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: 9 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