From geemailenator@gmail.com Fri Apr 1 03:41:07 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 33D5B3A6803 for ; Fri, 1 Apr 2011 03:41:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.985 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.985 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.614, 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 hboRlBirF7IN for ; Fri, 1 Apr 2011 03:41:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vw0-f54.google.com (mail-vw0-f54.google.com [209.85.212.54]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 492F73A67FD for ; Fri, 1 Apr 2011 03:41:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: by vws18 with SMTP id 18so3163509vws.13 for ; Fri, 01 Apr 2011 03:42:46 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:sender:content-type:mime-version:subject:from :in-reply-to:date:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to :x-mailer; bh=yDBgn+dlGIFAOGZ87A+I76oroO1+QmT/nXTBbRzqJ8U=; b=aPlTbx7YpQ1WVP6AaLk9UZP6R9M34pE1JY+953HuZyuEO5lQWRt2KqgaouvDuCl3hG K+dwceiLwY/0iC6QdDlFCxeu6c8PrsLYNGKSUyh4MRZCM9ZFtio50A8DCaDTmXAzzuWc /OMi5pZCkK5deJPs0U3dwq0kNS+kWT5t+bYzI= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; b=GcTUXj/3bWkxB5xwi65KB02np2fXFlFI35S3I1ARYEdq8jSX/akxDUGx2zZ+dZSr9J iRSCvdoPAwabzGVlY436ua781dJ7Ib88yhC0Q0BAjR9VB88W8XmaiMC2mKujR28gksCR pYXTAL2DbjEYg5I7356JhHeYdoIewYShFen6o= Received: by 10.52.72.67 with SMTP id b3mr5067177vdv.116.1301654565972; Fri, 01 Apr 2011 03:42:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [172.16.1.2] (modemcable156.249-57-74.mc.videotron.ca [74.57.249.156]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id es1sm551268vdb.11.2011.04.01.03.42.44 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 01 Apr 2011 03:42:44 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Neil Schwartzman Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) From: Neil Schwartzman In-Reply-To: <20110401052128.45238.qmail@joyce.lan> Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2011 06:42:43 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <5AD2E20F-2D5A-4667-A567-7A603020174C@cauce.org> References: <20110401052128.45238.qmail@joyce.lan> To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Subject: Re: [Asrg] Automated public whitelist 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: Fri, 01 Apr 2011 10:41:07 -0000 On 2011-04-01, at 1:21 AM, johnl@iecc.com wrote: >> It works, it's fully automated. The results are looking great for = the two >> people providing data. Now I just need data from more people to = improve >> its usefulness to others. >=20 > Sounds swell, but how do you plan to qualify the people sending in > data? Beyond that, ongoing qualification & compliance are big deals when = running a whitelist. I ran Return Path's for four years, and everyday = was some new issue, be it a good sender gone bad, or a compromised = machine, or an argument with a bad sender who wanted to tell me his = business plan. Not for the faint-of-heart, nor the sane. I've said the same thing = repeatedly to others who have thought of starting a whitelist: don't.= From rob@invaluement.com Fri Apr 1 06:09:10 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 AEC9C3A683E for ; Fri, 1 Apr 2011 06:09:10 -0700 (PDT) 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 LWcYd0hNFKfS for ; Fri, 1 Apr 2011 06:09:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.powerviewmail.com (mail.powerviewmail.com [204.9.77.40]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7884C3A683A for ; Fri, 1 Apr 2011 06:09:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [204.9.77.40] ([204.9.77.40]) by mail.powerviewmail.com (IceWarp 9.4.1) with ASMTP id KRL67148 for ; Fri, 01 Apr 2011 09:10:48 -0400 Message-ID: <4D95CED4.3060206@invaluement.com> Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2011 09:10:44 -0400 From: Rob McEwen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.2; en-US; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Thunderbird/3.1.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF References: <20110401052128.45238.qmail@joyce.lan> <5AD2E20F-2D5A-4667-A567-7A603020174C@cauce.org> In-Reply-To: <5AD2E20F-2D5A-4667-A567-7A603020174C@cauce.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-PVSYS-SMTPAUTH: Y X-PVSYS-SECONDS: 0 Subject: Re: [Asrg] Automated public whitelist 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: Fri, 01 Apr 2011 13:09:10 -0000 On 4/1/2011 6:42 AM, Neil Schwartzman wrote: > Beyond that, ongoing qualification & compliance are big deals when running a whitelist. I ran Return Path's for four years, and everyday was some new issue, be it a good sender gone bad, or a compromised machine, or an argument with a bad sender who wanted to tell me his business plan. > > Not for the faint-of-heart, nor the sane. I've said the same thing repeatedly to others who have thought of starting a whitelist: don't. Darxus, I'll add three things to what Neil said: (1) grey-hat and black-hat ESPs would love nothing more than to distribute to you a high quality feed of indisputable ham... and then slip in some of their own messages to ensure that they and their clients get whitelisted. (2) AND... even with legitimate "good faith" data fees... I've examined the whitelisting data of a prominent DNSBL, where their whitelist (that they use to prevent FPs) was fully automated and involved minimal human intervention. What I found was that SOME snowshoe spammers were frequently whitelisted during that time period when the spammer had not /yet/ built up enough bad reputation to get blocked by many (or any) blacklists. The problem here is that by the time the snowshoe spammer has finally gotten blacklisted by some DNSBLs, he is /already/ in that whitelist and anyone using such an automated whitelist is going to then give that snowshoe spammer a free pass. This is one of the greatest dangers with automated whitelists. Yes... you'll find that this only makes up something like .0001% of all whitelisted IPs... AND you'll find that this applies to something like .0001% of a typical incoming mail stream. HOWEVER-- because snowshoe spam is amongst the most difficult to catch (compared to things like botnet-spams sent from infected workstations).... it makes up a disproportionally large percentage of the spam that makes it into people's inboxes. Therefore, it is entirely possible for such False Negatives to /appear/ to be too few to be consequential... but, in reality, to cause a dramatic shift in the number of spams that make into recipients' inboxes. (3) Also, calling it a "whitelist" is going to be problematic if any of my warnings materialize. Why? Because the very label "whitelist" implies that you are putting your "stamp of approval" on such mail. Therefore, you may want to brand this as some kind of "reputation" list rather than a "whitelist". (regardless of my opinion... you are probably going to find that many will consider the label "whitelist" as you personally vouching for the sender.) Otherwise, if/ your automated lists start "vouching" for snowshoe spammers, you'll might then be accused of "harboring spammers" or being in business with the spammers. (again, take this fwiw. I'm NOT accusing you of such. This is just a warning about what others might say if your data gets polluted with the more elusive spammers... such as snowshoe spammers, CAN-SPAM-compliant spammers sending to high quality purchased or rented lists, etc) (hope this helps...) -- Rob McEwen http://dnsbl.invaluement.com/ rob@invaluement.com +1 (478) 475-9032 From darxus@chaosreigns.com Fri Apr 1 07:44:17 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 4DF6C3A687A for ; Fri, 1 Apr 2011 07:44:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.294 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.294 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.706, BAYES_00=-2.599, FAKE_REPLY_C=2.012, NO_RELAYS=-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 Y2TWteNjvnTZ for ; Fri, 1 Apr 2011 07:44:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from panic.chaosreigns.com (Darxus-1-pt.tunnel.tserv3.fmt2.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f04:1b8a::2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 505713A686E for ; Fri, 1 Apr 2011 07:44:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: by panic.chaosreigns.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 3F5E7AC578; Fri, 1 Apr 2011 10:45:55 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=chaosreigns.com; s=mail; t=1301669155; bh=bUVyKgOCwO2HBcMrI8cfrNP0W3wC4MgM8xagp9KATmo=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type: In-Reply-To; b=Yw2GssNPs07lwGJE00bL4fXIuvqfj2MjO4HaX+bFjWSWHV+fuOr6Z6ZFaAcwKwsQ+ kfxmSDN+OIP68VbhustZljmU2VzkrVp86H8bR0OmYcbeeQ4m4MjJaV2ZehwA4b7sqD aRdKLSzZ+7DhoiAbdtvGY3pe8100iu1B2fwIHkLk= Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2011 10:45:55 -0400 From: darxus@chaosreigns.com To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF Message-ID: <20110401144555.GA30081@chaosreigns.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4D95CED4.3060206@invaluement.com> <5AD2E20F-2D5A-4667-A567-7A603020174C@cauce.org> <20110401052128.45238.qmail@joyce.lan> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Subject: Re: [Asrg] Automated public whitelist 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: Fri, 01 Apr 2011 14:44:17 -0000 On 04/01, johnl@iecc.com wrote: > Sounds swell, but how do you plan to qualify the people sending in > data? What's to keep a spammer from sending in a file full of his > junk marked ham? I should have mentioned that I brought this problem up on this list before: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/asrg/current/msg16398.html The general consensus seemed like "It might work, but it would be hard, and you'd be crazy to try." So I thought about it a lot more, and finally decided to give it a try. On 04/01, Neil Schwartzman wrote: > Beyond that, ongoing qualification & compliance are big deals when > running a whitelist. I ran Return Path's for four years, and everyday was > some new issue, be it a good sender gone bad, or a compromised machine, > or an argument with a bad sender who wanted to tell me his business plan. It's good to actually hear the perspective of someone who has tried something similar, thanks. One of the things that has encouraged me is that spamassassin seems to not have had a problem with their mass-check submitters. And I'm hoping to be less attractive to people trying to get their spam through than I can imagine Return Path being. But I realize that could be wishful thinking. And I think spamassassin has carefully vetted contributors. > Not for the faint-of-heart, nor the sane. I've said the same thing > repeatedly to others who have thought of starting a whitelist: don't. Noted. On 04/01, Rob McEwen wrote: > (1) grey-hat and black-hat ESPs would love nothing more than to > distribute to you a high quality feed of indisputable ham... and then > slip in some of their own messages to ensure that they and their clients > get whitelisted. Yup. I've spent a lot of time thinking about how this could be gamed. That's the most obvious. (And I don't mean to imply that I believe I've figured out all the possible problems.) > intervention. What I found was that SOME snowshoe spammers were > frequently whitelisted during that time period when the spammer had not > /yet/ built up enough bad reputation to get blocked by many (or any) > blacklists. The problem here is that by the time the snowshoe spammer > has finally gotten blacklisted by some DNSBLs, he is /already/ in that > whitelist and anyone using such an automated whitelist is going to then > give that snowshoe spammer a free pass. This is one of the greatest That does sound like a fun problem, thanks. > (3) Also, calling it a "whitelist" is going to be problematic if any of > my warnings materialize. Why? Because the very label "whitelist" implies I'll keep that in mind. This post is actually the only time I've called it a whitelist, because that's my primary goal, not, admittedly, what the result actually looks like. And, well, white lists and black lists get things wrong sometimes, and I suppose people are going to think it might be intentional. I'm... really not worried about people thinking it was intentional. But it might be a good idea to clarify on the website that if you think something is wrong, tell me instead of thinking it was intentional. Thanks for pointing it out. -- "Of course there's strength in numbers. But there's strength in sharp weaponry too. Ironically, this lead to what we call 'civilization'." - spore http://www.ChaosReigns.com From johnl@iecc.com Sun Apr 17 10:42:14 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: asrg@ietfc.amsl.com Delivered-To: asrg@ietfc.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D34ADE0717 for ; Sun, 17 Apr 2011 10:42:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -110.799 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.799 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.399, 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 ([208.66.40.236]) by localhost (ietfc.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yRJZGI2MBW-5 for ; Sun, 17 Apr 2011 10:42:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [64.57.183.53]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18AC8E0713 for ; Sun, 17 Apr 2011 10:42:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 12911 invoked from network); 17 Apr 2011 17:42:12 -0000 Received: from mail1.iecc.com (64.57.183.56) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 17 Apr 2011 17:42:12 -0000 Date: 17 Apr 2011 17:41:50 -0000 Message-ID: <20110417174150.65016.qmail@joyce.lan> From: "John Levine" To: asrg@irtf.org Organization: X-Headerized: yes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Subject: [Asrg] Do we agree that draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-08 is done? X-BeenThere: asrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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, 17 Apr 2011 17:42:15 -0000 It's been a while since we've seen any traffic about the BCP-ish draft. Barring strenuous objection, I'll say that we have RG consensus to publish it. 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 darxus@chaosreigns.com Sun Apr 17 18:54:57 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: asrg@ietfc.amsl.com Delivered-To: asrg@ietfc.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBA6DE0759 for ; Sun, 17 Apr 2011 18:54:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.801 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.801 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([208.66.40.236]) by localhost (ietfc.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eriDY-LVy-Q0 for ; Sun, 17 Apr 2011 18:54:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from panic.chaosreigns.com (panic.chaosreigns.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f05:1b8a::1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0FBEE0758 for ; Sun, 17 Apr 2011 18:54:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: by panic.chaosreigns.