Re: spam on old lists - was [89attendees] Fw: new important message

David Morris <dwm@xpasc.com> Fri, 15 April 2016 18:25 UTC

Return-Path: <dwm@xpasc.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4EA512D612 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Apr 2016 11:25:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.921
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.921 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6mIJZGoSmB-d for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Apr 2016 11:25:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dispatch1-us1.ppe-hosted.com (dispatch1-us1.ppe-hosted.com [67.231.154.164]) (using TLSv1.1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 366CE12D85C for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Apr 2016 11:25:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx1-us1.ppe-hosted.com (unknown [10.110.49.5]) by dispatch1-us1.ppe-hosted.com (Proofpoint Essentials ESMTP Server) with ESMTP id 95CFD6008F for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Apr 2016 18:25:20 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: Proofpoint Essentials engine
Received: from xpasc.com (h-68-164-244-186.snva.ca.megapath.net [68.164.244.186]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1-us1.ppe-hosted.com (Proofpoint Essentials ESMTP Server) with ESMTPS id 5C2BA8F for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Apr 2016 18:25:19 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from egate.xpasc.com (egate.xpasc.com [10.1.2.49]) by xpasc.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u3FIPHLe018181 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Apr 2016 11:25:17 -0700
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2016 11:25:16 -0700
From: David Morris <dwm@xpasc.com>
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: spam on old lists - was [89attendees] Fw: new important message
In-Reply-To: <20160415175336.GU3997@verdi>
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.01.1604151118350.13335@egate.xpasc.com>
References: <alpine.LRH.2.20.1604151309440.27222@ns0.nohats.ca> <00DFA933-A21B-4C0C-AFC8-319FF7AA1DFD@consulintel.es> <20160415175336.GU3997@verdi>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.01 (LRH 1266 2009-07-14)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"
X-MDID: VaOmB7+1hZvI
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/fnQ_5P1PbicxA8dBmM3MphcmMGk>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 15 Apr 2016 18:25:23 -0000

Having fought with DNSBL providers, I think the BLACK part of the name is
appropriate ... as in BLACK HOLE re. any hope of rational resolution. My
ISP at the time incorrectly categorized my static IP block as dynamic and
it proved impossible to get past that issue with the BL provider. It
happened at the time that it would be convenient to change ISPs and I did.
Then my email started using a hosted spam filter and my effective IPs were
kept clean by someone else. During the time I was wrangling with the BL, I
had a bounce from one ISP, but their message was complete enough
documenting their whitelist process that I think it took about 5 minutes
to fix.

On Fri, 15 Apr 2016, John Leslie wrote:

> JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@consulintel.es> wrote:
> >
> > Again: I really think we must reject emails coming from DNS-BL
> > black listed servers.
>
>    In a word, No.
>
>    I'm in a spamhaus blacklist right now (working on it!!!), and spamhaus
> refuses to say why. These things happen!
>
>    If we were seeing a higher volume of spam get through, I'd agree to
> instituting a moderation-like process; but we're not, and I dislike
> make-work for moderators.
>
>    Perhaps somebody would like to work on a captca?
>
> > Is up to each postmaster to make sure that the IP addresses of his/her
> > servers are not listed in DNS-BL and his network free of malware that
> > can create problems to others.
>
>    Indeed, we try!
>
>    But very few blacklist maintainers offer actually useful information
> to help us do this.
>
>    We _could_ in principle work up protocols to replace zero-maintenance
> blacklists as "the solution" to spam. I tried, the last time the topic
> was hot; but totally failed to get anything that wasn't trivial to bypass.
>
> > May be some day, someone at the IAOC can take care of this ??? instead
> > of ignoring our complains.
>
>    How much are you contributing to the funding of that additional work?
>
> --
> John Leslie <john@jlc.net>
>
>
> ----------
>
> This email has been scanned for spam and viruses by Proofpoint Essentials. Visit the following link to report this email as spam:
> https://us1.proofpointessentials.com/index01.php?mod_id=11&mod_option=logitem&mail_id=m1w7uTVeX-2q&rid=113885848&report=1
>