From vesely@tana.it Sun Oct 17 07:38:34 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: domainrep@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: domainrep@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B17E3A6AF6 for ; Sun, 17 Oct 2010 07:38:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.636 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.636 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.517, BAYES_50=0.001, GB_I_LETTER=-2, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uULILz1XFjUs for ; Sun, 17 Oct 2010 07:38:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wmail.tana.it (www.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0987B3A6A5E for ; Sun, 17 Oct 2010 07:38:28 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=tana.it; s=test; t=1287326390; bh=VbO2HOedBIldEcxaDBJ65G3kDOYC8HtH4bJc77Vq5jw=; l=3608; h=Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=gKFB9AMAk9O/XivhiJVRcV0QpW+EdU3sxkYlwzhf1L1Ocn3iQhT6Sy7RsmFEeauAR coZnh9PsP+Nu5w3+QycEvfM3TLjlMRWZzxFGuQEEhdov66icBa2hD00zc+iTguDCkY juMbnot/mEDoizXlLeqzNEngxm/SQF9Jk8uwDqwk= 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; Sun, 17 Oct 2010 16:39:50 +0200 id 00000000005DC039.000000004CBB0AB6.00004F47 Message-ID: <4CBB0AB6.8080907@tana.it> Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 16:39:50 +0200 From: Alessandro Vesely User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.9) Gecko/20100915 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: domainrep@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [domainrep] Reinventing opt-in, message streams, reputation as abidance X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 14:38:34 -0000 Hi all, I wonder if this issue may be part of domainrep, as an intermediate step toward collaborative domain reputation tracking. As concisely as I can, the issue is as follows: To modify usual opt-in mechanisms so as collect and share evidence about subscription requests. This revised opt-in mechanism is to be standardized and applies equally well to mailing lists, newsletters, and bulk email of any kind. The rationale should be self evident, especially considering that opt-in is mandatory in some countries --how can it ever be enforced if accuseds can only produce their own word? More reasons below, including why opt-in may be relevant for domain reputation. *message streams* List Domain Signing Practices have been aired on the DKIM mailing list, hypothesizing possible relationships between the domain in List-Id or List-Post header fields and the d= tag. Perhaps, that idea has to be revised, as newsletters don't often sport List-* fields. I think we agree that it is fairly easy to mechanically identify whether a message belongs to a given message stream. For opt-in purposes, we need a statement that identifies a given list with a specific message stream. *why would MLMs change their behavior*? This opt-in revision provides a receipt that a sender can use to respond to any charge of illicit sending, including abuse reports. Perhaps, this is more of a relief for newsletters than mailing lists proper. By cooperating with target MTAs, mailing lists can provide a better user experience, e.g. by avoiding vacation messages, easier delivery to specific folders and whitelisting. Reasons why subscribers or MLMs may want to keep subscription data as secret as possible may originate from fear of discrimination, or commercial competition concerns. Divulging data to reputation trackers is not strictly necessary, in case such issues cannot be overcome. *reputation as abidance* A receipt --the evidence that a user opted in-- is a very interesting piece of data. Adding them up results in the number of subscribers. Weighting that with the number of dubious deliveries can lead to determining a fairly good reputation measure, ranging 0 to 1 as Nathaniel said it should. What is a dubious delivery (DD)? Obviously, a delivery of a message that belongs to a list stream that the recipient hasn't subscribed to. DDs can be detected by MDAs even with no human intervention: That's what makes the resulting measure fairly good. At 100% adoption it would be exact. Note that a sender doesn't have to be scored 1.0 to be whitelisted. A reasonable amount of "auto-subscriptions" can be tolerated, and users may be required to confirm them within a few DDs. Bad guys can game such systems by creating huge sets of fake subscribers, so that real DDs always weight low in comparison. However, each ADMD can track its own partial view of reputation, and possibly exchange it with others in its network of trust, as already discussed on this list. A rater can tell apart the good from the bad by monitoring automated feedback loops. *conclusions* Thus far, I've only spelled some requirements: ADMD's mail servers should be involved in certifying a user's subscription. We don't need a Global Mailing Lists Registry, but having some trusted raters would be a Good Thing (TM). Implementation could be as simple as signing subscription requests and adding some CCs, or provide for a full blown subscription management protocol. Would this fly? From macfisherman@gmail.com Tue Oct 19 06:21:09 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: domainrep@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: domainrep@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA7F83A680D for ; Tue, 19 Oct 2010 06:21:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.256 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.256 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.657, BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_I_LETTER=-2] 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 tmfvu-4nwJxY for ; Tue, 19 Oct 2010 06:21:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ew0-f44.google.com (mail-ew0-f44.google.com [209.85.215.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A4293A67F8 for ; Tue, 19 Oct 2010 06:21:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: by ewy6 with SMTP id 6so1571851ewy.31 for ; Tue, 19 Oct 2010 06:22:33 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=ZQGIZUPEuhb0Rtsx1ab9ab5FducwN0EOh/Xud2BaHww=; b=F2q5lXRt3itVCyS3tZ9svRUpo8s2LiQ54E9i5xoqevaAn4Xn9I5TAVHtlM3ty7uL2d 50toMojqUyedQx65FmgQDklNO58Uol8sbL6he2I5vcJ2WJM6y13XAbymqddYD4XOo/v9 SfVLDf0fisicZojaBZ2SQZlTLZoFGyioZVrqs= 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=WSh8j/KpbXFvwqaxVXQ2Yyz2t8Yi92FXKbD7SP8aTJNHnQgTHYTADbs1ReEigA6YXt fJUG920n+YcaUGkkD+cc3oatReoErHB6XTv7OZE6n7Q2NF+7YyNZDvJnZjax8ctx7Cy3 4btXUpqSNILMDH+MOeFR0fwbE0V5civSS55lw= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.213.27.132 with SMTP id i4mr1504226ebc.43.1287494552815; Tue, 19 Oct 2010 06:22:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.213.10.131 with HTTP; Tue, 19 Oct 2010 06:22:32 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4CBB0AB6.8080907@tana.it> References: <4CBB0AB6.8080907@tana.it> Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 09:22:32 -0400 Message-ID: From: Jeff Macdonald To: domainrep@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [domainrep] Reinventing opt-in, message streams, reputation as abidance X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 13:21:09 -0000 On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 10:39 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote: > Hi all, > I wonder if this issue may be part of domainrep, as an intermediate step > toward collaborative domain reputation tracking. =A0As concisely as I can= , the > issue is as follows: > > =A0To modify usual opt-in mechanisms so as collect and share > =A0evidence about subscription requests. =A0This revised opt-in > =A0mechanism is to be standardized and applies equally well > =A0to mailing lists, newsletters, and bulk email of any kind. > > The rationale should be self evident, especially considering that opt-in = is > mandatory in some countries --how can it ever be enforced if accuseds can > only produce their own word? =A0More reasons below, including why opt-in = may > be relevant for domain reputation. > > *message streams* > List Domain Signing Practices have been aired on the DKIM mailing list, > hypothesizing possible relationships between the domain in List-Id or > List-Post header fields and the d=3D tag. =A0Perhaps, that idea has to be > revised, as newsletters don't often sport List-* fields. > > I think we agree that it is fairly easy to mechanically identify whether = a > message belongs to a given message stream. =A0For opt-in purposes, we nee= d a > statement that identifies a given list with a specific message stream. Doesn't a DKIM domain identifier do just that? And to recognize opt-in, couldn't receiving systems allow those identifiers to just be added to the recipients 'safe list'? I don't think it is necessary to identify what the message stream type is. I think it is good enough to say if it is wanted or not, with an unknown stream being treated as neutral. --=20 Jeff Macdonald Ayer, MA From vesely@tana.it Tue Oct 19 08:04:37 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: domainrep@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: domainrep@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D2963A682A for ; Tue, 19 Oct 2010 08:04:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.962 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.962 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.757, 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 ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id q6JAeby1N52z for ; Tue, 19 Oct 2010 08:04:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wmail.tana.it (www.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D9CF3A6814 for ; Tue, 19 Oct 2010 08:04:29 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=tana.it; s=test; t=1287499654; bh=1a1Kj1PtUh3hnaO0EApZZQtpX+cX2SOHUiZtmplX2to=; l=1624; h=Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=Dbb+xI4xZlRBl08ALvNvzQq/S/yrb+L3FhfWMxYdZcBJQpjwo5H2T6P7YSL+xFlMy jV8GSNhbHa++yU0Cvsw9aI43rltgHtKtaBP1UQ90GdS5BkFQI/V/ifSO2JK5CsIfmg qIz/c7a3HYGD5poq1gdev65KY26qrwgbo/lswY1g= 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; Tue, 19 Oct 2010 16:47:34 +0200 id 00000000005DC035.000000004CBDAF86.00007D5E Message-ID: <4CBDAF85.6000201@tana.it> Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 16:47:33 +0200 From: Alessandro Vesely User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.9) Gecko/20100915 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: domainrep@ietf.org References: <4CBB0AB6.8080907@tana.it> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [domainrep] Reinventing opt-in, message streams, reputation as abidance X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 15:04:37 -0000 On 19/Oct/10 15:22, Jeff Macdonald wrote: > On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 10:39 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote: >> *message streams* >> List Domain Signing Practices have been aired on the DKIM mailing list, >> hypothesizing possible relationships between the domain in List-Id or >> List-Post header fields and the d= tag. Perhaps, that idea has to be >> revised, as newsletters don't often sport List-* fields. >> >> I think we agree that it is fairly easy to mechanically identify whether a >> message belongs to a given message stream. For opt-in purposes, we need a >> statement that identifies a given list with a specific message stream. > > > > Doesn't a DKIM domain identifier do just that? No, for example, I get d=mipassoc.org for all of their lists. > And to recognize opt-in, couldn't receiving systems allow those > identifiers to just be added to the recipients 'safe list'? Yes, but asking users to manually allow an identifier every time they subscribe to a list does not yield much. What if gmail (or other mailbox provider) provided a web form for you to confirm subscriptions to external lists? That form would also let users specify what (existing or new) folder they'd like the corresponding stream messages to land at, all with a single click. > I don't think it is necessary to identify what the message stream type > is. I think it is good enough to say if it is wanted or not, with an > unknown stream being treated as neutral. You either subscribed to a list or you didn't. There is no such thing as a neutral subscription. From macfisherman@gmail.com Tue Oct 19 12:42:02 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: domainrep@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: domainrep@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0E943A6929 for ; Tue, 19 Oct 2010 12:42:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.244 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.244 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.645, BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_I_LETTER=-2] 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 JrFMwVQ4REsd for ; Tue, 19 Oct 2010 12:41:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ew0-f44.google.com (mail-ew0-f44.google.com [209.85.215.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4B0B3A6946 for ; Tue, 19 Oct 2010 12:39:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: by ewy6 with SMTP id 6so1952611ewy.31 for ; Tue, 19 Oct 2010 12:40:40 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=I0nsj7ZPjhzGwxiBryRy3TwCBrel3BS+o2opf7ElRSU=; b=WrbAoJ4hp3i+OjZQREAwaVuQAH4cRRDEUHux6pPKSlVgePhY27z6itcg3+RCwFH63U WrlcP8cbbNNztzKpzb6apIUJBlh3xG62IEN45srCOA1jVVMl5ZIHQFCay0nWgdozZTtR BkhQqItVrM2F9/8iOGMESaS19ADTmRU+dyYak= 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=Gnmk4OtLG10fr/pONtpzWGGY2PizSRvja0BFvARApwcry3yIcttdNvCuJhTUBrHYMw mnUxwdRLqrN3dz3JTddrJxWCu6h1aZ8K/bgJ4OwAlvSrHxnqUU/rvTHGvsjAoBtAkc6/ 2Wrx0ifmqoOwSf4BmT0CPMoITWl6cS9O6EibM= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.213.17.138 with SMTP id s10mr804029eba.84.1287517240768; Tue, 19 Oct 2010 12:40:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.213.10.131 with HTTP; Tue, 19 Oct 2010 12:40:40 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4CBDAF85.6000201@tana.it> References: <4CBB0AB6.8080907@tana.it> <4CBDAF85.6000201@tana.it> Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 15:40:40 -0400 Message-ID: From: Jeff Macdonald To: domainrep@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [domainrep] Reinventing opt-in, message streams, reputation as abidance X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 19:42:03 -0000 On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 10:47 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote: > On 19/Oct/10 15:22, Jeff Macdonald wrote: >> >> On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 10:39 AM, Alessandro Vesely >> =A0wrote: >>> >>> =A0*message streams* >>> =A0List Domain Signing Practices have been aired on the DKIM mailing li= st, >>> =A0hypothesizing possible relationships between the domain in List-Id o= r >>> =A0List-Post header fields and the d=3D tag. =A0Perhaps, that idea has = to be >>> =A0revised, as newsletters don't often sport List-* fields. >>> >>> =A0I think we agree that it is fairly easy to mechanically identify whe= ther >>> a >>> =A0message belongs to a given message stream. =A0For opt-in purposes, w= e need >>> a >>> =A0statement that identifies a given list with a specific message strea= m. >> >> >> >> Doesn't a DKIM domain identifier do just that? > > No, for example, I get d=3Dmipassoc.org for all of their lists. Ah, so, that is a configuration issue that Dave should fix. ;) >> And to recognize opt-in, couldn't receiving systems allow those >> identifiers to just be added to the recipients 'safe list'? > > Yes, but asking users to manually allow an identifier every time they > subscribe to a list does not yield much. So users do an 'add to address book' which in many implementations is the same as adding to the 'safe list'. Adding an attribute for the DKIM domain is just an extension of that. Opt-in is recorded at the receiver side. > What if gmail (or other mailbox > provider) provided a web form for you to confirm subscriptions to externa= l > lists? That seems to me to be just a roundabout way of doing 'add to address book'= . >=A0That form would also let users specify what (existing or new) folder > they'd like the corresponding stream messages to land at, all with a sing= le > click. I think that is a bit out of scope, but yes, I'd love a web based email provider to provide the same functionality of my procmail recipes of the past. >> I don't think it is necessary to identify what the message stream type >> is. I think it is good enough to say if it is wanted or not, with an >> unknown stream being treated as neutral. > > You either subscribed to a list or you didn't. =A0There is no such thing = as a > neutral subscription. Email streams are not limited to mailing lists, but yes, in the case of lists I agree with you. As a side note, I find that using just d=3D for web/free mail providers provides no value. Here having i=3D be populated with the Author address if the hosting provider is willing to vouch for it may be of value. Just thinking out loud here. --=20 Jeff Macdonald Ayer, MA From vesely@tana.it Wed Oct 20 03:45:26 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: domainrep@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: domainrep@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C4663A68A2 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 2010 03:45:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.974 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.974 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.745, 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 ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0bc5CMxQQJ2l for ; Wed, 20 Oct 2010 03:45:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wmail.tana.it (wmail.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A53C3A63C9 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 2010 03:45:24 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=tana.it; s=test; t=1287571616; bh=liO6V6bqvh1NW28lCD3vxFNENFj+JuGDM0E0wm6CcNQ=; l=3624; h=Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=U4LZpXy1z7Mk4l1JlJ63pNqRlAnnbwtwbgaR+qTt1XfV3Two3cTP2xDY/aNsXuyMX u35D9phs7gGM8FfZ79XE3A6U4kYiVXi6wyRd4De7Go8/yHNj4Wa0MnikHSxVCj5ghY chac0VOD4h4s3Y4DFqEb73/OIb6UG24jqLAz7+iY= 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; Wed, 20 Oct 2010 12:46:56 +0200 id 00000000005DC035.000000004CBEC8A0.000031E9 Message-ID: <4CBEC8A0.5000401@tana.it> Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 12:46:56 +0200 From: Alessandro Vesely User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.9) Gecko/20100915 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: domainrep@ietf.org References: <4CBB0AB6.8080907@tana.it> <4CBDAF85.6000201@tana.it> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [domainrep] Reinventing opt-in, message streams, reputation as abidance X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 10:45:26 -0000 On 19/Oct/10 21:40, Jeff Macdonald wrote: > On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 10:47 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote: >> On 19/Oct/10 15:22, Jeff Macdonald wrote: >>> And to recognize opt-in, couldn't receiving systems allow those >>> identifiers to just be added to the recipients 'safe list'? >> >> Yes, but asking users to manually allow an identifier every time they >> subscribe to a list does not yield much. > > So users do an 'add to address book' which in many implementations is > the same as adding to the 'safe list'. Adding an attribute for the > DKIM domain is just an extension of that. Opt-in is recorded at the > receiver side. As good as it may be, whitelisting by address book is limited by some facts: * local idiosyncrasies are possible, as it is not standardized, * users not always add senders to an address book, specially for newsletters, and * even when they do, they don't do it synchronously with the confirmation, so that some messages may get through in between. >> What if gmail (or other mailbox provider) provided a web form for >> you to confirm subscriptions to external lists? > > That seems to me to be just a roundabout way of doing 'add to > address book'. Except that the limitations above can be overcome. Since users would run that dialog /instead of/ confirming their subscriptions at the sender's, they would have to do it every time they subscribe to a list. Mailbox providers would then take care of forwarding each confirmation to the relevant sender. >> That form would also let users specify what (existing or new) >> folder they'd like the corresponding stream messages to land at, >> all with a single click. > > I think that is a bit out of scope, but yes, I'd love a web based > email provider to provide the same functionality of my procmail > recipes of the past. Yes, it's out of scope. That extra functionality is just the kind of sugar that may make indirect subscriptions appealing. >>> I don't think it is necessary to identify what the message stream type >>> is. I think it is good enough to say if it is wanted or not, with an >>> unknown stream being treated as neutral. >> >> You either subscribed to a list or you didn't. There is no such thing as a >> neutral subscription. > > Email streams are not limited to mailing lists, but yes, in the case > of lists I agree with you. Except for any added sugar, for mailing lists it would be pretty useless to verify subscriptions the way I'm proposing. Instead, most of the people I've talked to are quite skeptical about the handling of mail addresses they (have to) give to commercial newsletters. Although justified by a number of cases, that skepticism is possibly unfair toward honest organizations or ESPs. While initiatives like Project Honey Pot tend to highlight the bad guys, verified opt-ins would contribute positive reputation to signers of honestly managed newsletters. I think this proposal should not aim at affecting deliverability in any way. It is just to compute domain reputation. > As a side note, I find that using just d= for web/free mail providers > provides no value. Here having i= be populated with the Author address > if the hosting provider is willing to vouch for it may be of value. > Just thinking out loud here. OTOH, signing the "From" header field they substantially convey the same information. Although i= could be good to identify lists, List-Id or List-Post look much clearer. In retrospect, maybe i= could have been avoided altogether. From macfisherman@gmail.com Thu Oct 21 06:47:03 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: domainrep@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: domainrep@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A91C73A68FB for ; Thu, 21 Oct 2010 06:47:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.232 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.232 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.633, 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 fHx8FbTKfyQN for ; Thu, 21 Oct 2010 06:47:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ey0-f172.google.com (mail-ey0-f172.google.com [209.85.215.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87C433A698B for ; Thu, 21 Oct 2010 06:47:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: by eyd10 with SMTP id 10so62385eyd.31 for ; Thu, 21 Oct 2010 06:48:37 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=l63wi+a2LpxwouIuoR3rZwEeJNOlD87Xsdbbj3KBE0Y=; b=VuIEV/+8AcaiF6nME2Vz++I7djBpuTsjABlMXoIJS+9Uiw8CldWEzmOgG1YUltPWeD XpUxTw5aYzcBVGKCF2JKFKHz33XLyYpABDBR2Qy6+liSACn1mthWdbKE20OH+0wcahIN NF/ml5h1p7os3HharyWQ7D5kD7axOz9SMyZMA= 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=RBKFJmkMox2Ct6z7w6aCPN5PSV5SjeCoD/LCcB6oRT6X75g+vRQwqA75iziiP/hMIs wf1gwCgno2VJwHBkpD+W2w4vmTWPgZutsahatLkm1af1f8up33RSmdG93oE0UtF0aZiQ N2qKdSIm/kmBjzXuAyYWTgC3djuZaQHZi3Ivg= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.213.108.70 with SMTP id e6mr1714152ebp.6.1287668916611; Thu, 21 Oct 2010 06:48:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.213.10.131 with HTTP; Thu, 21 Oct 2010 06:48:36 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4CBEC8A0.5000401@tana.it> References: <4CBB0AB6.8080907@tana.it> <4CBDAF85.6000201@tana.it> <4CBEC8A0.5000401@tana.it> Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 09:48:36 -0400 Message-ID: From: Jeff Macdonald To: domainrep@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [domainrep] Reinventing opt-in, message streams, reputation as abidance X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 13:47:03 -0000 On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 6:46 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote: >> I wrote: >> As a side note, I find that using just d=3D for web/free mail providers >> provides no value. Here having i=3D be populated with the Author address >> if the hosting provider is willing to vouch for it may be of value. >> Just thinking out loud here. > > OTOH, signing the "From" header field they substantially convey the same > information. =A0Although i=3D could be good to identify lists, List-Id or > List-Post look much clearer. =A0In retrospect, maybe i=3D could have been > avoided altogether. By having a signer provide more data in i=3D, it could provide an indication that the signer has done more due diligence. By having the i=3D be the From, the domain owner could be asserting that in addition of taking responsibility for the message, the domain owner has confidence in the Author. It is of course up to the receiving system if such information is worth anything. The alternative is to have free mail providers not sign messages for Authors of unknown quality. i=3D is suppose to be opaque. So we don't really know if it is tied to an Author. But it does provide a 'stream' within a 'river' (where d=3D is the river) if you know what I mean. --=20 Jeff Macdonald Ayer, MA From jdfalk-lists@cybernothing.org Thu Oct 21 07:55:54 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: domainrep@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: domainrep@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB9E73A6A2F for ; Thu, 21 Oct 2010 07:55:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.666 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.666 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.033, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_BSP_OTHER=-0.1, 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 2j8zN0ArpgKM for ; Thu, 21 Oct 2010 07:55:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ocelope.disgruntled.net (ocelope.disgruntled.net [97.107.131.76]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CD9C3A6A2C for ; Thu, 21 Oct 2010 07:55:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.0.3.57] (np34.co.returnpath.net [38.109.196.34]) (authenticated bits=0) by ocelope.disgruntled.net (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-5+lenny1) with ESMTP id o9LEvQ3s010988 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for ; Thu, 21 Oct 2010 07:57:27 -0700 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081) From: "J.D. Falk" In-Reply-To: <4CBB0AB6.8080907@tana.it> Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 08:57:20 -0600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <43EC470E-AA6F-449C-B38B-C7FE800DB07F@cybernothing.org> References: <4CBB0AB6.8080907@tana.it> To: domainrep@ietf.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081) Subject: Re: [domainrep] Reinventing opt-in, message streams, reputation as abidance X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 14:55:55 -0000 On Oct 17, 2010, at 8:39 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote: > Would this fly? I've seen similar ideas before, but they've never gone anywhere. That's = not to say this can't, just...it's a big project, requiring a lot of = changes to all types of MUAs and all types of MLMs. I'd urge you to attempt it as an interoperability project with some open = source (or proprietary) implementations, and work the bugs out that way = before proposing it as a standard. In any case, I don't think it fits into DOMAINREP just yet -- DOMAINREP = will be complex and busy enough by itself. From vesely@tana.it Fri Oct 22 12:18:19 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: domainrep@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: domainrep@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B740E3A6905 for ; Fri, 22 Oct 2010 12:18:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.022 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.022 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.303, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id J9RMkY-IKK6l for ; Fri, 22 Oct 2010 12:18:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wmail.tana.it (www.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7B373A6952 for ; Fri, 22 Oct 2010 12:18:17 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=tana.it; s=test; t=1287775194; bh=DlAKj5NZ7Hl6u7M8Nn/PVjO3eNopetgq7MQcJPskiVA=; l=2194; h=Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=HpGmWP5lIP9Dr/lRs333lNMG7yR9wJhbGMTn2R5laPizkNnxF2IH7XOiqTykN9JGr 9XRCTqlyVZiWVroqXwvMjYGU7SMgKZ1nJtXPVtgCz9CaMWMqn/ll1b7M7a/PLQ5PHi FqabetKW3h8scWMOuybjg/s6Hd2M/562bPBpDx20= 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, 22 Oct 2010 21:19:54 +0200 id 00000000005DC039.000000004CC1E3DA.00004051 Message-ID: <4CC1E3DA.90908@tana.it> Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 21:19:54 +0200 From: Alessandro Vesely User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.9) Gecko/20100915 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: domainrep@ietf.org References: <4CBB0AB6.8080907@tana.it> <43EC470E-AA6F-449C-B38B-C7FE800DB07F@cybernothing.org> In-Reply-To: <43EC470E-AA6F-449C-B38B-C7FE800DB07F@cybernothing.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [domainrep] Reinventing opt-in, message streams, reputation as abidance X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 19:18:19 -0000 On 21/Oct/10 16:57, J.D. Falk wrote: > On Oct 17, 2010, at 8:39 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote: >> Would this fly? > > I've seen similar ideas before, but they've never gone anywhere. > That's not to say this can't, just...it's a big project, requiring > a lot of changes to all types of MUAs and all types of MLMs. No changes are needed on MUAs, as they don't recognize COI, AFAIK. MLMs and other COI implementations would require changes, though. > I'd urge you to attempt it as an interoperability project with some > open source (or proprietary) implementations, and work the bugs out > that way before proposing it as a standard. Thank you for this injection of realness. However, some foregoing paperwork is necessary in order to build a working prototype for an interoperable 3-way COI. In particular, a bulk sender needs some means to contact the relevant domain's mail server. For example, when it gets a subscription request from user@example.com it has to learn whether example.com can either do the confirmation with their user on its behalf and then report the result, or if it shall do the confirmation as usual and then possibly send a notification to the domain. Would it make sense to send notifications to postmaster@example.com, assuming they should be interested --like some do with abuse@ for ARF? Then, I would need at least one mailing list (or other bulk sender) as well as some mail domains with users that might subscribe to that list(s). Perhaps, I should send an appeal seeking for participants to the experiment... Any hint? > In any case, I don't think it fits into DOMAINREP just yet -- > DOMAINREP will be complex and busy enough by itself. Do you mean using this list to discuss the prototype, or working at a draft when the prototype will work and domainrep will be a WG? In either case, this triple opt-in has no other relevant outcome than computing good reputation values for domains that make use of email marketing. (Are there conspicuous domains that don't do it?) So, I think I'd have a hard time making sense of it out of here. Would it be possible to make a sub-list/sub-group? From tony@att.com Sun Oct 24 18:21:37 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: domainrep@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: domainrep@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 320523A6767 for ; Sun, 24 Oct 2010 18:21:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.406 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.406 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.193, 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 hkQ0yFJfm2Sv for ; Sun, 24 Oct 2010 18:21:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail146.messagelabs.com (mail146.messagelabs.com [216.82.241.147]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D05543A677D for ; Sun, 24 Oct 2010 18:21:35 -0700 (PDT) X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: tony@att.com X-Msg-Ref: server-13.tower-146.messagelabs.com!1287969798!16420923!1 X-StarScan-Version: 6.2.4; banners=-,-,- X-Originating-IP: [144.160.20.146] Received: (qmail 20037 invoked from network); 25 Oct 2010 01:23:18 -0000 Received: from sbcsmtp7.sbc.com (HELO mlpd194.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) (144.160.20.146) by server-13.tower-146.messagelabs.com with DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 25 Oct 2010 01:23:18 -0000 Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlpd194.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id o9P1Mfie026444 for ; Sun, 24 Oct 2010 21:22:41 -0400 Received: from klpd017.kcdc.att.com (klpd017.kcdc.att.com [135.188.40.86]) by mlpd194.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id o9P1MaaW026427 for ; Sun, 24 Oct 2010 21:22:37 -0400 Received: from kcdc.att.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by klpd017.kcdc.att.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id o9P1NDQK027156 for ; Sun, 24 Oct 2010 20:23:13 -0500 Received: from mailgw1.maillennium.att.com (dns.maillennium.att.com [135.25.114.99]) by klpd017.kcdc.att.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id o9P1NCk2027141 for ; Sun, 24 Oct 2010 20:23:12 -0500 Received: from [135.70.41.75] (vpn-135-70-41-75.vpn.west.att.com[135.70.41.75]) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with ESMTP id <20101025012311gw100ei17ee> (Authid: tony); Mon, 25 Oct 2010 01:23:11 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [135.70.41.75] Message-ID: <4CC4DBFD.8030200@att.com> Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 21:23:09 -0400 From: Tony Hansen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9.1.7) Gecko/20100111 Thunderbird/3.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "domainrep@ietf.org" References: <4CBB0AB6.8080907@tana.it> <4CBDAF85.6000201@tana.it> <4CBEC8A0.5000401@tana.it> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [domainrep] Reinventing opt-in, message streams, reputation as abidance X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 01:21:37 -0000 On 10/21/2010 9:48 AM, Jeff Macdonald wrote: > By having a signer provide more data in i=, it could provide an > indication that the signer has done more due diligence. By having the > i= be the From, the domain owner could be asserting that in addition > of taking responsibility for the message, the domain owner has > confidence in the Author. > > It is of course up to the receiving system if such information is > worth anything. The alternative is to have free mail providers not > sign messages for Authors of unknown quality. > > i= is suppose to be opaque. So we don't really know if it is tied to > an Author. But it does provide a 'stream' within a 'river' (where d= > is the river) if you know what I mean I've felt for a while that we needed an extension to the DKIM key records that allowed a domain to express how it generates i= values, that is, to shine some light into that opaqueness. This would be a purely optional field that would allow a domain to say, for example, that it uses author's email address identities in the i= field that it has verified through its authentication processes. But the idea is not limited there, as a domain could state that it uses some other unique identity that's tied to the author's authenticated identity. Thoughts? Tony Hansen tony@att.com From johnl@iecc.com Sun Oct 24 21:09:39 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: domainrep@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: domainrep@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31D233A692C for ; Sun, 24 Oct 2010 21:09:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -109.523 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-109.523 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.676, 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 qbdnaYbQIcSj for ; Sun, 24 Oct 2010 21:09:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [64.57.183.53]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C34E3A6814 for ; Sun, 24 Oct 2010 21:09:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 14233 invoked from network); 25 Oct 2010 04:11:20 -0000 Received: from mail1.iecc.com (64.57.183.56) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 25 Oct 2010 04:11:20 -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=k1010; olt=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=p6c2csTLvU2Z7+KfgqdjzB/0YxmuK2IC/w/SM3hhcSc=; b=kT6UIMkbxRutpIXK/eyjz54X9SNYnCSL+S0YUSUjMikThsMLm66piSxDsgGp5mj9eVvrcAUqMjyxzdi1UF2fNKtnOMlNAKNJFXmbYLUIt7DLrPRdG4EIWUDcQH8OhzEqErTvbyHJKVZF/2DmwGzwq6Pci3W56ALHSjOp5lAhFOk= VBR-Info: md=iecc.com; mc=all; mv=dwl.spamhaus.org Date: 25 Oct 2010 04:11:20 -0000 Message-ID: <20101025041120.27703.qmail@joyce.lan> From: John Levine To: domainrep@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <4CC4DBFD.8030200@att.com> Organization: X-Headerized: yes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [domainrep] Reinventing opt-in, message streams, reputation as abidance X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 04:09:39 -0000 >This would be a purely optional field that would allow a domain to say, >for example, that it uses author's email address identities in the i= >field that it has verified through its authentication processes. I'm trying to figure out what problem this solves. "Yeah, we send a lot of spam, but it all has a real return address"! R's, John From tony@att.com Mon Oct 25 05:27:05 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: domainrep@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: domainrep@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59C603A6838 for ; Mon, 25 Oct 2010 05:27:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.409 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.409 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.190, 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 U2Oa-yKPNHzR for ; Mon, 25 Oct 2010 05:27:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail161.messagelabs.com (mail161.messagelabs.com [216.82.253.115]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7973B3A67EC for ; Mon, 25 Oct 2010 05:27:04 -0700 (PDT) X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: tony@att.com X-Msg-Ref: server-2.tower-161.messagelabs.com!1288009728!32252326!1 X-StarScan-Version: 6.2.4; banners=-,-,- X-Originating-IP: [144.160.20.145] Received: (qmail 11255 invoked from network); 25 Oct 2010 12:28:48 -0000 Received: from sbcsmtp6.sbc.com (HELO mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) (144.160.20.145) by server-2.tower-161.messagelabs.com with DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 25 Oct 2010 12:28:48 -0000 Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id o9PCT5Pg010827 for ; Mon, 25 Oct 2010 08:29:05 -0400 Received: from alpd052.aldc.att.com (alpd052.aldc.att.com [130.8.42.31]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id o9PCT0QL010673 for ; Mon, 25 Oct 2010 08:29:00 -0400 Received: from aldc.att.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by alpd052.aldc.att.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id o9PCSgrt028466 for ; Mon, 25 Oct 2010 08:28:42 -0400 Received: from dns.maillennium.att.com (dns.maillennium.att.com [135.25.114.99]) by alpd052.aldc.att.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id o9PCSam8028199 for ; Mon, 25 Oct 2010 08:28:36 -0400 Received: from [135.70.41.75] (vpn-135-70-41-75.vpn.west.att.com[135.70.41.75]) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with ESMTP id <20101025122835gw100ei17ne> (Authid: tony); Mon, 25 Oct 2010 12:28:35 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [135.70.41.75] Message-ID: <4CC577F2.5070907@att.com> Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 08:28:34 -0400 From: Tony Hansen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9.1.7) Gecko/20100111 Thunderbird/3.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John Levine References: <20101025041120.27703.qmail@joyce.lan> In-Reply-To: <20101025041120.27703.qmail@joyce.lan> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: domainrep@ietf.org Subject: Re: [domainrep] Reinventing opt-in, message streams, reputation as abidance X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 12:27:05 -0000 On 10/25/2010 12:11 AM, John Levine wrote: >> This would be a purely optional field that would allow a domain to say, >> for example, that it uses author's email address identities in the i= >> field that it has verified through its authentication processes. >> > I'm trying to figure out what problem this solves. > > "Yeah, we send a lot of spam, but it all has a real return address"! > Right now the value in the localpart of the i= value is totally opaque. Right now you can't say anything about the reputation of the localpart identifier in i= because you don't know anything about the policy of the sender when creating it. This would allow the sender to state their generating policy, and the verifier to take advantage of it. I feel that it can strengthen the white list uses of DKIM. Tony Hansen From johnl@iecc.com Mon Oct 25 07:25:34 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: domainrep@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: domainrep@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 521203A688C for ; Mon, 25 Oct 2010 07:25:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -109.534 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-109.534 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.665, 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 P6mggUJZdsnW for ; Mon, 25 Oct 2010 07:25:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [64.57.183.53]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF6DB3A6864 for ; Mon, 25 Oct 2010 07:25:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 22673 invoked from network); 25 Oct 2010 14:27:17 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:vbr-info:user-agent:cleverness; s=k1010; bh=5c4gtKLiEtqt9oN9TR4eX1GuArM8J/W1h0DV6UYPwhs=; b=JT7oC3zokq6OJER8FWhSPDf6eZ0j2zfFvcvwMkp2iOglkjJ64OkMFXrshZmilrGA35S25RQbs9qXVtIBNf5K99CvtuCxHw8GRU3qT/YI6T23Kl9XiBE1vkknCmDe3EVS59CPRZSmn2/M6czXBfZ0qB/dTn+nbwy2jYj0ankwWxM= VBR-Info: md=iecc.com; mc=all; mv=dwl.spamhaus.org Received: (ofmipd 64.57.183.62) with (DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted) SMTP; 25 Oct 2010 14:26:55 -0000 Date: 25 Oct 2010 10:27:16 -0400 Message-ID: From: "John R. Levine" To: "Tony Hansen" In-Reply-To: <4CC577F2.5070907@att.com> References: <20101025041120.27703.qmail@joyce.lan> <4CC577F2.5070907@att.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23) Cleverness: None detected MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: domainrep@ietf.org Subject: Re: [domainrep] Reinventing opt-in, message streams, reputation as abidance X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 14:25:34 -0000 >> "Yeah, we send a lot of spam, but it all has a real return address"! >> > Right now the value in the localpart of the i= value is totally opaque. > Right now you can't say anything about the reputation of the localpart > identifier in i= because you don't know anything about the policy of the > sender when creating it. > This would allow the sender to state their generating policy, and the > verifier to take advantage of it. > I feel that it can strengthen the white list uses of DKIM. Can you offer some examples? It still seems to me that by the time you know that you believe a signer's rule for constructing the i= value, you probably want to whitelist all his mail anyway. Conversely, if the i= really indicates that there are multiple mail streams, why wouldn't it be better for him to use different d= domains? 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 msk@cloudmark.com Mon Oct 25 14:44:57 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: domainrep@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: domainrep@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 794933A6868 for ; Mon, 25 Oct 2010 14:44:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.400, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 KOdoMSEjGBU0 for ; Mon, 25 Oct 2010 14:44:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.35]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB9193A680F for ; Mon, 25 Oct 2010 14:44:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.1.74]) by malice.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.10.71]) with mapi; Mon, 25 Oct 2010 14:46:42 -0700 From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: "domainrep@ietf.org" Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 14:46:40 -0700 Thread-Topic: [domainrep] First pass at reputons and the like Thread-Index: ActZ02BVWHk4OTsTS2yC5OH9Lh9WPwaujrlw Message-ID: References: <20100901100245.17034.qmail@joyce.lan> <9D6F28EE-5D4C-4E4C-A738-4A750D909A97@guppylake.com> <4C9768FA.8040001@cs.tcd.ie> <4C985E98.9030007@tana.it> <7FCB9999-1723-4548-B67C-9E19E28B9754@cybernothing.org> In-Reply-To: <7FCB9999-1723-4548-B67C-9E19E28B9754@cybernothing.org> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-cr-hashedpuzzle: ALxv B+7q CSjm C+dA DUu6 DtgK E0PT FD4I FLgX FOq5 F8Z2 IBJe Ilm8 ImFf I+t6 JMbl; 1; ZABvAG0AYQBpAG4AcgBlAHAAQABpAGUAdABmAC4AbwByAGcA; Sosha1_v1; 7; {A5F1791C-58A3-47A9-A2FB-042F193F5034}; bQBzAGsAQABjAGwAbwB1AGQAbQBhAHIAawAuAGMAbwBtAA==; Mon, 25 Oct 2010 21:46:40 GMT; UgBFADoAIABbAGQAbwBtAGEAaQBuAHIAZQBwAF0AIABGAGkAcgBzAHQAIABwAGEAcwBzACAAYQB0ACAAcgBlAHAAdQB0AG8AbgBzACAAYQBuAGQAIAB0AGgAZQAgAGwAaQBrAGUA x-cr-puzzleid: {A5F1791C-58A3-47A9-A2FB-042F193F5034} acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [domainrep] First pass at reputons and the like X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 21:44:57 -0000 Does anyone disagree with me that we appear to have a workable starting poi= nt and enough interest to begin the work of writing a WG charter? From dotis@mail-abuse.org Mon Oct 25 14:45:50 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: domainrep@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: domainrep@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A85953A680F for ; Mon, 25 Oct 2010 14:45:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.349 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.349 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.250, 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 XbeyFlUltSy8 for ; Mon, 25 Oct 2010 14:45:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from harry.mail-abuse.org (harry.mail-abuse.org [168.61.5.27]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1C413A68D7 for ; Mon, 25 Oct 2010 14:45:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sjc-office-nat-210.mail-abuse.org (gateway1.sjc.mail-abuse.org [168.61.5.81]) by harry.mail-abuse.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E10DDA94447 for ; Mon, 25 Oct 2010 21:47:22 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4CC5FAEE.3010305@mail-abuse.org> Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 14:47:26 -0700 From: Douglas Otis User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.11) Gecko/20101013 Thunderbird/3.1.5 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: domainrep@ietf.org References: <20101025041120.27703.qmail@joyce.lan> <4CC577F2.5070907@att.com> In-Reply-To: <4CC577F2.5070907@att.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [domainrep] Reinventing opt-in, message streams, reputation as abidance X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 21:45:50 -0000 On 10/25/10 5:28 AM, Tony Hansen wrote: > On 10/25/2010 12:11 AM, John Levine wrote: >>> This would be a purely optional field that would allow a domain to say, >>> for example, that it uses author's email address identities in the i= >>> field that it has verified through its authentication processes. >> I'm trying to figure out what problem this solves. >> >> "Yeah, we send a lot of spam, but it all has a real return address"! > Right now the value in the localpart of the i= value is totally opaque. > Right now you can't say anything about the reputation of the localpart > identifier in i= because you don't know anything about the policy of > the sender when creating it. > This would allow the sender to state their generating policy, and the > verifier to take advantage of it. > I feel that it can strengthen the white list uses of DKIM. Currently, many of the larger domains have a significant number of compromised accounts issuing messages through their servers. Transient opaque identifiers could be used to indicate that this identifier is useful to the sender for identifying potentially problematic accounts, without this field reflecting any specific email-address. Adopting a u= parameter for such use might be more appropriate. The i= is currently defined to match against the Author Domain email-address in ADSP, and to identify the on-behalf-of identity for the signature. This value might be opaque, or it might not be. It would seem better to have an identifier specifically defined to be opaque. Just consider the problems related to FB with their "opaque identifiers" that consistently mapped to personally identifiable information. Using this type of trace mechanism for email would be valuable, but it must be done with great care. -Doug From jdfalk-lists@cybernothing.org Tue Oct 26 16:53:49 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: domainrep@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: domainrep@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D67E3A6899 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 16:53:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.537 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.537 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.062, 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 rPjFL0nt156u for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 16:53:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ocelope.disgruntled.net (ocelope.disgruntled.net [97.107.131.76]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 655F33A686E for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 16:53:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.11.41] (c-67-180-233-98.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [67.180.233.98]) (authenticated bits=0) by ocelope.disgruntled.net (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-5+lenny1) with ESMTP id o9QNtMre020785 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 16:55:24 -0700 X-DKIM: Sendmail DKIM Filter v2.6.0 ocelope.disgruntled.net o9QNtMre020785 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cybernothing.org; s=triac; t=1288137325; bh=0iGj7Jw6P4mVcFCANdBa7H7M+Qi2iClcMJZ6aXJC9 88=; h=Content-Type:Mime-Version:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-Id:References:To; b=FU6qxw0fMPy2 rQFDWDPIGdYMtAQZPV7p9pLFPV5s4KqkDEkdWnNQ0LUfuiffCRKrtwUTaIgroIOjTVB kZ4c7Pc34UC3KkHjttphHpMyOvY4P9Y2BACzP1rlo2Ak5m5oUsIj2AlBahLTfBIglYM lfkOjpLSmFlvg5TIRZDXdeUCg= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081) From: "J.D. Falk" In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 16:55:22 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <84591877-C8E4-4EFA-A22A-61D250F74152@cybernothing.org> References: <20100901100245.17034.qmail@joyce.lan> <9D6F28EE-5D4C-4E4C-A738-4A750D909A97@guppylake.com> <4C9768FA.8040001@cs.tcd.ie> <4C985E98.9030007@tana.it> <7FCB9999-1723-4548-B67C-9E19E28B9754@cybernothing.org> To: domainrep@ietf.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081) Subject: Re: [domainrep] First pass at reputons and the like X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 23:53:49 -0000 On Oct 25, 2010, at 2:46 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > Does anyone disagree with me that we appear to have a workable = starting point and enough interest to begin the work of writing a WG = charter? Does this deafening silence indicate a consensus to continue, or general = disinterest? From stpeter@stpeter.im Tue Oct 26 17:00:54 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: domainrep@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: domainrep@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B82A3A6879 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 17:00:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.568 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.568 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.031, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 Kj-tKjqrKHQd for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 17:00:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from stpeter.im (stpeter.im [207.210.219.233]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A38F83A686E for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 17:00:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from squire.local (dsl-179-124.dynamic-dsl.frii.net [216.17.179.124]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8461840D1E; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 18:10:37 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <4CC76C1C.5020009@stpeter.im> Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 18:02:36 -0600 From: Peter Saint-Andre User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; en-US; rv:1.9.2.11) Gecko/20101013 Thunderbird/3.1.5 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "J.D. Falk" References: <20100901100245.17034.qmail@joyce.lan> <9D6F28EE-5D4C-4E4C-A738-4A750D909A97@guppylake.com> <4C9768FA.8040001@cs.tcd.ie> <4C985E98.9030007@tana.it> <7FCB9999-1723-4548-B67C-9E19E28B9754@cybernothing.org> <84591877-C8E4-4EFA-A22A-61D250F74152@cybernothing.org> In-Reply-To: <84591877-C8E4-4EFA-A22A-61D250F74152@cybernothing.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1 OpenPGP: url=http://www.saint-andre.com/me/stpeter.asc Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1; boundary="------------ms090304010505090500070706" Cc: domainrep@ietf.org Subject: Re: [domainrep] First pass at reputons and the like X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 00:00:54 -0000 This is a cryptographically signed message in MIME format. --------------ms090304010505090500070706 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 10/26/10 5:55 PM, J.D. Falk wrote: > On Oct 25, 2010, at 2:46 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >=20 >> Does anyone disagree with me that we appear to have a workable startin= g point and enough interest to begin the work of writing a WG charter? >=20 > Does this deafening silence indicate a consensus to continue, or genera= l disinterest? On my part, it indicates that I have too many mailing lists to monitor. I'm interested, and hope to catch up before IETF 79. Peter --=20 Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ --------------ms090304010505090500070706 Content-Type: application/pkcs7-signature; name="smime.p7s" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="smime.p7s" Content-Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature MIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAqCAMIACAQExCzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAMIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAQAAoIITzjCC BjQwggQcoAMCAQICASMwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQELBQAwfTELMAkGA1UEBhMCSUwxFjAUBgNVBAoT DVN0YXJ0Q29tIEx0ZC4xKzApBgNVBAsTIlNlY3VyZSBEaWdpdGFsIENlcnRpZmljYXRlIFNp Z25pbmcxKTAnBgNVBAMTIFN0YXJ0Q29tIENlcnRpZmljYXRpb24gQXV0aG9yaXR5MB4XDTA3 MTAyNDIxMDMzM1oXDTE3MTAyNDIxMDMzM1owgYwxCzAJBgNVBAYTAklMMRYwFAYDVQQKEw1T dGFydENvbSBMdGQuMSswKQYDVQQLEyJTZWN1cmUgRGlnaXRhbCBDZXJ0aWZpY2F0ZSBTaWdu aW5nMTgwNgYDVQQDEy9TdGFydENvbSBDbGFzcyAzIFByaW1hcnkgSW50ZXJtZWRpYXRlIENs aWVudCBDQTCCASIwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEBBQADggEPADCCAQoCggEBALmjSW4SPiDKlAinvVeL ZOVfItiuP1aRHL530E7QUc9icCwL33+PH+Js1HAh8CgWFl34sOxx1FJyS/C4VLPRsqDfP72j tzCVUAL0DAxZ7wgzQvFz7x61jGxfhYhqYb1+PPOLkYBbkRIrPMg3dLEdKmXIYJYXDH+mB/V/ jLo73/Kb7h/rNoNg/oHHSv5Jolyvp5IY2btfcTBfW/telEFj5rDTX2juTvZ3Qhf3XQX5ca3Q 7A10zrUV/cWJOJ7F5RltbEIaboZmX5JBUb3FhUiAdBotehAX6DbDOuYoJtVxmGof6GuVGcPo 98K4TJf8FHo+UA9EOVDp/W7fCqKT4sXk/XkCAwEAAaOCAa0wggGpMA8GA1UdEwEB/wQFMAMB Af8wDgYDVR0PAQH/BAQDAgEGMB0GA1UdDgQWBBR7iZySlyShhEcCy3T8LvSs3DLl8zAfBgNV HSMEGDAWgBROC+8apEBbpRdphzDKNGhD0EGu8jBmBggrBgEFBQcBAQRaMFgwJwYIKwYBBQUH MAGGG2h0dHA6Ly9vY3NwLnN0YXJ0c3NsLmNvbS9jYTAtBggrBgEFBQcwAoYhaHR0cDovL3d3 dy5zdGFydHNzbC5jb20vc2ZzY2EuY3J0MFsGA1UdHwRUMFIwJ6AloCOGIWh0dHA6Ly93d3cu c3RhcnRzc2wuY29tL3Nmc2NhLmNybDAnoCWgI4YhaHR0cDovL2NybC5zdGFydHNzbC5jb20v c2ZzY2EuY3JsMIGABgNVHSAEeTB3MHUGCysGAQQBgbU3AQIBMGYwLgYIKwYBBQUHAgEWImh0 dHA6Ly93d3cuc3RhcnRzc2wuY29tL3BvbGljeS5wZGYwNAYIKwYBBQUHAgEWKGh0dHA6Ly93 d3cuc3RhcnRzc2wuY29tL2ludGVybWVkaWF0ZS5wZGYwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQELBQADggIBAGpd SbdLFMhirxK37V4gE00+uW74UdAXtDgQI3AsRZWtaRtKHgAxFBSteqz4kDkeAjH/1b+K8tQR 6cxSI2nho7qOaPW/UpzOfSS/MeKK/9vfM2lfs+uItXH7LWtvS9wD1erfH1a+BXHCrCp4LA1l fADDhRIiGTSS3i0Zu5xV3INNRHrCCCl6patltQ8RZTqzDMri7ombgIxjN51Zo7xV77EZcThV 0GA8iIN+7T53uHhUJpjfLIztHs/69OclRvHux9hCflfOm7GY5Sc4nqjfES+5XPArGGWiQSEk ez37QfXqsxO3oCHK4b3DFZysG4uyOuC/WL80ab3muQ3tgwjBhq0D3JZN5kvu5gSuNZPa1WrV hEgXkd6C7s5stqB6/htVpshG08jRz9DEutGM9oKQ1ncTivbfPNx7pILoHWvvT7N5i/puVoNu bPUmLXh/2wA6wzAzuuoONiIL14Xpw6jLSnqpaLWElo2yTIFZ/CU/nCvvpW1Dj1457P3Ci9bD 0RPkWSR+CuucpgxrEmaw4UOLxflzuYYaq1RJwygOO5K0s2bAWOcXpgteyUOnQ3d/EjJAWRri 2v0ubiq+4H3KUOMlbznlPAY/1T8YyyJPM88+Ueahe/AW1zoUwZayNcTnuM7cq6yBV8Wr3GOI LFXhtT0UVuJLChPMJKVKVsa7qNorlLkMMIIGxzCCBa+gAwIBAgICAIswDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEF BQAwgYwxCzAJBgNVBAYTAklMMRYwFAYDVQQKEw1TdGFydENvbSBMdGQuMSswKQYDVQQLEyJT ZWN1cmUgRGlnaXRhbCBDZXJ0aWZpY2F0ZSBTaWduaW5nMTgwNgYDVQQDEy9TdGFydENvbSBD bGFzcyAzIFByaW1hcnkgSW50ZXJtZWRpYXRlIENsaWVudCBDQTAeFw0xMDEwMTQwMTM2MzRa Fw0xMjEwMTQxMjAxMDdaMIHAMSAwHgYDVQQNExcyNzQ1ODEtOU5YMDRxeExEYjBvNDY5VDEL MAkGA1UEBhMCVVMxETAPBgNVBAgTCENvbG9yYWRvMQ8wDQYDVQQHEwZEZW52ZXIxLDAqBgNV BAsTI1N0YXJ0Q29tIFRydXN0ZWQgQ2VydGlmaWNhdGUgTWVtYmVyMRowGAYDVQQDExFQZXRl ciBTYWludC1BbmRyZTEhMB8GCSqGSIb3DQEJARYSc3RwZXRlckBzdHBldGVyLmltMIIBIjAN BgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEAuERvnrkpQTx9wbJfgxbNKEYvt0IilecZRUM6 wrbCzIUPCocuYhaAJcQoqIyHaKybPQ7f+DIGIAolAa3dHnNdlsXP2smTft/ZNpj10PIG5bil NAqLUYwmLJaEaqY7BMW8423U3blW43/luLJk/Pq4OsWcw7AK3LeVh1U/HOgqhin26N3h72X1 nbLEpZFrgcp8egmWtXLCbLBDMqUK3j6wjLldni79muzYEVqU0A5GqSeb8Wc4kIx8VI5yL24J KzinG2iVRP5ZDEbOZETzBXJabUsV56XSxqPG9DK6ke+ybCiL/wKV1HFqdtFB1y25lfvHgOP2 gyEApBKEDNjgLmKyyQIDAQABo4IC+zCCAvcwCQYDVR0TBAIwADALBgNVHQ8EBAMCBLAwHQYD VR0lBBYwFAYIKwYBBQUHAwIGCCsGAQUFBwMEMB0GA1UdDgQWBBS2EW2iNB+g0EibKJLBdv8I eLovVDAfBgNVHSMEGDAWgBR7iZySlyShhEcCy3T8LvSs3DLl8zAdBgNVHREEFjAUgRJzdHBl dGVyQHN0cGV0ZXIuaW0wggFCBgNVHSAEggE5MIIBNTCCATEGCysGAQQBgbU3AQICMIIBIDAu BggrBgEFBQcCARYiaHR0cDovL3d3dy5zdGFydHNzbC5jb20vcG9saWN5LnBkZjA0BggrBgEF BQcCARYoaHR0cDovL3d3dy5zdGFydHNzbC5jb20vaW50ZXJtZWRpYXRlLnBkZjCBtwYIKwYB BQUHAgIwgaowFBYNU3RhcnRDb20gTHRkLjADAgEBGoGRTGltaXRlZCBMaWFiaWxpdHksIHNl ZSBzZWN0aW9uICpMZWdhbCBMaW1pdGF0aW9ucyogb2YgdGhlIFN0YXJ0Q29tIENlcnRpZmlj YXRpb24gQXV0aG9yaXR5IFBvbGljeSBhdmFpbGFibGUgYXQgaHR0cDovL3d3dy5zdGFydHNz bC5jb20vcG9saWN5LnBkZjBjBgNVHR8EXDBaMCugKaAnhiVodHRwOi8vd3d3LnN0YXJ0c3Ns LmNvbS9jcnR1My1jcmwuY3JsMCugKaAnhiVodHRwOi8vY3JsLnN0YXJ0c3NsLmNvbS9jcnR1 My1jcmwuY3JsMIGOBggrBgEFBQcBAQSBgTB/MDkGCCsGAQUFBzABhi1odHRwOi8vb2NzcC5z dGFydHNzbC5jb20vc3ViL2NsYXNzMy9jbGllbnQvY2EwQgYIKwYBBQUHMAKGNmh0dHA6Ly93 d3cuc3RhcnRzc2wuY29tL2NlcnRzL3N1Yi5jbGFzczMuY2xpZW50LmNhLmNydDAjBgNVHRIE HDAahhhodHRwOi8vd3d3LnN0YXJ0c3NsLmNvbS8wDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQADggEBADVtbXJG tKAr55xc/OUM546gXUybI72Bank0w739Mv+9BBNtq9rMEvCnLmSKhBi76c1mdXh6zXs8RQDo 6nR/aPabE3llF2T4z80smi9jfnl3y9dpu9TcgDoqDLZ7a2lBlW656XAAQzHjvLp2MC7/mxlg PYH2axa+q40mAYM20GbNsAEGbWQT1IqIh0BcLLsgbaMJHbyG/57zd9JLyMX3Vry1L1fJRQr3 GeLxMV5RtxN+mBgxrwFz/cOc09COiFExlsHgekpB5O43gqsAU16MXypyoSt4MrSfKTMHIGx6 2RF/M6vqUlvhi28gk2ZUvQ/+OX5+gjcZyooEzAAn4RuOKNswggbHMIIFr6ADAgECAgIAizAN BgkqhkiG9w0BAQUFADCBjDELMAkGA1UEBhMCSUwxFjAUBgNVBAoTDVN0YXJ0Q29tIEx0ZC4x KzApBgNVBAsTIlNlY3VyZSBEaWdpdGFsIENlcnRpZmljYXRlIFNpZ25pbmcxODA2BgNVBAMT L1N0YXJ0Q29tIENsYXNzIDMgUHJpbWFyeSBJbnRlcm1lZGlhdGUgQ2xpZW50IENBMB4XDTEw MTAxNDAxMzYzNFoXDTEyMTAxNDEyMDEwN1owgcAxIDAeBgNVBA0TFzI3NDU4MS05TlgwNHF4 TERiMG80NjlUMQswCQYDVQQGEwJVUzERMA8GA1UECBMIQ29sb3JhZG8xDzANBgNVBAcTBkRl bnZlcjEsMCoGA1UECxMjU3RhcnRDb20gVHJ1c3RlZCBDZXJ0aWZpY2F0ZSBNZW1iZXIxGjAY BgNVBAMTEVBldGVyIFNhaW50LUFuZHJlMSEwHwYJKoZIhvcNAQkBFhJzdHBldGVyQHN0cGV0 ZXIuaW0wggEiMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUAA4IBDwAwggEKAoIBAQC4RG+euSlBPH3Bsl+DFs0o Ri+3QiKV5xlFQzrCtsLMhQ8Khy5iFoAlxCiojIdorJs9Dt/4MgYgCiUBrd0ec12Wxc/ayZN+ 39k2mPXQ8gbluKU0CotRjCYsloRqpjsExbzjbdTduVbjf+W4smT8+rg6xZzDsArct5WHVT8c 6CqGKfbo3eHvZfWdssSlkWuBynx6CZa1csJssEMypQrePrCMuV2eLv2a7NgRWpTQDkapJ5vx ZziQjHxUjnIvbgkrOKcbaJVE/lkMRs5kRPMFclptSxXnpdLGo8b0MrqR77JsKIv/ApXUcWp2 0UHXLbmV+8eA4/aDIQCkEoQM2OAuYrLJAgMBAAGjggL7MIIC9zAJBgNVHRMEAjAAMAsGA1Ud DwQEAwIEsDAdBgNVHSUEFjAUBggrBgEFBQcDAgYIKwYBBQUHAwQwHQYDVR0OBBYEFLYRbaI0 H6DQSJsoksF2/wh4ui9UMB8GA1UdIwQYMBaAFHuJnJKXJKGERwLLdPwu9KzcMuXzMB0GA1Ud EQQWMBSBEnN0cGV0ZXJAc3RwZXRlci5pbTCCAUIGA1UdIASCATkwggE1MIIBMQYLKwYBBAGB tTcBAgIwggEgMC4GCCsGAQUFBwIBFiJodHRwOi8vd3d3LnN0YXJ0c3NsLmNvbS9wb2xpY3ku cGRmMDQGCCsGAQUFBwIBFihodHRwOi8vd3d3LnN0YXJ0c3NsLmNvbS9pbnRlcm1lZGlhdGUu cGRmMIG3BggrBgEFBQcCAjCBqjAUFg1TdGFydENvbSBMdGQuMAMCAQEagZFMaW1pdGVkIExp YWJpbGl0eSwgc2VlIHNlY3Rpb24gKkxlZ2FsIExpbWl0YXRpb25zKiBvZiB0aGUgU3RhcnRD b20gQ2VydGlmaWNhdGlvbiBBdXRob3JpdHkgUG9saWN5IGF2YWlsYWJsZSBhdCBodHRwOi8v d3d3LnN0YXJ0c3NsLmNvbS9wb2xpY3kucGRmMGMGA1UdHwRcMFowK6ApoCeGJWh0dHA6Ly93 d3cuc3RhcnRzc2wuY29tL2NydHUzLWNybC5jcmwwK6ApoCeGJWh0dHA6Ly9jcmwuc3RhcnRz c2wuY29tL2NydHUzLWNybC5jcmwwgY4GCCsGAQUFBwEBBIGBMH8wOQYIKwYBBQUHMAGGLWh0 dHA6Ly9vY3NwLnN0YXJ0c3NsLmNvbS9zdWIvY2xhc3MzL2NsaWVudC9jYTBCBggrBgEFBQcw AoY2aHR0cDovL3d3dy5zdGFydHNzbC5jb20vY2VydHMvc3ViLmNsYXNzMy5jbGllbnQuY2Eu Y3J0MCMGA1UdEgQcMBqGGGh0dHA6Ly93d3cuc3RhcnRzc2wuY29tLzANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQUF AAOCAQEANW1tcka0oCvnnFz85QznjqBdTJsjvYFqeTTDvf0y/70EE22r2swS8KcuZIqEGLvp zWZ1eHrNezxFAOjqdH9o9psTeWUXZPjPzSyaL2N+eXfL12m71NyAOioMtntraUGVbrnpcABD MeO8unYwLv+bGWA9gfZrFr6rjSYBgzbQZs2wAQZtZBPUioiHQFwsuyBtowkdvIb/nvN30kvI xfdWvLUvV8lFCvcZ4vExXlG3E36YGDGvAXP9w5zT0I6IUTGWweB6SkHk7jeCqwBTXoxfKnKh K3gytJ8pMwcgbHrZEX8zq+pSW+GLbyCTZlS9D/45fn6CNxnKigTMACfhG44o2zGCA80wggPJ AgEBMIGTMIGMMQswCQYDVQQGEwJJTDEWMBQGA1UEChMNU3RhcnRDb20gTHRkLjErMCkGA1UE CxMiU2VjdXJlIERpZ2l0YWwgQ2VydGlmaWNhdGUgU2lnbmluZzE4MDYGA1UEAxMvU3RhcnRD b20gQ2xhc3MgMyBQcmltYXJ5IEludGVybWVkaWF0ZSBDbGllbnQgQ0ECAgCLMAkGBSsOAwIa BQCgggIOMBgGCSqGSIb3DQEJAzELBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHAYJKoZIhvcNAQkFMQ8XDTEwMTAy NzAwMDIzNlowIwYJKoZIhvcNAQkEMRYEFIdKV3dURBnClwxarjuoTBiKVpq4MF8GCSqGSIb3 DQEJDzFSMFAwCwYJYIZIAWUDBAECMAoGCCqGSIb3DQMHMA4GCCqGSIb3DQMCAgIAgDANBggq hkiG9w0DAgIBQDAHBgUrDgMCBzANBggqhkiG9w0DAgIBKDCBpAYJKwYBBAGCNxAEMYGWMIGT MIGMMQswCQYDVQQGEwJJTDEWMBQGA1UEChMNU3RhcnRDb20gTHRkLjErMCkGA1UECxMiU2Vj dXJlIERpZ2l0YWwgQ2VydGlmaWNhdGUgU2lnbmluZzE4MDYGA1UEAxMvU3RhcnRDb20gQ2xh c3MgMyBQcmltYXJ5IEludGVybWVkaWF0ZSBDbGllbnQgQ0ECAgCLMIGmBgsqhkiG9w0BCRAC CzGBlqCBkzCBjDELMAkGA1UEBhMCSUwxFjAUBgNVBAoTDVN0YXJ0Q29tIEx0ZC4xKzApBgNV BAsTIlNlY3VyZSBEaWdpdGFsIENlcnRpZmljYXRlIFNpZ25pbmcxODA2BgNVBAMTL1N0YXJ0 Q29tIENsYXNzIDMgUHJpbWFyeSBJbnRlcm1lZGlhdGUgQ2xpZW50IENBAgIAizANBgkqhkiG 9w0BAQEFAASCAQBtJp1/eSCzBuahZ9j8Ngu3R/JOQHCiFk6cKjuGWz5A5SAWHcCvj5/VnFix Y91C/xcD0OUXJFtEQvpTyFTGfgNpgbo4f3yHjisxP+jtwcwkl3XF8Teks+DYW5JsyNWdPK30 tmVnrvVFgFYHQcgAfDNNb0SCLLyDmxTrCsT0lA3H13mMUe1/bhM/NKTB+7A7+Ow7TDsOwNf+ Rjk1c89vnFPe2SsAwkHaN4guqtUzbZWb1dDpvxfb/rzgkDLu2aMzG9gJIsAIPEWefA4VmG54 JJtN20uynvqrsUyBTgZ9tPcOIo7+JPmi6rs15ZjTWjH/JKCDbOko4wk1X93BGLytA1AtAAAA AAAA --------------ms090304010505090500070706-- From fergdawgster@gmail.com Tue Oct 26 17:07:27 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: domainrep@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: domainrep@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA06F3A6836 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 17:07:27 -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 O25uZUZHFuon for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 17:07:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-iw0-f172.google.com (mail-iw0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 883FF3A682E for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 17:07:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: by iwn40 with SMTP id 40so77463iwn.31 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 17:09:13 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=i4OaEqpN11iXJZ3mEsKQ2tAOUuld0iGW6Q08Mz0jNnU=; b=GYhna6AcYjtmNIn83UCpDyOW0m96sWbDuagTVKiW0CAJ9QpSE0iVlWfyTubuBCTCiI 3SBjAs/RveZ+hD891uHDg/mE2YMNmGwy/WLbk6wNO/S9dqxbm42Ll6VS1BvUqBg0io4i rcT0WQoRO1eYeMnuiOYUvxA8nJ4YD2DrQSn2U= 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 :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=Dc4mZiSwA7yfosZDGhaTcP3wRtUxdWtAma3sODjp6ZSTREFemHibrDHOWwOCD9aN14 QG4RjqMT9Xk2CoOM2H497eKmjNrRhoHDVIxnj0rdfvKa1XU2wyQIGOaROSzDT1MaZ0AL olEMripsmrfskkOdNVY7O/yDjxGCDwquQ2sPQ= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.42.179.130 with SMTP id bq2mr3348001icb.427.1288138153789; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 17:09:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.42.190.138 with HTTP; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 17:09:13 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <84591877-C8E4-4EFA-A22A-61D250F74152@cybernothing.org> References: <20100901100245.17034.qmail@joyce.lan> <9D6F28EE-5D4C-4E4C-A738-4A750D909A97@guppylake.com> <4C9768FA.8040001@cs.tcd.ie> <4C985E98.9030007@tana.it> <7FCB9999-1723-4548-B67C-9E19E28B9754@cybernothing.org> <84591877-C8E4-4EFA-A22A-61D250F74152@cybernothing.org> Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 17:09:13 -0700 Message-ID: From: Paul Ferguson To: "J.D. Falk" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: domainrep@ietf.org Subject: Re: [domainrep] First pass at reputons and the like X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 00:07:28 -0000 On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 4:55 PM, J.D. Falk wrote: > On Oct 25, 2010, at 2:46 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > >> Does anyone disagree with me that we appear to have a workable starting = point and enough interest to begin the work of writing a WG charter? > > Does this deafening silence indicate a consensus to continue, or general = disinterest? > "Deafening silence" from me is due to the focus of this discussion almost exclusively with regards to "domain reputation" with regards to e-mail -related issues -- which I am not interested in. When the discussion shifts to include "domain reputation" with regards to a domain's historical record with regard to criminal or malicious activity, then I will crawl back out from under my rock. :-) - ferg --=20 "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson =A0Engineering Architecture for the Internet =A0fergdawgster(at)gmail.com =A0ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/ From msk@cloudmark.com Tue Oct 26 20:55:40 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: domainrep@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: domainrep@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DA473A6983 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 20:55:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.004 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.004 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.405, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 qjx0YtgopM6N for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 20:55:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.35]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9015B3A6980 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 20:55:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.1.74]) by malice.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.10.71]) with mapi; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 20:57:27 -0700 From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: "domainrep@ietf.org" Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 20:57:26 -0700 Thread-Topic: [domainrep] First pass at reputons and the like Thread-Index: Act1azMrxp+dAKsyS3ynBMloYnrWogAH7Qdg Message-ID: References: <20100901100245.17034.qmail@joyce.lan> <9D6F28EE-5D4C-4E4C-A738-4A750D909A97@guppylake.com> <4C9768FA.8040001@cs.tcd.ie> <4C985E98.9030007@tana.it> <7FCB9999-1723-4548-B67C-9E19E28B9754@cybernothing.org> <84591877-C8E4-4EFA-A22A-61D250F74152@cybernothing.org> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [domainrep] First pass at reputons and the like X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 03:55:40 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: domainrep-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:domainrep-bounces@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Paul Ferguson > Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 5:09 PM > To: J.D. Falk > Cc: domainrep@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [domainrep] First pass at reputons and the like >=20 > "Deafening silence" from me is due to the focus of this discussion > almost exclusively with regards to "domain reputation" with regards to > e-mail -related issues -- which I am not interested in. >=20 > When the discussion shifts to include "domain reputation" with regards > to a domain's historical record with regard to criminal or malicious > activity, then I will crawl back out from under my rock. :-) It's clear from the most recent proposals that the focus so far has not bee= n on email, but on the idea of being able to express reputation, in a stand= ard way, about just about anything. The examples presented include mail do= mains, URLs, even baseball players. I thought this was cleared up when we talked in Washington. From fergdawgster@gmail.com Tue Oct 26 21:11:12 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: domainrep@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: domainrep@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 343873A698C for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 21:11:12 -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 lLApgt6MT5Eg for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 21:10:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-iw0-f172.google.com (mail-iw0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88BE73A6981 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 21:10:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: by iwn40 with SMTP id 40so300697iwn.31 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 21:12:45 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=0omN0TpzA9VSKQE6N3N5/ZkrTzu4mgIrCb1NMghSQBU=; b=CKdfW7Zgif5Y5aTwO1eCpcUYmfHMG6N9jVe7v8j692mxb+Zhu0L7/P0YO1rQEv4Nip qSL3FNi2j1HmY+zlrDtuOCClCeAcBCFGboo4G7OplcKZuy7wAnTINfLP9MX+uGAnoaE0 NsRgciSjObt16qt2ckp42rP7H8HVHo1P2gJ8w= 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 :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=p5pqfwk9rPgexVepad4LHadVb6Ib65H+IQkSj8nk41Dk8QaRhxTKdZJhyL2xtzdrQG 3jsObAa4cpmBSVguK0lY+KmACLps+/MOCiWTh73dmNBIlevC59M8Zs9Sb0qfJjUHLUfA THM9V7+x+wz9UkpOoEIpdX9GWKwpC3Pu2qbv0= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.42.228.68 with SMTP id jd4mr1030975icb.68.1288152764466; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 21:12:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.42.190.138 with HTTP; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 21:12:44 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20100901100245.17034.qmail@joyce.lan> <9D6F28EE-5D4C-4E4C-A738-4A750D909A97@guppylake.com> <4C9768FA.8040001@cs.tcd.ie> <4C985E98.9030007@tana.it> <7FCB9999-1723-4548-B67C-9E19E28B9754@cybernothing.org> <84591877-C8E4-4EFA-A22A-61D250F74152@cybernothing.org> Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 21:12:44 -0700 Message-ID: From: Paul Ferguson To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: "domainrep@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [domainrep] First pass at reputons and the like X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 04:11:12 -0000 On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 8:57 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wr= ote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: domainrep-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:domainrep-bounces@ietf.org] On >> Behalf Of Paul Ferguson >> Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 5:09 PM >> To: J.D. Falk >> Cc: domainrep@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: [domainrep] First pass at reputons and the like >> >> "Deafening silence" from me is due to the focus of this discussion >> almost exclusively with regards to "domain reputation" with regards to >> e-mail -related issues -- which I am not interested in. >> >> When the discussion shifts to include "domain reputation" with regards >> to a domain's historical record with regard to criminal or malicious >> activity, then I will crawl back out from under my rock. :-) > > It's clear from the most recent proposals that the focus so far has not b= een on email, but on the idea of being able to express reputation, in a sta= ndard way, about just about anything. =A0The examples presented include mai= l domains, URLs, even baseball players. > > I thought this was cleared up when we talked in Washington. Hi Murray, Well, I think there is a disconnect from what you are saying here, and the majority of the discussion on the list -- it has clearly been focused on the DKIM-leveraged issues, which is what I identify with as e-mail -related issues. Sure, there is some "background" insistence that this is not "just e-mail domain reputation" and can include other aspects of "domain reputation", but I see a major disconnect here. I do not believe that you can lump these issues altogether, and satisfy all stakeholders. The criteria, and the "reputation" will be completely diverse, and although I have seen some hand-waving of the ability of this effort to address non-e-mail related domain reputation issues, I just have *not* seen any pertinent dialogue which can address the issues that I have in mind (e.g. malicious/criminal domains). if the framework of this effort truly wants to embrace issue which are not e-mail related, then I have seen very little dialog about it on the list. I personally feel that dismissing those issues as "...something we intend to include..." is overlooking some of the more important issues of what is already in place in the market, and what may evolve from it. As I have said before, many people are already doing "domain reputation" and it has nothing to do with messaging abuse. Thanks, - ferg --=20 "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson =A0Engineering Architecture for the Internet =A0fergdawgster(at)gmail.com =A0ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/ From msk@cloudmark.com Tue Oct 26 21:14:30 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: domainrep@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: domainrep@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDAD53A6983 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 21:14:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.400, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 s0SVWiXuGYfp for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 21:14:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ht2-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht2-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.36]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89E653A697D for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 21:14:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.1.74]) by spite.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.10.72]) with mapi; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 21:16:18 -0700 From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: "domainrep@ietf.org" Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 21:16:16 -0700 Thread-Topic: [domainrep] First pass at reputons and the like Thread-Index: Act1jTXTiBor4o7eQuSxMrYsyualLQAAESTw Message-ID: References: <20100901100245.17034.qmail@joyce.lan> <9D6F28EE-5D4C-4E4C-A738-4A750D909A97@guppylake.com> <4C9768FA.8040001@cs.tcd.ie> <4C985E98.9030007@tana.it> <7FCB9999-1723-4548-B67C-9E19E28B9754@cybernothing.org> <84591877-C8E4-4EFA-A22A-61D250F74152@cybernothing.org> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [domainrep] First pass at reputons and the like X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 04:14:31 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Ferguson [mailto:fergdawgster@gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 9:13 PM > To: Murray S. Kucherawy > Cc: domainrep@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [domainrep] First pass at reputons and the like >=20 > Well, I think there is a disconnect from what you are saying here, and > the majority of the discussion on the list -- it has clearly been > focused on the DKIM-leveraged issues, which is what I identify with as > e-mail -related issues. >=20 > Sure, there is some "background" insistence that this is not "just > e-mail domain reputation" and can include other aspects of "domain > reputation", but I see a major disconnect here. > [...] Well, I certainly concede that the premise for a lot of this work is email = centric, but I don't believe at all that there's any intent, express or imp= lied, to confine the work in that way. I guess time will prove one of us right. -MSK From fergdawgster@gmail.com Tue Oct 26 21:23:04 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: domainrep@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: domainrep@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 464633A6981 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 21:23:04 -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 NOsTFNGm1ln4 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 21:23:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-iw0-f172.google.com (mail-iw0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 481623A67D3 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 21:23:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: by iwn40 with SMTP id 40so311408iwn.31 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 21:24:52 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=+LXaB8/DMew+wZRNrTrexQSgkS3SFR8GHT8P4V9WIuQ=; b=ulgy8RfBZNqn04IAPIgAy1HQh/ZVvucahAoQipm7yCt6kFAd+Fmhmh+R1h/kj0Fttm ggXZXN6fiM3HONtreqDGBnVHbCA3IFWcoxCqnwhW7JtBDgBuWnDAYCG0butj+koeTF2J vPv6GhJL5BvsXbVNcw/JcJA8+QguZ5Cu8W5To= 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 :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=NT070MKlvxvtA6c/3gXUGTBr7ZSbcdDuhp3J41CNvGibpT89fx3xN1MwB/QcMBKPrB 5g2GrUuAvX7vsnMVLM03349tHSNgUPrddwcssekgrBDawIT/BfHU4Ovv06/H7HyTuRs5 LuQaHvAXzCkmjvG1AYHV8ezqa+WAFSGRMFygo= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.42.224.9 with SMTP id im9mr2339725icb.426.1288153491936; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 21:24:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.42.190.138 with HTTP; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 21:24:51 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20100901100245.17034.qmail@joyce.lan> <9D6F28EE-5D4C-4E4C-A738-4A750D909A97@guppylake.com> <4C9768FA.8040001@cs.tcd.ie> <4C985E98.9030007@tana.it> <7FCB9999-1723-4548-B67C-9E19E28B9754@cybernothing.org> <84591877-C8E4-4EFA-A22A-61D250F74152@cybernothing.org> Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 21:24:51 -0700 Message-ID: From: Paul Ferguson To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: "domainrep@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [domainrep] First pass at reputons and the like X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 04:23:04 -0000 On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 9:16 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wr= ote: >> >> Well, I think there is a disconnect from what you are saying here, and >> the majority of the discussion on the list -- it has clearly been >> focused on the DKIM-leveraged issues, which is what I identify with as >> e-mail -related issues. >> >> Sure, there is some "background" insistence that this is not "just >> e-mail domain reputation" and can include other aspects of "domain >> reputation", but I see a major disconnect here. >> [...] > > Well, I certainly concede that the premise for a lot of this work is emai= l centric, but I don't believe at all that there's any intent, express or i= mplied, to confine the work in that way. > > I guess time will prove one of us right. > Hi Murray, Please don't take offense -- I'm just trying to make an observation. We're just coming at this thing from two different perspectives. Thanks, - ferg --=20 "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson =A0Engineering Architecture for the Internet =A0fergdawgster(at)gmail.com =A0ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/ From jdfalk-lists@cybernothing.org Wed Oct 27 12:09:47 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: domainrep@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: domainrep@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89D713A68E1 for ; Wed, 27 Oct 2010 12:09:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.539 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.539 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.060, 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 RyF3JF9jkjJ6 for ; Wed, 27 Oct 2010 12:09:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ocelope.disgruntled.net (ocelope.disgruntled.net [97.107.131.76]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36B0D3A6844 for ; Wed, 27 Oct 2010 12:09:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.11.41] (c-67-180-233-98.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [67.180.233.98]) (authenticated bits=0) by ocelope.disgruntled.net (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-5+lenny1) with ESMTP id o9RJBXip003489 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for ; Wed, 27 Oct 2010 12:11:36 -0700 X-DKIM: Sendmail DKIM Filter v2.6.0 ocelope.disgruntled.net o9RJBXip003489 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cybernothing.org; s=triac; t=1288206696; bh=2fkPuCZHQE1cibM8Rk37vfR6kxNvixqrVjmMiZAsJ gQ=; h=Content-Type:Mime-Version:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-Id:References:To; b=Wo0JzGVb9PSl 0a7HcTOrMS5wzHXQJW2+ckmaSOmJZqYEDrA4G9n89vlkZ0dCJ7Z8LvvybjD+BbPhxDa xJp6OvVSigl96pwY+gj4PSaVom/yHgWlKPAFmTpCrAam0vujDow6yykCj77SfbdLDiJ AfJSO+72A/T2Xf5zfrdNgk3N4= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081) From: "J.D. Falk" In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 12:11:33 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <31E6E0FE-8F11-42E9-BEE6-929B56EC3B91@cybernothing.org> References: <20100901100245.17034.qmail@joyce.lan> <9D6F28EE-5D4C-4E4C-A738-4A750D909A97@guppylake.com> <4C9768FA.8040001@cs.tcd.ie> <4C985E98.9030007@tana.it> <7FCB9999-1723-4548-B67C-9E19E28B9754@cybernothing.org> <84591877-C8E4-4EFA-A22A-61D250F74152@cybernothing.org> To: domainrep@ietf.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081) Subject: Re: [domainrep] First pass at reputons and the like X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 19:09:47 -0000 On Oct 26, 2010, at 9:12 PM, Paul Ferguson wrote: > Well, I think there is a disconnect from what you are saying here, and > the majority of the discussion on the list -- it has clearly been > focused on the DKIM-leveraged issues, which is what I identify with as > e-mail -related issues. Most of that discussion was before Nathaniel's "First pass at reputons = and the like." I agree, it's been hard to think outside of email, but I = think his ideas get us there (or pretty close, anyway.) What else would you want to see before you would consider this effort to = be sufficiently generic? From franck@avonsys.com Wed Oct 27 12:47:45 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: domainrep@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: domainrep@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C15723A6827 for ; Wed, 27 Oct 2010 12:47:45 -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 yv6ZxmHhxV+Q for ; Wed, 27 Oct 2010 12:47:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from seine.avonsys.com (unknown [IPv6:2001:df0:67:1::129]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E46B3A68B9 for ; Wed, 27 Oct 2010 12:47:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by seine.avonsys.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D30764F8134 for ; Thu, 28 Oct 2010 08:49:29 +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 93ZMkpGvUYKs for ; Thu, 28 Oct 2010 08:49:27 +1300 (FJST) Received: from seine.avonsys.com (seine.avonsys.com [192.168.69.129]) by seine.avonsys.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20E9CDFC022 for ; Thu, 28 Oct 2010 08:49:18 +1300 (FJST) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 07:49:18 +1200 (FJT) From: Franck Martin To: domainrep@ietf.org Message-ID: <6361767.203.1288208952133.JavaMail.franck@franck-martins-macbook-pro.local> In-Reply-To: <31E6E0FE-8F11-42E9-BEE6-929B56EC3B91@cybernothing.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [113.20.73.137] X-Mailer: Zimbra 6.0.5_GA_2213.UBUNTU6 (Zimbra Desktop/2.0_10514_Mac) Subject: Re: [domainrep] First pass at reputons and the like X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 19:47:45 -0000 To me it seems we are lacking tools outside email related domains. MC-Afee/Symantec and other publish TLD based report on malware. They have also plugins to add to your browser to alert you. The only data I know which is easily accessible is the Google domain blocking list. The thing that Firefox and a few others use to prevent you going on bad websites. I have the feeling from an end-user perspective the vectors of malware are email or web browsing, therefore the domain data collected is from email reports or web page analysis. Am I missing some? Franck Martin http://www.avonsys.com/ http://www.facebook.com/Avonsys twitter: FranckMartin Avonsys Check your domain reputation: http://gurl.im/b69d4o ----- Original Message ----- From: "J.D. Falk" To: domainrep@ietf.org Sent: Thursday, 28 October, 2010 8:11:33 AM Subject: Re: [domainrep] First pass at reputons and the like On Oct 26, 2010, at 9:12 PM, Paul Ferguson wrote: > Well, I think there is a disconnect from what you are saying here, and > the majority of the discussion on the list -- it has clearly been > focused on the DKIM-leveraged issues, which is what I identify with as > e-mail -related issues. Most of that discussion was before Nathaniel's "First pass at reputons and the like." I agree, it's been hard to think outside of email, but I think his ideas get us there (or pretty close, anyway.) What else would you want to see before you would consider this effort to be sufficiently generic? _______________________________________________ domainrep mailing list domainrep@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/domainrep From ajs@shinkuro.com Wed Oct 27 13:15:59 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: domainrep@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: domainrep@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1EEF3A6939 for ; Wed, 27 Oct 2010 13:15:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.175 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.175 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.424, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 pPzlFAh12rfV for ; Wed, 27 Oct 2010 13:15:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.yitter.info (mail.yitter.info [208.86.224.201]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABF5A3A6912 for ; Wed, 27 Oct 2010 13:15:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from crankycanuck.ca (69-196-144-230.dsl.teksavvy.com [69.196.144.230]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 69CD71ECB408 for ; Wed, 27 Oct 2010 20:17:43 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 16:17:41 -0400 From: Andrew Sullivan To: domainrep@ietf.org Message-ID: <20101027201741.GT45134@shinkuro.com> References: <31E6E0FE-8F11-42E9-BEE6-929B56EC3B91@cybernothing.org> <6361767.203.1288208952133.JavaMail.franck@franck-martins-macbook-pro.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <6361767.203.1288208952133.JavaMail.franck@franck-martins-macbook-pro.local> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Subject: Re: [domainrep] First pass at reputons and the like X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 20:15:59 -0000 On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 07:49:18AM +1200, Franck Martin wrote: > To me it seems we are lacking tools outside email related domains. I'm not sure that's right: http://www.isc.org/community/blog/201007/taking-back-dns-0 Note that (1) I am appalled at this and (2) I suggested something along these lines at an OARC meeting a few years ago. Yes, (2) seems inconsistent with (1). Just because I live in the world doesn't mean I have to be happy with it. A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@shinkuro.com Shinkuro, Inc. From franck@avonsys.com Wed Oct 27 14:35:36 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: domainrep@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: domainrep@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D4583A6783 for ; Wed, 27 Oct 2010 14:35:35 -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 Ogn6q+pJ8tT2 for ; Wed, 27 Oct 2010 14:35:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from seine.avonsys.com (unknown [IPv6:2001:df0:67:1::129]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 326623A67A4 for ; Wed, 27 Oct 2010 14:34:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by seine.avonsys.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AA3C64F8135; Thu, 28 Oct 2010 10:36:43 +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 Z992YMj95JcO; Thu, 28 Oct 2010 10:36:41 +1300 (FJST) Received: from seine.avonsys.com (seine.avonsys.com [192.168.69.129]) by seine.avonsys.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FAD764F8134; Thu, 28 Oct 2010 10:36:41 +1300 (FJST) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 09:36:39 +1200 (FJT) From: Franck Martin To: Andrew Sullivan Message-ID: <3764098.207.1288215394001.JavaMail.franck@franck-martins-macbook-pro.local> In-Reply-To: <20101027201741.GT45134@shinkuro.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [113.20.73.137] X-Mailer: Zimbra 6.0.5_GA_2213.UBUNTU6 (Zimbra Desktop/2.0_10514_Mac) Cc: domainrep@ietf.org Subject: Re: [domainrep] First pass at reputons and the like X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 21:35:36 -0000 Yes, I have seen that, and I have seen a few presentations that were looking like a sales pitch to me. It is a great capability in bind, however, I have yet to come across a single list that fits the format/or use case. May be I'm wrong, someone has pointers? Franck Martin http://www.avonsys.com/ http://www.facebook.com/Avonsys twitter: FranckMartin Avonsys Check your domain reputation: http://gurl.im/b69d4o ----- Original Message ----- From: "Andrew Sullivan" To: domainrep@ietf.org Sent: Thursday, 28 October, 2010 9:17:41 AM Subject: Re: [domainrep] First pass at reputons and the like On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 07:49:18AM +1200, Franck Martin wrote: > To me it seems we are lacking tools outside email related domains. I'm not sure that's right: http://www.isc.org/community/blog/201007/taking-back-dns-0 Note that (1) I am appalled at this and (2) I suggested something along these lines at an OARC meeting a few years ago. Yes, (2) seems inconsistent with (1). Just because I live in the world doesn't mean I have to be happy with it. A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@shinkuro.com Shinkuro, Inc. _______________________________________________ domainrep mailing list domainrep@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/domainrep From fergdawgster@gmail.com Wed Oct 27 16:13:55 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: domainrep@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: domainrep@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3D7A3A677D for ; Wed, 27 Oct 2010 16:13:55 -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=[AWL=0.000, 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 7pjcsLKQQuL3 for ; Wed, 27 Oct 2010 16:13:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-iw0-f172.google.com (mail-iw0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51BE93A6452 for ; Wed, 27 Oct 2010 16:13:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: by iwn40 with SMTP id 40so1499787iwn.31 for ; Wed, 27 Oct 2010 16:15:44 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=JI6KB+0GRD+vr6xj27KVZcH54nQ317IALSj2FDF29mI=; b=jqPDIWqNKlexUmRi4i+/j8AXlX0xShMvzPhkWfDtnltsLi7KG63amd8VECEUCru3pY 1l9J4WnDiY+hsamFVte74FCZUUbQ6i3eBZCOr1tttgpH2L9jYRu55+W3F05P7qc5aMeO MU06PKoOgg3tYD5UPGls0Yvus/Hz9SUVyn+SM= 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 :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=x+/kUe3qPQalspX83wwP+gQTbAmi9WjeIR0ptcuW2NMvoQJugKTroiAGQU9EKzkROw s132ahKty2u0bPK2vIlmFaU8lp9dXpQg1FtDTWh2tijM/VIZwfIpBgE+GA1FvIPShtB7 GcbsE3lf73ApkNQ1+q7ws72JXYI/v/FW+CR0Q= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.42.41.69 with SMTP id o5mr435736ice.383.1288221344737; Wed, 27 Oct 2010 16:15:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.42.190.138 with HTTP; Wed, 27 Oct 2010 16:15:44 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <3764098.207.1288215394001.JavaMail.franck@franck-martins-macbook-pro.local> References: <20101027201741.GT45134@shinkuro.com> <3764098.207.1288215394001.JavaMail.franck@franck-martins-macbook-pro.local> Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 16:15:44 -0700 Message-ID: From: Paul Ferguson To: Franck Martin Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: domainrep@ietf.org Subject: Re: [domainrep] First pass at reputons and the like X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 23:13:55 -0000 SURBL is already offering DNS RPZ zone service(s), but since it is a relatively new framework, it still will have a few changes in the spec befor eit is fully baked, I think. But back on point, this is exactly the sort of dialogue which I like to see regarding this topic. ;-) - ferg On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 2:36 PM, Franck Martin wrote: > Yes, I have seen that, and I have seen a few presentations that were look= ing like a sales pitch to me. > > It is a great capability in bind, however, I have yet to come across a si= ngle list that fits the format/or use case. > > May be I'm wrong, someone has pointers? > > Franck Martin > http://www.avonsys.com/ > http://www.facebook.com/Avonsys > twitter: FranckMartin Avonsys > > Check your domain reputation: http://gurl.im/b69d4o > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Andrew Sullivan" > To: domainrep@ietf.org > Sent: Thursday, 28 October, 2010 9:17:41 AM > Subject: Re: [domainrep] First pass at reputons and the like > > On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 07:49:18AM +1200, Franck Martin wrote: >> To me it seems we are lacking tools outside email related domains. > > I'm not sure that's right: > > http://www.isc.org/community/blog/201007/taking-back-dns-0 > > Note that (1) I am appalled at this and (2) I suggested something > along these lines at an OARC meeting a few years ago. =A0Yes, (2) seems > inconsistent with (1). =A0Just because I live in the world doesn't mean > I have to be happy with it. > > A > > > -- > Andrew Sullivan > ajs@shinkuro.com > Shinkuro, Inc. --=20 "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson =A0Engineering Architecture for the Internet =A0fergdawgster(at)gmail.com =A0ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/