RE: several messages
Anthony Purcell <apurcell@monkor.us> Thu, 13 November 2008 15:54 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 AD2A63A6846; Thu, 13 Nov 2008 07:54:46 -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 1FF7528C192 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Nov 2008 07:54:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001]
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 gRF2RmNMgunb for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Nov 2008 07:54:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mta5.srv.hcvlny.cv.net (mta5.srv.hcvlny.cv.net [167.206.4.200]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FA643A67AC for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Nov 2008 07:54:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from furry.monkor.us (ool-44c2d080.dyn.optonline.net [68.194.208.128]) by mta5.srv.hcvlny.cv.net (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) with ESMTP id <0KAA00B7A476J121@mta5.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> for ietf@ietf.org; Thu, 13 Nov 2008 10:54:44 -0500 (EST)
Received: from furry.monkor.us ([127.0.0.1]) by monkor.us (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 6.3-5.02 (built Oct 12 2007; 32bit)) with ESMTP id <0KAA0041548LYR00@monkor.us> for ietf@ietf.org; Thu, 13 Nov 2008 10:55:33 -0500 (EST)
Received: from resv-160.noc.cv.net [167.206.113.160] with HTTP/1.1 (POST); Thu, 13 Nov 2008 10:55:33 -0500
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 10:55:33 -0500
From: Anthony Purcell <apurcell@monkor.us>
Subject: RE: several messages
In-reply-to: <2788466ED3E31C418E9ACC5C316615572FFB3E@mou1wnexmb09.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
X-Sender: apurcell@monkor.us
To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker@verisign.com>
Message-id: <8ed8a37dca5ad95634a87c7c60d35c85@localhost>
MIME-version: 1.0
References: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0811122051350.12067-100000@egate.xpasc.com> <2788466ED3E31C418E9ACC5C316615572FFB3E@mou1wnexmb09.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
User-Agent: RoundCube Webmail/0.1-rc2
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
There is no doubt that email addresses are indeed sticky for most people. However as someone who works for a mid to large ISP, I can say with confidence that using 'reputable' DNSBL's save money for the ISP and the customer as well. To give an example; previous to our Spamhaus deployment we were processing over 90M msg per day. After deploying SBL alone that dropped to 10M! This resulted in not having to buy hundreds of servers and terabytes of disk. If we had not implemented DNSBLs we would have to raise our costs to the subscriber to cover the capital expenditure. Our FP complaints from our subscribers was less than 10 calls in the first six months. After modifying our DSN's to provide clear language to senders why we did not accept their message, and giving them a link to resolve the issue on their own, the complaints from customers disappeared. So yes, you will always have someone that will be affected. It is my belief (solely) that mail system managers need to take responsibility for what flows through their systems. If your users are not doing their due diligence to keep their PCs from becoming zombies, you as the system manager need to protect your systems, so you can ensure that everyone can use them. My $.02 Regards, Anthony On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 06:43:17 -0800, "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker@verisign.com> wrote: > This is a somewhat silly discussion, pretty much the ONLY real reason to > use your own domain rather than a gmail or aol or whatever is precisely the > fact that switching costs are high. > > And the real problem is not gmail.com but comcast.net. If access to the > email address requires continuation of an ISP service the switching cost > issue bcomes a very real problem. Even more so if the ISP decides to rename > itself - as mine has three times. > > > ________________________________ > > From: ietf-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of David Morris > Sent: Thu 11/13/2008 12:02 AM > To: Al Iverson > Cc: ietf@ietf.org > Subject: Re: several messages > > > > > > On Wed, 12 Nov 2008, Al Iverson wrote: > >> On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 11:37 PM, David Morris <dwm@xpasc.com> wrote: >> > >> > >> > On Wed, 12 Nov 2008, Al Iverson wrote: >> > >> >> On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 11:08 PM, David Morris <dwm@xpasc.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> > In the end, walking isn't a viable alternative. >> >> >> >> Because it's so hard to open a Gmail account? I think your thinking >> >> here is about two generations out of date. Back in 1995 when we each >> >> had our one dialup account, and webmail was much less common and >> >> acceptable, your point would have been more valid. >> > >> > C'mon ... my example contractor has printed collateral, web pages, > etc. >> > all with his email address. Changing an email address is non-trivial > for >> > folks who don't have any need to register their own domain name. Even >> > those who have a web serving domain often have no business need for >> > email. >> >> The professional who has printed their AOL.com email address on their >> business card has problems that are far greater than, and not unique >> to, an ISP's use of DNSBLs. > > I never said they used aol.com ... only that it was a major ISP. Both that > ISP and aol *HAVE* worked to deal with issues I've had. Other ISPs have > not. It was still a waste of my time. > > My point is that it is difficult to change email addresses because there > are lots of references which have value. Business cards are one example. > All other business printed materials are another. Every customer's mail > folders are another. > > Simply walking from an ISP isn't an easy choice. This is particularily > true for folks for home computer technology is simply a tool they use to > communicate. This general issue is well enough understood that the FCC > forced phone companies and cellular carriers to provide number portability > to insure folks with an investment in their phone number could take > advantage of competition. > > Dave Morris > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ 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