More importantly, both provide a business incentive to ignore negative behavior from a paying customer. However, that potential conflict of interest, in both cases is just that: potential. Disclosure rather than a "MUST NOT" places that in the open. > Look at those > blacklists that charge for removal, and look at the quality of the data. AFAIK the only at all major DNSBL that charges for removals charges for expedited removals only, and thats UCEPROTECT. (am I forgetting one?) Regardless of what one thinks of their policies, philosophies or whatever, its quality is pretty decent. Even their default 7 day wait is shorter than some free-delist commercial DNSBLs take to reply to a ticket. > Another difference is that paying for a positive listing gives you that > positive listing for a well-defined period of time, unless you do something > pretty egregious. Assuming an honest whitelist, yes. > Paying for removal of a negative listing doesn't > mean that you won't be relisted a couple of days later (just the opposite, > in some cases - if you pay off $BLACKLIST once they're clear that you're > likely to pay them off again, so repeated relistings can be profitable). The assumption there is that the blacklist is likely to be less honest than the whitelist. As long as both are honest, then the paid removal or whitelisting is a good thing. If dishonest, it leads to repeated listings or alternatively de-whitelistings. It also creates a bias toward the paying customer, the listee or ex-listee. > There are many other differences between the two, both philosophical > and operational. Yes, the paid-delist blacklist variety tends to focus more on protecting recipients, the paid-list whitelist variety tends to focus on protecting senders. -- Joe Sniderman From c.v.wolfhausen@spamkiller.uceprotect.net Sun Feb 27 10:59:36 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABE733A6A22 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 10:59:36 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.321 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.321 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.122, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_62=0.6, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TE4D6NDY5fHi for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 10:59:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net (ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net [208.66.2.20]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BAE73A6A00 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 10:59:33 -0800 (PST) Received: by ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net (UCEPROTECT, from userid 32767) id 0FD6B12EC69; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 20:00:39 +0100 (CET) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; charset="iso-8859-1"; boundary="------------Boundary-00=_J3IADNOCCJD000000000" From: "Claus v. Wolfhausen" References: To: Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 20:00:35 +0100 (CET) Message-Id: <20110227190039.0FD6B12EC69@ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net> Subject: Re: [Asrg] UCEPROTECT's comment on draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-07 X-BeenThere: asrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 18:59:36 -0000 --------------Boundary-00=_J3IADNOCCJD000000000 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable TRBL Support wrote:=0D =0D >As a counterpoint, I run a public DNSBL and I agree with the choice of=0D >wording used in the BCP draft. Watching the history of blacklists over=0D >the years, few things have caused more angst and accusations than=0D >requiring a delisting fee. Even SORBS has stopped requiring such a=0D >fee.=0D =0D I never heard of the TRBLSPAM so it is very like to be not widely known. = As a consequence there will not be many users and not many removal requests.= =0D If we at UCEPROTECT would have to handle up to 50 removal request per day= , then we could offer that free of charge, of course.=0D Unfortunateley we would have to handle between 40000 to 50000 requests pe= r day, if we would offer immediate removals free of charge.=0D =0D In UCEPROTECT's early days (August 2001) the project was run on a sub dom= ain of admins.ws and the blocklists had public "remove me" Buttons, where listees could remove them self.=0D =0D As Spammers were beginning to abuse that with automated scripts we did secure it with a captcha. Then Spammers did hire persons in India and Chi= na to remove their listings manually.=0D =0D That was the point where UCEPROTECT has chosen to no longer allow "self removals" and then everyone was required to contact us to get removed bef= ore expiration.=0D =0D Anyone that has ever run a heavily used public blocklist, has a clue what this means:=0D In 2003 we had to read 40000 to 50000 removal request per day, and all th= ese guys are claiming to be completely innocent, and they all are claiming th= at they would have fixed their problems.=0D Not necessary to say that 90% of them did find their way back into the li= st within minutes, because they had indeed NOT fixed their problems.=0D =0D Some month later we moved the project to its own domain and got rid of removing all those losers every day just to see their system continue spamming 5 minutes later again.=0D There were more removal-requests than we could handle ourselves in time a= nd we have high standards: Every request for a manual removal has to be done within 90 minutes.=0D We tried to find trustworthy people that would do the manual delistings f= ree of charge on a 24/7 basis, but no one wanted to have this job without bei= ng paid.=0D =0D So we had chosen that the only way to get out would be automatic expirati= on after 7 days.=0D =0D We had only 165 trapservers out there that time and that means you have better chances to win the jackpot in your local lottery than to hit a spamtrap here, unless you are sending tons of spams.=0D =0D It happens very often that Spammers send 30.000.000 spammails and we see just 1 of them. It is impossible for us to know whether or not a formerly spam spewing system has been cleaned up or not.=0D =0D Not getting reports for 1 or 2 days says nothing about the listed system.= It could still spew spam but just miss our traps.=0D =0D Not getting reports for 7 days is of course not a proof, but at least an indicator that the problem might have been fixed.=0D =0D You know what happened next, do you?=0D =0D Some listees claimed that it would cost them lots of money to be listed f= or a week, but they would have fixed their problem and they are so sure that their problem is now fixed that THEY WOULD EVEN PAY FOR IT TO GET OUT IMMEDIATLEY. =0D =0D So expedited express delisting was not our invention - It was implemented because listees were begging us to create that option.=0D =0D Logic says: One would not waste money if he would not have fixed the problems.=0D That is the reason why expedited express delistings exist at UCEPROTECT-Networks.=0D =0D It was necessary to contract external persons to run the hotline and the express delistings, which wouldn't have needed on automatic expirations o= nly =0D =0D Logically these people (mostly students) do not work for free, and neithe= r we nor our users have any intention to pay for the faults of our listees.= =0D =0D We also think we have found a good balance between what is acceptable for someone who has really fixed his problems and needs his email back and al= so expensive enough that Spammers would not pay for.=0D =0D And as told before another important fact is: Most of those who paid have really fixed their problems and learned an unforgettable lesson: =0D =0D NEVER GO ONLINE AGAIN WITH AN INSECURE SYSTEM.=0D =0D Our users fully agree to that policy because we did never try to make a secret out of it.=0D I know it is hard to believe for all those that do not agree with our policy:=0D Many of our users have chosen to use ourlist *BECAUSE* we are running an hard and unforgiving course against the owners of spamming systems, no matter they are spamming intentionally or because they got hacked.=0D =0D Since also no one here from this group offered to do the 24/7 Job removin= g the losers free of charge for us, nothing will change at UCEPROTECT-Netwo= rk for the moment.=0D =0D Regards=0D =0D Claus von Wolfhausen=0D Technical Director=0D UCEPROTECT-Network=0D http://www.uceprotect.net=0D =0D =0D =20 --------------Boundary-00=_J3IADNOCCJD000000000 Content-Type: Text/HTML; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
TRBL Support wrote:
 
>As a counterpoint, I run a public DNSBL and I agree with the cho= ice of
>wording used in the BCP draft. Watching the history of blacklist= s over
>the years, few things have caused more angst and accusations tha= n
>requiring a delisting fee. Even SORBS has stopped requiring such= a
>fee.
 
I never heard of the TRBLSPAM so it is very like to be not widely kn= own. As a consequence there will not be many users and not many removal r= equests.
If we at UCEPROTECT would have to handle up to 50 removal request pe= r day, then we could offer that free of charge, of course.
Unfortunateley we would have to handle between 40000 to 50000 reques= ts per day, if we would offer immediate removals free of charge.
 
In UCEPROTECT's early days (August 2001) the project = was run on a sub domain of admins.ws and the blocklists had public "remov= e me" Buttons, where listees could remove them self.
 
As Spammers were beginning to abuse that with automat= ed scripts we did secure it with a captcha. Then Spammers did hire person= s in India and China to remove their listings manually.
 
That was the point where UCEPROTECT has chosen to no = longer allow "self removals" and then everyone was required to contact us= to get removed before expiration.
 
Anyone that has ever run a heavily used public b= locklist, has a clue what this means:
In 2003 we had to read 4000= 0 to 50000 removal request per day, and all these guys are claiming to be= completely innocent, and they all are claiming that they would have fixe= d their problems.
Not necessary to say that 90% of them did find their= way back into the list within minutes, because they had indeed NOT fixed= their problems.
 
Some month later we moved the project to its own= domain and got rid of removing all those losers every day just= to see their system continue spamming 5 minutes later again.
There were more removal-requests than we could handle= ourselves in time and we have high standards: Every request for a manual= removal has to be done within 90 minutes.
We tried to find trustworthy people that would do the= manual delistings free of charge on a 24/7 basis, but no one wanted to h= ave this job without being paid.
 
So we had chosen that the only way to get out would b= e automatic expiration after 7 days.
 
We had only 165 trapservers out there that time and t= hat means you have better chances to win the jackpot in your local lotter= y than to hit a spamtrap here, unless you are sending tons of spams.
 
It happens very often that Spammers send 30.000.000 s= pammails and we see just 1 of them. It is impossible for us to know wheth= er or not a formerly spam spewing system has been cleaned up or not.
 
Not getting reports for 1 or 2 days says nothing abou= t the listed system. It could still spew spam but just miss our traps.
 
Not getting reports for 7 days is of course not a pro= of, but at least an indicator that the problem might have been fixed.
 
You know what happened next, do you?
 
Some listees claimed that it would cost them lots of = money to be listed for a week, but they would have fixed their problem an= d they are so sure that their problem is now fixed that THEY WOULD EVEN P= AY FOR IT TO GET OUT IMMEDIATLEY.
 
So expedited express delisting was not our inven= tion - It was implemented because listees were begging us to create that = option.
 
Logic says: One would not waste money if he would not= have fixed the problems.
That is the reason why expedited express del= istings exist at UCEPROTECT-Networks.
 
It was necessary to contract external persons to= run the hotline and the express delistings, which wouldn't have nee= ded on automatic expirations only.
 
Logically these people (mostly students) do not work for free, and n= either we nor our users have any intention to pay for the faults of our l= istees.
 
We also think we have found a good balance between wh= at is acceptable for someone who has really fixed his problems and needs = his email back and also expensive enough that Spammers would not pay for.=
 
And as told before another important fact is: Most of= those who paid have really fixed their problems and learned an unforgett= able lesson:
 
NEVER GO ONLINE AGAIN WITH AN INSECURE SYSTEM.=
 
Our users fully agree to that policy because we did never try to mak= e a secret out of it.
I know it is hard to believe for all those that do not agree wi= th our policy:
Many of our users have chosen to use ourlist *BECAUSE* we = are running an hard and unforgiving course against the owners of spamming= systems, no matter they are spamming intentionally or because they got h= acked.
 
Since also no one here from this group offered to do the 24/7 Job re= moving the losers free of charge for us, nothing will change at UCEPROTEC= T-Network for the moment.
 
Regards
 
Claus von Wolfhausen
Technical Director
UCEPROTECT-Network
http://www.uceprotect.net<= /DIV>
 
 
 
--------------Boundary-00=_J3IADNOCCJD000000000-- From c.v.wolfhausen@spamkiller.uceprotect.net Sun Feb 27 11:43:58 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81D383A6A40 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 11:43:58 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.597 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.597 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.202, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ui+a0PO8Z4jF for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 11:43:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net (ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net [208.66.2.20]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAE1C3A6A30 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 11:43:56 -0800 (PST) Received: by ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net (UCEPROTECT, from userid 32767) id 2411912EC69; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 20:45:06 +0100 (CET) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; charset="iso-8859-1"; boundary="------------Boundary-00=_Q5KARBNE24L000000000" From: "Claus v. Wolfhausen" References: <20110227061458.B971012EC6A@ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net> <20110227155457.DF84112EC69@ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net> <4D6A8066.8090209@mines-paristech.fr> To: Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 20:45:02 +0100 (CET) Message-Id: <20110227194506.2411912EC69@ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net> Subject: Re: [Asrg] UCEPROTECT's comment on draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-07 X-BeenThere: asrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 19:43:58 -0000 --------------Boundary-00=_Q5KARBNE24L000000000 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear Jose-Marcio,=0D =0D >Your post just suggested people here doesn't know what they're talking about... So you looked for=0D >the same kind of answer. So, let's talk about...=0D =0D It is obvious that *YOU* don't know what you are talking about...:-)=0D =0D >First, I'm not defending lazy/incompetent/... people. I'm just telling t= hat people shall have a=0D >chance. Accidents may happen, and if it's quite rare...=0D =0D Really?=0D Hmmm lets think about that and see our actal numbers:=0D =0D http://stats.uceprotect.net/?page=3Dsu=0D =0D Looks like there were 1,7 Million such "rare" Accidents within the last 7 days?=0D =0D Sure Accidents can happen but you can also provoke them if you are neglig= ent / incompetent / lazy ....=0D If you are parking your car in front of your house, leaving it unlocked a= nd let the keys inside,=0D yes then it is very like that childrens will play with your car and accidentally manage to kill =0D someone with your car... =0D =0D But: That would have not been happened if you would have locked your car = and you would =0D have taken the keys with you. =0D =0D The analogy with the accidently spamming server is the same.=0D What do you think: How many "Wannabe Admins" are too stupid / lazy / whatever to lock outgoing=0D traffic to port 25 universe except the own mailrelay in their firewalls?=0D These losers don't have to wonder if one of their clients inside get infected, starts spamming=0D and is subscribing the Companies natted Mailserver IP into the blocklists= of the world.=0D They could have prevented it with a single rule in their firewall....=0D =0D >Also, I'd like just to talk the reasons your mail server rejected my message and how serious they=0D >are. I suppose my message was rejected by your blacklist...=0D =0D >The rejection message, based on my domain name, points to two lists :=0D =0D > http://www.blacklistalert.org/?q=3Djose-marcio.martins@mines-paristec= h.fr=0D =0D >* list.anonwhois.net - well - they say our domain is using anonymous who= is. Not sure, but either=0D > way, how is this related to sending spam ???=0D =0D It is not related to spam, it is related to my decision to not accept ema= ils from domains listed at anonwhois.org=0D Hey my server - my rules ....=0D I reject email form many reasons and that is my personal decision.=0D =0D > Our domain isn't anonymous. Check our website and you'll see what we do= =2E Do a "whois=0D > mines-paristech.fr" and you'll get all information, name, telephone numbers, ... We're not anonymous.=0D =0D I had no reason to mistrust the guys at anonwhois.org until today.=0D Having a lookup at http://anonwhois.org/lookup.html?check=3Dmines-pariste= ch fr&submit=3Dsubmit#=0D You will find that they say: Protected by takebackprivacy.net =0D If you do no longer match their listing criterias then feel free to reque= st them to remove your domain.=0D =0D >* apews.org - welll. One MX of our domain (so, in ingoing only mail serv= er) in a site different of=0D >my one, is in the network 193.49.0.0/19, and all this is blacklisted as = it seems it's a dynamic=0D > range of IP addresses. But... we own the 193.49.22.0/24 subnet. And ALL addresses there have reverse=0D >DNS declarations and NONE are dynamically assigned.=0D =0D APEWS is NOT a criterium on my server.=0D =0D >Either way, none of these reasons are related to sending spam.=0D =0D Again: I make the rules on my system - I can reject because of today is Sunday if that would be my wish ....=0D A rejection does not necessarily have anything to do with spam.=0D =0D >I tried to go to your web site and, sure, you ask me to pay to be delist= ed. !!! No technical reason=0D >can justify your list to reject our messages.=0D =0D Your simply a liar.=0D I checked the Range http://www.uceprotect.net/en/rblcheck.php?ipr=3D193.4= 9.22 0=0D and found it is not listed at UCEPROTECT-Network.=0D That logically means YOU WERE NOT ASKED for a paid delisting.=0D =0D That proofs you are a Liar - shame on you.=0D =0D Claus von Wolfhausen=0D Technical Director=0D UCEPROTECT-Network=0D http://www.uceprotect.net --------------Boundary-00=_Q5KARBNE24L000000000 Content-Type: Text/HTML; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear Jose-Marcio,
 
>Your post just suggested people here doesn't know what they're t= alking about... So you looked for
>the same kind of answer. So, let's talk about...
 
It is obvious that *YOU* don't know what you are talking about...:-)=
 
>First, I'm not defending lazy/incompetent/... people. I'm just t= elling that people shall have a
>chance. Accidents may happen, and if it's quite rare...
 
Really?
Hmmm lets think about that and see our actal numbers:
 
 
Looks like there were 1,7 Million such "rare" Accidents within the l= ast 7 days?
 
Sure Accidents can happen but you can also provoke them if you = are negligent / incompetent / lazy ....
If you are parking your car in front of your house, leaving it unloc= ked and let the keys inside,
yes then it is very like that childrens will play with your car= and accidentally manage to kill
someone with your car... 
 
But: That would have not been happened if you would have locked your= car and you would
have taken the keys with you. 
 
The analogy with the accidently spamming server is the same.
What do you think: How many "Wannabe Admins" are too stupid / lazy /= whatever to lock outgoing
traffic to port 25 universe except the own mailrelay in their firewa= lls?
These losers don't have to wonder if one of their clients inside get= infected, starts spamming
and is subscribing the Companies natted Mailserver IP into the block= lists of the world.
They could have prevented it with a single rule in their firewall...= =2E
 
>Also, I'd like just to talk the reasons your mail server rejecte= d my message and how serious they
>are. I suppose my message was rejected by your blacklist...
 
>The rejection message, based on my domain name, points to two li= sts :
 
 
>* list.anonwhois.net - well - they say our domain is using anony= mous whois. Not sure, but either
> way, how is this related to sending spam ???
 
It is not related to spam, it is related to my decision to not accep= t emails from domains listed at anonwhois.org
Hey my server - my rules ....
I reject email form many reasons and that is my personal decision.
 
> Our domain isn't anonymous. Check our website and you'll see wh= at we do. Do a "whois
> mines-paristech.fr" and you'll get all information, name, telep= hone numbers, ... We're not anonymous.
 
I had no reason to mistrust the guys at anonwhois.org until today.
You will find that they say: Protected by takebackprivacy.n= et 
If you do no longer match their listing criterias then feel free to = request them to remove your domain.
 
>* apews.org - welll. One MX of our domain (so, in ingoing only m= ail server) in a site different of
>my one, is in the network 193.49.0.0/19, and all this is blackli= sted as it seems it's a dynamic
> range of IP addresses. But... we own the 193.49.22.0/24 subnet.= And ALL addresses there have reverse
>DNS declarations and NONE are dynamically assigned.
 
APEWS is NOT a criterium on my server.
 
>Either way, none of these reasons are related to sending spam.
 
Again: I make the rules on my system - I can reject because of today= is Sunday if that would be my wish ....
A rejection does not necessarily have anything to do with spam.
 
>I tried to go to your web site and, sure, you ask me to pay to b= e delisted. !!! No technical reason
>can justify your list to reject our messages.
 
Your simply a liar.
and found it is not listed a= t UCEPROTECT-Network.
That logically means YOU WER= E NOT ASKED for a paid delisting.
 <= /DIV>
That proofs you are a Liar -= shame on you.
 <= /DIV>
Claus von Wolfhausen<= /SPAN>
Technical Director
UCEPROTECT-Network
 <= /DIV>
 <= /DIV>
--------------Boundary-00=_Q5KARBNE24L000000000-- From steve@blighty.com Sun Feb 27 11:48:09 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7793D3A67C1 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 11:48:09 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.8 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.8 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CpJ7rvKJe0mX for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 11:48:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from m.wordtothewise.com (b.wordtothewise.com [208.187.80.136]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B5193A67B0 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 11:48:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from platter.wordtothewise.com (184.wordtothewise.com [208.187.80.184]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: steve) by m.wordtothewise.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BDBD82E9BF for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 11:49:06 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=wordtothewise.com; s=1.wttw; t=1298836146; bh=yke+k6OMmG2UQRD1jxAq3nLJJ3IErhdW/vsqMH4Ukm4=; h=Content-Type:Mime-Version:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-Id:References:To; b=PJ93GCpo8tc1R5YDIY9eTDV3VmOt+klBRpLvEfhxPy/l7C0fYGlM8SGXXfQZ4D6Hp O4cOkSasti1EDumnXiThQi7unrcmjm2L1ZqUYmmtZ+9yJ01GW8/eVqBU7XB6NcCE0I nV31v31kgCVZA7lfJ/+SQ7bVdcw2nPW0LfXDb/gE= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082) From: Steve Atkins In-Reply-To: <20110227194506.2411912EC69@ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net> Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 11:49:05 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <20110227061458.B971012EC6A@ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net> <20110227155457.DF84112EC69@ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net> <4D6A8066.8090209@mines-paristech.fr> <20110227194506.2411912EC69@ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net> To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082) Subject: Re: [Asrg] UCEPROTECT's comment on draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-07 X-BeenThere: asrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 19:48:09 -0000 On Feb 27, 2011, at 11:45 AM, Claus v. Wolfhausen wrote: > That proofs you are a Liar - shame on you. Please either behave professionally - which includes avoiding libelous = accusations, as well as other inflammatory, unprofessional language - or = take your conversation to somewhere other than an IRTF mailing list. Cheers, Steve From esa@winteri.org Sun Feb 27 11:53:36 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B6083A67B0 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 11:53:36 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.976 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gW3kMbKUfpgw for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 11:53:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-yx0-f182.google.com (mail-yx0-f182.google.com [209.85.213.182]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 415E43A6A28 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 11:53:35 -0800 (PST) Received: by yxl31 with SMTP id 31so1520246yxl.13 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 11:54:33 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=winteri.org; s=google; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:x-originating-ip :in-reply-to:references:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type; bh=Qi/1AsSz5G8hgjpnS4gQOLH/tcsLQctG/7eXOFPDKEQ=; b=LlQAcQQZo0btmtzZKpJUXoGEtoY5t8P3yNeMJB4hrd5xkpmeOhyRn42wAgPaqnjTla FEp9fI2yDAiRswDLEr+WKI8NrqGyF5HFOHbQlK1Ov7Ci0XZDnq34aqXr+Td0vmqAo2n3 GqU0AdfGzEdyZVlADeE45K4SzHjaVupfce0uw= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=winteri.org; s=google; h=mime-version:sender:x-originating-ip:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; b=Ess83nIpUL4/edh1jRYSuLAJtRtkDVj83WPyfjl4PE63yGxIBigKrxShj+Iluq2HCP LxBpalKsdLBpCp8zjKTEB0AAihG2oGVdNq9jBCXdK0T4yjttoxIvvzeYrJqPr7x51Foy 4Y/Rbxi4I3W7x831GiJz9Rb+pO14IwdGRPBsw= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.151.154.3 with SMTP id g3mr6283381ybo.239.1298836473123; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 11:54:33 -0800 (PST) Sender: esa@winteri.org Received: by 10.151.51.5 with HTTP; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 11:54:33 -0800 (PST) X-Originating-IP: [92.105.66.4] In-Reply-To: <20110227163335.D152F12EC69@ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net> References: <4D6A6463.9090303@free.fr> <20110227163335.D152F12EC69@ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net> Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 20:54:33 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: m2bNAhjg9SKNEjd88Rz2EoxlCTM Message-ID: From: Esa Laitinen To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0015175707f29a12a7049d48ee74 Subject: Re: [Asrg] Fwd: How serious is uceprotect mail filtering ? X-BeenThere: asrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 19:53:36 -0000 --0015175707f29a12a7049d48ee74 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 5:33 PM, Claus v. Wolfhausen < c.v.wolfhausen@spamkiller.uceprotect.net> wrote: > > I made the decision that people which believe they have to register their > domains anonymous can not email me without being on my personal whitelist. > What has my personal decision to do with UCEPROTECT or with the > UCEPROTECT-DNSBL's? > > I think Jose Marcio doesn't agree the idea "my server, my rules". Anyway, the domain he uses is hardly anonymous. Yours, esa ps: Jose Marcio: why on earth would you CC somebody when responding to the list? -- Mr. Esa Laitinen Tel. +41 76 200 2870 skype/yahoo: reunaesa Blog: http://happiloppuuahistaa.blogspot.com --0015175707f29a12a7049d48ee74 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 5:33 PM, Claus v. Wo= lfhausen <c.v.wolfhausen@spamkiller.uceprotect.net> wro= te:
=A0
I made the decision that people which believe they have to register th= eir domains anonymous can not email me without being on my personal whiteli= st.
What has my=A0personal decision to do with UCEPROTECT or with the UCEP= ROTECT-DNSBL's?


= I think Jose Marcio doesn't agree the idea "my server, my rules&qu= ot;.

Anyway, the domain he uses is hardly anonymous.

Yours,<= br>
esa

ps: Jose Marcio: why on earth would you CC somebody when res= ponding to the list?



--
Mr. E= sa Laitinen
Tel. +41 76 200 2870
skype/yahoo: reunaesa
Blog: http://happ= iloppuuahistaa.blogspot.com

--0015175707f29a12a7049d48ee74-- From c.v.wolfhausen@spamkiller.uceprotect.net Sun Feb 27 12:01:09 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D0283A67ED for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 12:01:09 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.631 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.631 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.168, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aRgjZpkD55SW for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 12:01:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net (ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net [208.66.2.20]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69E633A67C1 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 12:01:08 -0800 (PST) Received: by ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net (UCEPROTECT, from userid 32767) id B747212EC69; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 21:02:28 +0100 (CET) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; charset="iso-8859-1"; boundary="------------Boundary-00=_5YKAX2BE24L000000000" From: "Claus v. Wolfhausen" References: <20110227061458.B971012EC6A@ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net> <20110227155457.DF84112EC69@ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net> <4D6A8066.8090209@mines-paristech.fr> <20110227194506.2411912EC69@ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net> To: Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 21:02:24 +0100 (CET) Message-Id: <20110227200228.B747212EC69@ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net> Subject: Re: [Asrg] UCEPROTECT's comment on draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-07 X-BeenThere: asrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 20:01:09 -0000 --------------Boundary-00=_5YKAX2BE24L000000000 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear Steve,=0D =0D You wrote:=0D >Please either behave professionally - which includes avoiding libelous accusations, as well as other inflammatory, unprofessional language - or take your conversation to somewhere other than an IRTF mailing list.=0D =0D So that means: I have to tolerate being badmouthed? The truth can never b= e libel. =0D I don't think it was polite nor professional from Jose-Marcio to wrongly claim that our website would have asked him for a paid expressdelisting, because he is obviously not even listed.=0D I don't know where you live, but right here we would call such accusation= s=20 lying".=0D =0D Regards=0D Claus von Wolfhausen=0D Technical Director=0D UCEPROTECT-Network=0D http://www.uceprotect.net --------------Boundary-00=_5YKAX2BE24L000000000 Content-Type: Text/HTML; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear Steve,
 
You wrote:
>Please either behave professionally - which includes avoiding li= belous accusations, as well as other inflammatory, unprofessional languag= e - or take your conversation to somewhere other than an IRTF mailing lis= t.
 
So that means: I have to tolerate being badmouthed? The truth can ne= ver be libel. 
I don't think it was polite nor professional from Jose-Marcio to wro= ngly claim that our website would have asked him for a paid expressdelist= ing, because he is obviously not even listed.
I don't know where you live, but right here we would call such accus= ations "lying".
 
Regards
Claus von Wolfhausen
Technical Director
UCEPROTECT-Network
http://www.uceprotect.net<= /DIV>
 
 
 
--------------Boundary-00=_5YKAX2BE24L000000000-- From Jose-Marcio.Martins@mines-paristech.fr Sun Feb 27 12:28:18 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 048E23A67E2 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 12:28:18 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.049 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.049 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.200, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XtS+O3Kx6omC for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 12:28:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp-3.ensmp.fr (smtp-3.ensmp.fr [194.214.158.227]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11EA33A67B0 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 12:28:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost.localdomain (joe.j-chkmail.org [88.168.143.55]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp-3.ensmp.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3/JMMC-11/Mar/2010) with ESMTP id p1RKTD5M026962 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 21:29:13 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <4D6AB41B.7010904@mines-paristech.fr> Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 21:29:15 +0100 From: Jose-Marcio Martins da Cruz User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.16) Gecko/20110104 Fedora/2.0.11-2.fc14 SeaMonkey/2.0.11 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF References: <4D6A6463.9090303@free.fr> <20110227163335.D152F12EC69@ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Miltered: at cascavel with ID 4D6AB419.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http : // j-chkmail dot ensmp dot fr)! X-j-chkmail-Enveloppe: 4D6AB419.000 from joe.j-chkmail.org/joe.j-chkmail.org/88.168.143.55/localhost.localdomain/ Subject: Re: [Asrg] Fwd: How serious is uceprotect mail filtering ? X-BeenThere: asrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: Jose-Marcio.Martins@mines-paristech.fr, Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 20:28:18 -0000 Hi, Esa Laitinen wrote: > > > I think Jose Marcio doesn't agree the idea "my server, my rules". Yes and no. At first, I misunderstood and though my message was rejected by their server using blacklist, not a personal rule. Sure, anyone has the right to define what he's wanting to accept... But this is another issue. Spam is a problem and, IMHO, it can be really hard when people use rules which aren't really related to spam filtering. Imagine a non IT user sending a message being rejected on the other side by this kind of rule. Sometimes it's hard to explain him that the problem is the trivial rule used by the other side and not our system. > Anyway, the domain he uses is hardly anonymous. > > Yours, > > esa > > ps: Jose Marcio: why on earth would you CC somebody when responding to > the list? It was a "reply all" which is a common practice (bad or not, one can think) on some other mailing lists I subscribe which sets the "replyto" header to the sender. From kelly.molloy@gmail.com Sun Feb 27 12:29:18 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D58D83A67B0 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 12:29:18 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.799 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.799 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ndfj4QU8U75N for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 12:29:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-gw0-f52.google.com (mail-gw0-f52.google.com [74.125.83.52]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADD0E3A67E2 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 12:29:17 -0800 (PST) Received: by gwaa20 with SMTP id a20so1628502gwa.39 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 12:30:15 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=MaZ0rMGhXfUXUl9Qeb3a/NvjUp3O4IlhGT0OWJrguKI=; b=D9jA2h1chqGGWdOwta3cnmySE9vb/82zNM7cItUjC8QV/76lwRmmwkqx+E4nMHcVSY o+FjKEZeTbDs9Qw+f9NjVXFm4T4qZV3alRNMl1VdVOQrQXqnm2sVLgv+wQ8hoWIo4ZKG xQujZcyYzxVJ2Dv4E7ncMWI2j0D+sY7tGO7Wg= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=u1dT+qNGo7FgqQ9Vz8ddUn3S7G8ydR+65/wIgMqy0AY+njxBTN+6/JpHfc8UsrNyJ4 xKTugkJiQ9ChU7VFQzkUASDlllHoDaHHxjwqadH40qWgr7TyJelX9lUbybbqljRRBaT+ oTk6ebz8FYi9CRvLOhu5Up/upC7lOiBenSoXg= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.150.134.5 with SMTP id h5mr6016879ybd.306.1298838615688; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 12:30:15 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.147.167.12 with HTTP; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 12:30:15 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20110227190039.0FD6B12EC69@ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net> References: <20110227190039.0FD6B12EC69@ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net> Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 12:30:15 -0800 Message-ID: From: Kelly Molloy To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=000e0cd47ec04f0853049d496e38 Subject: Re: [Asrg] UCEPROTECT's comment on draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-07 X-BeenThere: asrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 20:29:18 -0000 --000e0cd47ec04f0853049d496e38 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 11:00 AM, Claus v. Wolfhausen < c.v.wolfhausen@spamkiller.uceprotect.net> wrote: > TRBL Support wrote: > > >As a counterpoint, I run a public DNSBL and I agree with the choice of > >wording used in the BCP draft. Watching the history of blacklists over > >the years, few things have caused more angst and accusations than > >requiring a delisting fee. Even SORBS has stopped requiring such a > >fee. > > I never heard of the TRBLSPAM so it is very like to be not widely known. As > a consequence there will not be many users and not many removal requests. > I used to run the MAPS RBL and now I run the Spamcop BL. Perhaps you've heard of those? Neither the Spamcop BL nor the MAPS RBL have ever charged for delisting. I would never support a charge for delisting because it leaves the list open to the accusation of false listings in order to generate revenue. SCBL currently allows delisting on demand for a first listing and then an increasing interval before successive self-delistings are permitted. (All listing still expire after 24 hours with no new spam, but one can not request delisting if an IP is delisted on demand and then relisted). To be perfectly honest, I was really nervous about this when we implemented it, and we were prepared to revert the change if it hurt our efficacy or accuracy. It hasn't. It also decreased our support burden significantly. Also, the CBL uses a similar model (although theirs was first) and is one of the most accurate and useful blocklists in the world. Based on my experience, I strongly disagree that pay-for-delisting is ever necessary. --kelly --000e0cd47ec04f0853049d496e38 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 11:00 AM, Claus v. Wolfhausen <= ;c.v.wolfhausen= @spamkiller.uceprotect.net> wrote:
TRBL Support wrote:
=A0
>As a counterpoint, I run a public DNSBL and I agree with the choic= e of
>wording used in the BCP draft. Watching the history of blacklists = over
>the years, few things have caused more angst and accusations than<= /div>
>requiring a delisting fee. Even SORBS has stopped requiring such a=
>fee.
=A0
I never heard of the TRBLSPAM so it is very like to be not widel= y known. As a consequence there will not be many users and not many removal= requests.

I used to run the MAPS RBL and now I run the Spamcop BL. Per= haps you've heard of those?=A0

Neither the Spa= mcop BL nor the MAPS RBL have ever charged for delisting. I would never sup= port a charge for delisting because it leaves the list open to the accusati= on of false listings in order to generate revenue. SCBL currently allows de= listing on demand for a first listing and then an increasing interval befor= e successive self-delistings are permitted. (All listing still expire after= 24 hours with no new spam, but one can not request delisting if an IP is d= elisted on demand and then relisted). To be perfectly honest, I was really = nervous about this when we implemented it, and we were prepared to revert t= he change if it hurt our efficacy or accuracy. It hasn't. It also decre= ased our support burden significantly.=A0

Also, the CBL uses a similar model (although theirs was= first) and is one of the most accurate and useful blocklists in the world.= =A0

Based on my experience, I strongly disagree th= at pay-for-delisting is ever necessary.

--kelly
--000e0cd47ec04f0853049d496e38-- From c.v.wolfhausen@spamkiller.uceprotect.net Sun Feb 27 12:41:52 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4EC53A67D2 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 12:41:52 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.655 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.655 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.144, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zF4OTaf17VI3 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 12:41:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net (ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net [208.66.2.20]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2339E3A67B0 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 12:41:51 -0800 (PST) Received: by ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net (UCEPROTECT, from userid 32767) id 67A6212EC69; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 21:43:01 +0100 (CET) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; charset="iso-8859-1"; boundary="------------Boundary-00=_6UMAFDDFXFP000000000" From: "Claus v. Wolfhausen" References: <20110227061458.B971012EC6A@ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net> <4D6A84F1.1010809@thoroquel.org> <21846E25-4890-4B45-8B24-1333EA447A6F@blighty.com> <4D6A8C42.7060102@thoroquel.org> To: Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 21:42:57 +0100 (CET) Message-Id: <20110227204301.67A6212EC69@ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net> Subject: Re: [Asrg] UCEPROTECT's comment on draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-07 X-BeenThere: asrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 20:41:52 -0000 --------------Boundary-00=_6UMAFDDFXFP000000000 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear Joe,=0D =0D You wrote: =0D =0D >That could equally be applied to whitelists: one could have an incentive= =0D >to create bogus reasons for de-whitelisting. Of course doing so would=0D >destroy the credibility of the whitelist. A blacklist doing the same=0D >would destroy its own credibility as well. Both have the same potential= =0D >problems, and potential merits.=0D =0D That is absolut correct. =0D =0D >More importantly, both provide a business incentive to ignore negative=0D >behavior from a paying customer. However, that potential conflict of=0D >interest, in both cases is just that: potential. Disclosure rather than= =0D >a "MUST NOT" places that in the open.=0D =0D As told before: Also commercial blacklists that charge for usage =0D have that potential conflict of interest:=0D If they take money from an ISP for usage of their blacklist then such a =0D blacklist is *VERY* unlike to list that ISP, even if said ISP is harborin= g lots=0D of spammers.=0D =0D Therefore that complete section 2.2.5. Conflict of Interest should be =0D removed from the draft IMHO.=0D =0D >AFAIK the only at all major DNSBL that charges for removals charges for=0D >Expedited removals only, and thats UCEPROTECT. (am I forgetting one?)=0D >Regardless of what one thinks of their policies, philosophies or=0D >whatever, its quality is pretty decent. Even their default 7 day wait=0D >is shorter than some free-delist commercial DNSBLs take to reply to a=0D >ticket.=0D =0D That is an *EXCELLENT* point, which those that disagree with our =0D policies mostly don't want to see.=0D =0D And for the accuracy of our lists...=0D =2E.. I guess these numbers measured by an independent company are =0D speaking for themselves:=0D =0D UCEPROTECT-Level 1:=0D http://www.intra2net.com/en/support/antispam/blacklist php_dnsbl=3DRCVD_IN_UCEPROTECT1.html=0D =0D UCEPROTECT-Level 2:=0D http://www.intra2net.com/en/support/antispam/blacklist php_dnsbl=3DRCVD_IN_UCEPROTECT2.html=0D =0D UCEPROTECT-Level 3:=0D http://www.intra2net.com/en/support/antispam/blacklist php_dnsbl=3DRCVD_IN_UCEPROTECT3.html=0D =0D Best Regards=0D =0D Claus von Wolfhausen=0D Technical Director=0D UCEPROTECT-Network=0D http://www.uceprotect.net --------------Boundary-00=_6UMAFDDFXFP000000000 Content-Type: Text/HTML; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear Joe,
 
You wrote: 
  
>That could equally be applied to whitelists: one could have an i= ncentive
>to create bogus reasons for de-whitelisting. Of course doing so = would
>destroy the credibility of the whitelist. A blacklist doing the = same
>would destroy its own credibility as well.  Both have = the same potential
>problems, and potential merits.
 
That is absolut correct. 
 
>More importantly, both provide a business incentive to ignore ne= gative
>behavior from a paying customer.  However, that potent= ial conflict of
>interest, in both cases is just that: potential.  Disc= losure rather than
>a "MUST NOT" places that in the open.
 
As told before: Also commercial blacklists that charge for usage
have that potential conflict of interest:
If they take money from an ISP for usage of their blacklist then suc= h a
blacklist is *VERY* unlike to list that ISP, even if said ISP is har= boring lots
of spammers.
 
Therefore that complete section 2.2.5.  Conflict of Intere= st should be
removed from the draft IMHO.
 
>AFAIK the only at all major DNSBL that charges for removals char= ges for
>Expedited removals only, and thats UCEPROTECT. (am I forgetting = one?)
>Regardless of what one thinks of their policies, philosophies or=
>whatever, its quality is pretty decent.  Even their de= fault 7 day wait
>is shorter than some free-delist commercial DNSBLs take to reply= to a
>ticket.
 
That is an *EXCELLENT* point, which those that disagree with our
policies mostly don't want to see.
 
And for the accuracy of our lists...
... I guess these numbers measured by an independent company ar= e
speaking for themselves:
 
UCEPROTECT-Level 1:
 
UCEPROTECT-Level 2:
 
UCEPROTECT-Level 3:
 
Best Regards
 
Claus von Wolfhausen
Technical Director
UCEPROTECT-Network
--------------Boundary-00=_6UMAFDDFXFP000000000-- From johnl@iecc.com Sun Feb 27 13:00:22 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32F563A6A21 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 13:00:22 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -111.065 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-111.065 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.134, BAYES_00=-2.599, HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI=-4.3, RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED=-4.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 640cV3lEMh1a for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 13:00:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [64.57.183.53]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AE073A6A00 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 13:00:20 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 32876 invoked from network); 27 Feb 2011 21:01:18 -0000 Received: from mail1.iecc.com (64.57.183.56) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 27 Feb 2011 21:01:18 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:subject:cc:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:vbr-info; s=ad67.4d6abb9e.k1102; i=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=G/r8HYjftPHU3UJ6H4iI2lZYNu7254E7E+TphRScI+s=; b=QbPVDRCirUbFTj0xzUupX5RBjTKlpxMai1pq+ik14YuVnj3qUVxSOaPWSy5f9GDAwC78xBZ7jDp+JPaRH13z7etc4fJLfPoJk930OGUxq0NVDq3X0DqRC+rSyLopOyJaFUmzQ5voZQbnoiWrDn159MsvisJ+Nvjgke5X1EiLQZQ= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:subject:cc:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:vbr-info; s=ad67.4d6abb9e.k1102; olt=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=G/r8HYjftPHU3UJ6H4iI2lZYNu7254E7E+TphRScI+s=; b=dWSx2sydUEggVTB2Tu3nkUBQJ+TMYSZqHRgoJv5Fg8qjs9r4WOCDMw/4FtG9vIoCKvyUlxvbHjH1dGZjtAsO3LGX63jMTsuPHH2GQFqUQEQx5bHDq4ezDXs1/ZRj2meyhvWFi3RBoAqRzY8eeXOSRjqbjZ9ZCxcjcKsUENr9zQs= VBR-Info: md=iecc.com; mc=all; mv=dwl.spamhaus.org Date: 27 Feb 2011 21:01:18 -0000 Message-ID: <20110227210118.44390.qmail@joyce.lan> From: John Levine To: asrg@irtf.org Organization: Cc: X-Headerized: yes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] Rough consensus on pay to delist X-BeenThere: asrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 21:00:22 -0000 I'm seeing no support at all for "Claus'" contention that we should change the language about pay to delist in DNSBL practices draft. If anyone else agrees that we should change it, please say so now, otherwise I think we will consider the discussion over. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly From joseph.sniderman@thoroquel.org Sun Feb 27 13:32:20 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAA9A3A6A21 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 13:32:20 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.400, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wO0tW0UAcR-N for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 13:32:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.thoroquel.org (mail.thoroquel.org [72.14.190.148]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B06D3A694E for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 13:32:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from [IPv6:2604:8800:101:1::e] (epinephrine.home.thoroquel.com [IPv6:2604:8800:101:1::e]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.thoroquel.org (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-9.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id p1RLXCkX009825 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Sun, 27 Feb 2011 21:33:14 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=thoroquel.org; s=thoroquel2a; t=1298842394; bh=xM/mqSeh7PR2hWnpFUlTXPAIJBncKl22BIyH2oCDvKA=; h=Message-ID:Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:OpenPGP: Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:CC:DomainKey-Signature; b=PVMqXb3D6f8UimpXwGWJGnyrn4CQOMnqikJ0OMJAIuC4NashfyR/iJaCzzU9gkWvP 98WoSMlty/pbNwXO03ZHSLBQwcSLpzbKUk8SbnAP/N1v6dMGrZ0UDjNek9wYwtUdRi skMWjyS+Iw9pzN8otbWqSc1+BaJkxdTkFA8FNVG14NzTRvlaAumuq+Nvve/Uxc+Nf9 DlomcH4WaHuOoPoZZMVWHWFChVhIA0YxNvQ2d4XtGq3wR0db+W/YrXy2pdrz0z8Agx A3ZwzU+t4jirzIlHyrqDDZRJAvvnJfjUYSV158r8xXYkBvI3ZVOOzItqMkin/qffPv kodVgg1Qezmxw== Message-ID: <4D6AC316.20702@thoroquel.org> Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 16:33:10 -0500 From: Joe Sniderman User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101208 Thunderbird/3.1.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@irtf.org References: <20110227210118.44390.qmail@joyce.lan> In-Reply-To: <20110227210118.44390.qmail@joyce.lan> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1 OpenPGP: id=605721CA Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Asrg] Rough consensus on pay to delist X-BeenThere: asrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 21:32:21 -0000 On 02/27/2011 04:01 PM, John Levine wrote: > I'm seeing no support at all for "Claus'" contention that we should > change the language about pay to delist in DNSBL practices draft. > > If anyone else agrees that we should change it, please say so now, > otherwise I think we will consider the discussion over. I agree that it should be changed but not removed entirely. Change it from a "MUST NOT" to a "SHOULD NOT" perhaps. -- Joe Sniderman From trelane@trelane.net Sun Feb 27 13:37:59 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9B6F3A6A30 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 13:37:59 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3CZuKkXG6r3s for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 13:37:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.trelane.net (mail.trelane.net [66.93.203.104]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB2AC3A694E for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 13:37:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail.trelane.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35CFB1864B3 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 16:38:57 -0500 (EST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at trelane.net Received: from mail.trelane.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (master.trelane.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ywp6QYtrcKWC for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 16:38:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail.trelane.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 834CD1864B4 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 16:38:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from [172.16.1.106] (unknown [66.93.203.199]) by mail.trelane.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 1AA1C1864B3 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 16:38:37 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <4D6AC45C.3080506@trelane.net> Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 16:38:36 -0500 From: Andrew Kirch User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101207 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@irtf.org References: <20110227210118.44390.qmail@joyce.lan> <4D6AC316.20702@thoroquel.org> In-Reply-To: <4D6AC316.20702@thoroquel.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Asrg] Rough consensus on pay to delist X-BeenThere: asrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 21:38:00 -0000 On 2/27/2011 4:33 PM, Joe Sniderman wrote: > On 02/27/2011 04:01 PM, John Levine wrote: >> I'm seeing no support at all for "Claus'" contention that we should >> change the language about pay to delist in DNSBL practices draft. >> >> If anyone else agrees that we should change it, please say so now, >> otherwise I think we will consider the discussion over. > I agree that it should be changed but not removed entirely. Change it > from a "MUST NOT" to a "SHOULD NOT" perhaps. > > Concur here. I think Claus makes a valid point in that expedited service might require expedited cost. I am also concerned that this is in direct contradiction of existing DNSBL practices, such as SORBS. I further question as to why we would deny a DNSBL a revenue model derived from those causing the problem. Andrew From sgtchains@fahq2.com Sun Feb 27 13:43:18 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E38873A6A45 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 13:43:18 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zIM7J6QOfUJr for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 13:43:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from homiemail-a79.g.dreamhost.com (caibbdcaaaaf.dreamhost.com [208.113.200.5]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E04CA3A6A3B for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 13:43:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from homiemail-a79.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a79.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5ABA17D4058 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 13:44:16 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=fahq2.com; h=message-id:date:from :mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type: content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=fahq2.com; b=uNl4hQ7ceMWgmmR mXKMOQW/eesDW180/BMKiKAHNu/aMZurIX48f1BAE7ODfK1qn4RZoZW+S6Qc1Dgi usuviTneOmC3r1z3/HVmC/kyX0oy5guwu3K8KRxGgUbDrKVmcNR6qpqSDXtyAfBN K4HaU0biT7K3N834sTmfwPWzmzKA= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=fahq2.com; h=message-id :date:from:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=fahq2.com; bh=WI8wqZd 3EgJ32MSJUzKmgFngh5o=; b=uvfXnQXx0hd6qrcjLFGNXPb8fD1l/2b1vnEXTBA OnRebU+rVZbcDXquNdo1whh63J8+EYh675qYU4jzmDpxfdON97kG8unlfGDqsxad R+S09jJKaXQ97YJuWM/kdRWzp19w3Y7weZqb9pkIc8+v6fy2zb11wprd7SONtBZd vYac= Received: from MacBook3-2.local (adsl-99-175-200-241.dsl.mdsnwi.sbcglobal.net [99.175.200.241]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: fahq2.com@pandora-servers.net) by homiemail-a79.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 124937D4057 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 13:44:15 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4D6AC5AE.7090904@fahq2.com> Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 16:44:14 -0500 From: "Larry M. Smith" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X; en-US; rv:1.8.1.24) Gecko/20100228 Thunderbird/2.0.0.24 Mnenhy/0.7.6.666 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF References: <20110227210118.44390.qmail@joyce.lan> <4D6AC316.20702@thoroquel.org> In-Reply-To: <4D6AC316.20702@thoroquel.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Asrg] Rough consensus on pay to delist X-BeenThere: asrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 21:43:19 -0000 Joe Sniderman wrote: > On 02/27/2011 04:01 PM, John Levine wrote: >> I'm seeing no support at all for "Claus'" contention that we should >> change the language about pay to delist in DNSBL practices draft. >> >> If anyone else agrees that we should change it, please say so now, >> otherwise I think we will consider the discussion over. > > I agree that it should be changed but not removed entirely. Change it > from a "MUST NOT" to a "SHOULD NOT" perhaps. I disagree with this and believe that the wording should stand as is. If independent operators chose to not follow this BCP, then they can opt to point out that it is only a BCP. SgtChains From c.v.wolfhausen@spamkiller.uceprotect.net Sun Feb 27 13:44:47 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13B293A6A45 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 13:44:47 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.673 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.673 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.126, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5qQQzFGHwC2F for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 13:44:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net (ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net [208.66.2.20]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46D2B3A6A3B for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 13:44:45 -0800 (PST) Received: by ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net (UCEPROTECT, from userid 32767) id EA08812EC69; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 22:45:54 +0100 (CET) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; charset="ISO-8859-1"; boundary="------------Boundary-00=_0RPALR6IIA11VA400000" From: "Claus v. Wolfhausen" References: <20110227190039.0FD6B12EC69@ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net> To: Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 22:45:50 +0100 (CET) Message-Id: <20110227214554.EA08812EC69@ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net> Subject: Re: [Asrg] UCEPROTECT's comment on draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-07 X-BeenThere: asrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 21:44:47 -0000 --------------Boundary-00=_0RPALR6IIA11VA400000 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear Kelly,=0D =0D You wrote:=0D >I used to run the MAPS RBL and now I run the Spamcop BL. Perhaps you've heard of those? =0D =0D Of course and if you did ever read NANAE then you would know that I did always recommend the Spamcop BL because it is a good DNSBL with a low fal= se positive rate.=0D =0D >Neither the Spamcop BL nor the MAPS RBL have ever charged for delisting.= I would never support a charge for delisting because it leaves the list ope= n to the accusation of false listings in order to generate revenue. =0D >SCBL currently allows delisting on demand for a first listing and then a= n increasing interval before successive self-delistings are permitted. (All listing still expire after 24 hours with no new spam, but one can not request delisting if an IP >is delisted on demand and then relisted). To = be perfectly honest, I was really nervous about this when we implemented it, and we were prepared to revert the change if it hurt our efficacy or accuracy. It hasn't. It also decreased our >support burden significantly.= =0D =0D =0D >Also, the CBL uses a similar model (although theirs was first) and is on= e of the most accurate and useful blocklists in the world. =0D =0D =0D >Based on my experience, I strongly disagree that pay-for-delisting is ev= er necessary.=0D =0D =0D You can't compare the SCBL or the CBL to UCEPROTECT.=0D Both (SCBL and CBL) have a much broader listing source as UCEPROTECT, so that they will probably see more impacts per infected system than we see.= =0D Logically it will have no big impact in efficiency for your list if you a= re automatic delisting after 24 hours with no impacts.=0D We did a similar test also in 2007 shortly after I took over the project = and lost about 15% efficiency by automatically delisting after 24 hours. Sinc= e that was inacceptable, we did stick at 7 days.=0D =0D You may not believe me, but really: I guess the SCBL might be much more effective if they would list for 7 days instead.=0D =0D I grabbed some links to independent stats to backup my claim:=0D =0D http://www.sdsc.edu/~jeff/spam/cbc.html=0D =0D At SDSC.EDU our UCEPROTECT-Level 1 had blocked 51583 spammails compared t= o SPAMCOP which had blocked 16429 spammails last week.=0D That means our Level 1 did outperform your list by a factor 3 + =0D =0D Your numbers in Europe are much better but even there dnsbl-1.uceprotect.= net outperforms bl.spamcop.net by more than 5% without having more false positives.=0D =0D SPAMCOP:=0D http://www.intra2net.com/de/support/antispam/blacklist php_dnsbl=3DRCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET.html=0D =0D UCEPROTECT-Level 1:=0D http://www.intra2net.com/de/support/antispam/blacklist php_dnsbl=3DRCVD_IN_UCEPROTECT1.html=0D =0D Last not least (and since we have nothing to hide) also we measure statistics for different DNSBL's:=0D http://stats.uceprotect.net/=0D =0D By clicking on the graphics you will also be able to see the last 30 days for each list efficiency and inaccuracy=0D =0D As you can see we had never any problems to admitt that CBL is one of the best lists around (I would really like to know their secret) and also th= at ourlists are far away from being perfect.=0D =0D I really recommend you to measure efficiency of your list by using intern= al and external datas.=0D I had to learn that lesson by myself as Al Iverson presented his numbers = to me in 2007.=0D If you look on your own numbers only, then you will mostly not see the complete picture.=0D =0D Best Regards=0D =0D Claus von Wolfhausen=0D Technical Director=0D UCEPROTECT-Network=0D http://www.uceprotect.net --------------Boundary-00=_0RPALR6IIA11VA400000 Content-Type: Text/HTML; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear Kelly,
 
You wrote:
>I used to run the MAPS RBL and now I run the Spamcop BL. Perhaps= you've heard of those? 
 
Of course and if you did ever read NANAE then you would know that I = did always recommend the Spamcop BL because it is a good DNSBL with a low=  false positive rate.
 
>Neither the Spamcop BL nor the MAPS RBL have ever charged for de= listing. I would never support a charge for delisting because it leaves t= he list open to the accusation of false listings in order to generate rev= enue.
>SCBL currently allows delisting on demand for a first listing an= d then an increasing interval before successive self-delistings are permi= tted. (All listing still expire after 24 hours with no new spam, but one = can not request delisting if an IP >is delisted on demand and then rel= isted). To be perfectly honest, I was really nervous about this when we i= mplemented it, and we were prepared to revert the change if it hurt our e= fficacy or accuracy. It hasn't. It also decreased our >support burden = significantly. 

>Also, the CBL uses a similar model (although theirs was first) a= nd is one of the most accurate and useful blocklists in the world. <= /DIV>

>Based on my experience, I strongly disagree that pay-for-delisti= ng is ever necessary.

You can't compare the SCBL or the CBL to UCEPROTECT.
Both (SCBL and CBL) have a much broader listing source as UCEPROTECT= , so that they will probably see more impacts per infected system than we= see.
Logically it will have no big impact in efficiency for your list if = you are automatic delisting after 24 hours with no impacts.
We did a similar test also in 2007 shortly after I took over the pro= ject and lost about 15% efficiency by automatically delisting after = 24 hours. Since that was inacceptable, we did stick at 7 days.
 
You may not believe me, but really: I guess the SCBL might be much m= ore effective if they would list for 7 days instead.
 
I grabbed some links to independent stats to backup my claim:
 
 
At SDSC.EDU our UCEPROTECT-Level 1 had blocked 51583 spammails compared to SPAMCOP which had blocked 16429 spammails last= week.
That= means our Level 1 did outperform your list by a factor 3 +
 
Your= numbers in Europe are much better but even there dnsbl-1.uceprotect.net = outperforms bl.spamcop.net by more than 5% without having more false posi= tives.
 
SPAM= COP:
 
UCEPROTECT-Level 1:
<= FONT size=3D3 face=3DArial>http://www.intra2net.com/de/support/antispam/b= lacklist.php_dnsbl=3DRCVD_IN_UCEPROTECT1.html
 
Last= not least (and since we have nothing to hide) also we measure statistics= for different DNSBL's:
 
By c= licking on the graphics you will also be able to see the last 30 days for= each list efficiency and inaccuracy
 
As y= ou can see we had never any problems to admitt that CBL is one of the bes= t lists around (I would really like to know their secret)  and also that ourlists are far away from bei= ng perfect.
 
I really recommend you to measure efficiency of your list by using i= nternal and external datas.
I had to learn that lesson by myself as Al Iverson presented his num= bers to me in 2007.
If you look on your own numbers only, then you will mostly not = see the complete picture.
 
Best Regards
 
Claus von Wolfhausen
Technical Director
UCEPROTECT-Network
--------------Boundary-00=_0RPALR6IIA11VA400000-- From kelly.molloy@gmail.com Sun Feb 27 13:45:33 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 534113A6A45 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 13:45:33 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jy1UExBPty9a for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 13:45:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-yw0-f54.google.com (mail-yw0-f54.google.com [209.85.213.54]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AD5E3A6A3B for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 13:45:32 -0800 (PST) Received: by ywf9 with SMTP id 9so1218932ywf.13 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 13:46:30 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=5gkQ1a/pA5irChzXDht6QM/Y4p0R+iMsFpMJgKsys0w=; b=d2FdtJcBwZvU1TZD8KXcYtsQiY3JYlBVfFPGRV4cIOUhoQLzv9hR9i5tiVGk2EuNxN P/FgKQ0vne8dMnHPXn3NeqOzTjHdmt5GAvljuBJHry+HYTjZBLV7UEHSBSX0XeNCrIrT KdST5c1Kt/rQHUE0LE8ZnU+w5Wa2+pjZ+wEQE= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=DlTB7bpY4W9rDV4agMqrM4JVq4Y9MxT1rHsfEeb0FLTndj7iA0mlKoJ/jc0g7o2m1I 0YDMRmS0p3Rp86WZ9CkWRfGBWq03jIE8OaGwYuEPi8FZJ7e/uYLoxnxpyn9jEN33U6Av g1ejl4KxTCZq7MDQPKW6X9zO3PswMLs91lYoU= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.150.195.4 with SMTP id s4mr6365763ybf.249.1298843190650; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 13:46:30 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.147.167.12 with HTTP; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 13:46:30 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <4D6AC45C.3080506@trelane.net> References: <20110227210118.44390.qmail@joyce.lan> <4D6AC316.20702@thoroquel.org> <4D6AC45C.3080506@trelane.net> Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 13:46:30 -0800 Message-ID: From: Kelly Molloy To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Asrg] Rough consensus on pay to delist X-BeenThere: asrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 21:45:33 -0000 On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 1:38 PM, Andrew Kirch wrote: > On 2/27/2011 4:33 PM, Joe Sniderman wrote: >> On 02/27/2011 04:01 PM, John Levine wrote: >>> I'm seeing no support at all for "Claus'" contention that we should >>> change the language about pay to delist in DNSBL practices draft. >>> >>> If anyone else agrees that we should change it, please say so now, >>> otherwise I think we will consider the discussion over. >> I agree that it should be changed but not removed entirely. Change it >> from a "MUST NOT" to a "SHOULD NOT" perhaps. >> >> > Concur here. =A0I think Claus makes a valid point in that expedited > service might require expedited cost. But it eliminates the operator's ability to act in the best interest of its customers--the sites who USE it. If someone pays me $50 and my data tells me that IP is still spamming but I have to either return the money or delist the IP anyway, who benefits? Not my users. It's selfish and ineffective. >I am also concerned that this is > in direct contradiction of existing DNSBL practices, such as SORBS. Some people also also HELO as "localhost". Just because some people do it doesn't mean it's a good idea. >I > further question as to why we would deny a DNSBL a revenue model derived > from those causing the problem. Because it's the wrong thing to do. --kelly From sgtchains@fahq2.com Sun Feb 27 13:50:52 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AA023A6A3B for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 13:50:52 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kBjCsDhICEky for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 13:50:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from hapkido.dreamhost.com (hapkido.dreamhost.com [66.33.216.122]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FB503A6832 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 13:50:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from homiemail-a55.g.dreamhost.com (caibbdcaaaaf.dreamhost.com [208.113.200.5]) by hapkido.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26E451B6EBE for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 13:51:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from homiemail-a55.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a55.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48FBF12C03C; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 13:51:46 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=fahq2.com; h=message-id:date:from :mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type: content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=fahq2.com; b=EudOGLKM/o0Bqi4 BpyuvAdtJKcn7d+9TnF7hOMUayEK2o9GAw+jYq+9wRoty1x9FAFG+Ikd+GJDR3m+ o6gYkq8Rsber/9DJIzc5/H40z9nz5919lvkZUMxWmS+6Yv19YRG8zR91rzJ8fz+8 Lo2vSJN57J+/kTspcc3W11mbJ334= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=fahq2.com; h=message-id :date:from:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=fahq2.com; bh=TTgUbLm hCnltO4Bo9AmgE88/wwE=; b=Fc788ki36luY9FWwggPvLnXwwDbAFHpcbGReIz9 9Dd1tcnLttHHQyv86vZTRB1EptNDCOUiW0ChMFFBQCdUFnDzILXUJq3AADvOwHg2 azo0qu1t4H/t3355WWl8aMeRAabnG+gWaov6DZcxQkV8qLjp/dOzKURQLmL+w5Tf txgM= Received: from MacBook3-2.local (adsl-99-175-200-241.dsl.mdsnwi.sbcglobal.net [99.175.200.241]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: fahq2.com@pandora-servers.net) by homiemail-a55.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D433212C03A; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 13:51:45 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4D6AC770.3020107@fahq2.com> Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 16:51:44 -0500 From: "Larry M. Smith" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X; en-US; rv:1.8.1.24) Gecko/20100228 Thunderbird/2.0.0.24 Mnenhy/0.7.6.666 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jose-Marcio.Martins@mines-paristech.fr, Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF References: <4D6A543A.9000303@mines-paristech.fr> In-Reply-To: <4D6A543A.9000303@mines-paristech.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Asrg] How serious is uceprotect mail filtering ? X-BeenThere: asrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 21:50:52 -0000 Jose-Marcio Martins da Cruz wrote: > > Well, > > I just answered the post of Claus from uceprotect, and he was in Cc. > (snip) IMHO, debate of the pros and cons of specific filtering systems is off-topic for an IRTF research group. Please take that discussion elsewhere. SgtChains From joseph.sniderman@thoroquel.org Sun Feb 27 13:52:52 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A04853A6832 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 13:52:52 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.333 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.333 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.266, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 30br01VkAJ9a for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 13:52:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.thoroquel.org (mail.thoroquel.org [72.14.190.148]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94F293A694E for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 13:52:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from [IPv6:2604:8800:101:1::e] (epinephrine.home.thoroquel.com [IPv6:2604:8800:101:1::e]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.thoroquel.org (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-9.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id p1RLrjrb009856 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Sun, 27 Feb 2011 21:53:46 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=thoroquel.org; s=thoroquel2a; t=1298843627; bh=DGU7IGSOiyAQgM9x3mCboRaDedhqRwaFq3L9RFDLTCE=; h=Message-ID:Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:OpenPGP: Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:CC:DomainKey-Signature; b=Iu068RzfDxQRQq+ZdEOxo18USxwD71uHl1uEPbBrlg1/0J5DoJQaAo9d+uUL4qKgK /fMIlh6jVidb0eYvYpHTGJzTPyRFNGDVPik5hER5Un8C/I7gGCyNDqUCIo4IC/gWED f7P9GoNjHC2WXZZK5/dlbku5IawBuRJ2Zlko2nHD94WRO3w3SnKD3SvKkABJdk5grQ 957iyjjg2DcQ4F1LwKVoL+FxS6KMdP8kQhxl9YrgQPZnR1ZP4ucSfngpYy1jK/lI8U J8U95sVIuRN7UMYv01eAe8wWprAbk/VLmkL0KAIx2aho6y0GtmDBmcimy0x5I6AmNY 6el4Iw22Rmo2w== Message-ID: <4D6AC7E8.1060703@thoroquel.org> Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 16:53:44 -0500 From: Joe Sniderman User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101208 Thunderbird/3.1.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@irtf.org References: <20110227210118.44390.qmail@joyce.lan> <4D6AC316.20702@thoroquel.org> <4D6AC45C.3080506@trelane.net> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1 OpenPGP: id=605721CA Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Asrg] Rough consensus on pay to delist X-BeenThere: asrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 21:52:52 -0000 On 02/27/2011 04:46 PM, Kelly Molloy wrote: > On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 1:38 PM, Andrew Kirch wrote: >> On 2/27/2011 4:33 PM, Joe Sniderman wrote: >>> On 02/27/2011 04:01 PM, John Levine wrote: >>>> I'm seeing no support at all for "Claus'" contention that we should >>>> change the language about pay to delist in DNSBL practices draft. >>>> >>>> If anyone else agrees that we should change it, please say so now, >>>> otherwise I think we will consider the discussion over. >>> I agree that it should be changed but not removed entirely. Change it >>> from a "MUST NOT" to a "SHOULD NOT" perhaps. >>> >>> >> Concur here. I think Claus makes a valid point in that expedited >> service might require expedited cost. > > But it eliminates the operator's ability to act in the best interest > of its customers--the sites who USE it. If someone pays me $50 and my > data tells me that IP is still spamming but I have to either return > the money or delist the IP anyway, who benefits? Not my users. It's > selfish and ineffective. Perhaps, depends on the implementation. In any event, that *potential* conflict applies to whitelists equally (if the IP starts spamming, but the listee paid for a year... etc) and should be disclosed to users in both cases. -- Joe Sniderman From trelane@trelane.net Sun Feb 27 13:54:31 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFE013A6A30 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 13:54:31 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LKZFXz03KGYo for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 13:54:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.trelane.net (mail.trelane.net [66.93.203.104]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAD583A6832 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 13:54:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail.trelane.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D6F91864B3 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 16:55:29 -0500 (EST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at trelane.net Received: from mail.trelane.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (master.trelane.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FOSH-qK+iv6N for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 16:55:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail.trelane.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A697A1864B4 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 16:55:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from [172.16.1.106] (unknown [66.93.203.199]) by mail.trelane.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 495AB1864B3 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 16:55:27 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <4D6AC84F.3020402@trelane.net> Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 16:55:27 -0500 From: Andrew Kirch User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101207 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF References: <20110227210118.44390.qmail@joyce.lan> <4D6AC316.20702@thoroquel.org> <4D6AC45C.3080506@trelane.net> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Asrg] Rough consensus on pay to delist X-BeenThere: asrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 21:54:32 -0000 On 2/27/2011 4:46 PM, Kelly Molloy wrote: > Some people also also HELO as "localhost". Just because some people do > it doesn't mean it's a good idea. "Stupid people exist" is a bad notional method of determining what should be in a BCP. This BCP would not reflect the listing policies of SORBS, and UCEPROTECT, both of which have a high userbase. With regard to ethics on funding/delisting, that would be up to the individual DNSBL and their legal team to determine. I would suggest though that DNSBL's MUST make those policies public. Andrew From steve@blighty.com Sun Feb 27 13:54:33 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91B9D3A6832 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 13:54:33 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.400, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EcI9yT-ut9rd for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 13:54:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from m.wordtothewise.com (b.wordtothewise.com [208.187.80.136]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DD9F3A6A46 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 13:54:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from platter.wordtothewise.com (184.wordtothewise.com [208.187.80.184]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: steve) by m.wordtothewise.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 38B532E9CD for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 13:55:31 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=wordtothewise.com; s=1.wttw; t=1298843731; bh=SpdhHQ8yfKLjz6klQYrrXWr8wABnmqnIty/hq0GZDwU=; h=Content-Type:Mime-Version:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-Id:References:To; b=eBJdRSKePuKBdDv+EVVhJp6Imph38QOalieg5EQnRdgmvLLOm1hZ5O2BWJ84T++4c JjB+0IC33+mlfwBeFdygG+cwUqv5LD50gE1AWlzqhX3xaF8yZ6OCpUw2qhuB7yZv8p egVKA2BQxljDZmXwDky1ly7ZHPhMuQQxWsMe2lFw= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082) From: Steve Atkins In-Reply-To: <4D6AC5AE.7090904@fahq2.com> Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 13:55:30 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <20110227210118.44390.qmail@joyce.lan> <4D6AC316.20702@thoroquel.org> <4D6AC5AE.7090904@fahq2.com> To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082) Subject: Re: [Asrg] Rough consensus on pay to delist X-BeenThere: asrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 21:54:33 -0000 On Feb 27, 2011, at 1:44 PM, Larry M. Smith wrote: > Joe Sniderman wrote: >> On 02/27/2011 04:01 PM, John Levine wrote: >>> I'm seeing no support at all for "Claus'" contention that we should >>> change the language about pay to delist in DNSBL practices draft. >>>=20 >>> If anyone else agrees that we should change it, please say so now, >>> otherwise I think we will consider the discussion over. >>=20 >> I agree that it should be changed but not removed entirely. Change it >> from a "MUST NOT" to a "SHOULD NOT" perhaps. >=20 > I disagree with this and believe that the wording should stand as is. +1 > If independent operators chose to not follow this BCP, then they can = opt > to point out that it is only a BCP. Yup. There's no requirement to follow a BCP. Just some social pressure = to justify the points where you choose not to. (If this were instead, = legislation, it'd be quite a different situation.) Cheers, Steve From trelane@trelane.net Sun Feb 27 13:56:32 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B62043A6A51 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 13:56:32 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vcJSKF5L9X7w for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 13:56:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.trelane.net (mail.trelane.net [66.93.203.104]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0EE473A6832 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 13:56:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail.trelane.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F7551864B3 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 16:57:30 -0500 (EST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at trelane.net Received: from mail.trelane.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (master.trelane.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VzjvNvW0SUpD for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 16:57:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail.trelane.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECCD21864B4 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 16:57:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from [172.16.1.106] (unknown [66.93.203.199]) by mail.trelane.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 886F11864B3 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 16:57:28 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <4D6AC8C8.3010008@trelane.net> Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 16:57:28 -0500 From: Andrew Kirch User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101207 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@irtf.org References: <20110227210118.44390.qmail@joyce.lan> <4D6AC316.20702@thoroquel.org> <4D6AC5AE.7090904@fahq2.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Asrg] Rough consensus on pay to delist X-BeenThere: asrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 21:56:32 -0000 On 2/27/2011 4:55 PM, Steve Atkins wrote: > Yup. There's no requirement to follow a BCP. Just some social pressure to > justify the points where you choose not to. (If this were instead, legislation, > it'd be quite a different situation.) > I disagree here and note that legislators may look to this BCP later if they intended to write such legislation. Andrew From joseph.sniderman@thoroquel.org Sun Feb 27 14:00:09 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DC1C3A69E6 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 14:00:09 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.399 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.200, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JKEJnU8G7P6Q for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 14:00:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.thoroquel.org (mail.thoroquel.org [72.14.190.148]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB3EB3A683B for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 14:00:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from [IPv6:2604:8800:101:1::e] (epinephrine.home.thoroquel.com [IPv6:2604:8800:101:1::e]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.thoroquel.org (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-9.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id p1RM12kn009885 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Sun, 27 Feb 2011 22:01:03 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=thoroquel.org; s=thoroquel2a; t=1298844063; bh=sj1IFGEv0MavhisI0KqdGA8hjWMLESQRe+3pk/copl8=; h=Message-ID:Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:OpenPGP: Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:CC:DomainKey-Signature; b=SxlOn2QDOG5U1Xp3EoGpwEkMzA6/w8yp3+6CbZ3XWoxJAtCrjh/aGuhGrVhikFzFe 66FtCc/M02FI/0R+t0tUF3+GuR4xhbr8h4DQsIdRl8UVQzKB7Vl22acPCEyQqyRr53 NIex5uPKslK4k2xxx+TjHkJS9kgUgK8SRKWV3FWtRq6iYImakKGHFp+KQcIm4INByW 1o2RaMYI0EsvC5/RJoUwfEjgw2aT0EYirx3vhm7m14IqRHDGwmaV5EOILJjkYoWtmv gqzmWzlOlQk7kdyxyMEyBFl18QC5fHD+vXaRAlDWq76Po3P9oMVp65LNL5H5nTbEHs dtvWoVpbrvYnA== Message-ID: <4D6AC99C.1010107@thoroquel.org> Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 17:01:00 -0500 From: Joe Sniderman User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101208 Thunderbird/3.1.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@irtf.org References: <20110227210118.44390.qmail@joyce.lan> <4D6AC316.20702@thoroquel.org> <4D6AC5AE.7090904@fahq2.com> <4D6AC8C8.3010008@trelane.net> In-Reply-To: <4D6AC8C8.3010008@trelane.net> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1 OpenPGP: id=605721CA Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Asrg] Rough consensus on pay to delist X-BeenThere: asrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 22:00:10 -0000 On 02/27/2011 04:57 PM, Andrew Kirch wrote: > On 2/27/2011 4:55 PM, Steve Atkins wrote: >> Yup. There's no requirement to follow a BCP. Just some social pressure to >> justify the points where you choose not to. (If this were instead, legislation, >> it'd be quite a different situation.) >> > I disagree here and note that legislators may look to this BCP later if > they intended to write such legislation. +1 Additionally, even though one can go against the BCP, it still makes sense to be as thorough as possible in drafting it. -- Joe Sniderman From joseph.sniderman@thoroquel.org Sun Feb 27 14:02:53 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F25B53A6A00 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 14:02:52 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.04 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.04 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.240, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id h+jVVin1-79Q for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 14:02:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.thoroquel.org (mail.thoroquel.org [72.14.190.148]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D850B3A683B for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 14:02:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from [IPv6:2604:8800:101:1::e] (epinephrine.home.thoroquel.com [IPv6:2604:8800:101:1::e]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.thoroquel.org (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-9.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id p1RM3hAW009889 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Sun, 27 Feb 2011 22:03:45 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=thoroquel.org; s=thoroquel2a; t=1298844225; bh=vCD9U8vsoXPJZhepOGsm5p1ORnWiCcYFLZ9b8V8/gSQ=; h=Message-ID:Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:OpenPGP: Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:CC:DomainKey-Signature; b=DWbRSqoqO6lYVsrjr/ovekyq2l6x7zR5krv2dBMjGYaahambjJiJTvZ9N4yxwwbVU a7MfvBZUYXEMSWojSymSGBOTljhrS0XzInn9utu071bDBb4+WJvuzGr3knggOckH9t FAAJhmN4lNWGCylrbs9iEHHCalqozuz7l8qqsJH/HuHxr9/AbiFuJCUJfZCMPJq6Iv Bay4rsriHNVXWyTxrs04T6nkfkMXgOXwoWE+ddqgn47E53ELgb7UljzmFPEGFlyy72 4dQde/LIVMFshajiVVoAOTwCL87m6S6ySvqzFKLjQ2Q7A4LdnEL5o/+mUy6RJG4pQP 5KSh1aGhraWgw== Message-ID: <4D6ACA3E.70200@thoroquel.org> Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 17:03:42 -0500 From: Joe Sniderman User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101208 Thunderbird/3.1.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@irtf.org References: <20110227190039.0FD6B12EC69@ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net> In-Reply-To: <20110227190039.0FD6B12EC69@ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1 OpenPGP: id=605721CA Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Asrg] UCEPROTECT's comment on draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-07 X-BeenThere: asrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 22:02:53 -0000 On 02/27/2011 02:00 PM, Claus v. Wolfhausen wrote: > TRBL Support wrote: > >> As a counterpoint, I run a public DNSBL and I agree with the choice of >> wording used in the BCP draft. Watching the history of blacklists over >> the years, few things have caused more angst and accusations than >> requiring a delisting fee. Even SORBS has stopped requiring such a >> fee. > > I never heard of the TRBLSPAM so it is very like to be not widely known. Its rather new from what I understand. I've been using their blacklist in spamassassin since shortly after they opened up their operation; I have been highly pleased with the result. [snip] > Some listees claimed that it would cost them lots of money to be listed for > a week, but they would have fixed their problem and they are so sure that > their problem is now fixed that THEY WOULD EVEN PAY FOR IT TO GET OUT > IMMEDIATLEY. > > So expedited express delisting was not our invention - It was implemented > because listees were begging us to create that option. Look, my honest opinion is probably better (from a practical and public relations standpoint only) not to even offer it, ie make every listee wait the full 7 days. That said, listing and delisting criteria in general varies so much in general, and your practical and public relations concerns impact you alone. [snip] > I know it is hard to believe for all those that do not agree with our > policy: > Many of our users have chosen to use ourlist *BECAUSE* we are running an > hard and unforgiving course against the owners of spamming systems, no > matter they are spamming intentionally or because they got hacked. Exactly. Regardless of how practical or impractical an approach it may be, it only has the potential to cause lost mail for those who already decided they want a hardline approach. > Since also no one here from this group offered to do the 24/7 Job removing > the losers free of charge for us, nothing will change at UCEPROTECT-Network > for the moment. Good. If all blacklists held the same definitions, same policies, same delisting procedures etc, there would be far fewer options for folks to choose from. Those criteria do not lend themselves well to standardization, or even to a best practice. The disclosures, and technical aspects are another story of course. (OT: You would lose at least one satisfied user if you softened up your delisting procedures.) -- Joe Sniderman From c.v.wolfhausen@spamkiller.uceprotect.net Sun Feb 27 14:33:51 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE0E93A695F for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 14:33:50 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.086 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.086 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.512, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SQ9ITi-ERD+B for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 14:33:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net (ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net [208.66.2.20]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 275A03A6958 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 14:33:49 -0800 (PST) Received: by ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net (UCEPROTECT, from userid 32767) id 29E4012EC69; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 23:35:01 +0100 (CET) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; charset="iso-8859-1"; boundary="------------Boundary-00=_R0SA9TWK8WA1VA400000" From: "Claus v. Wolfhausen" References: <20110227210118.44390.qmail@joyce.lan> To: Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 23:34:55 +0100 (CET) Message-Id: <20110227223501.29E4012EC69@ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net> Subject: Re: [Asrg] Rough consensus on pay to delist X-BeenThere: asrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 22:33:51 -0000 --------------Boundary-00=_R0SA9TWK8WA1VA400000 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear John,=0D =0D You wrote:=0D =0D >I'm seeing no support at all for "Claus'" contention that we should=0D >change the language about pay to delist in DNSBL practices draft.=0D =0D The point which I see is not just the argumentation contra DNSBLs=0D that offer an optional paid expedited express delisting,=0D my point was also the argumentation pro commercial DNSBLs=0D without showing that there exists a conflict of interests also.=0D =0D So if 2.2.5 Conflict of intersts is not completeley removed,=0D then it should also not claim that it would be generally considered =0D apropriate to charge for a DNSBL, without mentioning the potential =0D conflict where a possibly important customer of the commercial =0D DNSBL is also willfully hosting spammers. =0D =0D Logic says that chances are much higher that a DNSBL-Operator=0D might be blind to the spam coming from his customers ranges=0D or that he might at maximum list some actually not used ranges =0D as "Alibi-Listings" because a commercial DNSBL is a business=0D that wants to make profit.=0D If the commercial DNSBL-Operator would cheat here, this would =0D be hard to proof, because he can always claim, that he didn't =0D receive any spam from a spammy IP.=0D =0D Different to that it is unlike that a DNSBL-Operator of a free DNSBL=0D that has an express delisting option will list innocent IP's, because =0D he would risk to get exposed by the ISP in cases where he would list=0D IP's that did clearly not send any spam.=0D The ISP of any listee might have additional logs that could clearly proof= =0D if the DNSBL-Operator would be cheating in that situation.=0D =0D So the complete passage 2.2.5 is (sorry for the wording) pure paranoid kookoil.=0D =0D In fact it is *ALWAYS* a question if the DNSBL-Operator is honest or not.= =0D But this is a question which the DNSBL-Users has to ask himself while=0D reading the DNSBL-Policies.=0D =0D Assuming any DNSBL-Operator could run a blocklist in bad faith is =0D something that should not be in any DRAFT nor in any RFC IMHO.=0D =0D Therefore the complete passage 2.2.5 should be removed IMHO:=0D =0D Claus von Wolfhausen=0D Technical Director=0D UCEPROTECT-Network=0D http://www.uceprotect.net=0D =0D =0D =20 --------------Boundary-00=_R0SA9TWK8WA1VA400000 Content-Type: Text/HTML; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear John,
 
You wrote:
  
>I'm seeing no support at all for "Claus'" contention that we sho= uld
>change the language about pay to delist in DNSBL practices draft= =2E
 
The point which I see is not just the argumentation contra DNSBLs
that offer an optional paid expedited express delisting,
my point was also the argumentation pro commercial DNSBLs
without showing that there exists a conflict of interests also.
 
