Re: several messages
der Mouse <mouse@Rodents-Montreal.ORG> Wed, 12 November 2008 16:38 UTC
Return-Path: <ietf-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietf-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ietf-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5E6A28C178; Wed, 12 Nov 2008 08:38:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DAEE3A6879; Tue, 11 Nov 2008 16:23:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.555
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.555 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.433, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, 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 hBMqEiMlVIAz; Tue, 11 Nov 2008 16:23:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from Sparkle.Rodents-Montreal.ORG (Sparkle.Rodents-Montreal.ORG [216.46.5.7]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C79593A67A3; Tue, 11 Nov 2008 16:23:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by Sparkle.Rodents-Montreal.ORG (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA05922; Tue, 11 Nov 2008 19:23:12 -0500 (EST)
From: der Mouse <mouse@Rodents-Montreal.ORG>
Message-Id: <200811120023.TAA05922@Sparkle.Rodents-Montreal.ORG>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Erik-Conspiracy: There is no Conspiracy - and if there were I wouldn't be part of it anyway.
X-Message-Flag: Microsoft: the company who gave us the botnet zombies.
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 18:49:20 -0500
To: ietf@ietf.org, gen-art@ietf.org
Subject: Re: several messages
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0811111552410.4831-100000@citation2.av8.net>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0811111552410.4831-100000@citation2.av8.net>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 08:38:12 -0800
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
>> The Spamhaus XBL and Spamhaus PBL are pretty useful in denying >> connections from botnets. You should try them - in the arsenal of >> spam-fighting tools, they are the probably most effective ones. > I've heard this about Spamhaus' lists. One wonders how it is > possible they are so useful and effective. It is a good question. I don't know the answer - but I don't have to understand _how_ they manage it to know _that_ they manage it. > Sometimes Vixie denies involvement with SORBS, sometimes he is > willing to talk "1x1" about SORBS business model. How can one trust > such activities by the top people? By trusting the people, of course. Your example is pretty totally bogus, though. I have no involvement at all with, say, Walmart, or L. L. Bean, but I can blather all evening about their business models; does that mean I'm untrustworthy? >> Wnat DNSBLs do is mitigate the damage so that we have at least >> middling-usable email while solutions evolve at the social level. > I agree. But there are technical reasons that they can't possibly > keep up, too. They have been so far. When reality disagrees with logical deductions, the thing to do is look for the incorrect assumption or the flaw in the logic, not to assert that reality is wrong. >> Using such a list puts a substantial crimp in direct-to-MX spamming. > That is an interesting euphemism for intentional collateral damage. "Eupehmism" is not an appropriate word here, I think. I was not attempting to sugar-coat something unpleasant. I was describing a desirable effect (stopping direct-to-MX spam); that the same thing also has an undesirable effect (stopping direct-to-MX ham) doesn't make discussing the desirable effect euphemistic. Direct-to-MX ham sending is, like open relays, one of the casualties of the net's getting infested with abusers. I don't like it, but so what? >> There aren't many addresses, as a fraction of the Internet, that are >> statically assigned and send spam. But the fraction is definitely >> nonzero, and they tend to send a lot. DNSBLs work very well indeed >> against those. > I'm sure they do. But those are typically CAN-SPAM compliant > emailers, and one doesn't need to use a DNSBL for that. Need to? I don't know; where's the boundary between need and want? I certainly want to, in the sense that it is the lightest-load way I've found to reject the resulting spam, CAN-SPAM compliant or not. (Why the emphasis on CAN-SPAM, by the way? Surely you don't think only the USA matters?) > And even those that weren't burned, surely know better now than to > trust DNSBLs. I trust DNSBLs as a class about as much as I trust people as a class, and I trust DNSBLs individually about as much as I trust people individually. That is to say, a few are utterly wonderful, a few are utterly horrible, and there's a whole spectrum in between. > Indeed, the numbers of mail bounced when these blacklists shut is a > better indicator of how many people actually used them. There was a > howl on Nanog, but no global disaster. That should tell you > something. Yes; it tells me that comparatively few people used DNSBLs which are badly run enough to have shut down disruptively. It tells me nothing at all about how many people use DNSBLs which are not that badly run. > What multi-million dollar ISP really wants to trust its email service > to some guy on a DSL line running a DNSBL out of his basement? Irrelevant. The existence of amateurishly-run DNSBLs does not imply the nonexistence of well-run ones. It _does_ mean that someone to whom email is important had better do due diligence in selecting DNSBLs - just as someone to whom a car is important had better do due diligence in selecting a mechanic, or someone to whom good clothes are important had better do due diligence in selecting a tailor.... /~\ The ASCII Mouse \ / Ribbon Campaign X Against HTML mouse@rodents-montreal.org / \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
- Re: several messages der Mouse
- Re: several messages David Morris
- Re: several messages Dean Anderson
- Re: several messages Randy Presuhn
- Re: several messages David Morris
- Re: several messages Matthias Leisi
- Re: several messages Steve Linford
- Re: several messages Peter Dambier
- Re: several messages Steve Linford
- Re: several messages Keith Moore
- Re: several messages der Mouse
- Re: several messages Chris Lewis
- Re: several messages Mark Andrews
- Re: several messages der Mouse
- Re: several messages Chris Lewis
- Re: several messages David Romerstein
- Re: several messages Randy Presuhn
- Re: several messages Chris Lewis
- Re: several messages David Romerstein
- Re: several messages David Romerstein
- Re: several messages Keith Moore
- Re: several messages Chris Lewis
- Re: several messages Al Iverson
- More anti-spam (was: Re: several messages) John C Klensin
- RE: several messages michael.dillon
- Re: several messages Matthias Leisi
- Re: several messages Mark Andrews
- Re: several messages David Morris
- Re: several messages Al Iverson
- Re: uncooperative DNSBLs, was several messages John Levine
- Re: uncooperative DNSBLs, was several messages Jim Hill
- Re: several messages John C Klensin
- Re: several messages Al Iverson
- RE: several messages Hallam-Baker, Phillip
- Re: uncooperative DNSBLs, was several messages Matthias Leisi
- Re: uncooperative DNSBLs, was several messages Al Iverson
- RE: several messages Anthony Purcell
- Re: uncooperative DNSBLs, was several messages Dave CROCKER
- Re: several messages der Mouse
- Re: uncooperative DNSBLs, was several messages Andrew Sullivan
- Re: uncooperative DNSBLs, was several messages David Romerstein
- Re: uncooperative DNSBLs, was several messages Jim Hill
- Re: several messages Chris Lewis
- Re: uncooperative DNSBLs, was several messages Chris Lewis
- Re: uncooperative DNSBLs, was several messages John C Klensin
- Re: uncooperative DNSBLs, was several messages Dave CROCKER
- Re: uncooperative DNSBLs, was several messages Tony Finch
- Re: uncooperative DNSBLs, was several messages Andrew Sullivan
- Re: uncooperative DNSBLs, was several messages John C Klensin
- Re: uncooperative DNSBLs, was several messages Matthias Leisi
- Re: uncooperative DNSBLs, was several messages Al Iverson
- Re: uncooperative DNSBLs, was several messages Andrew Sullivan
- Re: uncooperative DNSBLs, was several messages John C Klensin
- Re: uncooperative DNSBLs, was several messages Ted Hardie
- Re: uncooperative DNSBLs, was several messages Matthias Leisi
- Re: uncooperative DNSBLs, was several messages Ted Hardie
- Re: uncooperative DNSBLs, was several messages Tony Finch
- Context specific semantics was Re: uncooperative … Ted Hardie
- Clarifying harm to DNS (was: uncooperative DNSBLs… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: Context specific semantics was Re: uncooperat… Ted Hardie
- Re: uncooperative DNSBLs, IETF misinformation (wa… Steve Linford
- RE: Context specific semantics was Re: uncooperat… Hallam-Baker, Phillip
- Re: uncooperative DNSBLs, was several messages Peter Dambier
- Re: uncooperative DNSBLs, was several messages David Romerstein
- Re: uncooperative DNSBLs, was several messages Peter Dambier
- Re: uncooperative DNSBLs, was several messages Keith Moore
- Re: uncooperative DNSBLs, was several messages Chris Lewis
- RE: uncooperative DNSBLs, IETF misinformation (wa… michael.dillon
- Re: uncooperative DNSBLs, IETF misinformation (wa… Steve Linford
- RE: uncooperative DNSBLs, IETF misinformation (wa… michael.dillon
- Re: Context specific semantics was Re: uncooperat… Tony Finch
- Re: Context specific semantics was Re: uncooperat… John Levine
- RE: Context specific semantics was Re: uncooperat… Hardie, Ted
- RE: Context specific semantics was Re: uncooperat… Tony Finch
- Re: several messages Rich Kulawiec
- Re: uncooperative DNSBLs, was several messages Rich Kulawiec
- Re: uncooperative DNSBLs, IETF misinformation (wa… Al Iverson
- Re: Context specific semantics was Re: uncooperat… Ted Hardie
- RE: Context specific semantics was Re: uncooperat… Ted Hardie
- Re: several messages John C Klensin
- Re: several messages Al Iverson
- Re: Context specific semantics was Re: uncooperat… John L
- RE: uncooperative DNSBLs, IETF misinformation (wa… michael.dillon
- Re: uncooperative DNSBLs, IETF misinformation (wa… Al Iverson
- RE: uncooperative DNSBLs, IETF misinformation (wa… michael.dillon
- Re: several messages John C Klensin
- Re: several messages Chris Lewis
- Re: uncooperative DNSBLs, IETF misinformation (wa… Keith Moore
- Re: several messages Al Iverson
- RE: several messages michael.dillon
- Re: uncooperative DNSBLs, IETF misinformation (wa… Al Iverson
- Re: Context specific semantics was Re: uncooperat… Ted Hardie
- Re: Context specific semantics was Re: uncooperat… Douglas Otis
- Re: uncooperative DNSBLs, IETF misinformation (wa… Theodore Tso
- Re: Context specific semantics was Re: uncooperat… Theodore Tso
- Re: uncooperative DNSBLs, IETF misinformation (wa… Chris Lewis
- Re: more bad ideas, was uncooperative DNSBLs, was… John Levine
- Re: more bad ideas, was uncooperative DNSBLs, was… Chris Lewis
- Re: Context specific semantics was Re: uncooperat… John L
- Detecting and disabling bad DNSBLs Peter Dambier
- Re: Detecting and disabling bad DNSBLs Steve Linford
- Re: several messages Pekka Savola
- Re: more bad ideas, was uncooperative DNSBLs, was… Keith Moore
- Re: several messages Rich Kulawiec
- Is USA qualified for 2.3 of draft-palet-ietf-meet… YAO
- RE: [73attendees] Is USA qualified for 2.3 ofdraf… Song Haibin
- Re: several messages Tom.Petch
- Re: [73attendees] Is USA qualified for 2.3 of dra… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [73attendees] Is USA qualified for 2.3 of dra… james woodyatt
- Re: several messages John C Klensin