From darxus@chaosreigns.com Thu May 26 15:33:41 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: asrg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: asrg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9D4AE06D6 for ; Thu, 26 May 2011 15:33:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iobmw0SV5lb3 for ; Thu, 26 May 2011 15:33:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from panic.chaosreigns.com (panic.chaosreigns.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f05:1b8a::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBB2EE06BA for ; Thu, 26 May 2011 15:33:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: by panic.chaosreigns.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id D7E26164D0D; Thu, 26 May 2011 18:33:39 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 26 May 2011 18:33:39 -0400 From: darxus@chaosreigns.com To: asrg@irtf.org Message-ID: <20110526223339.GY6897@chaosreigns.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Subject: [Asrg] Problems with wildcards in combined IPv4 + IPv6 DNS blacklists 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: Thu, 26 May 2011 22:33:41 -0000 http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5782#section-2.4 For both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses, the records end up as: [reversed IP].[zone] There's a problem when you use wildcards on IPv4 addresses: *.0.0.2.zone.example.com Matches IPv6 2.0.0.* (2.0.0.0/8), but it also matches IPv6 2000/12. Any IPv6 address starting with "200", as many do. I think the RFC should be changed to add something to the IPv6 records to differentiate them, just about anything but an integer from 0-255, like: [reversed IP].v6.[zone] Is there a problem with doing that? Examples of this problem showing up can be found here: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6484#c25 -- "We will be dead soon. Is this how we want to live?" http://www.ChaosReigns.com From johnl@iecc.com Thu May 26 16:01:43 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: asrg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: asrg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EC62E06BA for ; Thu, 26 May 2011 16:01:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -111.139 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-111.139 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.060, BAYES_00=-2.599, HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI=-4.3, RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED=-4.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DhNQaxrMrDMI for ; Thu, 26 May 2011 16:01:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [64.57.183.53]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91D7CE078D for ; Thu, 26 May 2011 16:01:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 4648 invoked from network); 26 May 2011 23:01:41 -0000 Received: from mail1.iecc.com (64.57.183.56) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 26 May 2011 23:01:41 -0000 Date: 26 May 2011 23:01:18 -0000 Message-ID: <20110526230118.70019.qmail@joyce.lan> From: "John Levine" To: asrg@irtf.org In-Reply-To: <20110526223339.GY6897@chaosreigns.com> Organization: X-Headerized: yes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Asrg] Problems with wildcards in combined IPv4 + IPv6 DNS blacklists 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: Thu, 26 May 2011 23:01:43 -0000 >There's a problem when you use wildcards on IPv4 addresses: > > *.0.0.2.zone.example.com > >Matches IPv6 2.0.0.* (2.0.0.0/8), but it also matches IPv6 2000/12. >Any IPv6 address starting with "200", as many do. Indeed, but basically nobody serves DNSBLs from servers that use BIND style zone files and wildcards, so it's unlikely to be an issue in practice. >I think the RFC should be changed to add something to the IPv6 records to >differentiate them, just about anything but an integer from 0-255, like: > > [reversed IP].v6.[zone] > >Is there a problem with doing that? RFCs are by long tradition immutable so, no, it can't be changed. You can call your DNSBLs whatever you want, including using a different base name for the v4 and v6 BLs, if it works better for you. Due to the cache problems that any sort of per-IP queries are likely to cause on production IPv6 networks (see previous discussion on this list) I doubt there will ever be a lot of use of 5782 format IPv6 BLs, so it doesn't seem like a good use of anyone's time to try to produce a new version of the RFC with that change. 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 johnl@iecc.com Thu May 26 16:06:56 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: asrg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: asrg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C426AE077E for ; Thu, 26 May 2011 16:06:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -111.149 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-111.149 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.050, BAYES_00=-2.599, HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI=-4.3, RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED=-4.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bTTGuGow7fnX for ; Thu, 26 May 2011 16:06:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [64.57.183.53]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2294AE075C for ; Thu, 26 May 2011 16:06:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 5147 invoked from network); 26 May 2011 23:06:55 -0000 Received: from mail1.iecc.com (64.57.183.56) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 26 May 2011 23:06:55 -0000 Date: 26 May 2011 23:06:33 -0000 Message-ID: <20110526230633.71465.qmail@joyce.lan> From: "John Levine" To: asrg@irtf.org In-Reply-To: <20110526223339.GY6897@chaosreigns.com> Organization: X-Headerized: yes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Asrg] Problems with wildcards in combined IPv4 + IPv6 DNS blacklists 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: Thu, 26 May 2011 23:06:56 -0000 >There's a problem when you use wildcards on IPv4 addresses: > > *.0.0.2.zone.example.com > >Matches IPv6 2.0.0.* (2.0.0.0/8), but it also matches IPv6 2000/12. >Any IPv6 address starting with "200", as many do. By the way, the last paragraph of section 2.4 in RFC 5782 points out this exact situation, so I hope it didn't come as a big surprise to anyone. R's, John From darxus@chaosreigns.com Fri May 27 10:23:31 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: asrg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: asrg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8871E0836 for ; Fri, 27 May 2011 10:23:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.594 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.594 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.006, BAYES_00=-2.599, FAKE_REPLY_C=2.012, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id j9LNsdAwkbTP for ; Fri, 27 May 2011 10:23:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from panic.chaosreigns.com (panic.chaosreigns.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f05:1b8a::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9C73E0675 for ; Fri, 27 May 2011 10:23:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: by panic.chaosreigns.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 23D60225F8C; Fri, 27 May 2011 13:23:29 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 27 May 2011 13:23:29 -0400 From: darxus@chaosreigns.com To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF Message-ID: <20110527172328.GD6897@chaosreigns.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110526230633.71465.qmail@joyce.lan> <20110526230118.70019.qmail@joyce.lan> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Subject: Re: [Asrg] Problems with wildcards in combined IPv4 + IPv6 DNS blacklists 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: Fri, 27 May 2011 17:23:31 -0000 On 05/26, John Levine wrote: > Indeed, but basically nobody serves DNSBLs from servers that use BIND > style zone files and wildcards, so it's unlikely to be an issue in > practice. The link I included provided examples of where it's a problem in practice: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6484#c25 TXT records for: 2.6.5.e.5.6.e.f.f.f.9.0.d.1.2.0.5.0.0.0.2.0.0.0.0.0.6.1.1.0.0.2.asn.routeviews.org. 2.6.5.e.5.6.e.f.f.f.9.0.d.1.2.0.5.0.0.0.2.0.0.0.0.0.6.1.1.0.0.2.origin.asn.cymru.com. As the rest of that comment shows, they're both returning values for IPv4 2.0.0.0/16. > RFCs are by long tradition immutable so, no, it can't be changed. You A new RFC can obsolete an existing one. > can call your DNSBLs whatever you want, including using a different > base name for the v4 and v6 BLs, if it works better for you. Lack of standardization is going to make that unpleasant to deal with. On 05/26, John Levine wrote: > By the way, the last paragraph of section 2.4 in RFC 5782 points out > this exact situation, so I hope it didn't come as a big surprise to > anyone. Only that the RFC was published with that problem intact. -- "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 vesely@tana.it Fri May 27 11:17:07 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: asrg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: asrg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07811E084C for ; Fri, 27 May 2011 11:17:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.514 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.514 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.205, BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_I_LETTER=-2, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5Frq45+VrCVn for ; Fri, 27 May 2011 11:17:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wmail.tana.it (wmail.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0526E084E for ; Fri, 27 May 2011 11:17:05 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=test; t=1306520222; bh=TUki/oW4b7e24MdE1Oxs2ucsoS3Mc2stDgZ78p0VpZU=; l=2397; h=Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:CC:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=E+Ufzxgd6J+qcMsyx5SkESbq2KzJIxcDBMGkXYH8V4E9k4AoWofvuJnEvRMBpsy0G 5M5jBNK+VvweRiv9KtdMZbckdM4NRRNtZRuIjYu7vSN30M+tA/JScqrh2RQJmTpJ/q GRIHkE9trWozgYioi8xvDca8aAJOOwEDsUjeUZKk= 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; Fri, 27 May 2011 20:17:02 +0200 id 00000000005DC039.000000004DDFEA9E.00002631 Message-ID: <4DDFEA9E.7020200@tana.it> Date: Fri, 27 May 2011 20:17:02 +0200 From: Alessandro Vesely User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Anti Spam Research Group References: <448612F9-882B-4008-9C42-3A95FA1D6A93@wordtothewise.com> <4DDFCC64.8060002@tana.it> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: DKIM List Subject: [Asrg] Triple opt-in, was MLMs and signatures again 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: Fri, 27 May 2011 18:17:07 -0000 On 27/May/11 18:29, John R. Levine wrote: >>>> 2) do we need a mechanism to alert the receiving MTA that you have >>>> subscribed to a mailing list, and all messages should pass through? >> >> Yes, desperately. >> >>> Certainly a possible feature, but it seems like it won't scale very well. >> >> Why not? > > If I were a spammer, I would tell the victim's MTA that the victim > subscribed, then send the spam. Yes, but then the MTA would then know how to treat the corresponding victim's complaint. > These days most subscriptions are entered on a web page, and if you're > lucky the mailer will send a confirmation message with a URL that sends > the subscriber back to the web page. Where's the MTA going to get the > subscriber info? An http url could be advertised on the MX's EHLO reply. That's a page on the users' server, where they can confirm subscriptions along with their credentials. MLMs get digitally signed confirmations of COI. Ways to accept non-interactive subscription notifications are also necessary. I agree they are somewhat more challenging. For MLMs that present DKIM-signed List-* header fields, subscriptions might be assumed, and tracked unilaterally that way. But unsubscribe attempts seem to be more difficult to do, in this case. > The challenges in designing a protocol that neither makes > unreasonable demands on users and MUAs nor is easily spoofed by > hostile mailers seem insurmountable to me. MUAs wouldn't be much affected, except for allowing TiS buttons. Users would gain uniform subscribe/unsubscribe pages. > If you're planning to keep a reputation database of mailers who > send credible subscription announcements, why not just whitelist > their mail? The ability to maintain such database would be improved. > Since as far as I know nobody does this, it's a resarch topic, so I've > directed replies to the ASRG. See you there. Here I am. I've kept a CC to DKIM list, to be removed in followups. It is not the first time I bring up this idea on the ASRG. It addresses newsletters more than discussion lists, because of the way subscriptions work. In Europe, the resulting protocol could help providing proofs of consent, which many European newsletters handle as a checkbox on _manually_ signed forms. Indeed, I'd consider it an implementation of the Data Protection Directive. From davidnicol@gmail.com Fri May 27 15:20:48 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: asrg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: asrg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED3B1E0678 for ; Fri, 27 May 2011 15:20:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id k9LnYY90J2+M for ; Fri, 27 May 2011 15:20:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-iy0-f182.google.com (mail-iy0-f182.google.com [209.85.210.182]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7E10E0658 for ; Fri, 27 May 2011 15:20:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: by iyj12 with SMTP id 12so2485700iyj.13 for ; Fri, 27 May 2011 15:20:46 -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:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=7CcoqGXMtDGzJo+bWOgOwJeKlVDCU31H0YlbvNQa+E8=; b=MVNUhLMhUXGiebD3/+RDjz1sT8tquCry7ze8ZJLnbK0IKzH8TUeM0jsKN5nnCsgs3N