So if 2.2.5 Conflict of intersts is not completeley removed,
then it should also not claim that it would be generally considered =
apropriate to charge for a DNSBL, without mentioning the potent= ial
conflict where a possibly important customer of the commercial
DNSBL is also willfully hosting spammers. 
 
Logic says that chances are much higher that a DNSBL-Operator
might be blind to the spam coming from his customers ranges
or that he might at maximum list some actually not used ranges
as "Alibi-Listings" because a commercial DNSBL is a business
that wants to make profit.
If the commercial DNSBL-Operator would cheat here, this would
be hard to proof, because he can always claim, that he didn't
receive any spam from a spammy IP.
 
Different to that it is unlike that a DNSBL-Operator of a = free DNSBL
that has an express delisting option will list innocent IP= 's, because
he would risk to get exposed by the ISP in cases where he would list=
IP's that did clearly not send any spam.
The ISP of any listee might have additional logs that could clearly = proof
if the DNSBL-Operator would be cheating in that situation.
 
So the complete passage 2.2.5 is (sorry for the wording) pure parano= id kookoil.
 
In fact it is *ALWAYS* a question if the DNSBL-Operator is honest or= not.
But this is a question which the DNSBL-Users has to ask himself whil= e
reading the DNSBL-Policies.
 
Assuming any DNSBL-Operator could run a blocklist in bad faith is
something that should not be in any DRAFT nor in any RFC IMHO.
 
Therefore the complete passage 2.2.5 should be removed IMHO:
 
Claus von Wolfhausen
Technical Director
UCEPROTECT-Network
http://www.uceprotect.net<= /DIV>
 
 
  
 
--------------Boundary-00=_R0SA9TWK8WA1VA400000-- From aiverson@spamresource.com Sun Feb 27 14:34:29 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 824303A6A56 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 14:34:29 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.178 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.178 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eo2cOvs8qJcb for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 14:34:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wy0-f182.google.com (mail-wy0-f182.google.com [74.125.82.182]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EBF43A6835 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 14:34:27 -0800 (PST) Received: by wyb32 with SMTP id 32so3771853wyb.13 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 14:35:26 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.4.2 with SMTP id 2mr1724158wei.51.1298846125752; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 14:35:25 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.216.183.139 with HTTP; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 14:35:25 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <20110227190039.0FD6B12EC69@ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net> Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 16:35:25 -0600 Message-ID: From: Al Iverson To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Asrg] UCEPROTECT's comment on draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-07 X-BeenThere: asrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 22:34:29 -0000 On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 2:30 PM, Kelly Molloy wrot= e: > > On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 11:00 AM, Claus v. Wolfhausen wrote: >> >> TRBL Support wrote: >> >> >As a counterpoint, I run a public DNSBL and I agree with the choice of >> >wording used in the BCP draft. Watching the history of blacklists over >> >the years, few things have caused more angst and accusations than >> >requiring a delisting fee. Even SORBS has stopped requiring such a >> >fee. >> >> I never heard of the TRBLSPAM so it is very like to be not widely known.= As a consequence there will not be many users and not many removal request= s. > > I used to run the MAPS RBL and now I run the Spamcop BL. Perhaps you've h= eard of those? > Neither the Spamcop BL nor the MAPS RBL have ever charged for delisting. = I would never support a charge for delisting because it leaves the list ope= n to the accusation of false listings in order to generate revenue. SCBL cu= rrently allows delisting on demand for a first listing and then an increasi= ng interval before successive self-delistings are permitted. (All listing s= till expire after 24 hours with no new spam, but one can not request delist= ing if an IP is delisted on demand and then relisted). To be perfectly hone= st, I was really nervous about this when we implemented it, and we were pre= pared to revert the change if it hurt our efficacy or accuracy. It hasn't. = It also decreased our support burden significantly. > Also, the CBL uses a similar model (although theirs was first) and is one= of the most accurate and useful blocklists in the world. > Based on my experience, I strongly disagree that pay-for-delisting is eve= r necessary. In response to the implication that it is necessary to charge a penalty fee in some cases being an "important point not often seen by those who never have run a public DNSBL" I would like to add my agreement to Kelly's comments above. I created and ran the MAPS RSS, the VISI.com RSL, and have been involved in numerous other public DNSBLs, and I think, in 2011, that charging a fee for delisting is far from a best practice. Regards, Al Iverson From trblhelp@gmail.com Sun Feb 27 14:42:38 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A29643A6839 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 14:42:38 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.472 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.472 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.127, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id R3FXUN3KFjWq for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 14:42:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-yx0-f182.google.com (mail-yx0-f182.google.com [209.85.213.182]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 760263A6835 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 14:42:37 -0800 (PST) Received: by yxl31 with SMTP id 31so1552191yxl.13 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 14:43:36 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=sBOnO1vRZBwQXe8PEA/w60U2wnD9qcGzeMKjNzadSus=; b=sqbdWL0SJyJVn3PBYF0ahsJf0JqJUb4BJtaM0iT2H1vPvuckIyfk4O5GTpkl0veP8i lIvjWhCEnagCgTiLjR9koaJs822aa65GpZqlKTJuON7Zyg9Et9doXfox+VC6zLETM68Y afrfXw7zeo7+RM6f3sFBC8WsaIt9xm0LAxHUI= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=oWYgq/U4en+E5deUXSAb0vYP+8RkjAeBqdq1HIBSBkghEm+yRB+2vDKiK3WZWtB6ei Okwbcob1x/MOIKm9nv7gC+KI0LsSXEPdTdm9b8d9cktGUvINq3NF0Gsv7gYDWwssKqP3 akpSqeCc5jtDJOx0k/JSFeWFlo7mhNYFdF0qg= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.150.52.5 with SMTP id z5mr6434634ybz.15.1298846614335; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 14:43:34 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.147.39.3 with HTTP; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 14:43:34 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <4D6AC84F.3020402@trelane.net> References: <20110227210118.44390.qmail@joyce.lan> <4D6AC316.20702@thoroquel.org> <4D6AC45C.3080506@trelane.net> <4D6AC84F.3020402@trelane.net> Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 16:43:34 -0600 Message-ID: From: TRBL Support To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Asrg] Rough consensus on pay to delist X-BeenThere: asrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 22:42:38 -0000 On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 3:55 PM, Andrew Kirch wrote: > On 2/27/2011 4:46 PM, Kelly Molloy wrote: >> Some people also also HELO as "localhost". Just because some people do >> it doesn't mean it's a good idea. > "Stupid people exist" is a bad notional method of determining what > should be in a BCP. =A0This BCP would not reflect the listing policies of > SORBS How so? SORBS stopped charging a fee. Allow me to add my voice to the chorus of those saying, "I think charging a fee for delisting in any circumstance is a bad idea." --=20 trblspamtrap dnsbl: http://www.trblspam.com simple, spamtrap driven, easy on, easy off From trblhelp@gmail.com Sun Feb 27 14:49:12 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 543CF3A6835 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 14:49:12 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.148 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.148 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.052, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_62=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BH4hZ8HSrvlk for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 14:49:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-gy0-f182.google.com (mail-gy0-f182.google.com [209.85.160.182]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 409D43A67F6 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 14:49:11 -0800 (PST) Received: by gyh4 with SMTP id 4so1530127gyh.13 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 14:50:09 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=d6eCSljjHAkLHyZTk+Oeu3dmmCCqTdmTQwihsVvaJiA=; b=U9timJSYZaftCYQNzXIUqTUvWiGA5nWG/KZUTM5OOUs1EIPd6gUsIDXqOpR7bl49YU Mpz3QV20txz1J/nlRVLJMX1QWpK8vDeo/Np0Orhy7I1+S+MhNbHNedcwD/wJNkmpx9wc HoanPc0PSfospF0I9/lM84SA3O1t14KOfkdmo= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=FO2BCOb+RZz6Onx4A4k3bEmE51V5i2OhtcThvAWIUBXnsQNNj7kLsk/Y7psGK3g9Yg mmBwKnrdS//TMAUbQOOIVdqvmRpPr4oDH1QIbT2eVN930XY5Rj0lyIo2+WevsxGNbNr1 /+Yj7raaawP3AwTehQhUwidBES8AdyN7TGIy0= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.236.108.52 with SMTP id p40mr8593780yhg.41.1298847008002; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 14:50:08 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.147.39.3 with HTTP; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 14:50:07 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20110227190039.0FD6B12EC69@ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net> References: <20110227190039.0FD6B12EC69@ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net> Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 16:50:07 -0600 Message-ID: From: TRBL Support To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Subject: Re: [Asrg] UCEPROTECT's comment on draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-07 X-BeenThere: asrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 22:49:12 -0000 On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 1:00 PM, Claus v. Wolfhausen wrote: > > TRBL Support wrote: > > >As a counterpoint, I run a public DNSBL and I agree with the choice of > >wording used in the BCP draft. Watching the history of blacklists over > >the years, few things have caused more angst and accusations than > >requiring a delisting fee. Even SORBS has stopped requiring such a > >fee. > > I never heard of the TRBLSPAM so it is very like to be not widely known. As a consequence there will not be many users and not many removal requests. > If we at UCEPROTECT would have to handle up to 50 removal request per day, then we could offer that free of charge, of course. > Unfortunateley we would have to handle between 40000 to 50000 requests per day, if we would offer immediate removals free of charge. > > In UCEPROTECT's early days (August 2001) the project was run on a sub domain of admins.ws and the blocklists had public "remove me" Buttons, where listees could remove them self. > > As Spammers were beginning to abuse that with automated scripts we did secure it with a captcha. Then Spammers did hire persons in India and China to remove their listings manually. > > That was the point where UCEPROTECT has chosen to no longer allow "self removals" and then everyone was required to contact us to get removed before expiration. Here's a thought: Your business model is broken. You are charging listees, when instead you should be charging your blacklist users enough to cover your operating expenses. This is like giving away an automobile for free, but then charging people after the driver hits them. It does not make sense to me. I think if you are charging people to get removed, you are taking advantage of misfortune. I understand what you mean about CAPTCHAs being defeated and so forth, but charging listees a fee is not the only way to address this issue, nor is this a fair methodology to those who are not bad guys. -- trblspamtrap dnsbl: http://www.trblspam.com simple, spamtrap driven, easy on, easy off From c.v.wolfhausen@spamkiller.uceprotect.net Sun Feb 27 16:38:28 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F7AA3A6A56 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 16:38:28 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.738 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.738 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.061, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HP9IzuNxZZCl for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 16:38:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net (ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net [208.66.2.20]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48C3E3A6A3B for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 16:38:27 -0800 (PST) Received: by ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net (UCEPROTECT, from userid 32767) id 48F9B12EC69; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 01:39:38 +0100 (CET) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; charset="iso-8859-1"; boundary="------------Boundary-00=_9SXAVZ8PJDU1VA400000" From: "Claus v. Wolfhausen" References: <20110227190039.0FD6B12EC69@ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net> To: Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 01:39:32 +0100 (CET) Message-Id: <20110228003938.48F9B12EC69@ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net> Subject: Re: [Asrg] UCEPROTECT's comment on draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-07 X-BeenThere: asrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 00:38:28 -0000 --------------Boundary-00=_9SXAVZ8PJDU1VA400000 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable TRBL Support wrote:=0D =0D >Here's a thought: Your business model is broken. You are charging=0D >listees, when instead you should be charging your blacklist users=0D >enough to cover your operating expenses. This is like giving away an=0D >automobile for free, but then charging people after the driver hits=0D >them. It does not make sense to me.=0D =0D Really?=0D =0D UCEPROTECT-Network is not a business model.=0D It is a free project run and sponsored in total by the UCEPROTECT-Orga.=0D That means we are really independent and our lists can be used by anyone=0D for any purpose free of charge.=0D =0D Your comparison with cars is not correct and lacks simple logic.=0D What you are sugessting is comparable to following situation:=0D A city or a district authority would charge all car-owners with the fines for =0D speeding because speeding accidentally can happen to anyone sometimes.=0D (So at least did the excuse for losers that get hacked sound to me).=0D =0D What we are doing is comparable to real world examples.=0D We are the city or district authority and we allow usage of our roads=0D free of charge for all.=0D Those that are caught speeding get fined.=0D =0D That's more real than you can imagine, because most members of the=0D UCEPROTECT-Orga are indeed Cities and district authorities in Germany,=0D Austria and Switzerland.=0D =0D The fact that we are listing Spammers for 7 days can be compared =0D to a drivers license suspension for speeders.=0D =0D If the speeder pays a fee for speeding then the ban on the license is lif= ted earlier.=0D That is also a real life situation and it's exactly what we are doing wit= h Spammers..=0D They can pay a fee for expedited express delisting.=0D =0D >I think if you are charging people to get removed, you are taking=0D >Advantage of misfortune. I understand what you mean about CAPTCHAs=0D >Being defeated and so forth, but charging listees a fee is not the=0D >only way to address this issue, nor is this a fair methodology to=0D >Those who are not bad guys.=0D =0D I explained it multiple times that self-removals are not a choice for us,= =0D because Spammers will always find a way to break them.=0D They did it with captchas, they hired cheap persons in India and China=0D to delist complete ranges for them and if we would take the approach that= =0D one can only delist the IP which one is using right now, then spammers=0D will program their bots to do the selfremovals.=0D =0D Since no one wants to do manual delistings 24/7 free of charge and =0D neither we nor our users want to spend additional resources because =0D it doesn't matter to us, if the listee stays listed for a week, we have =0D chosen to let those that need an immediate removal pay for their faults.=0D =0D Q.E.D. For UCEPROTECT there is no way besides the automatic and =0D free expiration than charging for expedited removal and letting external = =0D persons doing that job.=0D =0D Claus von Wolfhausen=0D Technical Director=0D UCEPROTECT-Network=0D http://www.uceprotect.net=0D =0D =20 --------------Boundary-00=_9SXAVZ8PJDU1VA400000 Content-Type: Text/HTML; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
TRBL Support wrote:
 
>Here's a thought: Your business model is broken. You are chargin= g
>listees, when instead you should be charging your blacklist user= s
>enough to cover your operating expenses. This is like giving awa= y an
>automobile for free, but then charging people after the driver h= its
>them. It does not make sense to me.
 
Really?
 
UCEPROTECT-Network is not a business model.
It is a free project run and sponsored in total by the UCEPROTECT-Or= ga.
That means we are really independent and our lists can be used by an= yone
for any purpose free of charge.
 
Your comparison with cars is not correct and lacks simple logic.
What you are sugessting is comparable to following situation:
A city or a district authority would charge all car-owners with the = fines for
speeding because speeding accidentally can happen to anyone som= etimes.
(So at least did the excuse for losers that get hacked sound to me).=
 
What we are doing is comparable to real world examples.
We are the city or district authority and we allow usage of our road= s
free of charge for all.
Those that are caught speeding get fined.
 
That's more real than you can imagine, because most members of the
UCEPROTECT-Orga are indeed Cities and district authorities in German= y,
Austria and Switzerland.
 
The fact that we are listing Spammers for 7 days can be compared
to a drivers license suspension for speeders.
 
If the speeder pays a fee for speeding then the ban on the= license is lifted earlier.
That is also a real life situation and it's exactly what we are doin= g with Spammers..
They can pay a fee for expedited express delisting.
 
>I think if you are charging people to get removed, you are takin= g
>Advantage of misfortune. I understand what you mean about CAPTCH= As
>Being defeated and so forth, but charging listees a fee is not t= he
>only way to address this issue, nor is this a fair methodology t= o
>Those who are not bad guys.
 
I explained it multiple times that self-removals are not a choice fo= r us,
because Spammers will always find a way to break them.
They did it with captchas, they hired cheap persons in India and Chi= na
to delist complete ranges for them and if we would take the approach= that
one can only delist the IP which one is using right now, then spamme= rs
will program their bots to do the selfremovals.
 
Since no one wants to do manual delistings 24/7 free of charge and <= /DIV>
neither we nor our users want to spend additional resources because =
it doesn't matter to us, if the listee stays listed for a week, we h= ave
chosen to let those that need an immediate removal pay for thei= r faults.
 
Q.E.D. For UCEPROTECT there is no way besides the automatic and
free expiration than charging for expedited removal and letting= external
persons doing that job.
 
Claus von Wolfhausen
Technical Director
UCEPROTECT-Network
--------------Boundary-00=_9SXAVZ8PJDU1VA400000-- From c.v.wolfhausen@spamkiller.uceprotect.net Sun Feb 27 16:54:09 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FC053A6A3B for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 16:54:09 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.143 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.143 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.455, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5gY6RBgYU8tB for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 16:54:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net (ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net [208.66.2.20]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1D8E3A6862 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 16:54:07 -0800 (PST) Received: by ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net (UCEPROTECT, from userid 32767) id 6E75A12EC69; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 01:55:15 +0100 (CET) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; charset="iso-8859-1"; boundary="------------Boundary-00=_DIYA7JMQENY1VA400000" From: "Claus v. Wolfhausen" References: <20110227210118.44390.qmail@joyce.lan> <4D6AC316.20702@thoroquel.org> <4D6AC45C.3080506@trelane.net> <4D6AC84F.3020402@trelane.net> To: Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 01:55:09 +0100 (CET) Message-Id: <20110228005515.6E75A12EC69@ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net> Subject: Re: [Asrg] Rough consensus on pay to delist X-BeenThere: asrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 00:54:10 -0000 --------------Boundary-00=_DIYA7JMQENY1VA400000 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable TRBL Support wrote:=0D =0D >How so? SORBS stopped charging a fee.=0D =0D The SORBS was never something comparable to UCEPROTECT,=0D It's FP-rate is exorbitant, Michelle just started spamming NANAE=0D with daily automated postings of useless stats.=0D That list could be continued ....=0D =0D So whatever SORBS is doing, is the SORBS issue, not ours.=0D =0D >Allow me to add my voice to the chorus of those saying, "I think=0D >charging a fee for delisting in any circumstance is a bad idea."=0D =0D The question was not if it is a bad choice, the question was if that=0D has to be subject in an BCP or even an RFC as "MUST NOT".=0D =0D Regards=0D =0D Claus von Wolfhausen=0D Technical Director=0D UCEPROTECT-Network=0D http://www.uceprotect.net --------------Boundary-00=_DIYA7JMQENY1VA400000 Content-Type: Text/HTML; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
TRBL Support wrote:
  
>How so? SORBS stopped charging a fee.
 
The SORBS was never something comparable to UCEPROTECT,
It's FP-rate is exorbitant, Michelle just started spamming NANA= E
with daily automated postings of useless stats.
That list could be continued ....
 
So whatever SORBS is doing, is the SORBS issue, not ours.
 
>Allow me to add my voice to the chorus of those saying, "I think=
>charging a fee for delisting in any circumstance is a bad idea."=
 
The question was not if it is a bad choice, the question was if that=
has to be subject in an BCP or even an RFC as "MUST NOT".
 
Regards
 
Claus von Wolfhausen
Technical Director
UCEPROTECT-Network
--------------Boundary-00=_DIYA7JMQENY1VA400000-- From kelly.molloy@gmail.com Sun Feb 27 16:56:43 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8E543A6A3B for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 16:56:43 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.199 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.400, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Da1rEYNd3BhV for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 16:56:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-gy0-f182.google.com (mail-gy0-f182.google.com [209.85.160.182]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E412C3A6862 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 16:56:40 -0800 (PST) Received: by gyh4 with SMTP id 4so1555579gyh.13 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 16:57:39 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=/1hfEHBlicEIG+ybZe3RyBMt02HVVPU+zq12ovLtntg=; b=CCJ8wEsdIk/jXNbIBpq2UOgF6jr8lmK16w1L6lFOv0vpO8Dh2Gb2UTMRvk71py2X/w mc5duweNd/fo/6XAGA9guqsKvrMpAzalj0yXfcuGFmzQSz4BbdaDsf72KzOO0EDvHAft iSawexcvOpHJt7Pao9s5YSiT1YVgSYwZiP5fA= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=dYqQldOFm7ThVcGuHVD5iJF6m6xGEEPlq5DdB3tvjs6v8L5f05qXBJJFczzCv09SCd d5OcqXjCMqmwVE3p3uWwBvkBM6l4sb1CxK3ESYtj13xac1k6dMPxTHxcFjw9DIscnBBr 2NoEdyqWnHW0nCT9gMs4SbDlTWXnLq6mMr6hI= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.147.167.12 with SMTP id u12mr5613352yao.13.1298854659613; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 16:57:39 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.147.167.12 with HTTP; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 16:57:39 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20110228003938.48F9B12EC69@ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net> References: <20110227190039.0FD6B12EC69@ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net> <20110228003938.48F9B12EC69@ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net> Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 16:57:39 -0800 Message-ID: From: Kelly Molloy To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf30433dec99e592049d4d2a23 Subject: Re: [Asrg] UCEPROTECT's comment on draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-07 X-BeenThere: asrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 00:56:43 -0000 --20cf30433dec99e592049d4d2a23 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 4:39 PM, Claus v. Wolfhausen < c.v.wolfhausen@spamkiller.uceprotect.net> wrote: > > I explained it multiple times that self-removals are not a choice for us, > because Spammers will always find a way to break them. > Except that's not an issue for Spamcop. I can't say for sure because I'm on the outside looking in, but it seems like many other lists don't have an issue with it either. > > Since no one wants to do manual delistings 24/7 free of charge and > neither we nor our users want to spend additional resources because > it doesn't matter to us, if the listee stays listed for a week, we have > chosen to let those that need an immediate removal pay for their faults. > Many (volunteer, even!) lists handle delistings free of charge. 24/7 coverage is a lot to ask of any list, and I don't see that anyone is arguing for that as a standard. Q.E.D. For UCEPROTECT there is no way besides the automatic and > free expiration than charging for expedited removal and letting external > persons doing that job. > There's always another way. You just don't want to consider those, which is your prerogative. But other ways do exist and are doable. Also, just FTR: SORBS no longer charges for delisting. From http://www.sorbs.net/overview.shtml: *>Note:* Use of this service is currently free of charge. There is no charge for removal from the proxy, vulnerability, relay, zombie, spam or DUHL databases. --kelly > > --20cf30433dec99e592049d4d2a23 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 4:39 PM, Claus v= . Wolfhausen <c.v.wolfhausen@spamkiller.uceprotect.net>= wrote:

=
I explained it m= ultiple times that self-removals are not a choice for us,
because Spammers will = always find a way to break them.

Except that's not an issue for Spamco= p. I can't say for sure because I'm on the outside looking in, but = it seems like many other lists don't have an issue with it either.
<= /tr>
=A0
Since no one wants to do manual delistings 24/7 free of charge and
neither we nor our users want to spend additional resources because
it doesn't matter to us, if the listee stays listed for a week, we= have
chosen to=A0let those that need an immediate removal pay for their fau= lts.

Many (volunteer, even!) lists handle delistings free of charge. 24/7 = coverage is a lot to ask of any list, and I don't see that anyone is ar= guing for that as a standard.=A0

=A0Q.E.D. For UCEPROTECT there is n= o way besides the automatic and
free expiration than= =A0charging for expedited removal and letting external
persons doing that job= .

There's always another way. You just don't want to consider thos= e, which is your prerogative. But other ways do exist and are doable.=A0

Also, just FTR: SORBS no longer charges for delisting. = From=A0http://www.sorbs.net= /overview.shtml:=A0

>Note:=A0Use of this service is currently free = of charge. There is no charge for removal from the proxy, vulnerability, re= lay, zombie, spam or DUHL databases.=A0

--kelly
<= /tr>
=A0
--20cf30433dec99e592049d4d2a23-- From trelane@trelane.net Sun Feb 27 17:06:50 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2FB03A6959 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 17:06:50 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.199 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.400, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Gqov0UYcxdMD for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 17:06:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.trelane.net (mail.trelane.net [66.93.203.104]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D53A93A6A3B for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 17:06:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail.trelane.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A4C01864B3 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 20:07:48 -0500 (EST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at trelane.net Received: from mail.trelane.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (master.trelane.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bRrGDMi3ftSq for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 20:07:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail.trelane.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2228B1864B4 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 20:07:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from [172.16.1.106] (unknown [66.93.203.199]) by mail.trelane.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 95F621864B3 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 20:07:45 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <4D6AF561.1040104@trelane.net> Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 20:07:45 -0500 From: Andrew Kirch User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101207 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@irtf.org References: <20110227190039.0FD6B12EC69@ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net> <20110228003938.48F9B12EC69@ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------020306080900080905020407" Subject: Re: [Asrg] UCEPROTECT's comment on draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-07 X-BeenThere: asrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 01:06:50 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------020306080900080905020407 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 2/27/2011 7:57 PM, Kelly Molloy wrote: > > > Many (volunteer, even!) lists handle delistings free of charge. 24/7 > coverage is a lot to ask of any list, and I don't see that anyone is > arguing for that as a standard. > That's fine, but as long as some are, the BCP should not use language like "MUST NOT" --------------020306080900080905020407 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 2/27/2011 7:57 PM, Kelly Molloy wrote:


Many (volunteer, even!) lists handle delistings free of charge. 24/7 coverage is a lot to ask of any list, and I don't see that anyone is arguing for that as a standard. 

That's fine, but as long as some are, the BCP should not use language like "MUST NOT"

--------------020306080900080905020407-- From john@jlc.net Sun Feb 27 17:09:35 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4926C3A6A56 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 17:09:35 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.691 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.691 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.092, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EA7weloTsvzd for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 17:09:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailhost.jlc.net (mailhost.jlc.net [199.201.159.4]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 595A43A6A3B for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 17:09:34 -0800 (PST) Received: by mailhost.jlc.net (Postfix, from userid 104) id 928CE33C27; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 20:10:28 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 20:10:28 -0500 From: John Leslie To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF Message-ID: <20110228011028.GK7663@verdi> References: <20110227210118.44390.qmail@joyce.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110227210118.44390.qmail@joyce.lan> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Subject: Re: [Asrg] Rough consensus on pay to delist X-BeenThere: asrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 01:09:35 -0000 John Levine wrote: > > I'm seeing no support at all for "Claus'" contention that we should > change the language about pay to delist in DNSBL practices draft. I'm afraid I must disagree with John Levine's call of consensus. :^( > If anyone else agrees that we should change it, please say so now, > otherwise I think we will consider the discussion over. I do see rough consensus that charging for de-listing is a bad idea; but that's not what the current text says. I have previously expressed discomfort with the language, because even if I think the UCEPROTECT practice is a bad idea, it would not follow that charging for a manual operation is always bad, nor would it follow that manual operations should be discouraged. With Claus now claiming that this business model actually works, I am even more uncomfortable saying it MUST NOT be used. It seems to me that, although the flame-content is higher than I would wish, useful information _is_ being exchanged here, and further discussion is warranted. -- John Leslie From kelly.molloy@gmail.com Sun Feb 27 17:13:04 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5AF6D3A6A4B for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 17:13:04 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.200, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id p4VrjPXrtzuP for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 17:13:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-gx0-f182.google.com (mail-gx0-f182.google.com [209.85.161.182]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA3BF3A6961 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 17:13:02 -0800 (PST) Received: by gxk7 with SMTP id 7so1559783gxk.13 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 17:14:01 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=YQuS7BEUr6VOCA9GHLXnyzjw4UhfK/iuEYbOL9BNz1g=; b=Jc9XCR3w0bne1VnRzRArlUxG3tGOVtG61wakpMvpni1mDT2DivBePq87l9s7CocVGH UN/HOasPGF8t8lZkriXc4lEB0HR+H0JNnSe9UzjFsuiPEGSk86zKe71Ih+WggDuNXSfr GnofFwukVURQTVRwm90JGKZ98BiM7+/IKCblU= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=JriHV3IVfZDYMdy8ribfXAA25ocL+0ODIasdLWmWWTGS5AWVfAcd52tK9fifWpi7P6 EUIZjc4qmsfIWq7sN4/G1oY4wXfSLq7R34rINv7Xzc102gMcEBhKhXgCA904oaaLcn2K jvgRTZAFbJ4XAT6wf840r3xxYxGPyvVw+9NCs= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.150.134.5 with SMTP id h5mr6174203ybd.306.1298855641570; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 17:14:01 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.147.167.12 with HTTP; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 17:14:01 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <4D6AF561.1040104@trelane.net> References: <20110227190039.0FD6B12EC69@ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net> <20110228003938.48F9B12EC69@ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net> <4D6AF561.1040104@trelane.net> Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 17:14:01 -0800 Message-ID: From: Kelly Molloy To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=000e0cd47ec0215e69049d4d6579 Subject: Re: [Asrg] UCEPROTECT's comment on draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-07 X-BeenThere: asrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 01:13:04 -0000 --000e0cd47ec0215e69049d4d6579 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 5:07 PM, Andrew Kirch wrote: That's fine, but as long as some are, the BCP should not use language like > "MUST NOT" > Why not? I'm really not following. Saying that pay-to-delist is not BCP doesn't require that Claus change the behavior of his list. If you want to adhere to consensus BCP, you must not charge to delist. Claus doesn't care if his lists adhere to BCP, and that's fine. --kelly --000e0cd47ec0215e69049d4d6579 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 5:07 PM, Andrew Kirch <trelane@trelane.net> wrote:
=20 =20 =20
That's fi= ne, but as long as some are, the BCP should not use language like "MUST NOT"

Why not? I'm really not following. Saying that pay-to-delist is= not BCP doesn't require that Claus change the behavior of his list. If= you want to adhere to consensus BCP, you must not charge to delist. Claus = doesn't care if his lists adhere to BCP, and that's fine.=A0

--kelly
--000e0cd47ec0215e69049d4d6579-- From steve@blighty.com Sun Feb 27 17:21:18 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72E713A6A5D for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 17:21:18 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.933 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.933 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.133, BAYES_00=-2.599, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LG7god7oLye9 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 17:21:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from m.wordtothewise.com (b.wordtothewise.com [208.187.80.136]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04DC13A6A5A for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 17:21:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from platter.wordtothewise.com (184.wordtothewise.com [208.187.80.184]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: steve) by m.wordtothewise.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1B9132DEC3 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 17:22:16 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=wordtothewise.com; s=1.wttw; t=1298856136; bh=oEVMxwz7W4/1BuWgHELfCw8zaFWZl5pmx5hdqzKqmCk=; h=Content-Type:Mime-Version:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-Id:References:To; b=m2e8Kk1O/0gcBV/+I9rxFnSJ6PB28aO0w1xVTWEZ7TaNTNxE+VP3M0At1QXDmvZXZ DqEuXNs0O0zBGOZtPw1fmTvSCsF89D1NyF68SK4CA6VEj5uJpH37W2EHZ2tz3Jji0W 2PbJrMDaqrH9oatfE/ez9Wxb13KA4N5lk2b5kcxc= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082) From: Steve Atkins In-Reply-To: <4D6AF561.1040104@trelane.net> Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 17:22:15 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <20110227190039.0FD6B12EC69@ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net> <20110228003938.48F9B12EC69@ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net> <4D6AF561.1040104@trelane.net> To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082) Subject: Re: [Asrg] UCEPROTECT's comment on draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-07 X-BeenThere: asrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 01:21:18 -0000 On Feb 27, 2011, at 5:07 PM, Andrew Kirch wrote: > On 2/27/2011 7:57 PM, Kelly Molloy wrote: >>=20 >>=20 >> Many (volunteer, even!) lists handle delistings free of charge. 24/7 = coverage is a lot to ask of any list, and I don't see that anyone is = arguing for that as a standard.=20 >>=20 > That's fine, but as long as some are, the BCP should not use language = like "MUST NOT" Just because one blacklist does something doesn't mean that a BCP = document is required to consider that behaviour a "best common practice" = and describe it as such[1]. "MUST NOT" is absolutely an acceptable term for a BCP document to use to = say that a behaviour is clearly outside "best practice". Cheers, Steve [1] Heck, I respond with public ridicule and spite listings to people = who complain about being wrongly listed on one of my blacklists[2]. Also = to users of the list who contact me when it fails to meet their = expectations. I'm perfectly happy with that behavior to be covered by a = "MUST NOT" in a blacklist BCP. [2] It's the all-of-ipv4-bl, admittedly, but that's still a blacklist, = just as useful and valid as UCEPROTECT when it comes to constraining BCP = language. From johnl@iecc.com Sun Feb 27 17:25:56 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40ADB3A6959 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 17:25:56 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -111.078 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-111.078 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.121, BAYES_00=-2.599, HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI=-4.3, RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED=-4.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RZwNG9JRvMUK for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 17:25:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [64.57.183.53]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5AAA43A6A5A for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 17:25:54 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 68210 invoked from network); 28 Feb 2011 01:26:52 -0000 Received: from mail1.iecc.com (64.57.183.56) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 28 Feb 2011 01:26:52 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:cc:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:vbr-info; s=52a3.4d6af9dc.k1102; i=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=lWeAdz8WOEVoWRVGQhi111agcJ3RWToPJx9ufaa7xdw=; b=FeoDTddn4uJHPZytUuQhXhGvTDzgUeqwA0b4+emcIcohB/aUUrfeFI+7hfxyHD1oCCRttdQhvm3SpbOYP8+PWRPp4n3W86l/csVWnYHxkzDEbV/Be42UlmQCTlfF/p6EkROr1nBiK1udjXMJOez8C0EEbTRfNcxaA/Wd8welpSI= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:cc:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:vbr-info; s=52a3.4d6af9dc.k1102; olt=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=lWeAdz8WOEVoWRVGQhi111agcJ3RWToPJx9ufaa7xdw=; b=KnsOrPq96hQr062RpMN+x6VNrh86sNHoWyGFHDL6nD/eWsftXfx3YRg0KJOcCOAr0ZBfR0uhpE2iQ8dC6+o+cNLj5fu+sEIV9KZZd3n0a8oSVmMZ3w90rFvEDNvvmXE1lQlBABdM7YsfbH0JDOF7eViV3AGnpNa1EQTYsoH0FDo= VBR-Info: md=iecc.com; mc=all; mv=dwl.spamhaus.org Date: 28 Feb 2011 01:26:52 -0000 Message-ID: <20110228012652.21154.qmail@joyce.lan> From: John Levine To: asrg@irtf.org In-Reply-To: <4D6AC8C8.3010008@trelane.net> Organization: Cc: X-Headerized: yes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Asrg] Rough consensus on pay to delist X-BeenThere: asrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 01:25:56 -0000 >I disagree here and note that legislators may look to this BCP later >if they intended to write such legislation. Having helped some actual legislators write actual legislation, I find it utterly implausible that anyone would ever legislate the practices of DNSBLs in other than the most general terms. Note that in the US they're protected by 47 US 230 which says they can do anything they want so long as there's a plausible good faith basis for doing so. Case law confirms that making mistakes does not mean you weren't acting in good faith. R's, John From c.v.wolfhausen@spamkiller.uceprotect.net Sun Feb 27 19:29:51 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 120D03A6998 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 19:29:51 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.781 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.781 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.018, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ypnch6D2svKo for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 19:29:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net (ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net [208.66.2.20]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0833A3A694A for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 19:29:48 -0800 (PST) Received: by ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net (UCEPROTECT, from userid 32767) id 399AF12EC69; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 04:31:02 +0100 (CET) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; charset="iso-8859-1"; boundary="------------Boundary-00=_XP5BDIIVP4J1VA400000" From: "Claus v. Wolfhausen" References: <20110227190039.0FD6B12EC69@ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net> <20110228003938.48F9B12EC69@ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net> <4D6AF561.1040104@trelane.net> To: Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 04:30:54 +0100 (CET) Message-Id: <20110228033102.399AF12EC69@ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net> Subject: Re: [Asrg] UCEPROTECT's comment on draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-07 X-BeenThere: asrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 03:29:52 -0000 --------------Boundary-00=_XP5BDIIVP4J1VA400000 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Steve wrote: =0D =0D >Just because one blacklist does something doesn't mean that a BCP docume= nt is required to consider that behaviour a "best common practice" and descr= ibe it as such[1].=0D =0D Really? I start to believe that many people in this group have no clue wh= at BCP stand for.=0D =0D Now see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best_Current_Practice=0D =0D A Best Current Practice (BCP) means that a certain manner of proceeding i= s in general the most logical choice -- a de facto standard of sorts=0D =0D Now let's analyze that:=0D =0D In every civilization that I have seen, those that fail to behave correct= ly, will have to live with the sanctions.=0D If you break a law, then you will be punished.=0D If you break a law accidently or willfully does not matter in most civilizations.=0D =0D If you are speeding and you get caught, then you will be charged / your license will be suspended.=0D I do not know of any civilization that handles such cases different.=0D =0D =0D Those which do damage to others are responsible for that and have to pay = for the damage.=0D That is a worldwide valid accepted proceeding , you can say it is de fact= o WORLD STANDARD.=0D =0D Now try to think logic:=0D What will be the most logical choice to deal with offenders on the Intern= et?=0D =0D Yes - You guess it - They should be punished.=0D =0D Who should therfore pay for the damage done by a system on the internet?=0D You guess it - The person that is responsible for said system.=0D =0D Exactly that is what UCEPROTECT's listing / delisting policy does.=0D It does not matter if UCEPROTECT is the only DNSBL left that has chosen t= he most logical way - SORBS (no matter we (tinw) like it or not) and UCEPROT= ECT have set the de facto standard for DNSBL's in 2003=0D when we (tinw) begun charging listees. Furthermore the Backscatterer-DNS= BL is also charging for expedited delisting since 2007 and there is also another public DNSBL that is charging for expedited delisting,=0D which has no relationship with the UCEPROTECT-Network, namely the INPS-DN= SBL =0D =0D See: http://dnsbl.inps.de/index.cgi?lang=3Den&site=3D00011=0D =0D So we know of at least 3 DNSBL's that are charging listees with removal o= r=20 expedited removal fees.=0D =0D I have given public proof to the audience that UCEPROTECT's policies are = in fact a best current practice.=0D =0D Logically that also means that charging users of DNSBL's instead of liste= es is the most unlogic way to run a DNSBL (One could also claim it to be the worst practice)=0D So to have wordings in it like:=0D =0D Therefore, negative-connotation DNSBLs MUST not charge fees or=0D Require donations for delisting or "faster handling", and it is=0D RECOMMENDED that such DNSBLs that do charge fees or require donations=0D Not be used=0D =0D clearly smells like an attempt to rule independent DNSBL's because the author of the BCP did not like =0D the current best practice for whatever reason and has managed to sell the worst possible practice as best current practice to this big parts of thi= s group..=0D =0D Q.E.D. Since in fact the "draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-07" does not represent a Best Current Practice it has to be replaced with one that doe= no longer contain the complete section 2.2.5.=0D =0D Regards=0D =0D Claus von Wolfhausen=0D Technical Director=0D UCEPROTECT-Network=0D http://www.uceprotect.net --------------Boundary-00=_XP5BDIIVP4J1VA400000 Content-Type: Text/HTML; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Steve wrote: 
 
>Just because one blacklist does something doesn't mean that a BC= P document is required to consider that behaviour a "best common practice= " and describe it as such[1].
 
Really? I start to believe that many people in this group have no cl= ue what BCP stand for.
 
Now see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best_Current_Practice
 A Best Current Practice (BCP) means that a certain manner of proceeding is i= n general the most logical choice -- a de facto=  = standard of sorts
 
Now let's analyze that:
 
In every civilization that I have seen, those tha=
t fail to behave correctly, will have to live with the sanctions.<=
/SPAN>
If you break a la=
w, then you will be punished.
If you break a law accidently or willfully does not m=
atter in most civilizations.
 
If you are speeding and you get caught, then you will be =
charged / your license will be suspended.
I do not know of any civilization that ha=
ndles such cases different.
=
 
=

Those which do damage to others are responsible for that and have to pa=
y for the damage.
That is a worldwide valid accepted proceeding , you can say it is=
 de facto WORLD STANDARD.
 
Now try to think logic:
What will be the most logical choice to deal w=
ith offenders on the Internet?
 
=
Yes - You guess it - They should be punished.
 
Who should therfore pa=
y for the damage done by a system on the internet?
You guess it - The person that i=
s responsible for said system.
 
<=
SPAN style=3D"LINE-HEIGHT: 19px; FONT-SIZE: 13px" class=3DApple-style-spa=
n>Exactly that is what UCEPROTECT's listing / delisting po=
licy does.
It does not matter if UCEPROTECT is the only DNSBL left that has chosen =
the most logical way - SORBS (no matter we (tinw) like it or not) and UCE=
PROTECT have set the de facto standard for DNSBL's in 2003<=
/SPAN>
when we (tinw) begun cha=
rging listees.  Furthermore the Backscatterer-DNSBL is also charging for =
expedited delisting since 2007 and there is also another public DNSBL tha=
t is charging for expedited delisting,
which has no relationship with the UCEPROTEC=
T-Network, namely the INPS-DNSBL.
 
See: http://dnsbl.inps.de/index.cgi?lang=3Den&site=3D=
00011
=
=
 
So =
we know of at least 3 DNSBL's that are charging listees with removal or  =
expedited removal fees.
<=
/SPAN> 
I have give=
n public proof to the audience that UCEPROTECT's policies are in fact a b=
est current practice.
 
Logically that also means that charging users of DNSBL's instead of = listees is the most unlogic way to run a DNSBL (One could also claim it t= o be the worst practice)
So to have wordings in it like:
&nbs=
p;
  Therefore, negative-co=
nnotation DNSBLs MUST not charge fees or
  Require donations for delisting or "faster handling", and it is
  RECOMMENDED that such DNSBLs that do charge fees or require donations
  Not be used
 
clearly smells like an attempt to rule independent DNSBL's because =
the author of the BCP did not like 
the current best practice for whatever rea=
son and has managed to sell the worst possible practice as best current p=
ractice to this big parts of this group..
Q.E.D. Since in fact the "draft-ir=
tf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-07" does not represent a Best Current Practice it =
has to be replaced with one that doe no longer contain the complete secti=
on 2.2.5.
 
Regards
 
Claus von Wolfhausen
Technical Director
UCEPROTECT-Network
<= PRE style=3D"PAGE-BREAK-BEFORE: always; MARGIN-TOP: 0px; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0= px; FONT-SIZE: 1em" class=3Dnewpage>http://www.uceprotect.net
 
 
--------------Boundary-00=_XP5BDIIVP4J1VA400000-- From kelly.molloy@gmail.com Sun Feb 27 19:54:31 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 960EA3A6A80 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 19:54:31 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.932 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.932 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.133, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CY1-mNmZTFRh for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 19:54:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-yi0-f54.google.com (mail-yi0-f54.google.com [209.85.218.54]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DBB83A694A for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 19:54:29 -0800 (PST) Received: by yie12 with SMTP id 12so593592yie.13 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 19:55:29 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=unDSFnuIWgT25xNhlWGUCi9cQnTxT9y0Ws/sTxxNFgg=; b=OuBkfbYSPrQ5Ldx133fKbiTZwSMsltnQ/aDG5gELsmg4DI4CSAqQI+m3u85efjvNqj mE/AP784k4fBlQHU6BMbodzXbQP/IbrlfRoonHbj3zyHvytubY+eTELwJyrxcpNZrRQn XZTy1xhmsJj6INoXTw3U8xiQx5zlGzu0Huu2s= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=cLquO/icDsXJdyJicG68q6TmtIt1BfimwRfrNr2TgMaiQd2NRy923bwvAuZvTL4NB9 ULs0KN7q4j5mB7+jjsZqMPcFpWvwbYV8lc8rQU3tz3O/Adh0XvhVpUSUrGOu1UlFanSL ncSmTwwlMGry7T6gEjjdVLYOuPwUSWs19Kq4A= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.147.82.4 with SMTP id j4mr7081070yal.8.1298865328897; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 19:55:28 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.147.167.12 with HTTP; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 19:55:28 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20110228033102.399AF12EC69@ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net> References: <20110227190039.0FD6B12EC69@ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net> <20110228003938.48F9B12EC69@ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net> <4D6AF561.1040104@trelane.net> <20110228033102.399AF12EC69@ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net> Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 19:55:28 -0800 Message-ID: From: Kelly Molloy To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf3054a0ff8a3df3049d4fa684 Subject: Re: [Asrg] UCEPROTECT's comment on draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-07 X-BeenThere: asrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 03:54:31 -0000 --20cf3054a0ff8a3df3049d4fa684 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 7:30 PM, Claus v. Wolfhausen < c.v.wolfhausen@spamkiller.uceprotect.net> wrote: > Steve wrote: > > >Just because one blacklist does something doesn't mean that a BCP > document is required to consider that behaviour a "best common practice" and > describe it as such[1]. > > Really? I start to believe that many people in this group have no clue what > BCP stand for. > > > Now see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best_Current_Practice > > > > *A Best Current Practice (BCP) means that a certain manner of proceeding is in general the most logical choice -- a **de facto* * standard of sorts* > > ** > > Now let's analyze that: > > > > In every civilization that I have seen, those that fail to behave correctly, will have to live with the sanctions. > > If you break a law, then you will be punished. > > If you break a law accidently or willfully does not matter in most civilizations. > > That's probably where you and the rest of DNSBLs differ; I think most DNSBLs publish listings in order to protect our users, not to punish listees. --kelly > > > --20cf3054a0ff8a3df3049d4fa684 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 7:30 PM, Claus v. Wolfhausen <= c.v.wolfhausen@= spamkiller.uceprotect.net> wrote:
Steve wrote:=A0
=A0
>Just because one blacklist does something doesn't mean that a = BCP document is required to consider that behaviour a "best common pra= ctice" and describe it as such[1].
=A0
Really? I start = to believe that many people in this group have no clue=A0what BCP stand for= .
=A0
Now see: http://en.wiki=
pedia.org/wiki/Best_Current_Practice
=A0
A=A0Best Current Practice=A0(BCP) =
means that a certain manner of proceeding is in general the most logical ch=
oice -- a=A0de facto=A0standard =
of sorts
=A0
Now let's analyze that:=

=A0
In every civilization that I have seen, those th=
at fail to behave correctly, will have to live with the sanctions.
If you break a law, then you will be punished.
If you break a law accidently or willfully does =
not matter in most civilizations.

That's probably where you and the rest of DNSBLs = differ; I think most DNSBLs publish listings in order to protect our users,= not to punish listees. =A0

--kelly=A0
<= font>
=A0
--20cf3054a0ff8a3df3049d4fa684-- From johnl@iecc.com Sun Feb 27 20:16:47 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CBE13A6998 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 20:16:47 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -110.69 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.69 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.290, BAYES_00=-2.599, HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI=-4.3, RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED=-4.3, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1SgK28euxj3R for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 20:16:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [64.57.183.53]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 021773A694A for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 20:16:45 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 94048 invoked from network); 28 Feb 2011 04:17:44 -0000 Received: from mail1.iecc.com (64.57.183.56) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 28 Feb 2011 04:17:44 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:cc:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:vbr-info; s=1058f.4d6b21e8.k1102; i=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=ksGZN3BnmiqUgXSZTvd4UZ5I6k8FxXXVhi1pXN8nxWw=; b=nj2VFQbP40+v0xBUpCFBwqeCMnzeMO+FtNkxH/GU3yGkBU/hvkQ2Koc4bfR35I+enaUjF1D7cOGRoudwSmVdPacyGFoOKxqci0kctH6JiebIol2mU/VSQIp/jm9Iqol7djCnWDALmW4Pzi5Wk6cORW+EjJSrl8NQXbe75wtjeGI= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:cc:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:vbr-info; s=1058f.4d6b21e8.k1102; olt=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=ksGZN3BnmiqUgXSZTvd4UZ5I6k8FxXXVhi1pXN8nxWw=; b=CubNa8BDJYCHNUxbd4yAc3/SwDpwQSFEt5GvRy2ecswdmPPoyxihcqN5Zvo+ELTzi0fqV86pq2y8qZsPE1fiHzh0LakhOxUEk1BNIp/uJoac0HeVi7dUJqdIqh9mDkPlfnA/oVATQSCUF3vmUCsWgqRFHTdh4UY0QPyXaOP4kak= VBR-Info: md=iecc.com; mc=all; mv=dwl.spamhaus.org Date: 28 Feb 2011 04:17:44 -0000 Message-ID: <20110228041744.66958.qmail@joyce.lan> From: John Levine To: asrg@irtf.org In-Reply-To: <20110228033102.399AF12EC69@ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net> Organization: Cc: X-Headerized: yes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Asrg] UCEPROTECT's comment on draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-07 X-BeenThere: asrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 04:16:47 -0000 >Really? I start to believe that many people in this group have no clue what >BCP stand for. It's a standard term familiar to everyone who's participated in IETF mailing lists for more than a few days. I don't understand what point you're trying to make here. I also have to agree that the most widely used DNSBLs are the ones whose goal is to stop spam, not to wreak vengeance on supposed spammers. R's, John From SgtChains@FahQ2.com Sun Feb 27 20:29:09 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5B363A6998 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 20:29:09 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.8 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.8 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NE-DTyzb-mjD for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 20:29:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from homiemail-a48.g.dreamhost.com (caibbdcaaaaf.dreamhost.com [208.113.200.5]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DCFD3A694A for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 20:29:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from homiemail-a48.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a48.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3801A4F805C for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 20:30:07 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=FahQ2.com; h=message-id:date:from :mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type: content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=fahq2.com; b=Op/dXZoZfFohHsc xvCoSYMhy6HBtQi1OsAjxs1v5ngISspGAZdQ2efFUljH+h493k++bAv3VzgzuJuk UehDLHqFrG2giD5iVhfBLSmYRQP8HWf/Ld1rxPH/irK/JC7QxhA0kA9fkh3UWzbX Ac3RXGJaAFWTMbz88t3d9Uy279Qk= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=FahQ2.com; h=message-id :date:from:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=fahq2.com; bh=WdQkmDG qyr8fzXGsJrcx67KK5dM=; b=Lmy3RdRKWEIuSlkkDxHpN0VLGzb0P/2P/7Nr8+V /8gaqlmEglD7iHjt5vG+D7kVuinye6ZbpA4E9Hrb07Zm23/GDjGbq8EIuAdL3t28 uEEOax5gClc0u3sbryDmJYXrtsMBty4uBKNcsek5CvOPyZ3UwAXxBQ5S+CdwrXsq VSPc= Received: from larry-m-smiths-mac-pro.local (adsl-99-73-103-230.dsl.emhril.sbcglobal.net [99.73.103.230]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: catch-all@pandora-servers.net) by homiemail-a48.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BCE524F805B for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 20:30:06 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4D6B24CD.3030104@FahQ2.com> Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 22:30:05 -0600 From: "Larry M. Smith" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101207 Thunderbird/3.1.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF References: <20110227190039.0FD6B12EC69@ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net> <20110228003938.48F9B12EC69@ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net> <4D6AF561.1040104@trelane.net> <20110228033102.399AF12EC69@ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net> In-Reply-To: <20110228033102.399AF12EC69@ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Asrg] UCEPROTECT's comment on draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-07 X-BeenThere: asrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 04:29:09 -0000 On 2/27/11 9:30 PM, Claus v. Wolfhausen wrote: > Steve wrote: > >Just because one blacklist does something doesn't mean that a BCP > document is required to consider that behaviour a "best common practice" > and describe it as such[1]. > Really? I start to believe that many people in this group have no clue > what BCP stand for. > > Now see:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best_Current_Practice > > > > /*A Best Current Practice (BCP) means that a certain manner of proceeding is in general the most logical choice -- a *//*de facto*/ /* standard of sorts*/ > Please compare "de facto" with "de jure" > // > > Now let's analyze that: > > > > In every civilization that I have seen, those that fail to behave correctly, will have to live with the sanctions. > > If you break a law, then you will be punished. > A BCP is not a law. (snip) > Who should therfore pay for the damage done by a system on the internet? > > You guess it - The person that is responsible for said system. > > > > Exactly that is what UCEPROTECT's listing / delisting policy does. > > It does not matter if UCEPROTECT is the only DNSBL left that has chosen the most logical way - SORBS (no matter we (tinw) like it or not) and UCEPROTECT have set the de facto standard for DNSBL's in 2003 > Two DNSBLs going against what many have already advised them not to do, does not make a "standard" of any sort. > when we (tinw) begun charging listees. Furthermore the Backscatterer-DNSBL is also charging for expedited delisting since 2007 and there is also another public DNSBL that is charging for expedited delisting, > Many people don't see Backscatterer's policies as a separate iteration from UCEprotect's policies. They are being run by the same people. > which has no relationship with the UCEPROTECT-Network, namely the INPS-DNSBL. > > > > See:http://dnsbl.inps.de/index.cgi?lang=en&site=00011 > > > > So we know of at least 3 DNSBL's that are charging listees with removal or expedited removal fees. > > > > I have given public proof to the audience that UCEPROTECT's policies are in fact a best current practice. > Three, well really two DNSBLs, out of *hundreds* of DNSBLs past and present doesn't make a best current practice. > > > Logically that also means that charging users of DNSBL's instead of > listees is the most unlogic way to run a DNSBL (One could also claim it > to be the worst practice) > So to have wordings in it like: > > > > /Therefore, negative-connotation DNSBLs MUST not charge fees or > Require donations for delisting or "faster handling", and it is > RECOMMENDED that such DNSBLs that do charge fees or require donations > Not be used/ > At this point, with statements like this, I have to wonder what your purpose is here. Showing two DNSBLs that do something one way, while ignoring countless others that do it the other way, and using those two as your proof that things should be done the way that you want them to be done, doesn't strengthen your argument. > > > clearly smells like an attempt to rule independent DNSBL's because the author of the BCP did not like > Discussion of this BCP goes all the way back to at least 2004 and has had many, many people put their input into it. My view of the list-serv traffic only goes back to 2008, so I'll let someone else count how many people may have helped to shape the current document. SgtChains From sethb@panix.com Sun Feb 27 20:54:09 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC4BF3A69B1 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 20:54:09 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GZFNJZEHCPbJ for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 20:54:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail1.panix.com (mail1.panix.com [166.84.1.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BFBE3A68D9 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 20:54:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from panix5.panix.com (panix5.panix.com [166.84.1.5]) by mail1.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D19E1F086 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 23:55:08 -0500 (EST) Received: by panix5.panix.com (Postfix, from userid 756) id 1BF1224258; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 23:55:08 -0500 (EST) From: Seth To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF In-reply-to: (message from Kelly Molloy on Sun, 27 Feb 2011 13:46:30 -0800) References: <20110227210118.44390.qmail@joyce.lan> <4D6AC316.20702@thoroquel.org> <4D6AC45C.3080506@trelane.net> Message-Id: <20110228045508.1BF1224258@panix5.panix.com> Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 23:55:08 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: [Asrg] Rough consensus on pay to delist X-BeenThere: asrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 04:54:10 -0000 Kelly Molloy wrote: > But it eliminates the operator's ability to act in the best interest > of its customers--the sites who USE it. If someone pays me $50 and > my data tells me that IP is still spamming but I have to either > return the money or delist the IP anyway, who benefits? Delist it. It gets auto-relisted 3 seconds later. Who gets hurt? The spam-emitter, who paid for 3 seconds of deliverability. If the spam-emitter is legitimate but ineffective, the cost gives him an incentive to do better next time. > Not my users. It's selfish and ineffective. Klaus seems to believe it's effective because it provides the legitimate accidental spam-emitters more incentive to ensure that their problem is fixed. In any case, there's no inter-operability issue, so MUST or even SHOULD is too strong. >> I further question as to why we would deny a DNSBL a revenue model >> derived from those causing the problem. > > Because it's the wrong thing to do. That's what we're arguing about. It is probably sub-optimal in most cases. I don't agree that it's always wrong. Seth From CLEWIS@nortel.com Sun Feb 27 22:11:49 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21D993A69BA for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 22:11:49 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.8 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.8 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ttzoVPOQxDi1 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 22:11:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from zrtps0kp.nortel.com (zrtps0kp.nortel.com [47.140.192.56]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A8E03A69B7 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 22:11:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from zrtphxs1.corp.nortel.com (zrtphxs1.corp.nortel.com [47.140.202.46]) by zrtps0kp.nortel.com (Switch-2.2.6/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id p1S6Cgg02793 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 06:12:42 GMT Received: from zrtphx5h0.corp.nortel.com ([47.140.202.65]) by zrtphxs1.corp.nortel.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 28 Feb 2011 01:12:42 -0500 Received: from [47.141.64.63] (47.141.64.63) by zrtphx5h0.corp.nortel.com (47.140.202.65) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.1.340.0; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 01:12:41 -0500 Message-ID: <4D6B3CD8.8070800@nortel.com> Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 01:12:40 -0500 From: "Chris Lewis" Organization: Nortel User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.8.1.23) Gecko/20090812 Thunderbird/2.0.0.23 Mnenhy/0.7.6.666 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: References: <20110227190039.0FD6B12EC69@ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net> <20110228003938.48F9B12EC69@ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net> <4D6AF561.1040104@trelane.net> <20110228033102.399AF12EC69@ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net> <4D6B24CD.3030104@FahQ2.com> In-Reply-To: <4D6B24CD.3030104@FahQ2.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Feb 2011 06:12:42.0037 (UTC) FILETIME=[81FA4E50:01CBD70E] Subject: Re: [Asrg] UCEPROTECT's comment on draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-07 X-BeenThere: asrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 06:11:49 -0000 On 2/27/2011 11:30 PM, Larry M. Smith wrote: > At this point, with statements like this, I have to wonder what your > purpose is here. Showing two DNSBLs that do something one way, while > ignoring countless others that do it the other way, and using those two > as your proof that things should be done the way that you want them to > be done, doesn't strengthen your argument. As a FYI: it's one now. Those who were on this list back when this change went in will remember I spoke with the operator of the other, and she was okay with making it a MUST NOT. She had been seen in at least one list to opine that she was never comfortable with it, but at the time felt she had no option. It doesn't do it anymore. >> clearly smells like an attempt to rule independent DNSBL's because the author of the BCP did not like > Discussion of this BCP goes all the way back to at least 2004 and has > had many, many people put their input into it. My view of the list-serv > traffic only goes back to 2008, so I'll let someone else count how many > people may have helped to shape the current document. Matt and I got together on the BCP in April of 2003 in the aftermath of the FTC Spam Panel. Which probably sets a record for the longest-worked-on draft of all time. It's had commentary from many small and large DNSBL operators, MAAWG, and a host of other individuals, organizations and mailing lists. Much of the intervening years were spent in conversations at MAAWG, where it helped kill a number of perfectly hideous alternate documents[+]. My personal opinion or not, this is one shared by almost everyone in every aspect of the industry. Including DNSBL operators. [+] Many predicated on the notion that it was a good idea to enumerate exactly what listing criteria should be allowed. From esa@winteri.org Sun Feb 27 23:40:19 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED99F3A6AC8 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 23:40:18 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.577 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.577 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.399, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WCLP7mB569ys for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 23:40:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qw0-f54.google.com (mail-qw0-f54.google.com [209.85.216.54]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A21F3A6AC7 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 23:40:18 -0800 (PST) Received: by qwj8 with SMTP id 8so2839819qwj.13 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 23:41:17 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=winteri.org; s=google; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:x-originating-ip :in-reply-to:references:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type; bh=cHqxdvMjPJBg6qJXKUzGvQon9VyvKsJLkfG1V7in30w=; b=WF4zN2NgsduEU4axMwjPw+DmXTzErgWQ4wOx8u/zbX3QtfudQekuOTExQsyKMLmNPv EqYrVXYWyfMcqBwBw2CmYsHy1x5mFL/4CuWZmTfV6ah+jTUEWpaNrvt5k1Y2pRsaoNC7 fGv7xlP0fWpSTZcAe84sifJ8G51LchTfYRGMQ= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=winteri.org; s=google; h=mime-version:sender:x-originating-ip:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; b=EQqm+qlDLfBr399JmjfBq2d+30uu8cPmS77s0n1M7B7Lo9iDlRHQR29+Gzpq077Kp+ l/GTF6FDoK1uqgq8UibG4qee7qa47GTz6fseJkvRC8JQdPLa46B45aRjUo/EAXUnEu4X akRjExmynMUJ0k/TfmR5tUXA3lq+iGpKtJLy4= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.224.198.4 with SMTP id em4mr1330609qab.244.1298878877190; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 23:41:17 -0800 (PST) Sender: esa@winteri.org Received: by 10.229.82.78 with HTTP; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 23:41:17 -0800 (PST) X-Originating-IP: [91.199.43.40] In-Reply-To: References: <20110227190039.0FD6B12EC69@ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net> <20110228003938.48F9B12EC69@ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net> Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 08:41:17 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: _ejx2NIduzcM13Av46WccnBgkcs Message-ID: From: Esa Laitinen To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf300fb24d14cb17049d52ce3d Subject: Re: [Asrg] UCEPROTECT's comment on draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-07 X-BeenThere: asrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 07:40:19 -0000 --20cf300fb24d14cb17049d52ce3d Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 1:57 AM, Kelly Molloy wrote: > > Many (volunteer, even!) lists handle delistings free of charge. 24/7 > coverage is a lot to ask of any list, and I don't see that anyone is arguing > for that as a standard. > > But uceprotect delists for free! -- Mr. Esa Laitinen Tel. +41 76 200 2870 skype/yahoo: reunaesa Blog: http://happiloppuuahistaa.blogspot.com --20cf300fb24d14cb17049d52ce3d Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 1:57 AM, Kelly Mollo= y <kelly.mol= loy@gmail.com> wrote:

Many (volunteer, even!) lists handle de= listings free of charge. 24/7 coverage is a lot to ask of any list, and I d= on't see that anyone is arguing for that as a standard.=A0


But uceprotect delists for= free!



--
Mr. Esa Laitinen
Tel. +41 76 20= 0 2870
skype/yahoo: reunaesa
Blog: http://happiloppuuahistaa.blogspot.com

--20cf300fb24d14cb17049d52ce3d-- From dotzero@gmail.com Mon Feb 28 09:49:22 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74A5C3A6A1D for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 09:49:22 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.8 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.8 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RWtfHbwUb8x5 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 09:49:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qw0-f54.google.com (mail-qw0-f54.google.com [209.85.216.54]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D3803A69FF for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 09:49:19 -0800 (PST) Received: by qwj8 with SMTP id 8so3275327qwj.13 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 09:50:19 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=ZhB/4g/Sjm9l/fN7lvpJhYnXsfYvJD7L5EWnyEBGGI0=; b=gE5nfDT/MOJFH0Oz8plxIcWx9nIrJeG7p/Jsm4HnA/m9Yri+SfFywnzadSdxuG0ZTr dj+ScokoAansCqHnVTJPktsL/dx3mmBOskeMyIU6tHByCAJF28RBtpLCCbM8hxqCc2rM AtFshdrTqohfytbUxZr9QasDIUVuE2xYKVzkE= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=XlzH/bbBuALH9jJ3HpfY+7MM2aclHRu7qGxBqTUimHpVbkIi2oXx4lzCKYbbZ9wxmi SaMjyagobPGwb86H7XcHvhjuDDWP3Nhir9fnpHpvHT7A6oynQtnqfFxS+fSNGpR7r/oy NDhBejjZJixeYlAIhmfv2QTtzbL+JjbXiq8kQ= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.229.78.96 with SMTP id j32mr1426900qck.294.1298915419644; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 09:50:19 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.229.102.7 with HTTP; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 09:50:19 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <20110227190039.0FD6B12EC69@ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net> <20110228003938.48F9B12EC69@ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net> Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 12:50:19 -0500 Message-ID: From: Dotzero To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Subject: Re: [Asrg] UCEPROTECT's comment on draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-07 X-BeenThere: asrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 17:49:22 -0000 I was on the fence about this one and somewhat conflicted. After reading all of the various postings I find myself solidly on the side of "MUST NOT". What has convinced me are Two groups of postings: 1) The postings pointing out the difference between protecting users from SPAM vs punishing senders; 2) The postings pointing out that charging for "pay to play" is the exception rather than the rule and that various BLs which had used "pay to play" have moved away from this approach. Despite Claus claiming that "pay to play" as implemented by UCEPROTECT is a Current Best Practice, I find nothing in his posts to support that it is indeed a best practice (other than his unsubstantiated assertion). Having said the above, I believe that it is possible for "pay to play" to potentially be an acceptable practice if properly implemented. This does NOT make such a paractice a "Best Practice". From vesely@tana.it Mon Feb 28 11:19:02 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2B3B3A6C75 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 11:19:01 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.515 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.515 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.084, BAYES_05=-1.11, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id X9R2Zu4CR+ZO for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 11:19:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from wmail.tana.it (www.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C944F3A6820 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 11:19:00 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=tana.it; s=test; t=1298920799; bh=0P4hG18O2fnKqeJLcmgZ5MLZpXDhqxSAYX2F0ZqStn4=; l=1078; h=Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=bcbe5SlwYZG//U0K3U0J9cuRHhnxHDS815IVzzlpFJv8giMDU/2g8oB/Tbcps/UFL TNLYNkzmzMrW2xR+45aLfuNq9OHlfCrMhFqZp8+mw6Aks+WrwUGF9Bi9FknTjakkKr dVE1p6aZvRFcT8yWmd6LOs5YZAzQG7EClzuPspI8= Received: from [172.25.197.158] (pcale.tana [172.25.197.158]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 515, TLS: TLS1.0,256bits,RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPSA; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 20:19:59 +0100 id 00000000005DC03F.000000004D6BF55F.0000498F Message-ID: <4D6BF55C.2040700@tana.it> Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 20:19:56 +0100 From: Alessandro Vesely User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101207 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@irtf.org References: <20110227190039.0FD6B12EC69@ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net> <20110228003938.48F9B12EC69@ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net> In-Reply-To: <20110228003938.48F9B12EC69@ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Asrg] UCEPROTECT's comment on draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-07 X-BeenThere: asrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 19:19:02 -0000 On 28/Feb/11 01:39, Claus v. Wolfhausen wrote: > Your comparison with cars is not correct and lacks simple logic. > What you are sugessting is comparable to following situation: A > city or a district authority would charge all car-owners with the > fines for speeding because speeding accidentally can happen to > anyone sometimes. (So at least did the excuse for losers that get > hacked sound to me). > > What we are doing is comparable to real world examples. We are the > city or district authority and we allow usage of our roads free of > charge for all. Those that are caught speeding get fined. And that's unfair! I recall a local case of town administrators trying to fine drivers for revenue[*]. Actually, being fined is only tolerated when done by public officers, who supposedly act in the interest of the community. Self-appointed officers who'd keep the money to cover their expenses would be shot on sight. -- [*] http://www.banthecams.org/20100503178/Italy-Prosecution-Advances-in-Red-Light-Camera-Fraud-Scandal-Newspaper.com.html From c.v.wolfhausen@spamkiller.uceprotect.net Mon Feb 28 11:32:53 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB0523A6C7E for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 11:32:53 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.783 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.783 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.016, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ymlJ70tOdlWd for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 11:32:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net (ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net [208.66.2.20]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64E8D3A6C57 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 11:32:52 -0800 (PST) Received: by ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net (UCEPROTECT, from userid 32767) id ADE6512EC69; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 20:34:06 +0100 (CET) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; charset="iso-8859-1"; boundary="------------Boundary-00=_UAECFXY66RO000000000" From: "Claus v. Wolfhausen" References: <20110227190039.0FD6B12EC69@ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net> <20110228003938.48F9B12EC69@ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net> <4D6BF55C.2040700@tana.it> To: Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 20:33:52 +0100 (CET) Message-Id: <20110228193406.ADE6512EC69@ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net> Subject: Re: [Asrg] UCEPROTECT's comment on draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-07 X-BeenThere: asrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 19:32:53 -0000 --------------Boundary-00=_UAECFXY66RO000000000 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear Allessandro,=0D You wrote:=0D =0D >And that's unfair! I recall a local case of town Administrators=0D >trying to fine drivers for revenue[*]. Actually, being fined is only=0D >tolerated when done by Public officers, who supposedly act in the=0D >interest of the community. Self-appointed officers who'd Keep the=0D >money to cover their expenses would Be shot on sight.=0D =0D Really?=0D =0D As I explained often enough:=0D If your Server tries to hack our Systems OR if your Server is sending spa= m to our Traps then=0D and that makes the difference you enter our jurisdiction.=0D =0D Our Systems -> Our rules.=0D =0D I also recommend that you get a clue who the UCEPROTECT-Orga is.=0D Hint: Most of our listees got listed for spamming local government agenci= es in South Bavaria.=0D =0D =0D Regards=0D Claus von Wolfhausen=0D Technical Director=0D UCEPROTECT-Networks=0D http://www.uceprotect.net --------------Boundary-00=_UAECFXY66RO000000000 Content-Type: Text/HTML; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear Allessandro,
You wrote:
 
>And that's unfair!  I recall a local case of town Admi= nistrators
>trying to fine drivers for revenue[*].  Actually, bein= g fined is only
>tolerated when done by Public officers, who supposedly act in th= e
>interest of the community.  Self-appointed officers wh= o'd Keep the
>money to cover their expenses would Be shot on sight.
 
Really?
 
As I explained often enough:
If your Server tries to hack our Systems OR if your Server is sendin= g spam to our Traps then
and that makes the difference you enter our jurisdiction.
 
Our Systems -> Our rules.
 
I also recommend that you get a clue who the UCEPROTECT-Orga is.
Hint: Most of our listees got listed for spamming local government a= gencies in South Bavaria.
 
 
Regards
Claus von Wolfhausen
Technical Director
UCEPROTECT-Networks
--------------Boundary-00=_UAECFXY66RO000000000-- From graeme@graemef.net Mon Feb 28 12:07:47 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 606F73A6C91 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 12:07:47 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.8 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.8 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 628ovbtL9fiK for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 12:07:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from boom.graemef.net (boom.graemef.net [82.113.154.29]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84AB83A6C5B for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 12:07:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from cpc13-shep11-2-0-cust235.8-3.cable.virginmedia.com ([86.24.149.236] helo=[192.168.7.241]) by boom.graemef.net with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Pu9Oe-0002TV-BS for asrg@irtf.org; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 20:08:45 +0000 From: Graeme Fowler To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF In-Reply-To: <20110228193406.ADE6512EC69@ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net> References: <20110227190039.0FD6B12EC69@ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net> <20110228003938.48F9B12EC69@ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net> <4D6BF55C.2040700@tana.it> <20110228193406.ADE6512EC69@ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 20:08:38 +0000 Message-ID: <1298923718.3587.5.camel@supergrover.internal.graemef.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.28.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Asrg] UCEPROTECT's comment on draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-07 X-BeenThere: asrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 20:07:47 -0000 On Mon, 2011-02-28 at 20:33 +0100, Claus v. Wolfhausen wrote: > Our Systems -> Our rules. And that, Claus, is the nub of this discussion, as enlightening as it is. BCP38 is a very well established BCP document for network operations. It is ignored by many, either because they choose to or are unaware of the existence of it. It strikes me that the consensus here is that MUST NOT is the current BCP, and you're choosing to do something different. That's your choice; it does not make your choice a BCP. I have neither run, nor ever want to run, a DNSBL - but I have made informed choices over many clauses in BCPs, guidance notes, interoperability specs and so on over the years. That did not make my choices the BCP, it made them my choice. Your network, your rules. That's very important - and it's why BCP documents don't mandate standards like Standards documents do. Personally I believe the "offending" clause COULD be rewritten to make it a little less "offensive". But I do not believe that it MUST be. Graeme From linford@spamhaus.org Mon Feb 28 12:47:38 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C34BA3A6C93 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 12:47:38 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -16.39 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-16.39 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.010, BAYES_00=-2.599, HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI=-4.3, RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED=-4.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zhypXbvuUeD7 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 12:47:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp-ext-layer.spamhaus.org (ns8.spamhaus.org [82.94.216.239]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B170A3A6A66 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 12:47:37 -0800 (PST) References: <20110227190039.0FD6B12EC69@ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net> <20110228003938.48F9B12EC69@ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net> <4D6BF55C.2040700@tana.it> In-Reply-To: <4D6BF55C.2040700@tana.it> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: Steve Linford To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF X-Local-MTA-Info: X-Mime-Info: text/plain Message-ID: Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 20:48:38 +0000 Subject: Re: [Asrg] UCEPROTECT's comment on draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-07 X-BeenThere: asrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 20:47:38 -0000 Gentlemen, The argument in favour of charging fees to blacklisted entities to = remove them from blacklists is clutching at straws. Punishing "lusers" = for getting their PCs trojanned is an extremely poor practice and one = that can not even remotely be described as a "good practice". There's no question in my mind that if the BCP purpose is to define the = *best* practice then the correct wording is "MUST" and not "SHOULD". Steve Linford The Spamhaus Project http://www.spamhaus.org =20 From c.v.wolfhausen@spamkiller.uceprotect.net Mon Feb 28 13:20:30 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D14E03A6CA8 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 13:20:30 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.784 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.784 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.015, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8f5mDE74837l for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 13:20:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net (ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net [208.66.2.20]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C4253A6A25 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 13:20:29 -0800 (PST) Received: by ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net (UCEPROTECT, from userid 32767) id 0413512EC69; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 22:21:46 +0100 (CET) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; charset="iso-8859-1"; boundary="------------Boundary-00=_GAJC9EHAMY5000000000" From: "Claus v. Wolfhausen" References: <20110227190039.0FD6B12EC69@ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net> <20110228003938.48F9B12EC69@ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net> <4D6BF55C.2040700@tana.it> To: Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 22:21:41 +0100 (CET) Message-Id: <20110228212146.0413512EC69@ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net> Subject: Re: [Asrg] : Re: UCEPROTECT's comment on draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-07 X-BeenThere: asrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 21:20:31 -0000 --------------Boundary-00=_GAJC9EHAMY5000000000 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Ahhhhh Mr. Linefeed of SPAMHAUS....=0D I asked myself a full day how long it would take for you to show up on th= e scene and blow into that "MUST" horn of Section 2.2.5....=0D =0D Your vote for a "MUST" here has clearly shown that your evening prayer is= :=0D "Oh lord, let spammers be also active by tomorrow, so that I can stay in = the Anti-Spam-Business".=0D =0D You have seen that more and more ISPs are blocking port 25 thanks to the bastards that are blocking based on hardlinerlists like our Level 3 and s= pam decreased dramatically over the last year.=0D This will be interesting for the audience that is not reading NANAE:=0D =0D It is not in the commercial interests of SPAMHAUS that endusers are educa= ted to secure their systems, so that spammers can't abuse them.=0D Why? Because it would obsolete the Spamhaus PBL (BAHHHHHHHHHHHHH) =0D =0D While we try to force providers to install port 25 blockers, what is Mr. Linefeed doing?=0D How many people here are aware that shitlists as the PBL (Bahhhhhhhhhh) c= an not be a solution?=0D The PBL is there for nothing else than to allow providers to cheat their customers and to pay Mr Linefeed... =0D How unethical and stinking is it that providers sell "unlimited" internet access to their customers, but nominating their dynamics into the SPAMHAU= S PBL? =0D Now see what we are doing: =0D We are the only lists that tries to enforce providers to block port 25 on their dynamics / homeusers per default as recommended by the MAAWG since 2005.... =0D We are doing that by escalating the complete ASN into Level 3 if the provider is not limiting the abuse which originates from their botnets...= =0D =0D Exactly there is the difference between PBL and our Level 3: =0D Our approach is to disable spammers ability to use botnets by tomorrow...= =0D Mr. Linefeeds approach is to protect his paying customers against spammer= s while avoiding to hurt spammers too badly, so that he can stay in the=20 Anti-Spam-Business" with his commercial SPAMHAUS DNSBL.=0D Therfore the SPAMHAUS is listing some of the little and unimportant spamm= ers like SPAMDREW (NANAE readers know whom I'm talking about) but one should = not expect the real bad guys to get listed in the SPAMHAUS DNSBL.=0D We (tinw) have also very often seen that Mr.Linefeed has serious issues t= o see (and list) spam even from long-term spamming locations, if the ISP th= at harbors said spammers is a commercial customer of SPAMHAUS.=0D That can of course be a coincidence, but I don't believe in such things.=0D =0D Claus von Wolfhausen=0D Technical Director=0D UCEPROTECT-Network=0D http://www.uceprotect.net=0D Phone: +41-32-5120855 --------------Boundary-00=_GAJC9EHAMY5000000000 Content-Type: Text/HTML; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Ahhhhh Mr. Linefeed of SPAMHAUS....
I asked myself a full day how long it would take for you to show up = on the scene and blow into that "MUST" horn of Section 2.2.5....
 
Your vote for a "MUST" here has clearly shown that your evening= prayer is:
"Oh lord, let spammers be also active by tomorrow, so that I can sta= y in the Anti-Spam-Business".
 
You have seen that more and more ISPs are blocking port 25 thanks to= the bastards that are blocking based on hardlinerlists like our Level 3 = and spam decreased dramatically over the last year.
This will be interesting for the audience that is not reading NANAE:=
 
It is not in the commercial interests of SPAMHAUS that endusers=  are educated to secure their systems, so that spammers can't a= buse them.
Why? Because it would obsolete the Spamhaus PBL (BAHHHHHHHHHHHH= H) 
 
While we try to force providers to install port 25 blockers, what is= Mr. Linefeed doing?
 access to their = customers, but nominating their dynamics into the SPAMHAUS PBL? 
Now see = what we are doing: 
We= are the only lists that tries to enforce providers to block port 25 on t= heir dynamics / homeusers per default as recommended by the MAAWG since 2= 005.... 
We are doing = that by escalating the complete ASN into Level 3 if the provider is not l= imiting the abuse which originates from their botnets... 

Exactly there is the difference between  PBL and o= ur Level 3: 
Our appro= ach is to disable spammers ability to use botnets by tomorrow...&nb= sp;

Mr. Linefeeds appro= ach is to protect his paying customers against spammers while avoiding to= hurt spammers too badly, so that he can stay in the "Anti-Spam= -Business" with his commercial SPAMHAUS DNSBL.

Therfore the SPAMHA= US is listing some of the little and unimportant spammers like SPAMD= REW (NANAE readers know whom I'm talking about) but one should not e= xpect the real bad guys to get listed in the SPAMHAUS DNSBL.

We (tinw) have also= very often seen that Mr.Linefeed has serious issues to see (and list) sp= am even from long-term spamming locations, if the ISP that harbors said s= pammers is a commercial customer of SPAMHAUS.

That can of course = be a coincidence, but I don't believe in such things.

 

Claus von Wolfhausen
Technical Director
UCEPROTECT-Network
Phone: +41-32-5120855
--------------Boundary-00=_GAJC9EHAMY5000000000-- From CLEWIS@nortel.com Mon Feb 28 13:31:11 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D1D03A6C6F for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 13:31:11 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.8 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.8 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KgaEN6OzIf50 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 13:31:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from zrtps0kp.nortel.com (zrtps0kp.nortel.com [47.140.192.56]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 630513A6A25 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 13:31:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from zrtphxs1.corp.nortel.com (casmtp.ca.nortel.com [47.140.202.46]) by zrtps0kp.nortel.com (Switch-2.2.6/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id p1SLW8g10444 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 21:32:08 GMT Received: from zrtphx5h0.corp.nortel.com ([47.140.202.65]) by zrtphxs1.corp.nortel.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 28 Feb 2011 16:32:07 -0500 Received: from [47.9.28.107] (47.9.28.107) by zrtphx5h0.corp.nortel.com (47.140.202.65) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.1.340.0; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 16:32:07 -0500 Message-ID: <4D6C1456.4030101@nortel.com> Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 16:32:06 -0500 From: "Chris Lewis" Organization: Nortel User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.8.1.23) Gecko/20090812 Thunderbird/2.0.0.23 Mnenhy/0.7.6.666 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: References: <20110227190039.0FD6B12EC69@ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net> <20110228003938.48F9B12EC69@ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net> <4D6BF55C.2040700@tana.it> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Feb 2011 21:32:07.0878 (UTC) FILETIME=[F3619E60:01CBD78E] Subject: Re: [Asrg] UCEPROTECT's comment on draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-07 X-BeenThere: asrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 21:31:11 -0000 On 2/28/2011 3:48 PM, Steve Linford wrote: > Gentlemen, > > The argument in favour of charging fees to blacklisted entities to remove them from blacklists is clutching at straws. Punishing "lusers" for getting their PCs trojanned is an extremely poor practice and one that can not even remotely be described as a "good practice". > > There's no question in my mind that if the BCP purpose is to define the *best* practice then the correct wording is "MUST" and not "SHOULD". To bring people up to date of the level of debate that Claus has descended to. Imagine my surprise at starting to get UCEProtect delisting requests at my corporate mailbox. CC'd to the co-author of the BCP. Go take a gander at http://www.uceprotect.net/en/contact.php. Which says (straight cut-and-paste): Warning strike, no manual removals and no tickets at this time, sorry ! The employees of UCEPROTECT strike at present. The system runs on autopilot and there is currently no one available to manually unlist your IP. At 04 January 2011 the ASRG decided BCP07 for DNSBLs, which prohibits in paragraph 2.2.5 blacklists to offer paid immediate removals. Should this BCP obtain the status of an RCF, then it is possible that expedited express delistings wold no longer be available and thus endanger our jobs. If you would like to thank the authors of BCP07 for DNSBLs and the guys at ASRG for, that your IP will now stay blacklisted up to the automatic expiration date, please contact following addresses: Authors of BCP07 for DNSBLs: Chris Lewis Nortel Networks Email: clewis@nortel.com and Matt Sergeant MessageLabs, Inc Email: msergeant@messagelabs.com We also recommend to subscribe yourself to the ASRG mailing list, and then to demand that the paragraph 2.2.5 has to be deleted form BCP07 for DNSBLs. The ASRG should no longer presume to interfere in the policies of independent DNSBLs. Alternativley, you can send an email to asrg@irtf.org. Thank you very much for your support in the fight for our jobs. The team of UCEPROTECT Network From sethb@panix.com Mon Feb 28 13:49:44 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6993C3A6CA1 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 13:49:44 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.400, BAYES_00=-2.599, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id i8Xw7u99gOpe for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 13:49:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail1.panix.com (mail1.panix.com [166.84.1.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FCDB3A6A21 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 13:49:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from panix5.panix.com (panix5.panix.com [166.84.1.5]) by mail1.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 913B11F08A for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 16:50:44 -0500 (EST) Received: by panix5.panix.com (Postfix, from userid 756) id 81D8024255; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 16:50:44 -0500 (EST) From: Seth To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF In-reply-to: (message from Steve Linford on Mon, 28 Feb 2011 20:48:38 +0000) References: <20110227190039.0FD6B12EC69@ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net> <20110228003938.48F9B12EC69@ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net> <4D6BF55C.2040700@tana.it> Message-Id: <20110228215044.81D8024255@panix5.panix.com> Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 16:50:44 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: [Asrg] UCEPROTECT's comment on draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-07 X-BeenThere: asrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 21:49:44 -0000 Steve Linford wrote: > The argument in favour of charging fees to blacklisted entities to > remove them from blacklists is clutching at straws. Punishing > "lusers" for getting their PCs trojanned is an extremely poor > practice and one that can not even remotely be described as a "good > practice". I'd think that case typically just waits a week to get unlisted for free. > There's no question in my mind that if the BCP purpose is to define > the *best* practice then the correct wording is "MUST" and not > "SHOULD". Does MUST NOT mean "that isn't the best practice" or "that isn't an acceptable practice"? I'll also note that the fee isn't for removal, which will happen automatically for free anyway. It's for expediting the removal. Seth From c.v.wolfhausen@spamkiller.uceprotect.net Mon Feb 28 14:18:43 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1DD53A6C6E for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 14:18:43 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.785 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.785 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.014, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ytE5rJD2JLHn for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 14:18:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net (ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net [208.66.2.20]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABA1B3A6A30 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 14:18:42 -0800 (PST) Received: by ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net (UCEPROTECT, from userid 32767) id 6A4C512EC69; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 23:20:01 +0100 (CET) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; charset="iso-8859-1"; boundary="------------Boundary-00=_GZLCHARCCJD000000000" From: "Claus v. Wolfhausen" References: <20110227190039.0FD6B12EC69@ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net> <20110228003938.48F9B12EC69@ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net> <4D6B <4D6C1456.4030101@nortel.com> To: Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 23:19:55 +0100 (CET) Message-Id: <20110228222001.6A4C512EC69@ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net> Subject: Re: [Asrg] UCEPROTECT's comment on draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-07 X-BeenThere: asrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 22:18:43 -0000 --------------Boundary-00=_GZLCHARCCJD000000000 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Chris Lewis wrote:=0D =0D =0D >To bring people up to date of the level of debate that Claus has=0D >descended to.=0D =0D >Imagine my surprise at starting to get UCEProtect delisting requests at=0D >my corporate mailbox. CC'd to the co-author of the BCP.=0D =0D >Go take a gander at http://www.uceprotect.net/en/contact.php.=0D =0D Damned, see what you have done with this BCP, you got my removal crew striking.=0D Hey I'm at home and I didn't know that they would do this tonight.=0D We had a meeting and discussion today in the afternoon and our CEO said:=0D "Ok, if that becomes an RFC we might stop manual delistings, who cares."=0D =0D It looks like that this has scared the removal crew and they try to keep their jobs.=0D I have a deep understanding for them, but I would have done the texts ver= y differently.=0D =0D Anyway what they are doing is basicly nothing else than what Steve Lindfo= rd is doing by voting for "MUST" here. They want to stay in business.=0D I really hope that you'll enjoy the spirits that you called.=0D =0D Claus von Wolfhausen=0D Technical Director=0D UCEPROTECT-Network=0D http://www.uceprotect.net --------------Boundary-00=_GZLCHARCCJD000000000 Content-Type: Text/HTML; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Chris Lewis wrote:
 
 
>To bring people up to date of the level of debate that Claus has=
>descended to.
 
>Imagine my surprise at starting to get UCEProtect delisting requ= ests at
>my corporate mailbox.  CC'd to the co-author of the BC= P.
 
 
Damned, see what you have done with this BCP, you got my removal cre= w striking.
Hey I'm at home and I didn't know that they would do this tonight.
We had a meeting and discussion today in the afternoon and our&= nbsp;CEO said:
"Ok, if that becomes an RFC we might stop manual deli= stings, who cares."
 
It looks like that this has scared the removal crew and they try to = keep their jobs.
I have a= deep understanding=  for them, but I would have done the texts very differently.
 
Anyway what they are doing is basicly nothing else than what St= eve Lindford is doing by voting for "MUST" here. They want to stay in bus= iness.
I really hope that you'll enjoy the spirits th= at you called.
 
Claus von Wolfhausen
Technical Director
UCEPROTECT-Network
 
 
--------------Boundary-00=_GZLCHARCCJD000000000-- From rweltyap@krusty-motorsports.com Mon Feb 28 14:48:02 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 744B53A6BFA for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 14:48:02 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.8 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.8 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vi3Ej8ozhQ+B for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 14:48:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from krusty-motorsports.com (krusty-motorsports.com [192.94.170.8]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C80413A6A21 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 14:48:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from [74.76.28.81] (helo=Joe-Administrators-MacBook-Pro.local) by krusty-motorsports.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PuBtm-0008Gk-Lp for asrg@irtf.org; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 22:49:02 +0000 Message-ID: <4D6C265E.1060101@averillpark.net> Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 17:49:02 -0500 From: Richard Welty Organization: OpenStreetMap Foundation US Chapter User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.14) Gecko/20110221 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@irtf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: rweltyap@krusty-motorsports.com Subject: [Asrg] draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-07 X-BeenThere: asrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 22:53:43 -0000 please list me as being in favor of this draft. richard From sgtchains@fahq2.com Mon Feb 28 15:01:18 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16CE43A6CBD for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 15:01:18 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.8 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.8 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gDADUpAZzpKB for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 15:01:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from homiemail-a51.g.dreamhost.com (caibbdcaaaaf.dreamhost.com [208.113.200.5]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29B303A6CAF for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 15:01:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from homiemail-a51.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a51.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9E9B2E805C for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 15:02:18 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=fahq2.com; h=message-id:date:from :mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type: content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=fahq2.com; b=sjF5m4GBbHcP9SD 2vf8zI6qzvvlZx9/j8pHBk2yETebrVN7J1Tf3681KxyolAWfiNrx5yTI6KUDxkp/ rR+rYvlNvd/n6uSj+PsI/ccDjl6ldYqWW0m2FrRTT178Wk6/f4D8uOV/+knhG8ha f+0nvKwMXgS8pmaDSs1/bBzFgF7E= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=fahq2.com; h=message-id :date:from:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=fahq2.com; bh=iWbrv7y f15fBwUFalkDK5F4PWco=; b=bE4DZewBciwAkxmxVQhL8PBD6rFUNmuODgTyIoS nJd6Vc+VbsIBqQqm2FQc/fiEj2jA7/gyyw1Pz2W1ZlDb0ZlNzQuegTN00QnaZTUo VpPMNTH37ldsgWr5PXU6qF6ZbLCkphD1YkacO7fSMQFZj71Lgn5h+5AceNbK8k40 w5/A= Received: from MacBook3-2.local (unknown [12.131.119.8]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: fahq2.com@pandora-servers.net) by homiemail-a51.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5F0BD2E8058 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 15:02:18 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4D6C297A.10701@fahq2.com> Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 17:02:18 -0600 From: "Larry M. Smith" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X; en-US; rv:1.8.1.24) Gecko/20100228 Thunderbird/2.0.0.24 Mnenhy/0.7.6.666 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF References: <20110227190039.0FD6B12EC69@ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net> <20110228003938.48F9B12EC69@ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net> <4D6B <4D6C1456.4030101@nortel.com> <20110228222001.6A4C512EC69@ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net> In-Reply-To: <20110228222001.6A4C512EC69@ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Asrg] UCEPROTECT's comment on draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-07 X-BeenThere: asrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 23:01:18 -0000 Claus v. Wolfhausen wrote: > Chris Lewis wrote: > > >>To bring people up to date of the level of debate that Claus has >>descended to. > >>Imagine my surprise at starting to get UCEProtect delisting requests at >>my corporate mailbox. CC'd to the co-author of the BCP. > >>Go take a gander at http://www.uceprotect.net/en/contact.php. > > Damned, see what you have done with this BCP, you got my removal crew > striking. > Hey I'm at home and I didn't know that they would do this tonight. > We had a meeting and discussion today in the afternoon and our CEO said: > "Ok, if that becomes an RFC we might stop manual delistings, who cares." > > It looks like that this has scared the removal crew and they try to keep > their jobs. > I have a deep understanding for them, but I would have done the texts > very differently. > > Anyway what they are doing is basicly nothing else than what Steve > Lindford is doing by voting for "MUST" here. They want to stay in business. > I really hope thatyou'll enjoy the spirits that you called. I have to say that this is an "interesting" way to state your case before an IRTF research group; Harass the authors of the document that you disagree with, attempt strong arm them by having your listees possibly flood their inboxes with removal requests for your DNSBL, and hold your listees hostage until you get your way. I guess the only question that I have is; Is any of this latest discussion from Claus v. Wolfhausen "[making] progress towards realizing the Research Group's goals and objectives" SgtChains From c.v.wolfhausen@spamkiller.uceprotect.net Mon Feb 28 15:39:09 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 745A53A6A21 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 15:39:09 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.786 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.786 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.013, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id J0xljIoLpC5u for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 15:39:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net (ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net [208.66.2.20]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 569F53A69B5 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 15:39:08 -0800 (PST) Received: by ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net (UCEPROTECT, from userid 32767) id C861912EC69; Tue, 1 Mar 2011 00:40:21 +0100 (CET) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; charset="iso-8859-1"; boundary="------------Boundary-00=_BPPC5DID7TH000000000" From: "Claus v. Wolfhausen" References: <20110227190039.0FD6B12EC69@ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net> <20110228003938.48F9B12EC69@ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net> <4D6B <20110228222001.6A4C512EC69@ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net> <4D6C297A.10701@fahq2.com> To: Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2011 00:40:15 +0100 (CET) Message-Id: <20110228234021.C861912EC69@ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net> Subject: Re: [Asrg] UCEPROTECT's comment on draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-07 X-BeenThere: asrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 23:39:09 -0000 --------------Boundary-00=_BPPC5DID7TH000000000 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Larry M Smith wrote:=0D =0D >I have to say that this is an "interesting" way to state your case=0D >before an IRTF research group; Harass the authors of the document that=0D >you disagree with, attempt strong arm them by having your listees=0D >possibly flood their inboxes with removal requests for your DNSBL, and=0D >hold your listees hostage until you get your way.=0D =0D Please get your facts straight.=0D You know me from NANAE, and you should know that the text on the page =0D is neither my wordings nor is it my style to behave so.=0D =0D The guys that should run the night-shift simply created a reason page and= =0D logged their accounts off the system.=0D The system gets aware no one operator is logged in and that means no one = =0D will process orders and reads tickets.=0D It goes to autopilot mode and therefore refuses to accept tickets and payments =0D for expedited delistings and displays the reason page.=0D =0D If no reason page would exist, then it would simply show:=0D "Tickets and expedited express delistings are temporary not available."=0D =0D Anyway the system is online and automatic removals and listings are=0D done by the system as usual.=0D So the listtes are not hold hostage, they get right now the expirience=0D that they would also have if we would not offer expedited expressdelistin= gs=0D at all.=0D =0D Sure I could log in and the system would immediatley end the autopilot mo= de,=0D but that would mean I would have to do all delistings tonight and I would have=0D to answer the tickets because the system would all those things forward t= o me.=0D =0D I'm not a strike-breaker and I will also have to deal with the other employees=0D in the future. So you can be sure that I will under no circumstances log = in to=0D the system at this time.=0D =0D >I guess the only question that I have is; Is any of this latest=0D >discussion from Claus v. Wolfhausen "[making] progress towards realizing= =0D >the Research Group's goals and objectives"=0D =0D You want to get my personal opinion, really? =0D I am the one that now looks like an asshole, no matter what I do or say..= =2E=0D That really feels great ... trust me ....=0D =0D Claus von Wolfhausen=0D Technical Director=0D UCEPROTECT-Network=0D http://www.uceprotect.net --------------Boundary-00=_BPPC5DID7TH000000000 Content-Type: Text/HTML; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Larry M Smith wrote:
 
>I have to say that this is an "interesting" way to state your ca= se
>before an IRTF research group;  Harass the authors of = the document that
>you disagree with, attempt strong arm them by having your listee= s
>possibly flood their inboxes with removal requests for your DNSB= L, and
>hold your listees hostage until you get your way.
 
Please get your facts straight.
You know me from NANAE, and you should know that the text on the pag= e
is neither my wordings nor is it my style to behave so.
 
The guys that should run the night-shift simply created a reaso= n page and
logged their accounts off the system.
The system gets aware no one operator is logged in and that mea= ns no one
will process orders and reads tickets.
It goes to autopilot mode and therefore refuses to accept ticke= ts and payments
for expedited delistings and displays the reason page.
 
If no reason page would exist, then it would simply show:
"Tickets and expedited express delistings are temporary not ava= ilable."
 
Anyway the system is online and automatic removals and listings are<= /DIV>
done by the system as usual.
So the listtes are not hold hostage, they get right now the expirien= ce
that they would also have if we would not offer expedited expressdel= istings
at all.
 
Sure I could log in and the system would immediatley end the autopil= ot mode,
but that would mean I would have to do all delistings tonight and I = would have
to answer the tickets because the system would all those things forw= ard to me.
 
I'm not a strike-breaker and I will also have to deal with the = other employees
in the future. So you can be sure that I will under no circumstances= log in to
the system at this time.
 
>I guess the only question that I have is; Is any of this latest<= /DIV>
>discussion from Claus v. Wolfhausen "[making] progress towards r= ealizing
>the Research Group's goals and objectives"
 
You want to get my personal opinion, really?
I am the one that now looks like an asshole, no matter wha= t I do or say...
That really feels great ... trust me ....
 
Claus von Wolfhausen
Technical Director
UCEPROTECT-Network
http://www.uceprotect.net<= /DIV>
 
 
 
--------------Boundary-00=_BPPC5DID7TH000000000-- From jjohnson@jdmc.org Mon Feb 28 16:37:23 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 520893A6CBA for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 16:37:23 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.8 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.8 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qJFPAUkwXWAp for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 16:37:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from secure.jdmc.org (secure.jdmc.org [164.58.70.160]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 883093A6CB3 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 16:37:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from [164.58.70.150] (mail.jdmc.org [164.58.70.150]) by secure.jdmc.org with ESMTP id p210cNdO012613 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 18:38:23 -0600 X-Client-IP: 192.168.3.212 X-EnvRcpt: X-EnvFrom: jjohnson@jdmc.org X-LDomain: mail.jdmc.org X-LCount: 0 X-Vsender: dhcp3-212.jdmc.org [192.168.3.212] Received: from [192.168.3.212] (dhcp3-212.jdmc.org [192.168.3.212]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.jdmc.org (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p210cIsD025469 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 18:38:22 -0600 Message-ID: <4D6C3FFA.6050407@jdmc.org> Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 18:38:18 -0600 From: John Johnson User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101207 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF References: <4D6C265E.1060101@averillpark.net> In-Reply-To: <4D6C265E.1060101@averillpark.net> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Apparently-To: X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.71 on 164.58.70.150 X-GlobalCerts-Milter: secure.jdmc.org 28Feb2011-18:38:23.469 Subject: Re: [Asrg] draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-07 X-BeenThere: asrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2011 00:37:23 -0000 On 02/28/2011 04:49 PM, Richard Welty wrote: > please list me as being in favor of this draft. please count me as also in favor, if not already John From kelly.molloy@gmail.com Mon Feb 28 16:44:49 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D28A53A6D03 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 16:44:49 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.8 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.8 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3WmeHqFf7-Iw for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 16:44:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-gw0-f52.google.com (mail-gw0-f52.google.com [74.125.83.52]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0C993A6CB1 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 16:44:48 -0800 (PST) Received: by gwaa20 with SMTP id a20so2183674gwa.39 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 16:45:50 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=0EoBr29hYZwFF/TWB2z4x0QoIxCN94Dq5lEBRrTKR/4=; b=xf8RPf8qWq47SAC5VLW3fe/vepPEFu2dFKz8ygsrlSMq4wLiV5yVx8R9QxTbFM3IO4 +l7N8Aiu/2S8HoWuQ5scWIFd5WvSOI31n4pB12zWsguzoOiQ4QTyTGt9zU9vYxJrCSXP 4vP8I7gvK95yOH3iaqrb8vwkzon1yOFTnyxwg= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=b7uX4YGoUh5GE6ajjWGJwVlRNOOLU+oLwG6X13TTk7iqYxTS3zaLZ6AE0GQYJDAyqX 1QRGx8HhWoq/AvmKHI8EbEasSl1ZBg69xrcfVcgTkM56oL333ZUUhulQ/HbsNxJyEk1p Fhd/G0f1ve9ojszvbuomDqnopGQA7c3ebQFYU= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.236.105.226 with SMTP id k62mr4510275yhg.53.1298940350346; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 16:45:50 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.147.167.12 with HTTP; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 16:45:50 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <4D6C3FFA.6050407@jdmc.org> References: <4D6C265E.1060101@averillpark.net> <4D6C3FFA.6050407@jdmc.org> Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 16:45:50 -0800 Message-ID: From: Kelly Molloy To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Subject: Re: [Asrg] draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-07 X-BeenThere: asrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2011 00:44:49 -0000 On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 4:38 PM, John Johnson wrote: > On 02/28/2011 04:49 PM, Richard Welty wrote: >> please list me as being in favor of this draft. > > please count me as also in favor, if not already Add me as well. In fact, Claus, you can add my name and email address to your webpage as supporting the BCP. No reason to leave all the work to Chris and Matt. --kelly From mike@bacchusbrew.com Mon Feb 28 16:46:52 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 679C63A6D0C for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 16:46:52 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.311 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.311 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-1.11, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id T0kUZFkiF4Cg for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 16:46:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from v10142.way3.com (v10142.way3.com [99.192.206.136]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 522803A6CB1 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 16:46:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from michaelpc (CPE001d6004a7a9-CM00222d6c763d.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com [99.234.238.90]) (authenticated bits=0) by v10142.way3.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p210lpPC022137 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 19:47:52 -0500 Message-Id: <201103010047.p210lpPC022137@v10142.way3.com> From: "Michael Ellis" To: "'Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF'" Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 19:47:49 -0500 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: Thread-Index: AcvXqgZIMKDy+xLAQES+kesBur1WEAAADfnA X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5994 Subject: Re: [Asrg] draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-07 X-BeenThere: asrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2011 00:46:52 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: asrg-bounces@irtf.org [mailto:asrg-bounces@irtf.org] On Behalf Of > Kelly Molloy > Sent: Monday, February 28, 2011 7:46 PM > To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF > Subject: Re: [Asrg] draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-07 > > On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 4:38 PM, John Johnson wrote: > > On 02/28/2011 04:49 PM, Richard Welty wrote: > >> please list me as being in favor of this draft. > > > > please count me as also in favor, if not already > > Add me as well. And me too Michael Ellis __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5915 (20110228) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com From franck@avonsys.com Mon Feb 28 16:55:09 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8CCB3A6D21 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 16:55:09 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.8 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.8 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Mh3NwIDDlnsu for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 16:55:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from seine.avonsys.com (unknown [IPv6:2001:df0:67::129]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 797AA3A6D20 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 16:55:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by seine.avonsys.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 463CFDFC002 for ; Tue, 1 Mar 2011 13:53:20 +1300 (FJST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at avonsys.com Received: from seine.avonsys.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (seine.avonsys.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1-FYAfiZhb8E for ; Tue, 1 Mar 2011 13:53:19 +1300 (FJST) Received: from seine.avonsys.com (seine.avonsys.com [192.168.69.129]) by seine.avonsys.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DB3CDFC001 for ; Tue, 1 Mar 2011 13:53:19 +1300 (FJST) Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2011 12:53:19 +1200 (FJT) From: Franck Martin To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF Message-ID: <2815371.0.1298940962339.JavaMail.franck@franck-martins-macbook-pro.local> In-Reply-To: <20110228234021.C861912EC69@ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [64.244.66.2] X-Mailer: Zimbra 6.0.5_GA_2213.UBUNTU6 (Zimbra Desktop/2.0.1_10659_Mac) Subject: Re: [Asrg] UCEPROTECT's comment on draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-07 X-BeenThere: asrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2011 00:55:09 -0000 Stand by your company and employees ----- Original Message ----- From: "Claus v. Wolfhausen" To: asrg@irtf.org Sent: Monday, 28 February, 2011 3:40:15 PM Subject: Re: [Asrg] UCEPROTECT's comment on draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-07 Larry M Smith wrote: >I have to say that this is an "interesting" way to state your case >before an IRTF research group; Harass the authors of the document that >you disagree with, attempt strong arm them by having your listees >possibly flood their inboxes with removal requests for your DNSBL, and >hold your listees hostage until you get your way. Please get your facts straight. You know me from NANAE, and you should know that the text on the page is neither my wordings nor is it my style to behave so. The guys that should run the night-shift simply created a reason page and logged their accounts off the system. The system gets aware no one operator is logged in and that means no one will process orders and reads tickets. It goes to autopilot mode and therefore refuses to accept tickets and payments for expedited delistings and displays the reason page. If no reason page would exist, then it would simply show: "Tickets and expedited express delistings are temporary not available." Anyway the system is online and automatic removals and listings are done by the system as usual. So the listtes are not hold hostage, they get right now the expirience that they would also have if we would not offer expedited expressdelistings at all. Sure I could log in and the system would immediatley end the autopilot mode, but that would mean I would have to do all delistings tonight and I would have to answer the tickets because the system would all those things forward to me. I'm not a strike-breaker and I will also have to deal with the other employees in the future. So you can be sure that I will under no circumstances log in to the system at this time. >I guess the only question that I have is; Is any of this latest >discussion from Claus v. Wolfhausen "[making] progress towards realizing >the Research Group's goals and objectives" You want to get my personal opinion, really? I am the one that now looks like an asshole, no matter what I do or say... That really feels great ... trust me .... Claus von Wolfhausen Technical Director UCEPROTECT-Network http://www.uceprotect.net From franck@avonsys.com Mon Feb 28 16:55:38 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A35D33A6D30 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 16:55:38 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.8 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.8 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hcdADUQMJicQ for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 16:55:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from seine.avonsys.com (unknown [IPv6:2001:df0:67::129]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE7DE3A6D2D for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 16:55:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by seine.avonsys.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66B89DFC002 for ; Tue, 1 Mar 2011 13:53:50 +1300 (FJST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at avonsys.com Received: from seine.avonsys.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (seine.avonsys.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ewIK-KJTBUI1 for ; Tue, 1 Mar 2011 13:53:48 +1300 (FJST) Received: from seine.avonsys.com (seine.avonsys.com [192.168.69.129]) by seine.avonsys.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB0DFDFC001 for ; Tue, 1 Mar 2011 13:53:48 +1300 (FJST) Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2011 12:53:48 +1200 (FJT) From: Franck Martin To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF Message-ID: <619726.2.1298940992196.JavaMail.franck@franck-martins-macbook-pro.local> In-Reply-To: <201103010047.p210lpPC022137@v10142.way3.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [64.244.66.2] X-Mailer: Zimbra 6.0.5_GA_2213.UBUNTU6 (Zimbra Desktop/2.0.1_10659_Mac) Subject: Re: [Asrg] draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-07 X-BeenThere: asrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2011 00:55:38 -0000 me too Franck Martin http://www.avonsys.com/ http://www.facebook.com/Avonsys http://www.linkedin.com/company/avonsys twitter: FranckMartin Avonsys Check your domain reputation: http://gurl.im/b69d4o Application Monitoring: http://gurl.im/4d39Gu ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Ellis" To: "Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF" Sent: Monday, 28 February, 2011 4:47:49 PM Subject: Re: [Asrg] draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-07 > -----Original Message----- > From: asrg-bounces@irtf.org [mailto:asrg-bounces@irtf.org] On Behalf Of > Kelly Molloy > Sent: Monday, February 28, 2011 7:46 PM > To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF > Subject: Re: [Asrg] draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-07 > > On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 4:38 PM, John Johnson wrote: > > On 02/28/2011 04:49 PM, Richard Welty wrote: > >> please list me as being in favor of this draft. > > > > please count me as also in favor, if not already > > Add me as well. And me too Michael Ellis From trblhelp@gmail.com Mon Feb 28 17:14:31 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B45A3A6D44 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 17:14:31 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.461 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.461 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.339, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id F-RVDt8ds6x1 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 17:14:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-yw0-f54.google.com (mail-yw0-f54.google.com [209.85.213.54]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC1923A6D2B for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 17:14:29 -0800 (PST) Received: by ywf9 with SMTP id 9so1732180ywf.13 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 17:15:31 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=WxZnkfjRQsc0en78mYW+byvvUSUM15/FjJtFYHkbRaQ=; b=SqHzS/liNMDvxOSMyRpQpgLzS4FB5TCW3mZtG87u4YGndarlDFPkOa2C+1seK5cuvW JJ/Tv/vR8fhjuiWtEM2E4HvqeKnTF0tkaxkxdIBybu+EgJe7p46FlmMu4OVbKaqajMnq CVwCbgc+Ac8RFFC+zuIkC82G2vJ4BMdsA7Adk= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=tiv20vpvk4eHp7Ly5+YCi+GvXr/syy388A4YCLxr6FGwPIxXbJ6U5PsPfUfubwaqzG x8yY4+0zIW7Y5jVrs9ImlWF66qJT1zdR8vhrSsXFHukslO1rqEtIzxtAPIwg8Leb5QT0 xT6QGu2JzLwSqahirfQ7MuvxJCf6NblOYW1VM= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.147.82.4 with SMTP id j4mr8891537yal.8.1298942130361; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 17:15:30 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.147.39.3 with HTTP; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 17:15:30 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <619726.2.1298940992196.JavaMail.franck@franck-martins-macbook-pro.local> References: <201103010047.p210lpPC022137@v10142.way3.com> <619726.2.1298940992196.JavaMail.franck@franck-martins-macbook-pro.local> Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 19:15:30 -0600 Message-ID: From: TRBL Support To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Subject: Re: [Asrg] draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-07 X-BeenThere: asrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2011 01:14:31 -0000 Me, too. On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 6:53 PM, Franck Martin wrote: > me too > > Franck Martin > http://www.avonsys.com/ > http://www.facebook.com/Avonsys > http://www.linkedin.com/company/avonsys > twitter: FranckMartin Avonsys > > Check your domain reputation: http://gurl.im/b69d4o > Application Monitoring: http://gurl.im/4d39Gu > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Michael Ellis" > To: "Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF" > Sent: Monday, 28 February, 2011 4:47:49 PM > Subject: Re: [Asrg] draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-07 > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: asrg-bounces@irtf.org [mailto:asrg-bounces@irtf.org] On Behalf Of >> Kelly Molloy >> Sent: Monday, February 28, 2011 7:46 PM >> To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF >> Subject: Re: [Asrg] draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-07 >> >> On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 4:38 PM, John Johnson wrote: >> > On 02/28/2011 04:49 PM, Richard Welty wrote: >> >> please list me as being in favor of this draft. >> > >> > please count me as also in favor, if not already >> >> Add me as well. > > And me too > > Michael Ellis > _______________________________________________ > Asrg mailing list > Asrg@irtf.org > http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > -- trblspamtrap dnsbl: http://www.trblspam.com simple, spamtrap driven, easy on, easy off From CLEWIS@nortel.com Mon Feb 28 17:23:12 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16EC43A6D4E for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 17:23:12 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.8 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.8 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9VT+ukWmbY9M for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 17:23:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from zrtps0kp.nortel.com (zrtps0kp.nortel.com [47.140.192.56]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CD183A6CB4 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 17:23:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from zrtphxs1.corp.nortel.com (casmtp.ca.nortel.com [47.140.202.46]) by zrtps0kp.nortel.com (Switch-2.2.6/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id p211O8P01645 for ; Tue, 1 Mar 2011 01:24:09 GMT Received: from zrtphx5h0.corp.nortel.com ([47.140.202.65]) by zrtphxs1.corp.nortel.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 28 Feb 2011 20:24:07 -0500 Received: from [47.9.28.107] (47.9.28.107) by zrtphx5h0.corp.nortel.com (47.140.202.65) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.1.340.0; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 20:24:06 -0500 Message-ID: <4D6C4AB2.6000408@nortel.com> Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 20:24:02 -0500 From: "Chris Lewis" Organization: Nortel User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.8.1.23) Gecko/20090812 Thunderbird/2.0.0.23 Mnenhy/0.7.6.666 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: References: <20110227190039.0FD6B12EC69@ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net> <20110228003938.48F9B12EC69@ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net> <4D6B <20110228222001.6A4C512EC69@ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net> <4D6C297A.10701@fahq2.com> <20110228234021.C861912EC69@ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net> In-Reply-To: <20110228234021.C861912EC69@ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Mar 2011 01:24:07.0739 (UTC) FILETIME=[5C43D8B0:01CBD7AF] Subject: Re: [Asrg] UCEPROTECT's comment on draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-07 X-BeenThere: asrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2011 01:23:12 -0000 On 2/28/2011 6:40 PM, Claus v. Wolfhausen wrote: > So the listtes are not hold hostage, they get right now the expirience > that they would also have if we would not offer expedited expressdelistings > at all. You really don't know anything at all about me or what I do do you? What your buddies (if they actually exist) have accomplished so far is inconsequential. Three complaints. Wow. Plus one who has read the BCP and is urging us to stick by our guns. It's quite amusing and I'll see if I can get permission to copy it here. Ordinarily, I'd just ignore it - far far less than either Matt or I are used to handling on a routine basis (for me well over a decade, Matt almost as long). Matt and I aren't exactly newbies at this after all. However, UCEProtect's actions have brought both of our employers into it. I am required to report threats against my company, and I have. It will very rapidly escalate past a point where I can control let alone stop their reaction. You, your CEO, and whomever else actually exists over there have some serious thinking to do. This stunt of UCEProtect's has backfired as should be pretty obvious by now. For your sake, when the head of corporate security phones me tomorrow, I hope I can tell them that this is over and they can forget about it. From c.v.wolfhausen@spamkiller.uceprotect.net Mon Feb 28 17:23:45 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FE873A6D55 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 17:23:45 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.787 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.787 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.012, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id whI5q1axh50z for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 17:23:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net (ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net [208.66.2.20]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 790083A6D51 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 17:23:44 -0800 (PST) Received: by ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net (UCEPROTECT, from userid 32767) id 7B45712EC6A; Tue, 1 Mar 2011 02:25:03 +0100 (CET) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; charset="iso-8859-1"; boundary="------------Boundary-00=_RJUC7H3E24L000000000" From: "Claus v. Wolfhausen" References: <2815371.0.1298940962339.JavaMail.franck@franck-martins-macbook-pro.local> To: Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2011 02:24:52 +0100 (CET) Message-Id: <20110301012503.7B45712EC6A@ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net> Subject: Re: [Asrg] UCEPROTECT's comment on draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-07 X-BeenThere: asrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2011 01:23:45 -0000 --------------Boundary-00=_RJUC7H3E24L000000000 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Franck wrote:=0D >Stand by your company and employees=0D =0D You can bet on that.=0D I did send an email to the CEO immediatley after I got knowlege of the strike (3 hours ago) but didn't get a reponse yet (It's actually 2 am in = the morning in my timezone).=0D It is impossible for me to do the work of 4 people that are now striking this night and I have to be back into the company in 12 hours, so I will have some sleep now.=0D It's up to the other team that should do the morning-shift which begins i= n 4 hours and the CEO which will be there in about 7 hours to deal with that issue.=0D =0D Claus von Wolfhausen=0D Technical Director=0D UCEPROTECT-Network=0D http://www.uceprotect.net --------------Boundary-00=_RJUC7H3E24L000000000 Content-Type: Text/HTML; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Franck wrote:
>Stand by your company and employees
 
You can bet on that.
I did send an email to the CEO immediatley after I got knowlege= of the strike (3 hours ago) but didn't get a reponse yet (It's actually = 2 am in the morning in my timezone).
It is impossible for me to do the work of 4 people that are now stri= king this night and I have to be back into the company in = 12 hours, so I will have some sleep now.
It's up to the other team that should do the morning-shift=  which begins in 4 hours and the CEO which will be there i= n about 7 hours to deal with that issue.
 
Claus von Wolfhausen
Technical Director
UCEPROTECT-Network
--------------Boundary-00=_RJUC7H3E24L000000000-- From SgtChains@FahQ2.com Mon Feb 28 17:26:45 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A18743A6D54 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 17:26:45 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.8 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.8 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MQNZSrej4kgV for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 17:26:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from homiemail-a54.g.dreamhost.com (caibbdcaaaaf.dreamhost.com [208.113.200.5]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E090E3A6D51 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 17:26:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from homiemail-a54.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a54.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 851B53A4058 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 17:27:46 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=FahQ2.com; h=message-id:date:from :mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type: content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=fahq2.com; b=iUZHN6K0OwGVce/ I2PhTJ8VB0GxPrWzoYTuruXrUAc2GTLgJIeQOz+oUT9Ito4gs6CB8OaabV06jXPp 7b9SgX4uwxvMms9Zlbz7G9pW+nymunfVqG7I/fqZ3zsZv5RVfqdjv/wAvTqVirhd v2W6ijImEkbiRmMYBLrE2lMlZu94= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=FahQ2.com; h=message-id :date:from:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=fahq2.com; bh=RRQvc3H 18abuPbQYu3lzD2Wuv3M=; b=Gwpq+VSfRF8Mq2vgEerBxUzi2pW3HYsg/VYmUoX XfwvMLTJhu7teHIpIQjg6HYXyCzihHANZ0xfB8njDe6SOqUJEdGqCYbjC7qVxBlz 5Y645aPHys6SjT7i5yIT1hPAcDdiKF9//nuCU9OSWETYqwG2dFeJyvzvyDwJdcd9 kCBY= Received: from larry-m-smiths-mac-pro.local (unknown [99.73.103.230]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: catch-all@pandora-servers.net) by homiemail-a54.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 413BC3A4057 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 17:27:46 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4D6C4B90.1090300@FahQ2.com> Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 19:27:44 -0600 From: "Larry M. Smith" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101207 Thunderbird/3.1.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF References: <4D6C265E.1060101@averillpark.net> <4D6C3FFA.6050407@jdmc.org> In-Reply-To: <4D6C3FFA.6050407@jdmc.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Asrg] draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-07 X-BeenThere: asrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2011 01:26:45 -0000 On 2/28/11 6:38 PM, John Johnson wrote: > On 02/28/2011 04:49 PM, Richard Welty wrote: >> please list me as being in favor of this draft. > > please count me as also in favor, if not already If this is a vote; Please count me also in favor of the BCP retaining its current wording. SgtChains From rsk@gsp.org Mon Feb 28 17:42:10 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 949D93A6CD3 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 17:42:10 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.311 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.311 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-1.11, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ro8zRl-wTKIG for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 17:42:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from taos.firemountain.net (taos.firemountain.net [207.114.3.54]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 961BB3A6C4C for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 17:42:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from squonk.gsp.org (bltmd-207.114.25.232.dsl.charm.net [207.114.25.232]) by taos.firemountain.net (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p211h9CH009725 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 20:43:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from avatar.gsp.org (avatar.gsp.org [192.168.0.11]) by squonk.gsp.org (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p211kHnv016354 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 20:46:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from avatar.gsp.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by avatar.gsp.org (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-9ubuntu1) with ESMTP id p211h30l002650 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 20:43:03 -0500 Received: (from rsk@localhost) by avatar.gsp.org (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id p211h3Yb002649 for asrg@irtf.org; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 20:43:03 -0500 Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 20:43:03 -0500 From: Rich Kulawiec To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF Message-ID: <20110301014303.GA2536@gsp.org> References: <4D6C265E.1060101@averillpark.net> <4D6C3FFA.6050407@jdmc.org> <4D6C4B90.1090300@FahQ2.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4D6C4B90.1090300@FahQ2.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Subject: Re: [Asrg] draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-07 X-BeenThere: asrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2011 01:42:10 -0000 I'm in favor of the BCP with its current wording. Not that I completely agree with every last bit of it, but I think it's an awfully good first stake-in-the-ground, and that we should plant it, take a deep breath, then start thinking and debating about what the second stake should look like. ---rsk From mickc@spamtacular.com Mon Feb 28 15:29:55 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A69C13A6CDA for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 15:29:55 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.8 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.8 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UQq0G6kV3CXo for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 15:29:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-gy0-f182.google.com (mail-gy0-f182.google.com [209.85.160.182]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24C303A6CCA for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 15:29:51 -0800 (PST) Received: by gyh4 with SMTP id 4so1998766gyh.13 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 15:30:53 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.101.161.13 with SMTP id n13mr2745885ano.68.1298935853026; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 15:30:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.0.0.101] (adsl-75-11-127-214.dsl.hstntx.sbcglobal.net [75.11.127.214]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 17sm370883anx.13.2011.02.28.15.30.51 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 28 Feb 2011 15:30:52 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4D6C302A.2050407@spamtacular.com> Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 17:30:50 -0600 From: Mickey Chandler User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.14) Gecko/20110221 Lightning/1.0b3pre Thunderbird/3.1.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@irtf.org References: <4D6C265E.1060101@averillpark.net> In-Reply-To: <4D6C265E.1060101@averillpark.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 18:00:18 -0800 Subject: Re: [Asrg] draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-07 X-BeenThere: asrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 23:32:55 -0000 On 2/28/2011 4:49 PM, Richard Welty wrote: > please list me as being in favor of this draft. > +1 From johnl@iecc.com Mon Feb 28 18:55:38 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5129A3A6C4C for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 18:55:38 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -111.065 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-111.065 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.134, BAYES_00=-2.599, HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI=-4.3, RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED=-4.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3khf8sXmw1zC for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 18:55:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [64.57.183.53]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 223753A6A6B for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 18:55:37 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 66212 invoked from network); 1 Mar 2011 02:56:38 -0000 Received: from mail1.iecc.com (64.57.183.56) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 1 Mar 2011 02:56:38 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:cc:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:vbr-info; s=107d1.4d6c6066.k1102; i=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=9RHAC4zQvgVIu1ZuLL7wwip8i23g0NHJWhmYlMgySRU=; b=plCDakJtU3aCHo9MKx6mvIfz+EODbOvNIdQKBcs6M8HNbeNPCbbsnkoqwl6hVEwG+5iUmjqQjjFEKhsNwy7nRmUEC5Ny+PoKVWxJzfhiwafZI2UZXmJwB05D2UpBaH7vHaOsYZU9RBx+JurBKGc4+J9FTHvpLIr7oOEewx3exw8= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:cc:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:vbr-info; s=107d1.4d6c6066.k1102; olt=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=9RHAC4zQvgVIu1ZuLL7wwip8i23g0NHJWhmYlMgySRU=; b=YJ0MU7WPJfXMlOsRON3AWejZW9CiJodfYm12VXfpNZ6KI6E+d+tH94jzJo5N+VmJQRd8wd/APOnK9RLeW9WrTAjHqaB7bYy36PX8IE/DtdIBnDzraGVlTKD+KK1rXHj4tgi9yqC6SNasTQzpKujXbV3D8mQQNtw3ezwO/2/PVrM= VBR-Info: md=iecc.com; mc=all; mv=dwl.spamhaus.org Date: 1 Mar 2011 02:56:38 -0000 Message-ID: <20110301025638.67536.qmail@joyce.lan> From: John Levine To: asrg@irtf.org In-Reply-To: <20110228212146.0413512EC69@ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net> Organization: X-Headerized: yes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] RFC 3934 warning to "Claus v. Wolfhausen" X-BeenThere: asrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2011 02:55:38 -0000 aRFC 3934 describes the management of IETF Mailing Lists. It gives the group chair the authority in unusual situations to suspend, after suitable warnings, the posting privileges of people who engage in disruptive behavior. This is a public warning to the person who posts as "Claus v. Wolfhausen" that personal attacks and ridicule, such as the excerpt quoted below, have no place in the ASRG or any other IETF/IRTF mailing list. If they do not cease immediately, suspension of posting privileges or other appropriate action may follow. Regards, John Levine, ASRG Chair In article <20110228212146.0413512EC69@ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net> you write: >Ahhhhh Mr. Linefeed of SPAMHAUS.... >I asked myself a full day how long it would take for you to show up on the >scene and blow into that "MUST" horn of Section 2.2.5.... From joseph.sniderman@thoroquel.org Mon Feb 28 19:04:02 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54ECE3A6D80 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 19:04:02 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.8 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.8 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LFgRyJ+hVRP9 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 19:04:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.thoroquel.org (mail.thoroquel.org [72.14.190.148]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7028D3A6D7E for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 19:04:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.0.174] (cpe-75-185-9-222.columbus.res.rr.com [75.185.9.222]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.thoroquel.org (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-9.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id p2134s1X012600 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 1 Mar 2011 03:04:55 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=thoroquel.org; s=thoroquel2a; t=1298948695; bh=1BPTi9PsLB/lslKXpmom0JL+FlcqhcEU4ue0MoGKHG0=; h=Message-ID:Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:OpenPGP: Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:CC:DomainKey-Signature; b=TNfeja4Rrx8UKuDm3fWphnbNPaThI+0lvcyEh5jGPDvu1LXMMvl2+TDnuS6lW+WmO hRevlwevSX2GpkjnGvnxK55/tKhMvPZbA7fbSyaEPFaSAr8r80dDuQx5atvyjUYeq3 qA2YRys58qce8lTgc4g+33bGaGaVDWReCQ8R/xxg2btlvhkibI8XuqptH2qbB/k7W6 aWV8UuyoHcuvwQaghs5SqPpkPL9BDSfqf+JXVL3gER2k67RKw1ZsRIDUt+txPJNtcu ZuSm6pJHzmLXiM6RpvHii6098rDT2cK7PgQRNLIo1Wund1YstJkvDappmRAticOdgK Oc9lCw9loG7KQ== Message-ID: <4D6C6254.3080903@thoroquel.org> Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 22:04:52 -0500 From: Joe Sniderman User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101208 Thunderbird/3.1.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@irtf.org References: <4D6C265E.1060101@averillpark.net> <4D6C3FFA.6050407@jdmc.org> <4D6C4B90.1090300@FahQ2.com> <20110301014303.GA2536@gsp.org> In-Reply-To: <20110301014303.GA2536@gsp.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1 OpenPGP: id=605721CA Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Asrg] draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-07 X-BeenThere: asrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2011 03:04:02 -0000 On 02/28/2011 08:43 PM, Rich Kulawiec wrote: > > I'm in favor of the BCP with its current wording. Not that I completely > agree with every last bit of it, but I think it's an awfully good first > stake-in-the-ground, and that we should plant it, take a deep breath, > then start thinking and debating about what the second stake should > look like. +1 While I'm not 100% pleased with the current wording of the conflict of interest section, it is close enough IMHO. Count me in favor of the BCP (with its current text) as well. -- Joe Sniderman From linford@spamhaus.org Mon Feb 28 23:17:53 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA7813A6D96 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 23:17:53 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -17.395 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.395 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.005, BAYES_00=-2.599, HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI=-4.3, RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED=-4.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zGriOwMb5aoT for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 23:17:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp-ext-layer.spamhaus.org (ns8.spamhaus.org [82.94.216.239]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5695C3A6A97 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 23:17:51 -0800 (PST) References: <4D6C265E.1060101@averillpark.net> In-Reply-To: <4D6C265E.1060101@averillpark.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Steve Linford To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF X-Local-MTA-Info: X-Mime-Info: text/plain Message-ID: Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2011 07:18:52 +0000 Subject: Re: [Asrg] draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-07 X-BeenThere: asrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2011 07:17:53 -0000 On 28 Feb 2011, at 23:49, Richard Welty wrote: > please list me as being in favor of this draft. > > richard I also am in favour of the 07 draft. So if this is a vote, here's mine. Steve Linford The Spamhaus Project http://www.spamhaus.org