Re: [Asrg] Iteration #3.
John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> Sun, 07 February 2010 16:29 UTC
Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.com>
X-Original-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D76C93A6C05 for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 7 Feb 2010 08:29:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -19.104
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-19.104 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.095, BAYES_00=-2.599, HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI=-4.3, RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED=-4.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id U-LBjB8DDLOH for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 7 Feb 2010 08:29:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [208.31.42.53]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A97233A695E for <asrg@irtf.org>; Sun, 7 Feb 2010 08:29:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 33275 invoked from network); 7 Feb 2010 16:30:41 -0000
Received: from mail1.iecc.com (208.31.42.56) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 7 Feb 2010 16:30:41 -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; s=k1002; olt=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=nJTxTVqhZYVlrxBewN3pyy5qgAhXzWHPQA2ULgMBPSg=; b=WamB5xesx9nfDMgMRJGfvqtPcXMw1N3cxoejtft3shptdqK5EdV5ZAUYT46UyqoIZaAPbuYF3Yd4On3AhBscAHV41QM+aJqXMDqSZgBcWTGF/0Dlo4jYb4eTR4f5EY3Jm+woZAzeGtgLKoGQtFHdFFg3g+srhiYqPtD3F7w4N0E=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:cc:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=k1002; bh=nJTxTVqhZYVlrxBewN3pyy5qgAhXzWHPQA2ULgMBPSg=; b=k9Mjl1+IXSqG8YYzROQv+qZWP3Zt6fIA68/4yz4gbxIqRb1XjqhzRlpLY3XTWNbjICQcSFfL2z4B7JiRFPBnLeITkgNrz6FnPKTmoOZ2TI0OeE1gR7Bvmrja+nxqwJSLvslGbPaLSLjYSTKgs1ccCGPc0KiXr37Czej40zpcKxQ=
Date: Sun, 07 Feb 2010 16:30:40 -0000
Message-ID: <20100207163040.5693.qmail@simone.iecc.com>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: asrg@irtf.org
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.64.1002070712530.12859@nber6.nber.org>
Organization:
Cc:
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Asrg] Iteration #3.
X-BeenThere: asrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg@irtf.org>
List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg>, <mailto:asrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/asrg>
List-Post: <mailto:asrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:asrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg>, <mailto:asrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 07 Feb 2010 16:29:44 -0000
> For this reason the MTA operator would probably want to discard > messages to the arf reporting address unless they were submitted via > the MSA submission port, or came from inside the MTA operators own > network. That doesn't sound like a very good idea. When I was providing mail for the customers of a local web hosting company, I tried really hard to get them to use my MSA, since it made the management and trouble diagnosis a lot easier. No matter what I did, I never got more than half of them to do so. The rest just used some other account, generally their local ISP, because it mostly worked. These days lots of people pick up their mail from Gmail, but who knows how they send it. I know people who have Gmail pick up their ISP mailbox since they like the sorting and spam filtering better, but did they change their outgoing setup? I doubt it. Once again, I would ask people to try really hard to avoid assuming that all, or even many, mail systems are just like yours, since that leads to false assumtions and poor designs. R's, John
- [Asrg] Iteration #3. Chris Lewis
- Re: [Asrg] Iteration #3. Dave CROCKER
- Re: [Asrg] Iteration #3. Steve Atkins
- Re: [Asrg] Iteration #3. Chris Lewis
- Re: [Asrg] Iteration #3. Derek Diget
- Re: [Asrg] Iteration #3. Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [Asrg] Iteration #3. Chris Lewis
- Re: [Asrg] Iteration #3. Chris Lewis
- [Asrg] Consensus Call - submission via posting (w… Dave CROCKER
- Re: [Asrg] Consensus Call - submission via postin… Lyndon Nerenberg (VE6BBM/VE7TFX)
- Re: [Asrg] Consensus Call - submission via postin… Chris Lewis
- Re: [Asrg] Consensus Call - submission via postin… Steve Atkins
- Re: [Asrg] Consensus Call - submission via postin… Dave CROCKER
- Re: [Asrg] Consensus Call - submission via postin… Dotzero
- Re: [Asrg] Iteration #3. Derek Diget
- Re: [Asrg] Consensus Call - submission via postin… Derek Diget
- Re: [Asrg] Consensus Call - submission via postin… Bart Schaefer
- Re: [Asrg] Consensus Call - submission via postin… Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [Asrg] Iteration #3. Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [Asrg] Iteration #3. Daniel Feenberg
- Re: [Asrg] Iteration #3. John Levine
- Re: [Asrg] Iteration #3. Daniel Feenberg
- Re: [Asrg] Iteration #3. Dave CROCKER
- Re: [Asrg] Iteration #3. John Levine
- Re: [Asrg] Iteration #3. Dave CROCKER
- Re: [Asrg] Consensus Call - submission via postin… Ian Eiloart
- Re: [Asrg] Consensus Call - submission via postin… John Levine
- Re: [Asrg] Consensus Call - submission via postin… BOBOTEK, ALEX (ATTCINW)
- Re: [Asrg] Consensus Call - submission via postin… Andrew Richards
- [Asrg] who has the message (was Re: Consensus Cal… Dave CROCKER
- Re: [Asrg] Consensus Call - submission via postin… Chris Lewis
- Re: [Asrg] Consensus Call - submission via postin… Andrew Richards
- Re: [Asrg] who has the message (was Re: Consensus… Andrew Richards
- Re: [Asrg] who has the message (was Re: Consensus… Dave CROCKER
- Re: [Asrg] who has the message (was Re: Consensus… Chris Lewis
- Re: [Asrg] who has the message (was Re: Consensus… John Levine
- Re: [Asrg] who has the message (was Re: Consensus… Dave CROCKER
- Re: [Asrg] overloading server names doesn't work,… John R Levine
- Re: [Asrg] Consensus Call - submission via postin… Bill Cole
- Re: [Asrg] overloading server names doesn't work,… Daniel Feenberg
- Re: [Asrg] who has the message (was Re: Consensus… Ian Eiloart
- Re: [Asrg] Consensus Call - submission via postin… Ian Eiloart
- Re: [Asrg] who has the message (was Re: Consensus… Ian Eiloart
- Re: [Asrg] who has the message (was Re: Consensus… Andrew Richards
- Re: [Asrg] who has the message (was Re: Consensus… Andrew Richards
- Re: [Asrg] who has the message (was Re: Consensus… Ian Eiloart
- Re: [Asrg] who has the message (was Re: Consensus… Andrew Richards
- Re: [Asrg] who has the message (was Re: Consensus… Ian Eiloart
- Re: [Asrg] overloading server names doesn't work,… Dave CROCKER
- Re: [Asrg] who has the message (was Re: Consensus… Paul Russell
- Re: [Asrg] overloading server names doesn't work,… John R Levine
- Re: [Asrg] overloading server names doesn't work,… Dave CROCKER
- Re: [Asrg] DNS basics, was overloading server nam… John R Levine
- Re: [Asrg] Consensus Call - submission via postin… Andrew Richards
- Re: [Asrg] Consensus Call - submission via postin… Ian Eiloart
- Re: [Asrg] DNS basics, was overloading server nam… Dave CROCKER
- Re: [Asrg] DNS basics, was overloading server nam… John R Levine
- Re: [Asrg] Consensus Call - submission via postin… Jose-Marcio Martins da Cruz
- Re: [Asrg] DNS basics, was overloading server nam… Douglas Otis
- Re: [Asrg] Consensus Call - submission via postin… Ian Eiloart
- Re: [Asrg] Consensus Call - submission via postin… Jose-Marcio Martins da Cruz