Re: uncooperative DNSBLs, IETF misinformation (was: several messages)
Steve Linford <linford@spamhaus.org> Fri, 14 November 2008 09:54 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 34B8A3A6A40; Fri, 14 Nov 2008 01:54:53 -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 39C0B3A6A40 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Nov 2008 01:54:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.799
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.799 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.100, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED=-4.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 hDIiJsCzJrbI for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Nov 2008 01:54:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp-ext-layer.spamhaus.org (ns8.spamhaus.org [82.94.216.239]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0203B3A6823 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Nov 2008 01:54:50 -0800 (PST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753.1)
In-Reply-To: <C0F2465B4F386241A58321C884AC7ECC09597929@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net>
References: <C0F2465B4F386241A58321C884AC7ECC09597929@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net>
From: Steve Linford <linford@spamhaus.org>
Subject: Re: uncooperative DNSBLs, IETF misinformation (was: several messages)
To: ietf@ietf.org
X-Local-MTA-Info:
X-Mime-Info: text/plain
Message-ID: <A.1L0vO5-0003SJ-Eg@smtp-ext-layer.spamhaus.org>
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 09:54:49 +0000
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-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"; DelSp="yes"
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
On 14 Nov 2008, at 09:19, <michael.dillon@bt.com> <michael.dillon@bt.com> wrote: >> - DNSBLs are a temporary fad, they'll never last. >> (we've been serving DNSBLs for 10 years) > > Longevity is no guarantee of future survival. A good argument against publishing a standard for any technology at all. >> - 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. The "we don't need filters, the spammers will regulate themselves" theory also holds for eliminating the police: crooks will regulate themselves when too much crookness renders crooking not so profitable. This theory can be tested and you guys at BT could be the pioneers: turn off BT's spam filters and we'll watch. Obviously let your customers know first or your phones will light up (something like this will do: "Dear BT customer, we're turning your spam filters off as an experiment to see if, over time, spammers will spam you a bit less when they realize your mailbox has imploded under the weight of spam"). >> - 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. I thought perhaps you might be with BT's mail engineering team. BT uses our DNSBLs, you therefore have precise data on both how much spam you stop with them and FPs for your customers. (If you're not with BT's mail engineering team I apologize) >> - 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. Deliverability breaks when someone accepts a package, says "250 OK, got it" to the courier, and then silently trashes it without informing the Sender that the Recipient did not in fact get it. How many times have you sent an email and your recipient says days later "I didn't get it" and you say "well you must have since it didn't bounce back" and both of you waste time. Almost guaranteed in such cases your recipient was using post-SMTP-phase spam filters, content filters or "I guess this looks like spam" filters and the receiving server *did* accept your mail, *did* give your server a "250 OK, got it" which concluded the transaction and then quietly put your message in the Junk. DNSBL technology maintains the fundemental rule of email deliverability: If an email can not be delivered *inform the Sender*. Steve Linford The Spamhaus Project http://www.spamhaus.org _______________________________________________ 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