t5OJXH1Etl1GqJamnD7CZSkTtC90yOzc6wp3wKe1g0L5hiodKKq4pjpgBcK4nhZpUsUb iCCyg7J9mab2+JnRknUoDJFhlYnG5GvdZlPUQ= 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 :cc:content-type; b=FqcIyWdW/q5NtsNvpmNoophI/ieyt0UXVRo6AZnUvP/y/Cr4Ebxinjo+DNI/sDqa5e Mj+Zml69gnv1TEs6gymJyIStjBvlY1a7r9JPu2slOBjA+B50+Cx52BQ0rTwzhSTvUMGg U6S2VubF8PwuQpHKa8wnOTXdDTODCyGicd2jE= Received: by 10.42.173.72 with SMTP id q8mr4532752icz.152.1306534846099; Fri, 27 May 2011 15:20:46 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.42.164.135 with HTTP; Fri, 27 May 2011 15:20:26 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4DDFEA9E.7020200@tana.it> References: <448612F9-882B-4008-9C42-3A95FA1D6A93@wordtothewise.com> <4DDFCC64.8060002@tana.it> <4DDFEA9E.7020200@tana.it> From: David Nicol Date: Fri, 27 May 2011 17:20:26 -0500 Message-ID: To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=90e6ba6e820a636ff704a4495975 Cc: DKIM List Subject: Re: [Asrg] Triple opt-in, was MLMs and signatures again 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: Fri, 27 May 2011 22:20:48 -0000 --90e6ba6e820a636ff704a4495975 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 1:17 PM, Alessandro Vesely wrote: > On 27/May/11 18:29, John R. Levine wrote: > >>>> 2) do we need a mechanism to alert the receiving MTA that you have > >>>> subscribed to a mailing list, and all messages should pass through? > >> > >> Yes, desperately. > >> > >>> Certainly a possible feature, but it seems like it won't scale very > well. > >> > >> Why not? > > > > If I were a spammer, I would tell the victim's MTA that the victim > > subscribed, then send the spam. > But you couldn't do that, as the spammer, because such a feature belongs in the per-user-database parts of the hypothetical future extended/hybrid MTA/MDA with the feature. Proper debate on this feature should be about how to present the feature to the end-user, not on an insecure external wire protocol. Such as, how much reputation does a mailing list need before it gets to skip the "New mailing list subscription? Click here to approve! Futur-eMail, relaxing your eyeballs since 2015" kind of end-user approval step. Current mailing list headers provide plenty of information to automate that decision on the receiving side, and have for over a decade, especially when listserv IP addresses are included in the data. In my opinion, trying to automate confirmation of opting in with some kind of mailing list extension protocol proposal is something of a non-starter for other reasons too, primarily the installed base problem. Unless you really really want to disenfranchise independent mailing lists because you're a consortium of Big Mailing List Providers and want to make the few remaining independent mailing lists that haven't already migrated to, for instance, google groups, convert. --90e6ba6e820a636ff704a4495975 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 1:17 PM, Alessan= dro Vesely <vesely@t= ana.it> wrote:
On 27/May/11 18:29, John R. Levine wrote:
>>>> 2) do we need a mechanism to alert the receiving MTA that = you have
>>>> subscribed to a mailing list, and all messages should pass= through?
>>
>> Yes, desperately.
>>
>>> Certainly a possible feature, but it seems like it won't s= cale very well.
>>
>> Why not?
>
> If I were a spammer, I would tell the victim's MTA that the victim=
> subscribed, then send the spam.

Bu= t you couldn't do that, as the spammer, because such a feature belongs = in the per-user-database parts of the hypothetical future extended/hybrid M= TA/MDA with the feature. Proper debate on this feature should be about how = to present the feature to the end-user, not on an insecure external wire pr= otocol. Such as, how much reputation does a mailing list need before it get= s to skip the "New mailing list subscription? Click here to approve! F= utur-eMail, relaxing your eyeballs since 2015" kind of end-user approv= al step. =C2=A0Current mailing list headers provide plenty of information t= o automate that decision on the receiving side, and have for over a decade,= especially when listserv IP addresses are included in the data.

In my opinion, trying to automate confirmation of optin= g in with some kind of mailing list extension protocol proposal is somethin= g of a non-starter for other reasons too, primarily the installed base prob= lem. Unless you really really want to disenfranchise independent mailing li= sts because you're a consortium of Big Mailing List Providers and want = to make the few remaining independent mailing lists that haven't alread= y migrated to, for instance, google groups, convert.


--90e6ba6e820a636ff704a4495975-- From johnl@iecc.com Fri May 27 17:03:42 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: asrg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: asrg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 366A2E0677 for ; Fri, 27 May 2011 17:03:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -111.166 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-111.166 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.033, BAYES_00=-2.599, HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI=-4.3, RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED=-4.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fixuiBdnKT5T for ; Fri, 27 May 2011 17:03:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [64.57.183.53]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DFD5E0657 for ; Fri, 27 May 2011 17:03:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 96278 invoked from network); 28 May 2011 00:03:40 -0000 Received: from mail1.iecc.com (64.57.183.56) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 28 May 2011 00:03:40 -0000 Date: 28 May 2011 00:03:18 -0000 Message-ID: <20110528000318.82102.qmail@joyce.lan> From: "John Levine" To: asrg@irtf.org In-Reply-To: <20110527172328.GD6897@chaosreigns.com> Organization: X-Headerized: yes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Asrg] Problems with wildcards in combined IPv4 + IPv6 DNS blacklists 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: Sat, 28 May 2011 00:03:42 -0000 I reread RFC 5782. I don't see any place that it tells people to use the same name for IPv4 and IPv6 DNSBLs. The last paragraph in section 2 says: A single DNSxL could in principle contain both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses, since the different lengths prevent any ambiguity. If a DNSxL is represented using traditional zone files and wildcards, there is no way to specify the length of the name that a wildcard matches, so wildcard names would indeed be ambiguous for DNSxLs served in that fashion. If you think it does tell people to use the same name, please say where, preferably citing page and line numbers. Also, if you're not familiar with the RFC series, some RFCs are standards, most aren't. This one isn't. It says so right at the top. R's, John From hjp-asrg@hjp.at Sat May 28 04:32:50 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: asrg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: asrg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 430A7E06E3 for ; Sat, 28 May 2011 04:32:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.43 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.43 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_AT=0.424, HOST_EQ_AT=0.745] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0E-I20Z6H64s for ; Sat, 28 May 2011 04:32:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zeno.hjp.at (ns1.hjp.at [212.17.106.132]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B3FFE069A for ; Sat, 28 May 2011 04:32:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: by zeno.hjp.at (Postfix, from userid 1000) id D98C94046; Sat, 28 May 2011 13:32:45 +0200 (CEST) Date: Sat, 28 May 2011 13:32:45 +0200 From: "Peter J. Holzer" To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF Message-ID: <20110528113245.GA14865@hjp.at> References: <20110526230633.71465.qmail@joyce.lan> <20110526230118.70019.qmail@joyce.lan> <20110527172328.GD6897@chaosreigns.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="6TrnltStXW4iwmi0" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110527172328.GD6897@chaosreigns.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Subject: Re: [Asrg] Problems with wildcards in combined IPv4 + IPv6 DNS blacklists 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: Sat, 28 May 2011 11:32:50 -0000 --6TrnltStXW4iwmi0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 2011-05-27 13:23:29 -0400, darxus@chaosreigns.com wrote: > On 05/26, John Levine wrote: > > Indeed, but basically nobody serves DNSBLs from servers that use BIND > > style zone files and wildcards, so it's unlikely to be an issue in > > practice. >=20 > The link I included provided examples of where it's a problem in practice: >=20 > https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=3D6484#c25 >=20 > TXT records for: >=20 > 2.6.5.e.5.6.e.f.f.f.9.0.d.1.2.0.5.0.0.0.2.0.0.0.0.0.6.1.1.0.0.2.asn.route= views.org. asn.routeviews.org is documented to map IPv4 addresses to ASNs. No mention of IPv6 addresses. > 2.6.5.e.5.6.e.f.f.f.9.0.d.1.2.0.5.0.0.0.2.0.0.0.0.0.6.1.1.0.0.2.origin.as= n.cymru.com. origin.asn.cymru.com is documented to map an "IP address or prefix" to an ASN. While an "IP address" could be either IPv4 or IPv6, the fact that the examples show only IPv4 and that there is also an origin6.asn.cymru.com for IPv6 addresses is a strong hint that only IPv4 addresses are meant here. Looks like user error in both cases to me. I would agree that both queries should return NXDOMAIN instead of a useless result, though.=20 hp --=20 _ | Peter J. Holzer | Web 2.0 k=F6nnte man also auch =FCbersetzen als |_|_) | Sysadmin WSR | "Netz der kleinen Geister". | | | hjp@hjp.at |=20 __/ | http://www.hjp.at/ | -- Oliver Cromm in desd --6TrnltStXW4iwmi0 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFN4N1dfZ+RkG8quy0RAjMtAJ95NbwlM+S2bEwspCGUBL1ARW8zcQCdGU4e 6STnRkh5U0T/LNY9qYtxavY= =PCtX -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --6TrnltStXW4iwmi0-- From vesely@tana.it Sat May 28 05:28:49 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: asrg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: asrg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5F81E06C1 for ; Sat, 28 May 2011 05:28:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.564 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.564 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.845, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XSBSHT-N7THN for ; Sat, 28 May 2011 05:28:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wmail.tana.it (www.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46CD2E0693 for ; Sat, 28 May 2011 05:28:44 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=test; t=1306585722; bh=IhVVhiCMtjKuqmKHB465jXif20YAIvR3aFH/os0iR54=; l=398; h=Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=JJ7J+IW+0fXvOXILNtccuw9ugCSNIBbP8zKqFyLw3tufoV7eA+O7KGeX5DTSclLW/ PCy1hrigxZ6ttFK+QQX7dVgX2ddPMjzkFpP7ptLiaZtjISNBJq9IxWP4h7lF6A1oF2 hO2SAWJ05wCqlLEvDhBhG6NeOgoCLBnmJfHb5rP4= 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; Sat, 28 May 2011 14:28:42 +0200 id 00000000005DC039.000000004DE0EA7A.00006830 Message-ID: <4DE0EA7A.1040704@tana.it> Date: Sat, 28 May 2011 14:28:42 +0200 From: Alessandro Vesely User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asrg@irtf.org References: <448612F9-882B-4008-9C42-3A95FA1D6A93@wordtothewise.com> <4DDFCC64.8060002@tana.it> <4DDFEA9E.7020200@tana.it> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Asrg] Triple opt-in, was MLMs and signatures again 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: Sat, 28 May 2011 12:28:49 -0000 On 28/May/11 00:20, David Nicol wrote: > In my opinion, trying to automate confirmation of opting in with some > kind of mailing list extension protocol proposal is something of a > non-starter for other reasons too, primarily the installed base > problem. Yes, there is too much inertia. However, complying with EU privacy directives might confer some potential to such kind of protocol. From darxus@chaosreigns.com Sat May 28 08:07:59 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: asrg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: asrg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5A4DE06DC for ; Sat, 28 May 2011 08:07:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.097 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.503, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wvhmfKJu8zBA for ; Sat, 28 May 2011 08:07:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from panic.chaosreigns.com (panic.chaosreigns.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f05:1b8a::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E431E06CA for ; Sat, 28 May 2011 08:07:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: by panic.chaosreigns.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id A0066164D0D; Sat, 28 May 2011 11:07:57 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 28 May 2011 11:07:57 -0400 From: darxus@chaosreigns.com To: asrg@irtf.org Message-ID: <20110528150757.GH6897@chaosreigns.com> References: <20110526230633.71465.qmail@joyce.lan> <20110526230118.70019.qmail@joyce.lan> <20110527172328.GD6897@chaosreigns.com> <20110528113245.GA14865@hjp.at> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110528113245.GA14865@hjp.at> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Subject: Re: [Asrg] Problems with wildcards in combined IPv4 + IPv6 DNS blacklists 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: Sat, 28 May 2011 15:08:00 -0000 On 05/28, Peter J. Holzer wrote: > Looks like user error in both cases to me. I would agree that both > queries should return NXDOMAIN instead of a useless result, though. This problem would not exist if we added something to the middle of the name of the DNS records we queried for v6. Or, less appealing to me but still a solution, specified that different zones should be used for v4 and v6. -- "I don't want people who want to dance, I want people who have to dance." --George Balanchine http://www.ChaosReigns.com From johnl@iecc.com Sat May 28 15:35:02 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: asrg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: asrg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F032E06A8 for ; Sat, 28 May 2011 15:35:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -111.176 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-111.176 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.023, BAYES_00=-2.599, HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI=-4.3, RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED=-4.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Aw9k5DcpGdg8 for ; Sat, 28 May 2011 15:35:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [64.57.183.53]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01E22E0694 for ; Sat, 28 May 2011 15:35:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 83356 invoked from network); 28 May 2011 22:35:01 -0000 Received: from mail1.iecc.com (64.57.183.56) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 28 May 2011 22:35:01 -0000 Date: 28 May 2011 22:34:39 -0000 Message-ID: <20110528223439.37661.qmail@joyce.lan> From: "John Levine" To: asrg@irtf.org In-Reply-To: <20110528150757.GH6897@chaosreigns.com> Organization: X-Headerized: yes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Asrg] Problems with wildcards in combined IPv4 + IPv6 DNS blacklists 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: Sat, 28 May 2011 22:35:02 -0000 >This problem would not exist if we added something to the middle of the >name of the DNS records we queried for v6. Or, less appealing to me but >still a solution, specified that different zones should be used for v4 >and v6. Could you say what, exactly, is keeping you from doing that? R's, John From darxus@chaosreigns.com Sat May 28 15:38:00 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: asrg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: asrg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EA0FE0694 for ; Sat, 28 May 2011 15:38:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.265 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.265 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.335, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VoVl6d2UUWbf for ; Sat, 28 May 2011 15:37:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from panic.chaosreigns.com (panic.chaosreigns.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f05:1b8a::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68E9EE0665 for ; Sat, 28 May 2011 15:37:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: by panic.chaosreigns.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 8B060164D0D; Sat, 28 May 2011 18:37:58 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 28 May 2011 18:37:58 -0400 From: darxus@chaosreigns.com To: asrg@irtf.org Message-ID: <20110528223758.GI6897@chaosreigns.com> References: <20110528150757.GH6897@chaosreigns.com> <20110528223439.37661.qmail@joyce.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110528223439.37661.qmail@joyce.lan> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Subject: Re: [Asrg] Problems with wildcards in combined IPv4 + IPv6 DNS blacklists 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: Sat, 28 May 2011 22:38:00 -0000 On 05/28, John Levine wrote: > >This problem would not exist if we added something to the middle of the > >name of the DNS records we queried for v6. Or, less appealing to me but > >still a solution, specified that different zones should be used for v4 > >and v6. > > Could you say what, exactly, is keeping you from doing that? My interest is primarily related to implementation between spamassassin and existing DNS lists, so some kind of standardization matters. -- "Where are you going and what do you wish?" - The Old Moon, to Winkin' Blinkin' and Nod http://www.ChaosReigns.com From johnl@iecc.com Sat May 28 16:08:12 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: asrg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: asrg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D0B5E071E for ; Sat, 28 May 2011 16:08:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -111.178 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-111.178 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.021, BAYES_00=-2.599, HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI=-4.3, RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED=-4.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jDtjZ6UzlNtc for ; Sat, 28 May 2011 16:08:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [64.57.183.53]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7B8BE06A2 for ; Sat, 28 May 2011 16:08:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 87733 invoked from network); 28 May 2011 23:08:08 -0000 Received: from mail1.iecc.com (64.57.183.56) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 28 May 2011 23:08:08 -0000 Date: 28 May 2011 23:07:45 -0000 Message-ID: <20110528230745.45852.qmail@joyce.lan> From: "John Levine" To: asrg@irtf.org In-Reply-To: <20110528223758.GI6897@chaosreigns.com> Organization: X-Headerized: yes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Asrg] Problems with wildcards in combined IPv4 + IPv6 DNS blacklists 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: Sat, 28 May 2011 23:08:12 -0000 >My interest is primarily related to implementation between spamassassin and >existing DNS lists, so some kind of standardization matters. Both of the lists referred to in the original bug report have separate IPv6 zones. Once again, what exactly it the problem you're asking us to solve? I'm really at a loss to see what's wrong. R's, John From johnl@iecc.com Tue May 31 21:27:41 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: asrg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: asrg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18714E076B for ; Tue, 31 May 2011 21:27:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -109.237 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-109.237 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.962, BAYES_00=-2.599, HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI=-4.3, RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED=-4.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8k9hNzuUuCM5 for ; Tue, 31 May 2011 21:27:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [64.57.183.53]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47A44E075D for ; Tue, 31 May 2011 21:27:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 47607 invoked from network); 1 Jun 2011 04:27:39 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:subject:mime-version:content-type:vbr-info:user-agent:cleverness; s=b9f6.4de5bfbb.k1106; i=johnl@submit.iecc.com; bh=QQLD2ZNZ+x3TCYBIeKNMCwAvMu478xzFGyiwbWbB740=; b=hFMJhTRIU5oa4N7CA2kdiHIFIrt/u+brbNvHDky3/xUmh7UM/lro5sjRpQrYgMXj64l04tqmjlTmJ5FhyLdenfkc9CdfQsM23ptoxCOOvDPx4SV7TLzREfM4VwMBmvMgmZ2TPop+HBeEntHwOechRFURNuKqfEvKIA+XX9cpLHw= VBR-Info: md=iecc.com; mc=all; mv=dwl.spamhaus.org Received: (ofmipd johnl@64.57.183.62) with (DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted) SMTP; 1 Jun 2011 04:27:17 -0000 Date: 1 Jun 2011 00:27:39 -0400 Message-ID: From: "John R. Levine" To: "Anti Spam Research Group" User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23) Cleverness: None detected MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII Subject: [Asrg] Should we meet at IETF 81 in Quebec? 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: Wed, 01 Jun 2011 04:27:41 -0000 For the first time in quite a while I will be going to IETF 81 in July. Is it worth trying to meet? Unless we have something concrete to work on, an informal meeting in the bar might be better since that doesn't take up a precious WG meeting slow. 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 johnl@iecc.com Tue May 31 21:29:46 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: asrg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: asrg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5987FE075D for ; Tue, 31 May 2011 21:29:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -111.18 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-111.18 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.019, BAYES_00=-2.599, HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI=-4.3, RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED=-4.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aVDer67g7911 for ; Tue, 31 May 2011 21:29:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [64.57.183.53]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0CA9E070E for ; Tue, 31 May 2011 21:29:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 47773 invoked from network); 1 Jun 2011 04:29:45 -0000 Received: from mail1.iecc.com (64.57.183.56) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 1 Jun 2011 04:29:45 -0000 Date: 1 Jun 2011 04:29:23 -0000 Message-ID: <20110601042923.10306.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] Should we meet at IETF 81 in Quebec? 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: Wed, 01 Jun 2011 04:29:46 -0000 In article you write: >For the first time in quite a while I will be going to IETF 81 in July. >Is it worth trying to meet? > >Unless we have something concrete to work on, an informal meeting in the >bar might be better since that doesn't take up a precious WG meeting slow. ahem, a precious WG meeting slot. R's, John From dhc@dcrocker.net Tue May 31 23:04:59 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: asrg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: asrg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3716FE0697 for ; Tue, 31 May 2011 23:04:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.572 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.572 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.026, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id j2wOJvpZsnVP for ; Tue, 31 May 2011 23:04:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F4A5E0662 for ; Tue, 31 May 2011 23:04:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.3] (adsl-67-127-56-68.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net [67.127.56.68]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p5164YSN032331 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 31 May 2011 23:04:49 -0700 References: <20110601042923.10306.qmail@joyce.lan> User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android In-Reply-To: <20110601042923.10306.qmail@joyce.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----9SDPGIR9Y8TEFI956MRWJL3XIHLUV2" From: Dave Crocker Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 23:04:31 -0700 To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF , asrg@irtf.org Message-ID: X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]); Tue, 31 May 2011 23:04:56 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [Asrg] Should we meet at IETF 81 in Quebec? 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: Wed, 01 Jun 2011 06:04:59 -0000 ------9SDPGIR9Y8TEFI956MRWJL3XIHLUV2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit if there isn't much to talk about, it will probably seem pretty slow... d/ -- Dave Crocker bbiw.net John Levine wrote: In article you write: >For the first time in quite a while I will be going to IETF 81 in July. >Is it worth trying to meet? > >Unless we have something concrete to work on, an informal meeting in the >bar might be better since that doesn't take up a precious WG meeting slow. ahem, a precious WG meeting slot. R's, John _____________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@irtf.org http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg ------9SDPGIR9Y8TEFI956MRWJL3XIHLUV2 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit if there isn't much to talk about, it will probably seem pretty slow...

d/
--
Dave Crocker
bbiw.net

John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
In article <alpine.BSF.2.00.1106010026200.7875@joyce.lan> you write:
>For the first time in quite a while I will be going to IETF 81 in July. 
>Is it worth trying to meet?
>
>Unless we have something concrete to work on, an informal meeting in the 
>bar might be better since that doesn't take up a precious WG meeting slow.

ahem, a precious WG meeting slot.

R's,
John

Asrg mailing list
Asrg@irtf.org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg
------9SDPGIR9Y8TEFI956MRWJL3XIHLUV2--