Re: [EAI] Downgrade testing

btw, the implmentation is based on postfix.
could TWNIC JPRS NIDA do the similar tests and report the results?

YAO Jiankang
CNNIC

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "YAO Jiankang" <yaojk@cnnic.cn>
To: "Ernie Dainow" <edainow@ca.afilias.info>; "Stephane Bortzmeyer" <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>; "EAI" <ima@ietf.org>
Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2009 11:10 AM
Subject: Re: [EAI] Downgrade testing - Results

> 
> we send to the following 10 address, with <eai<ascii>>
>>> * echo@generic-nic.net 
>>> * echo@nic.fr 
>>> * Echo@TU-Berlin.DE 
>>> * echo@tu-chemnitz.de 
>>> * echo@ouain.com 
>>> * repondsmoi@crdp.ac-versailles.fr
>>> * echo@cnam.fr
>>> * ping@stamper.itconsult.co.uk 
>>> * ping@oleane.net
>>> * check-auth@verifier.port25.com
> 
> 
> we get the nice response from the following 6 address
> echo@generic-nic.net
> echo@nic.fr
> Echo@TU-Berlin.DE
> echo@ouain.com
> check-auth@verifier.port25.com
> repondsmoi@crdp.ac-versailles.fr
> 
> 
> we get the reject information from 1 address
> echo@copernic.cnam.fr
> 
> 
> we can not get any response from other 3 addresses.
> 
> 
> 
> Yao Jiankang
> CNNIC
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Ernie Dainow" <edainow@ca.afilias.info>
> To: "Stephane Bortzmeyer" <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>; "EAI" <ima@ietf.org>
> Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2009 9:09 PM
> Subject: Re: [EAI] Downgrade testing - Results
> 
> 
>> These echo tests were a good suggestion. I ran a base test from an ASCII 
>> address against all echo servers in the list. All responded except 
>> echo@cnam.fr. Email bounced with "unknown address", so I  eliminated 
>> that server from the test, leaving a total of 9 echo servers.
>> 
>> The success rate for receiving a response from echo servers:
>> 1) From ASCII, no downgrade      9/9      100%
>> 2) From EAI, downgrade               7/9        78%
>> 
>> auth-results@verifier.port25.com provided some SpamAssassin analysis:
>> 1) BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 1 to 5%
>> 2) BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 5 to 20%
>> 
>> For the downgrade test sent to individual participants the results were:
>> Total Sent    11   (all on different email domains)
>> Received       9    82%
>> Blocked        2    18%
>> 
>> These are not large samples, but it is interesting to see that the 
>> success rate in both tests were similar, and were in the SpamAssassin 
>> range of 20% probability of spam.
>> 
>> I encourage other implementers to run the same set of tests so we can 
>> get a larger sample and see if there are differences between Downgrade 
>> implementations.
>> 
>>    -Ernie
>> 
>> 
>> Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 11:19:48AM -0400,
>>>  Ernie Dainow <edainow@ca.afilias.info> wrote 
>>>  a message of 41 lines which said:
>>>
>>>   
>>>> The Downgrade test reported on the wiki basically tested against gmail.  
>>>> It would be valuable to do more testing 'in the wild' to see how  
>>>> Downgrade traverses various email systems in other organizations.
>>>>     
>>>
>>> You can test against various auto-responders which send you back your
>>> message (if you know other email addresses of auto-responders, do not
>>> hesitate to publish them).
>>>
>>> * echo@generic-nic.net 
>>> * echo@nic.fr 
>>> * Echo@TU-Berlin.DE 
>>> * echo@tu-chemnitz.de 
>>> * echo@ouain.com 
>>> * repondsmoi@crdp.ac-versailles.fr
>>> * echo@cnam.fr
>>> * ping@stamper.itconsult.co.uk 
>>> * ping@oleane.net
>>> * check-auth@verifier.port25.com
>>>   
>> _______________________________________________
>> IMA mailing list
>> IMA@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima
> _______________________________________________
> IMA mailing list
> IMA@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima