RE: uncooperative DNSBLs, IETF misinformation (was: several messages)

<michael.dillon@bt.com> Fri, 14 November 2008 08:19 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 5D11A3A6A4B; Fri, 14 Nov 2008 00:19:17 -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 392113A6A4B for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Nov 2008 00:19:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.466
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.466 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.133, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 kQI031X58Ir0 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Nov 2008 00:19:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp4.smtp.bt.com (smtp4.smtp.bt.com [217.32.164.151]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 783A93A6A40 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Nov 2008 00:19:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net ([193.113.30.61]) by smtp4.smtp.bt.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 14 Nov 2008 08:19:11 +0000
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: RE: uncooperative DNSBLs, IETF misinformation (was: several messages)
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 08:19:04 -0000
Message-ID: <C0F2465B4F386241A58321C884AC7ECC09597929@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net>
In-Reply-To: <A.1L0jlO-000MSh-Ku@smtp-ext-layer.spamhaus.org>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
thread-topic: uncooperative DNSBLs, IETF misinformation (was: several messages)
Thread-Index: AclF1zCF+UhM+9g1RwqLcpnTOLw5DwAV9jSg
From: michael.dillon@bt.com
To: ietf@ietf.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Nov 2008 08:19:11.0438 (UTC) FILETIME=[AC45FEE0:01C94631]
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

> - DNSBLs are temporary fad, they'll never last.
>    (we've been serving DNSBLs for 10 years)

Longevity is no guarantee of future survival.

> - DNSBLs are bad for email.
>    (we alone flag some 80 billion spam emails *per day*, spam which
>    would otherwise clog servers and render email completely useless)

Interesting point. If you did not run those DNSBLs then the flood of
spam would have rendered email completely useless which would have
reduced the sell-rate from one in 12.5 million, to zero. At which
point there is no financial incentive for spam. Or, more likely, spam
would have been maintained at a much lower level to maximize their
profit.

> - DNSBLs have huge False Positives.
>    (at 80 billion spams stopped per day, if we had even a miniscule
>    FP level there would be a worldwide outcry and everyone would stop
>    using us. Do the maths. Our FP level is many times lower than any
>    other spam filter method by a very, very long way)

Hmmm. No data provided, so no maths is possible. Note that a huge FP
rate
does not imply a huge quantity of false positives, if you allow for an
importance factor. 

> - DNSBLs break email deliverability.
>    (DNSBL technology in fact ensures that the email sender is notified
>    if an email is rejected, unlike Bayesian filters/content filters
>    which place spam in the user's trash without notifying the senders)

This still breaks deliverability. 

> - DNSBLs "sit in the middle of an end-to-end email transaction"
>    (see: http://www.spamhaus.org/dnsbl_function.html for 
> enlightenment)

There is a diagram under Rights of a Sender vs Rights of a Receiver
which shows that the DNSBL modifies the behavior of the Receiving
mail server. This is what I mean by "sitting in the middle of an
end-to-end (sender to recipient) email transaction.

> - Someone from BT said "DNSBLs should not be standardised"
>    (BT has a contract with Spamhaus to use our DNSBLs on its network,
>    we're not sure why BT would prefer the DNSBLs it uses to not be
>    standardised but we'll ask them at contract renewal time ;)

This is the IETF. Nobody here speaks for any company or any
other organisation. Many people have stated that THIS DRAFT should
not be accepted as a STANDARDS TRACK RFC because it does not meet
the IETF requirements for an IETF STANDARD. That is very different
from saying that DNSBLs should not be standardised. 

> - DNSBLs are all bad because someone had a bad experience with SORBS.
>    (well, we're not SORBS. Nor are Trend Micro, Ironport, or the other
>    responsible DNSBL operators)

DNSBLs are risky because of the many cases put forward here. This
implies that there are security considerations that should be discussed
in the RFC, but which the authors neglected to mention. 

>    DNSBLs using 127.0.0.2 cause absolutely no 'damage' whatsoever)

You must not have read the draft. People are concerned with stuff 
like this from section 2.3:

   To minimize the number of DNS lookups, multiple sublists can also be
   encoded as bit masks or multiple A records.  With bit masks, the A
   record entry for each IP is the logical OR of the bit masks for all
   of the lists on which the IP appears.  For example, the bit masks for
   the two sublists might be 127.0.0.2 and 127.0.0.4, in which case an
   entry for an IP on both lists would be 127.0.0.6:


In any case, your diatribe will not change the fact that this draft
will not be standardised. In order to become a standard, a draft has
to have consensus, and you can't build consensus by misstating the
arguments against standardisation, and then saying that it is all
farcical.

--Michael Dillon

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf