Re: Fwd: [rt.ietf.org #24364] mail.ietf.org. is ietf.org., Remove MX Records For Less Spam

John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> Fri, 26 February 2010 06:46 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.com>
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 95E023A8637 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Feb 2010 22:46:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.122
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.122 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.077, 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 jX9PGmbOWVyi for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Feb 2010 22:46:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [64.57.183.53]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DF963A7B1F for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Feb 2010 22:46:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 64453 invoked from network); 26 Feb 2010 06:49:03 -0000
Received: from mail1.iecc.com (64.57.183.56) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 26 Feb 2010 06:49:03 -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=GkShSel/bps9rxW/6hS6Jx4stb8E5KvQBpB2x/sCoUg=; b=TSh/FqMgamJ9Tr4diEeS9BEE8D0xDXrnZ4LYApX9GrzLEWUSj2sOiLUgS0uHA1KTRmxhSvKsaZfB6vmaWzOoCAv2DgU14Kvb3eAn2GiGS4NbIW+ouJiCBI9/iINDJFHNdYrO+o8c58ACrOaV3iTvErPGtluFt8jH5qwM6AanwiQ=
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 06:49:03 -0000
Message-ID: <20100226064903.24760.qmail@simone.iecc.com>
From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com>
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Fwd: [rt.ietf.org #24364] mail.ietf.org. is ietf.org., Remove MX Records For Less Spam
In-Reply-To: <DE51DCB7-D033-4DFD-B4E4-1F832CC3F7FC@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com>
Organization:
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
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-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
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>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 06:46:57 -0000

>Discussion, please.  See below for my take; the IETF is one host, MX is really meaningless, and there are
>benefits to avoiding a ton of spambot zombie spam.

That's not a very good idea.  I wouldn't count on zombies ignoring the
IETF, nor would I count on there not being real MTAs that will hiccup
if there's no MX.  I've certainly seen filtering setups that view mail
from domains without MX records with scepticism, since there would now
be no techincal difference between mail from the IETF and mail from a
bot-infected wifi printer.

If you want to filter the spam, filter the spam like everyone else
does.  It's not rocket science.  Don't set a bad example for the rest
of the world.

R's,
John