Re: IESG Statement on Spam Control on IETF Mailing Lists

Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com> Mon, 14 April 2008 22:51 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 core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC5A63A6C95; Mon, 14 Apr 2008 15:51:29 -0700 (PDT)
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 E2C053A6C95 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Apr 2008 15:51:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.388
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.388 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.274, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, HOST_EQ_STATIC=1.172]
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 oJT1YE-pLbRC for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Apr 2008 15:51:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (dsl-66-59-230-40.static.linkline.com [66.59.230.40]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCEE728C0D9 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Apr 2008 15:51:26 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-version: 1.0
Received: from dkim-sign.mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01MTMBYDOP0W0034MY@mauve.mrochek.com> for ietf@ietf.org; Mon, 14 Apr 2008 15:51:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01MTM8YV27GG00007A@mauve.mrochek.com>; Mon, 14 Apr 2008 15:51:53 -0700 (PDT)
Message-id: <01MTMBYCI1TI00007A@mauve.mrochek.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 15:35:38 -0700
From: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
Subject: Re: IESG Statement on Spam Control on IETF Mailing Lists
In-reply-to: "Your message dated Tue, 15 Apr 2008 00:26:53 +0200" <4803DA2D.9090602@levkowetz.com>
References: <20080414153938.0A5153A6D4D@core3.amsl.com> <4803BDB1.4030005@levkowetz.com> <4803C5D7.7020900@gmail.com> <01MTM8WCXSZK00007A@mauve.mrochek.com> <4803DA2D.9090602@levkowetz.com>
To: Henrik Levkowetz <henrik@levkowetz.com>
Cc: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>, ietf@ietf.org
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

> On 2008-04-14 23:11 Ned Freed said the following:
> >> +1 to Henrik's comments. I don't think the two MUSTs
> >> that he comments on are algorithmically possible.
> >
> > These two MUSTs (the ability to whitelist specific posters without them having
> > to receive list mail and spam rejection) are both completely trivial to
> > implement with our software. The latter is normally done (and definitely should
> > be done) at the SMTP level, minimizing blowback.

> What you describe above is feasible and reasonable.  What the posted text seems
> to require isn't, in my opinion.

What I described is how I read the text. And while I sort of white the term
"whitelist" had been used, I'm having trouble figuring out how to read what's
there any other way.

> > I spend essentially no time these days with other messaging software but I'm
> > having a great deal of trouble believing this would be in any way difficult to
> > implement with something else. This is all stuff that lots of lists have done
> > for years - it doesn't even come close to rocket science.

> Humm.  You're able to provide guaranteed bypass of moderation without human
> evaluation, and without inspecting spam?  That's what my post was about, and
> if you can do it, I'm impressed.

I guess I should be flattered, but really, I fail to see why. Guaranteed bypass
of moderation is simply an allowed-poster whitelist. And while our
implementation does allow for it, there is no requirement, expressed or
implied, that this be in any way coupled to spam filtering. (Indeed, if the
Sieve list extension is approved there will be a way to implement all of this
using nothing but standardized mechanisms.)

As for notification of spam filtering, all this requires is that a notification
be returned when a message is rejected as spam. The only issue here is that
this needs to be done at the SMTP level to prevent blowback, but again, I hope
this isn't a problem to implement with most messaging software.

				Ned
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf