Re: [89attendees] spam on old lists - was Fw: new important message
"Carlos M. Martinez" <carlos@lacnic.net> Fri, 15 April 2016 18:56 UTC
Return-Path: <carlos@lacnic.net>
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 A4CED12D571; Fri, 15 Apr 2016 11:56:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] 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 Ezd9-0cJ919v; Fri, 15 Apr 2016 11:55:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.lacnic.net.uy (hermes.lacnic.net.uy [IPv6:2001:13c7:7001:4000::8]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F3AE12D7E1; Fri, 15 Apr 2016 11:55:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hermes.lacnic.net.uy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.lacnic.net.uy (Postfix) with ESMTP id CACAD16B40F5D; Fri, 15 Apr 2016 15:47:55 -0300 (UYT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at lacnic.net.uy
Received: from mail.lacnic.net.uy ([127.0.0.1]) by hermes.lacnic.net.uy (mail.lacnic.net.uy [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id l1UwrNSkk5AU; Fri, 15 Apr 2016 15:47:54 -0300 (UYT)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:13c7:7001:2128:5006:52b0:f2fc:e8fc] (unknown [IPv6:2001:13c7:7001:2128:5006:52b0:f2fc:e8fc]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.lacnic.net.uy (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D90B616B400E2; Fri, 15 Apr 2016 15:47:54 -0300 (UYT)
Subject: Re: [89attendees] spam on old lists - was Fw: new important message
To: ietf@johnlevine.com, 89attendees@ietf.org
References: <20160415185238.6233.qmail@ary.lan>
From: "Carlos M. Martinez" <carlos@lacnic.net>
Message-ID: <57113939.80102@lacnic.net>
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2016 15:55:53 -0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20160415185238.6233.qmail@ary.lan>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/pHPZjbyAJ1yMB7m8o4VW9O8_n78>
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
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 18:56:01 -0000
Aren´t old XXattendees MLs suspended/default moderated ? i would have thought so. At least it's what we do with old lacnicXX-attendees -Carlos On 4/15/16 3:52 PM, ietf@johnlevine.com wrote: >> 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. > There are hundreds of DNSBL providers, most of whom are incompentent, > but nobody uses their lists so it doesn't matter. There are a few > that are competent and have very low error rates. They, not > surprisingly, are the ones everyone uses. When I say everyone, I mean > it -- every mail system of any size uses them as part of their spam > filtering because they have to. They're awful but less awful than the > alternatives. > > In this particular case, filtering by From: address on mailing lists > still works well enough, particularly here where the participants tend > to be technically sophisticated and so are somewhat less likely to get > their accounts p3ned than average users. So I agree that we might as > well turn off useless old meeting lists, but I don't see any need to > twiddle things beyond that. > > R's, > John > > PS: > >>> 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. > I don't think that's a failure of imagination, it's in the nature of > systems with malicious participants. It's not unrelated to the > observation that you wouldn't want to join a club that would have you > as a member. > > _______________________________________________ > 89attendees mailing list > 89attendees@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/89attendees
- spam on old lists - was [89attendees] Fw: new imp… paul
- Re: spam on old lists - was [89attendees] Fw: new… Dick Franks
- Re: spam on old lists - was [89attendees] Fw: new… JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- Re: spam on old lists - was [89attendees] Fw: new… John Leslie
- Re: spam on old lists - was [89attendees] Fw: new… David Morris
- Re: spam on old lists - was [89attendees] Fw: new… JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- Re: spam on old lists - was [89attendees] Fw: new… ietf
- Re: [89attendees] spam on old lists - was Fw: new… Carlos M. Martinez
- Re: spam on old lists - was [89attendees] Fw: new… John Leslie
- Re: spam on old lists - was [89attendees] Fw: new… JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- Re: spam on old lists - was [89attendees] Fw: new… Benson Schliesser
- Re: [89attendees] spam on old lists - was Fw: new… Dick Franks
- Re: spam on old lists - was [89attendees] Jared Mauch
- Re: spam on old lists - was [89attendees] Fw: new… John R Levine