Re: [Shutup] Levels of proposals

Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Fri, 04 December 2015 01:19 UTC

Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
X-Original-To: shutup@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: shutup@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A9551A8AAD; Thu, 3 Dec 2015 17:19:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.311
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.311 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 QTs7Qg5mATyS; Thu, 3 Dec 2015 17:19:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8ECD41A8A05; Thu, 3 Dec 2015 17:19:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E013BE55; Fri, 4 Dec 2015 01:19:53 +0000 (GMT)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at scss.tcd.ie
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oqX-yKsTRm_J; Fri, 4 Dec 2015 01:19:51 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from [10.87.48.91] (unknown [86.46.20.32]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id ED47CBE3F; Fri, 4 Dec 2015 01:19:50 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cs.tcd.ie; s=mail; t=1449191991; bh=5IVrjZX7LIlJ2lfbSEuplhYeo4YGsH6YXk7d2Hs2iVM=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=s6JSsg3zOV0t7iVrHbKXvOfstxv6VqRxl2fomosBLO3zoV0+N3Hw1uCHYZjd1klEc bbmuLN9LqxqXCnE4uVy0TKyuA1zAXpVrkBwb6r1+q9eA1mjJeThqnQk2ERPuIfMgiQ FOLxoXHPVbMiauQPKrgmpfPSZ/gCynIjPxSr8/PA=
To: Brandon Long <blong@google.com>, shutup@ietf.org, ietf-smtp <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>
References: <CABa8R6vfT-9=51B32++eUAVeq5xuhTNUuv62yeO+W6AErRFnDQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Openpgp: id=D66EA7906F0B897FB2E97D582F3C8736805F8DA2; url=
Message-ID: <5660EA36.9030905@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 01:19:50 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CABa8R6vfT-9=51B32++eUAVeq5xuhTNUuv62yeO+W6AErRFnDQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/shutup/wPmiL2iZULnkCiH6sh_nygYAht4>
Subject: Re: [Shutup] Levels of proposals
X-BeenThere: shutup@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: SMTP Headers Unhealthy To User Privacy <shutup.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/shutup>, <mailto:shutup-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/shutup/>
List-Post: <mailto:shutup@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:shutup-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/shutup>, <mailto:shutup-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2015 01:19:58 -0000

This seems like another sensible opinion that doesn't make
overbroad claims about the goodness/badness of what's proposed
to be examined. More of us limiting our posting like this
would be good IMO.

S.

On 04/12/15 00:36, Brandon Long wrote:
> The WG proposal seems to imply taking all IPs out.  The discussion has
> mostly been about submission.
> 
> It seems to me that there are at least three different IPs used, and some
> of these are going to be visible regardless of intent.
> 
> Ie, there is the submission IPs, there are "internal" IPs, and external
> ones.
> 
> Submission IPs seem like the largest level of risk, and from my gross
> understanding of anti-spam, pretty minor.  I'm not sure what the current
> source levels are, but submission IPs would be most useful in the case of
> hijacked account spam or abusive account spam.  Presumably, if spam reports
> about such are forwarded to the MSP, then the MSP can easily store the
> information somewhere other than the easily forged headers and take the
> appropriate action.  Only if the answer is "they don't take action" would
> you need more.
> 
> Also, if the previous thread's list of large MSPs inclusion of submission
> IPs is correct, then >2 out of the top 3 have already removed them (ie,
> only a fraction of Gmail mail has them at this point).
> 
> Internal IPs, this hardly seems controversial.  If any mail system did
> that, not sure if anyone would bat an eye.
> 
> External IPs, ie server to server... I guess one may learn "something" if
> you can tell which submission server they talked to, we certainly have
> servers across the world... but even with 20 odd locations, I doubt that
> would be that specific.
> 
> So, I would recommend concentrating on submission IPs.  I might also
> include a recommendation for submission servers to store the IPs for some
> length of time to allow for abuse handling, or even to include an encrypted
> version in the message.
> 
> Brandon
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Shutup mailing list
> Shutup@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/shutup
>