IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Asrg] RFC 6471 and "listing the Internet" as a punishment

"Emanuele Balla (aka Skull)" <skull@bofhland.org> Tue, 24 January 2012 19:51 UTC

Return-Path: <skull@bofhland.org>
X-Original-To: asrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: asrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1869111E8079 for <asrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 11:51:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.932
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.932 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.333, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Kv2+MPTDVWJO for <asrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 11:51:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mithrandir.bofhland.org (mithrandir.bofhland.org [IPv6:2a02:9a8:94::b]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2798011E8072 for <asrg@irtf.org>; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 11:51:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from enlil.local (baggins.skullkrusher.net [147.123.72.2]) by mithrandir.bofhland.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B667B6C21A for <asrg@irtf.org>; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 20:51:01 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <4F1F0BA3.6080805@bofhland.org>
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 20:50:59 +0100
From: "Emanuele Balla (aka Skull)" <skull@bofhland.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg@irtf.org>
References: <18B53BA2A483AD45962AAD1397BE13253846E0FE87@UK-EXCHMBX1.green.sophos> <4F1ECBE4.1050802@bofhland.org> <20120124153531.GA8414@gsp.org> <4F1ED3CA.5040200@bofhland.org> <20120124182349.GR27359@chaosreigns.com>
In-Reply-To: <20120124182349.GR27359@chaosreigns.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.4
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Asrg] RFC 6471 and "listing the Internet" as a punishment
X-BeenThere: asrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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/options/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: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 19:51:04 -0000

On 1/24/12 7:23 PM, darxus@chaosreigns.com wrote:
> As I tried to say in the past, having a value to return for all
> queries from a DNS server that has been deemed abusive is *useful* to
> black/whitelist providers.  Enough that it's looking like it'll be done
> whether the ASRG likes it or not.  If you'd prefer something other than
> 127.0.0.1 to be used, document it somewhere.

I fully agree with you, FWIW...


> Also, as the linked article said, "...the 127.0.0.1 response indicates
> that uribl.com does not accept any queries from the DNS server".
> SpamAssassin had this handled as URIBL defined, no false positives
> resulted.

Yes, and somehow that's the point: SW (like spamassassin) that deal with
return values correctly, will not encounter FPs but this means it also
gives the BL operator no advantage.

While any other return value outside 127/8, while more opportune,
probably will affect bad implementations like 127.0.0.1 or any other code.


IMHO there's no winner here...

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email