IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: more bad ideas, was uncooperative DNSBLs, was several messages

John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> Sat, 15 November 2008 01:05 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 35DF83A6AC5; Fri, 14 Nov 2008 17:05:06 -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 21E3F3A6AC5 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Nov 2008 17:05:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.837
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.837 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.062, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED=-4.3, 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 NCKP+IZpJ4Lq for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Nov 2008 17:05:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [208.31.42.53]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 305083A6AC2 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Nov 2008 17:05:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 52175 invoked from network); 15 Nov 2008 01:05:03 -0000
Received: from mail1.iecc.com (208.31.42.56) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 15 Nov 2008 01:05:03 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=t1108; i=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=bt1WFiA9q3cqPxxKSLWDN28YBYG1/MdN7CeOvK+ewRs=; b=MnEUcXSvUOXXQ8dX4isGu9YtuBSJAIuUbPKCSPByHRq3gIa894Rw6p7wZu+0rNiODz1+MdoVFbmEp2IymbMz2iR3nyHudlG+kfE2NjN/P7K3/IaA9kPJpvYSg7+W/qHm
Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2008 01:05:02 -0000
Message-ID: <20081115010502.37300.qmail@simone.iecc.com>
From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com>
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: more bad ideas, was uncooperative DNSBLs, was several messages
In-Reply-To: <491CB529.5010101@network-heretics.com>
Organization:
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
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

>For instance, what would happen if mail servers provided feedback to
>both senders (on a per message basis in the form of NDNs)

Well, since 95% of all mail is spam, and all the spam has fake return
addresses, you'd increase the amount of bogus NDNs by more than an
order of magnitude.  No thanks.

Incidentally, on a bad day I already get 400,000 NDNs from mail that I
didn't send, just from the minority of MTAs that send NDNs in response
to spam now.  This is not a hypothetical problem.

R's,
John
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status