Re: How I deal with (false positive) IP-address blacklists...
Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com> Tue, 09 December 2008 22:42 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 CA54A3A68CC; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 14:42:25 -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 379383A68CC for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 14:42:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.594
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.594 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.005, 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 rSAHZMAeTqXO for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 14:42:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from m1.imap-partners.net (m1.imap-partners.net [64.13.152.131]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B5C63A687B for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 14:42:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lust.indecency.org ([72.242.14.237]) by m1.imap-partners.net (MOS 3.10.3-GA) with ESMTP id BFH56125 (AUTH admin@network-heretics.com) for ietf@ietf.org; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 14:42:15 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <493EF43D.8020203@network-heretics.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2008 17:42:05 -0500
From: Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.18 (Macintosh/20081105)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.com
Subject: Re: How I deal with (false positive) IP-address blacklists...
References: <01N2VWXW3J4M00007A@mauve.mrochek.com> <C0F2465B4F386241A58321C884AC7ECC09EB3C5F@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net> <01N2VZWB0O8800007A@mauve.mrochek.com>
In-Reply-To: <01N2VZWB0O8800007A@mauve.mrochek.com>
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
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
ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.com wrote: > You're completely missing the point. This issue isn't knowing how to build a > large scale email system and I never said it was. Rather, the issue is whether > or not people's opinions about the effectiveness of various antispam mechanisms > are valid when all they have is a small amount of experience, often quite > dated. Granted that it's always dangerous to extrapolate from a small sample. But is anybody's experience valid, then? >From my perspective, the guys who run these large email systems generally seem to believe that they have to do whatever they're doing, regardless of how much the filtering criteria that they're using have any thing to do with the desirability of the mail to the recipient, and regardless of any particular sender's or recipient's actual experience with having their mail filtered. IOW, It's very easy for both the individual and the mail system operator to find reasons to disregard the other's experience. Who is to say who is right? I certainly don't think that a mail system operator's actions to filter mail without the recipient's consent are inherently justified just because they happen operating a mail system. They do bear some responsibility for their role in this process and in their selection of filtering criteria. -- As for Ted's message, I just thought it was an interesting anecdote, and (as others have pointed out) not particularly relevant to the DNSBL discussion. I didn't see anything wrong with him posting it, and don't understand why it's provoked such a reaction. -- And as for DNSBLs - clearly, there are both good and bad aspects to using third party reputation services as opposed to sites using their own filtering criteria. e.g.: benefits of third party reputation services: - when the number of "customers" of a reputation service helps defray the cost of maintaining a current and accurate list, and of improving their criteria over time - when the high visibility of a popular reputation service helps keep it honest drawbacks of third party reputation services: - when a widely used reputation service is wrong in a way that affects a large number of sites, whereas when a single site's criteria are wrong it only affects that site's recipients (and arguably the single site is more accountable for its actions). - when the reputation is based on something (like an address or address block) that isn't sufficiently fine-grained to reliably distinguish spam from ham, as compared to a site filter which has access to more criteria and can use the larger set of criteria to filter more accurately. Once again, the crucial issues seem to be transparency, accountability, granularity rather than the reputation reporting mechanism. Which is not to say that the mechanism doesn't also warrant improvement. Keith _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
- How I deal with (false positive) IP-address black… Theodore Tso
- Re: How I deal with (false positive) IP-address b… Mark Andrews
- Re: How I deal with (false positive) IP-address b… Theodore Tso
- Re: How I deal with (false positive) IP-address b… Mark Andrews
- Re: How I deal with (false positive) IP-address b… Theodore Tso
- Re: Why the IETF is irrelevant to the future of e… John Levine
- Re: How I deal with (false positive) IP-address b… SM
- Re: How I deal with (false positive) IP-address b… Paul Hoffman
- Re: Why the IETF is irrelevant to the future of e… Peter Dambier
- Re: How I deal with (false positive) IP-address b… ned+ietf
- Re: How I deal with (false positive) IP-address b… Dave CROCKER
- RE: How I deal with (false positive) IP-address b… michael.dillon
- RE: How I deal with (false positive) IP-address b… ned+ietf
- Re: How I deal with (false positive) IP-address b… Peter Dambier
- Re: How I deal with (false positive) IP-address b… Dave CROCKER
- RE: How I deal with (false positive) IP-address b… michael.dillon
- RE: How I deal with (false positive) IP-address b… michael.dillon
- Re: How I deal with (false positive) IP-address b… Keith Moore
- Re: How I deal with (false positive) IP-address b… Dave CROCKER
- RE: How I deal with (false positive) IP-address b… Tony Hain
- Re: How I deal with (false positive) IP-address b… Dave CROCKER
- Re: How I deal with (false positive) IP-address b… ned+ietf
- Re: How I deal with (false positive) IP-address b… Keith Moore
- Re: How I deal with (false positive) IP-address b… Peter Dambier
- RE: How I deal with (false positive) IP-address b… michael.dillon
- RE: How I deal with (false positive) IP-address b… ned+ietf
- Re: How I deal with (false positive) IP-address b… Rich Kulawiec
- Re: How I deal with (false positive) IP-address b… Theodore Tso
- Re: How I deal with (false positive) IP-address b… Dave CROCKER
- Re: How I deal with (false positive) IP-address b… Paul Hoffman
- Re: How I deal with (false positive) IP-address b… Randy Presuhn
- Re: How I deal with (false positive) IP-address b… Keith Moore
- Re: How I deal with (false positive) IP-address b… Douglas Otis
- Re: How I deal with (false positive) IP-address b… John C Klensin
- Accountable Use Registry was: How I deal with (fa… Douglas Otis
- Re: Accountable Use Registry was: How I deal with… John C Klensin