IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Asrg] Soundness of silence

SM <sm@resistor.net> Tue, 16 June 2009 18:57 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@resistor.net>
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 C421E28C18F for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Jun 2009 11:57:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.715
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.715 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.116, 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 Z4skAYSahYTw for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Jun 2009 11:57:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ns1.qubic.net (ns1.qubic.net [208.69.177.116]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F36CA3A6DA1 for <asrg@irtf.org>; Tue, 16 Jun 2009 11:57:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from subman.resistor.net ([10.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by ns1.qubic.net (8.14.4.Alpha0/8.14.4.Alpha0) with ESMTP id n5GIuVLC010952 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <asrg@irtf.org>; Tue, 16 Jun 2009 11:56:38 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1245178599; x=1245264999; bh=nUj+1oyDizuH0UrDub7wqmnGYp/hXHj59Ob/HfE1axU=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type:Cc; b=AHkYVhfBjLMrYf5aq0HQrY7fRZZcleo117gz3+IMGiHeLFYF4Q6sDaMmXlXJzhiVf dOI14nFcF183VJrLbVqfDDyU0+mhsGVehdhHkgOHOjuCZfxBiYzJ214ZfL7be8cPEa If7Dfl3ia1T0uIKGh74nwqeookBYBoF2aWnoCXyY=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=mail; d=resistor.net; c=simple; q=dns; b=26roDuFyeHIgnLTBm9qMlPFrPDKs1ee17xHTv895m1kibIhNw6YP5xCgFhi2agNba hm6cEyUk7QUm2UIxjFACnFmOpqK6zu/KQHksyR4qwPSbWZrxzwVw6/H5TGL7LBhPN2J DkiEtyrufIu3gu3h2SjQR/hcygLLmakByWXcNQ4=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20090616110623.02f10840@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 11:56:04 -0700
To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg@irtf.org>
From: SM <sm@resistor.net>
In-Reply-To: <4A37D79D.90508@tana.it>
References: <4A329E38.9010609@tana.it> <4A36904E.8040908@billmail.scconsult.com> <4A3781D4.3020303@tana.it> <6.2.5.6.2.20090616060804.02e285c8@resistor.net> <4A37D79D.90508@tana.it>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Subject: Re: [Asrg] Soundness of silence
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: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 18:57:10 -0000

At 10:34 16-06-2009, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
>Yes, but everybody else has the right to consider me a fool for 
>that. What unacceptably affects reliability is that I could claim I 
>never received them since they ended up in the spam folder.

You should read the terms of service before making such claims.

>They'll eventually have to, if they get no acknowledge.

It's cheaper to discontinue the service for that user.

>Hm... sound? Vernon's list is not really helpful, except for trying 
>and discourage potential submitters. Reviewing all relevant RFCs is 
>a good advice, except that RFCs don't mention why they failed to be 
>effective anti-spam solutions.

The point is that before submitting a new proposal, you should read 
previous proposals and figure out why they failed to be 
effective.  You can then avoid making the same mistakes.

Regards,
-sm

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email