Re: several messages
Matthias Leisi <matthias@leisi.net> Tue, 11 November 2008 06:29 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 805533A696E; Mon, 10 Nov 2008 22:29:04 -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 72BC83A696E for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Nov 2008 22:29:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.389
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.389 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[HELO_MISMATCH_NET=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 3hqbwgaA0HvO for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Nov 2008 22:29:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.leisi.net (trillian.net.astrum.ch [213.144.132.251]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 672613A67C0 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Nov 2008 22:29:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Spam-ASN: AS13030 213.144.128.0/19
X-Spam-Relays: trusted= untrusted=[ ip=213.144.132.250 rdns=marvin.net.astrum.ch helo=verleihnix.local by=mail.leisi.net ident= envfrom= intl=0 id=ECC73E527A auth= msa=0 ] internal= external=[ ip=213.144.132.250 rdns=marvin.net.astrum.ch helo=verleihnix.local by=mail.leisi.net ident= envfrom= intl=0 id=ECC73E527A auth= msa=0 ]
X-Spam-Hammy: 0.000-+--H*u:2.0.0.17, 0.000-+--H*UA:2.0.0.17, 0.000-+--H*UA:20080914, 0.000-+--H*u:20080914, 0.000-+--i'd
X-Spam-Spammy:
X-Spam-LastExternal: ip=213.144.132.250 rdns=marvin.net.astrum.ch helo=verleihnix.local
X-Spam-DNSWL: YES RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI
Received: from verleihnix.local (marvin.net.astrum.ch [213.144.132.250]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mail.leisi.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECC73E527A; Tue, 11 Nov 2008 07:28:55 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <49192627.4050409@leisi.net>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 07:28:55 +0100
From: Matthias Leisi <matthias@leisi.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X; de; rv:1.8.1.17) Gecko/20080914 Thunderbird/2.0.0.17 Mnenhy/0.7.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Dean Anderson <dean@av8.com>
Subject: Re: several messages
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0811102352210.4124-100000@citation2.av8.net>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0811102352210.4124-100000@citation2.av8.net>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7
OpenPGP: id=7CA2FE89
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
[trimmed the Cc: list] Dean Anderson schrieb: > In fact, the people who use these DNSBL blacklists do so only for a > short time, until they get burned and stop using them. That's what Where do you get this "fact" from? I'd be very interested to learn about this, because I see overwhelming evidence of the contrary - that well managed DNSBLs are used by all but a minority of email receiving systems. > happens routinely with SORBS. I call a few people a month about SORBS. > Very little mail is actually blocked by most of these lists. But what > little that is blocked is blocked in error. Can you back up this statement with some data? > In the 1990s, I found ORBS and Osirusoft scanning for open relays and We have 2008. I don't think that some misguided individuals back in the 1990s have a lot of significance to the Internet of today. > But DNSBLs can't solve the problem when spam is sent via botnets. By the 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. -- Matthias _______________________________________________ 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