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 5117DAC792; Sun, 17 Apr 2011 21:54:55 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=chaosreigns.com; s=mail; t=1303091695; bh=5KAyuAwNgwxWPa0pOSofLgKt9Nn7gtFuGv6J/HNVsXg=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:In-Reply-To; b=fjzT3YDUem6lVd4Whgg3JA727XCi8FSQLTese5lMb0a9KTD7A6gSsoa+4e3M4re85 VHHFWjmtFqtO8RdKPlXllSZpO+ZzSX0MOECdfT2wculr0BNDxJcI4MEBFrL82//x8Q UPBjVQS0X/GRLbKVJVHi6UhzfwS6DhEtVrESgPOg= Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2011 21:54:55 -0400 From: darxus@chaosreigns.com To: asrg@irtf.org Message-ID: <20110418015455.GO9642@chaosreigns.com> References: <20110417174150.65016.qmail@joyce.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110417174150.65016.qmail@joyce.lan> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Subject: Re: [Asrg] Do we agree that draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-08 is done? X-BeenThere: asrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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, 18 Apr 2011 01:54:58 -0000 On 04/17, John Levine wrote: > Barring strenuous objection, I'll say that we have RG consensus > to publish it. No strenuous objection. Consequent removals (if the conditions for removal is met) should be "is" should be "are". This has often results in great consternation "results" should be "resulted". Some mail systems are unable to differentiate between these various results or flags, however, so a public DNSBL SHOULD NOT include opposing or widely different meanings -- such as 127.0.0.23 for "sends good mail" and 127.0.0.99 for "sends bad mail" -- within the same DNS zone. I'm doing exactly what this says I SHOULD NOT - listing "sends good mail" and "sends bad mail" values in the same zone. Because I have no interest in usability directly by software incapable of differentiating (like postfix's reject_rbl_client, which I have personally found very useful). And I think that's fine. I also think its web page makes it clear enough that such use would not work. I might add to the existing text ", unless there is no interest in compatibility with systems incapable of such differentiation". Or you could just leave it, it won't hurt anybody. I'm talking about the IP reputation thing I mentioned here not long ago - it works about as expected, great for people providing data, still not enough data to work great for people not providing data - http://www.chaosreigns.com/iprep/ So I'd love to get data from more people. I apologize for not reading this sooner. It is pretty painfully boring, even for people actively interested in the subject. -- "But do you have any idea how many SuperBalls you could buy if you actually applied yourself in the world? Probably eleven, but you should still try." - http://hyperboleandahalf.blogspot.com/ http://www.ChaosReigns.com From trblhelp@gmail.com Sun Apr 17 19:15:04 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: asrg@ietfc.amsl.com Delivered-To: asrg@ietfc.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5024E075A for ; Sun, 17 Apr 2011 19:15:04 -0700 (PDT) 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 ([208.66.40.236]) by localhost (ietfc.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6NV7ri9qiKCe for ; Sun, 17 Apr 2011 19:15:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vx0-f182.google.com (mail-vx0-f182.google.com [209.85.220.182]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3FCBE066C for ; Sun, 17 Apr 2011 19:15:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: by vxc34 with SMTP id 34so4149034vxc.13 for ; Sun, 17 Apr 2011 19:15:03 -0700 (PDT) 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=460brNjsHL/F+NO5fWUVVroSXkGsmA3E/02Bs5ZB46E=; b=RKGARBzGOKIzWgyoSN51PRFRntAFQHWpwNrNH5UT3ouo9bquSy6n9QQQo25AVurt6M gtQZQar99c2x5/Icbdmu8OaA5qcEwXaihVguKEiXJmEUnCRithQxwO7LstzHerUlPsqu 8EUrcpVgboRbVm61XJwokAy9+kx59C8tLa51A= 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=AnrcXMqlu+xv/9erTcPNTtbeeXefygSmUY5Txz9WA0rud7NoKr4gXl9R6YZMX/xjwt 4DIPyUcxa9hs5Tlp0eSPDPQFdG+EMhDe9o9WdIIRSINmTugy8maTJdU9yKm5bvj06nop X98YlHfM2h+lIA+jwK/sKgBcjDRGjWLzMsQhs= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.220.122.39 with SMTP id j39mr1373958vcr.78.1303092903124; Sun, 17 Apr 2011 19:15:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.100.8 with HTTP; Sun, 17 Apr 2011 19:15:03 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20110417174150.65016.qmail@joyce.lan> References: <20110417174150.65016.qmail@joyce.lan> Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2011 21:15:03 -0500 Message-ID: From: TRBL Support To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Subject: Re: [Asrg] Do we agree that draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-08 is done? X-BeenThere: asrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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, 18 Apr 2011 02:15:04 -0000 On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 12:41 PM, John Levine wrote: > It's been a while since we've seen any traffic about the BCP-ish > draft. > > Barring strenuous objection, I'll say that we have RG consensus > to publish it. No objection here. Rs, Tom @ TRBL -- Tom @ TRBLSPAM DNSBL: http://www.trblspam.com simple, spamtrap driven, easy on, easy off From linford@spamhaus.org Mon Apr 18 01:37:37 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: asrg@ietfc.amsl.com Delivered-To: asrg@ietfc.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1209E06CB for ; Mon, 18 Apr 2011 01:37:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -18.4 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-18.4 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 ([208.66.40.236]) by localhost (ietfc.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kJGH8-2zluOY for ; Mon, 18 Apr 2011 01:37:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp-ext-layer.spamhaus.org (ns8.spamhaus.org [82.94.216.239]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F1A9E0682 for ; Mon, 18 Apr 2011 01:37:33 -0700 (PDT) References: <20110417174150.65016.qmail@joyce.lan> In-Reply-To: <20110417174150.65016.qmail@joyce.lan> 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, 18 Apr 2011 09:37:31 +0100 Subject: Re: [Asrg] Do we agree that draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-08 is done? X-BeenThere: asrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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, 18 Apr 2011 08:37:37 -0000 On 17 Apr 2011, at 19:41, John Levine wrote: > It's been a while since we've seen any traffic about the BCP-ish > draft. >=20 > Barring strenuous objection, I'll say that we have RG consensus > to publish it. Spamhaus has no objections, we think the authors have done a fine job = and we will respect every item of the document. However, if anything turns out later to be not to my liking I reserve = the right to have a hissy-fit, throw all my toys out of the pram, = renounce my citizenship of the Intertube and slam the door behind me ;) Regards, Steve Linford The Spamhaus Project http://www.spamhaus.org =20 From johnl@iecc.com Mon Apr 18 07:58:10 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: asrg@ietfc.amsl.com Delivered-To: asrg@ietfc.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD6A7E07F4 for ; Mon, 18 Apr 2011 07:58:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -109.975 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-109.975 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.064, BAYES_05=-1.11, 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 ([208.66.40.236]) by localhost (ietfc.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NANhnf7IiiJy for ; Mon, 18 Apr 2011 07:58:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [64.57.183.53]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C419E07E8 for ; Mon, 18 Apr 2011 07:58:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 50112 invoked from network); 18 Apr 2011 14:58:08 -0000 Received: from mail1.iecc.com (64.57.183.56) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 18 Apr 2011 14:58:08 -0000 Date: 18 Apr 2011 14:57:46 -0000 Message-ID: <20110418145746.73832.qmail@joyce.lan> From: "John Levine" To: asrg@irtf.org In-Reply-To: Organization: X-Headerized: yes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Asrg] Do we agree that draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-08 is done? X-BeenThere: asrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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, 18 Apr 2011 14:58:10 -0000 >However, if anything turns out later to be not to my liking I reserve >the right to have a hissy-fit, throw all my toys out of the pram, >renounce my citizenship of the Intertube and slam the door behind me Can I watch? R's, John From UUkutt@synacor.com Mon Apr 18 08:04:26 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: asrg@ietfc.amsl.com Delivered-To: asrg@ietfc.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A260E070E for ; Mon, 18 Apr 2011 08:04:26 -0700 (PDT) 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 ([208.66.40.236]) by localhost (ietfc.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AuJFC1uQExVT for ; Mon, 18 Apr 2011 08:04:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.corp.synacor.com (mail.corp.synacor.com [38.97.88.19]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B816EE068E for ; Mon, 18 Apr 2011 08:04:24 -0700 (PDT) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 11:04:22 -0400 Message-ID: <043157728A92A64B935F119F3E3947A909FACCD5@syncorpmail.synbuf.local> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Do we agree that draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-08 is done? Thread-Index: Acv9Md1upEHtikUmRrapSN/nWjG3QgAp8eBA References: From: "Udeme Ukutt" To: Subject: Re: [Asrg] Do we agree that draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists-08 is done? X-BeenThere: asrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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, 18 Apr 2011 15:04:26 -0000 John, >From my end, I'm okay with the content of the draft. Thanks, Udeme=20 Synacor Postmaster