Re: [Asrg] who has the message (was Re: Consensus Call - submission via posting (was Re: Iteration #3))
John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> Tue, 09 February 2010 01:19 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 BEFDA28C1C8 for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Feb 2010 17:19:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -13.903
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-13.903 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.704, BAYES_00=-2.599, HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI=-4.3, RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED=-4.3]
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 6L2dNoqY8J0T for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Feb 2010 17:19:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (l053.n.taugh.com [64.57.183.53]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 516CD28C1C7 for <asrg@irtf.org>; Mon, 8 Feb 2010 17:19:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 13985 invoked from network); 9 Feb 2010 01:20:40 -0000
Received: from mail1.iecc.com (208.31.42.56) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 9 Feb 2010 01:20:40 -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=XSkvpgw0hyBuXRy0F53rlXThxiOxPWgJzNTBs7wq/2Y=; b=QOvR8WPyvOSeB5PIcZAN2QgKU7z1dqHweI1OQJAmsm+qEjfmhPDDo8GhEyB7XWuJPPZYx/jGIpymkw63/r/qYGAY4Gxt1v095eQJm8jt/gjFBXun1pnV9caAvxDOLQDiidJsAvQmFqR9jo4eM6LoFEzNy5TBF59M3BSpNr8hyBk=
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=XSkvpgw0hyBuXRy0F53rlXThxiOxPWgJzNTBs7wq/2Y=; b=sAF7ML72lScHKND+qbZmOzh+JGFQEPAvznGWbTOvvajMM2l3Nbkk8onHnR9Mx4GUa3VYA6mcaKqYfdDGHOrVdt8fyZJugpeAHkyoyIMVKLidKtbE1J+aBJlAu9ZZbknIUVAmYnmT4Idl4awpxUE6LkLxhN7fGW5WM8iqNa4VXOM=
Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 01:20:39 -0000
Message-ID: <20100209012039.98092.qmail@simone.iecc.com>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: asrg@irtf.org
In-Reply-To: <4B707D33.1060608@bbiw.net>
Organization:
Cc:
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Asrg] who has the message (was Re: Consensus Call - submission via posting (was Re: 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: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 01:19:37 -0000
>The DNS approach will tend to be somewhere between free and cheap for >mainstream uses. I keep seeing this assertion, but it makes no sense. As a concrete example, here's the DNS for the POP server for BT Internet, the largest ISP in the UK. Can you describe the DNS changes needed if they were publishing a spam button address? R's, John $ dig mail.btinternet.com a ;; ANSWER SECTION: mail.btinternet.com. 600 IN CNAME pop-smtp.bt.mail.yahoo.com. pop-smtp.bt.mail.yahoo.com. 1800 IN CNAME pop-smtp.bt.mail.fy5.b.yahoo.com. pop-smtp.bt.mail.fy5.b.yahoo.com. 300 IN A 217.12.13.134 pop-smtp.bt.mail.fy5.b.yahoo.com. 300 IN A 217.146.188.192
- [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