Re: Corporate email attachment filters and IETF emails

Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net> Wed, 09 December 2009 15:57 UTC

Return-Path: <wjhns1@hardakers.net>
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 4198A28C133 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Dec 2009 07:57:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.245
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.245 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.354, 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 xw2MomC+UCiL for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Dec 2009 07:57:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.hardakers.net (hardaker-pt.tunnel.tserv1.fmt.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f00:ffff::af]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5148928C136 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Dec 2009 07:57:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (wjh.hardakers.net [10.0.0.2]) by mail.hardakers.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2ED1B982D4; Wed, 9 Dec 2009 07:57:32 -0800 (PST)
From: Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net>
To: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
Subject: Re: Corporate email attachment filters and IETF emails
Organization: Sparta
References: <4B1E5330.4060805@htt-consult.com> <4B1E870C.6090407@dcrocker.net> <4B1E89D4.10705@piuha.net>
Date: Wed, 09 Dec 2009 07:57:31 -0800
In-Reply-To: <4B1E89D4.10705@piuha.net> (Jari Arkko's message of "Tue, 08 Dec 2009 19:16:04 +0200")
Message-ID: <sd1vj4nnro.fsf@wjh.hardakers.net>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.110011 (No Gnus v0.11) XEmacs/21.4.22 (linux, no MULE)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 09 Dec 2009 08:31:10 -0800
Cc: ietf@ietf.org, dcrocker@bbiw.net, Robert Moskowitz <rgm-ietf@htt-consult.com>
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: Wed, 09 Dec 2009 15:57:44 -0000

>>>>> On Tue, 08 Dec 2009 19:16:04 +0200, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> said:

JA> But its good that Bob's IT person has promised to figure this out. The
JA> filters seem simply too sensitive. I have not heard of other people
JA> having a similar issue, at least not beyond an extent experienced for
JA> all autogenerated e-mail (travel reservations etc).

That's all well and good if all you're concerned about is the posting
verification message from the automated servers.

But consider the fact that: half the purpose of posting an ID is to get
comments about it sent to you.  Consider then that if you have any sort
of aggressive filtering in place that's blocking your receipt of the
verification messages then the chances are very very high that you'll
also block comments from some random person out there that happens to
look questionable to your companies blocking algorithms.

I've found large numbers of companies, for example, that assume that all
their traffic is internal to their particular company and start running
spam assassin with very high scores against mail arriving from outside
their local bubble.  This doesn't work well with comments about an IETF
document.

-- 
Wes Hardaker
Cobham Analytic Solutions