whose penalty for abuse consists of making the spammer sign up for a
new drop box, or tier 1 providers that lie about the impossibility of
determining which of their resellers is hosting a spammer.
Vernon Schryver[EMAIL PROTECTED]
e contact, telephone and face to face meetings often
occur, but email is often the cheapest (not just in money or time)
way for an initial contact.
Vernon Schryver[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> aren't, policy-dependent. ...
Have you looked at SMTP-AUTH?
What about SMTP-TLS with verified certs required?
I hope you won't be too offended if someone points out
http://www.rhyolite.com/anti-spam/you-might-be.html
I wrote it during the first months of the ASRG mailing list.
Vernon Schryver[EMAIL PROTECTED]
dministrating anti-spam mechanisms, designing, writing
or deploying code, enforcing laws, or anything else that directly
affects spam in more than their personal mailboxes are contributing
to solutions.
Vernon Schryver[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- they are being actively discussed in the ASRG
Somehow "actively discussed" is doesn't quite convey "continually
discussed round and round without any change."
Vernon Schryver[EMAIL PROTECTED]
BAD!
Next you'll be telling me that if you telephone me, I can't hang up on
you. not that I would, but I reserve the right.
Vernon Schryver[EMAIL PROTECTED]
, and then complain about terrorist and vigilantes who keep
them from getting services they've not paid for.
That Internet service no longer costs several $1000/month is great
but irrelevant. That it costs more than $30/month is also irrelevant.
I think it's too bad that Internet access is not cheaper than it is,
but just now I'd rather worry about the costs of food and water for
most people on Earth.
Vernon Schryver[EMAIL PROTECTED]
e, say, China uses its governmental/monopolistic powers to block
> all email from Taiwan. It's an abridgement of a fundamental human
> right to communicate, which I think trumps the rights of monopolistic
> ISP's to cut their spam-related expenses. -- Nathaniel
That is offensive nonsense. The only right yours that is being abridged
is your supposed right to buy Internet access for $30/month.
Vernon Schryver[EMAIL PROTECTED]
access reall costs, your ISP could afford real abuse instead of just
letting the spam flow from your fellow $30/month lusers, and it could
afford to give you spam filtering than the worst DNS blacklists.
Vernon Schryver[EMAIL PROTECTED]
less of the ambitions of individuals to "make a difference"
or become famous, the IETF should strive first and foremost to do no
harm outside its charter in primarily non-technical arenas such as the
fight against spam.
Vernon Schryver[EMAIL PROTECTED]
entitlement and of hurt
and outrage at being snubbed by various blacklists.
Vernon Schryver[EMAIL PROTECTED]
sts and they're better connected than hosts on
the UUCP network were, but hosts on the UUCP network is what they are
like. There is a pressing need to admit and publish this fact to
forestall governments "saving" the situation. Contrary to the cries
of the free lunch crowd, governm
reputations to exchange.
You can add to your backlist only based on evidence that you can defend
in court. Reports from outsiders, including users of your blacklist,
are almost useless.
Vernon Schryver[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ernet down into the tenement slums. There are interests that would
love to see laws funnel all mail sent through Microsoft/AOL/Verisign
servers (probably using a form of PKI cert). Spooks, spies, and police
state officials would find those servers as convenient as monopolists
would find them profitable.
Vernon Schryver[EMAIL PROTECTED]
en the only room for improvement is in the trust query
protocol. DNS is a screw driver being used as a hammer in DNS blacklists.
However, this is merely a matter of optimization or elegance.
Vernon Schryver[EMAIL PROTECTED]
customers with less
than minimal evidence. Within the last 10 days, I watched a business
customer, not merely a home end-luser, get cut off by a major ISP with
telco connections for some time because it failed to respond to a report
of mine. Of course an ISP must be careful to avoid breaking contracts
and so forth, but that does not prevent termination. Why else is the
spam advertising "bulletproof hosting" common?
Vernon Schryver[EMAIL PROTECTED]
eep talking about suits and
> such.
We all know why people go on about suits and such. It is because they
have something personal to lose if spammers are routinely terminated.
That is variously cheap services subsidized by the lack of an abuse
desk at their ISP, services subsidized by revenue from spammers, a
desire to get rich or at least famous by flogging a Final Ultimate
Solution to the Spam Problem (FUSSP), a job at a spam haus of an ISP,
or a job at a spammer.
I realize this observation is impolitic, but it's past time to be
honest about the motives for the persistent nosense about spam.
Vernon Schryver[EMAIL PROTECTED]
no one else will take the job and if there is any hope of getting it
past the IESG, I'll happily be your editor, elaborator, or whatever. My
strengths don't include writing intelligible English, but it needs doing.
Vernon Schryver[EMAIL PROTECTED]
onal to and independent of the
filtering John wrote about. It is a reaction to the lack of filtering
done by the low priced ISPs.
Of course, none of those words belong in John's document.
Of course, I'm not serious about VoIP spam. To start, the bandwidth
needed for 10,000,000 5KByte spa
t into each
of the 1st three descriptions or having it one place.)
> Thanks. I've started a discussion with some selected ADs about
> what they want to do with this, if anything. My intent is to
> wait to see what they have to say. If they aren't interested,
> and interested in moving toward BCP, then the effort is, as far
> as I'm concerned, dead. If they want a WG, then the next real
> task is "charter". Otherwise... well, let's how they want to
> proceed.
That sounds right to me.
Vernon Schryver[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ers'
motives. That allowing customers to run "servers" increases provider
costs for bandwidth, technical support, and abuse handling is irrelevant.
The document should not spell out business models any more than it
should have a matrix of all possible combinations of offerings or
technical details of how the limitations of the various types of
services are implemented.
Vernon Schryver[EMAIL PROTECTED]
e of affecting even that
particular attack mode for years, because none can have any significant
effect until deployed on most SMTP clients. Many seem to be based on
insufficient familiarity with the nature of SMTP (e.g. SPF's incredible
source-routing scheme) and the urg
a dozen other proposals to use
public keys or other mechanisms along with the domain name system to
authenticate mail senders.
My rather negative view of the area can be inferred from
http://www.rhyolite.com/anti-spam/you-might-be.html
Vernon Schryver[EMAIL PROTECTED]
__
could doubtless arrange things so that even if they were using Microsoft
virus, worm, spam, and OFN distrubution malware, their mail headers
would lie.
Vernon Schryver[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> From: Eric Burger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Vernon Schryver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
&
ve often said that the IETF is well served by working groups that do
no more than absorb the energies of standards committee goers.
Vernon Schryver[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
inating all spammers including customers who let their machines
be "owned" or if all users were willing to pull their own weight instead
of expecting something for nothing.
Vernon Schryver[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
te, the spam problem results from service providers
such as UUNet, Comcast, and Yahoo and software vendors such as your
employer refusing to pay their shares of the costs to stop network abuse.
Vernon Schryver[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
at send any spam,
regardless of whether they are paid for their efforts (e.g. operators
of trojan zombies), then there would be no spam problem.
Why should the rest of us subsidize your ISP and your connectivity by
accepting SMTP/TCP/IP SYNs from your neighbors that are more than 99%
likel
Connectivity from many service providers, although
not at $30/month.
Mr. Borenstein and others like him expect the rest of us to subsidize
their $30/month connectivity by dealing with the network abuse of his
fellow customers, because they find $30/month comfortable. That position
would be less des
to reach reputable MTAs.
Note also the disconnect between the reverse-DNS of Mr. Borenstein's
SMTP client and his envelope Mail_From and header From: values,
and the lack of DNS RRs supporting any of the proposals for DNS-based
sender authentication. According to the advocates of those me
t
> is all I can afford, to be far more costly than the very
> negligable reduction in spam I would receive if TCP port 25 was
> blocked by ISPs.
I cannot understand that as other than a demand that I subsidize your
Internet service.
If you think that everyone has the right to run
untermeasure of using the ISP's servers, but many would not.
Besides, the ISP is could filter or at least rate limit, and there
are no easy countermeasures for spammers against that.
Vernon Schryver[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> From: Nathaniel Borenstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> On May 30, 2004, at 2:27 PM, Vernon Schryver wrote:
>
> > So what ISP was blocked?
>
> What are you, the ISP police? Not that it's any of your business, it
> was X0 DSL
Your repeated, unprovoked pub
d to marketing departments resisting
blocking port 25 for customers who aren't competent to use it.
Until consumer grade services providers such as Comcast do something
to stem the floods of spam they are sending, other organizations will
stem their incoming floods with bad tactics
dialup accounts (or any other
} Internet service) will have no effect in mitigating these types
} of attacks.
That is mistaken. Spam, worms, and viruses sent through ISP mail
systems can be filter. I understand that worm and virus filtering is
quite effective, but don't really know. Filt
ttp://ietf.org/html.charters/marid-charter.html),
maybe we'll get to hear a new chorus. Maybe a few will stop praying
for the salvation of business models that depend on abusing the commons
and switch business models. (e.g. actually deal with abusive users)
Vernon Schryver[EMAIL PROT
eal IP. Labelling such
filtered access as what it is or at least something other than "Full
Internet Connectivity" would reduce its popularity.
Vernon Schryver[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
s business, and not merely because of scaling problems.
I care about this issue because other individual IETF and ASRG
participants have threatened or started attacks on me similar to Mr.
Anderson's attack on Mr. Austein, because my mail systems are configured
h of them are infected with the
latest worms and viruses must block and redirect port 25 to their own
SMTP servers and so not provide what that draft calls "Full Internet
Connectivity."
Vernon Schryver[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
27;t know the differences among
"web," "Internet," and "telephone."
Users who do not distinguish between "web" and "Internet" also
think "WebTV" is Internet service. IETF cannot change that. That
VoIP, text messaging, and cel
hing. The
issue is whether we must wait for the market to provide equivalents
to "ham radio," "CB radio," "satellite radio," "AM," "FM," "TV," and
"cell phone." Arguing against the idea of draft is like saying
"the term
urf Accounts" be added?
- exactly what filtering is imposed on a "DSL Surf Account"? Is
port 25 filtered? 22? 135 and 138? Some or all UDP? ICMP?
- and the same questions for "business access."
Telling people to read contracts ISP today is disingenuous. If t
ovider
(or a government) to determine compliance.
Maybe this needs a WG.
> In general I support all what you said to some extent.
In that case it would be nice if you would not write as if you vehimently
opposed the notion of standardizing terms for classes or kinds of
Internet service. Excep
antly reduce whitelisting requirements.
Logging bodies involve some obvious privacy hassles. You must keep the
logs private. The logs can have only censored copies of the envelope
so that recipients can't know who else was sent the same message.
Vernon Schryver[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
ad of subscribing. That's how I follow some mailing
lists that for various reasons I choose to not give my address.
Vernon Schryver[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
lity? What good is an RFC that says "consult as yet
unwritten specifications from undetermined sources to handle the data
standardized by this RFC"? Isn't the first sanity test of a standard
whether one can determine if an implementation is compliant? As far
as I can see, Eric Ha
x mailboxes? Doesn't enough of that code already exist,
and doesn't all of it use transport mechanisms other than SMTP?
Isn't the IETF supposed to be about on-the-wire bits and keep its
noses out of host data structures?
Vernon Schryver[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
roup=30
http://www.rhyolite.com/anti-spam/bin/group.cgi?group=140 and
http://www.rhyolite.com/anti-spam/bin/group.cgi?group=165
Spammers can deploy sender authentication mechanisms far faster
than their victims.
- This thread has the wrong subject. It should be more like
&q
d drafts about encoding more than 4,294,967,296
addresses in 32 bits in order to avoid the hassles of IPv6.
Vernon Schryver[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
ld things that make you say "no one would
do that!" and then defend their braindamage as valuable features.
Perhaps more NAT RFCs would help; they couldn't hurt much. They'd be
a lot of work and would certainly be ignored by many people who consider
themselves designers. I can
7;T BE
STUPID!" sounds unlikely to solve many problems in NAT boxes, even if
committee "solutions" weren't the hallmark of the design and implementation
of garbage, probably including the junk NAT boxes at issue.
Vernon Schryver[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
uch stuff in proximity to the IETF administrative
reoganization...uh...negotiations is not really irony. Such things
tend to attract each other.
Vernon Schryver[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
games were in
play, which is not at clear.
Vernon Schryver[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
about being trustworthy and not having
power over me. Don't insult my intelligence. Your efforts here to
be named co-negotiator for open source authors are intended to exercise
power over me.
Vernon Schryver[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
erted
versions of my epistles in C. Still, someone who claims to represent
refuseniks like me in negotiations concerning open source with an
organization in which I've been particpating for decades ...
Vernon Schryver[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Ie
he IETF would
help Mr. Raymond's efforts to get the world to believe the phrase "open
source community" is not silly nonsense like "netizen," that it has
spokesmen, and that he is one.
Vernon Schryver[EMAIL PROTECTED]
P.S. I don't entirely agree with Mr. Vixie's
patents. The calls for the IETF
and open source authors to get involved in patent fights can be seen
as efforts by politicians and redistributors of our work to shift even
more of the burden of making their profits and reputations to us.
Vernon Schryver[EMAIL PROTECTED]
__
ive
> issues, but a summary of conclusions and justifications will be
> made available as soon as that is possible consistent with that
> level of sensitivity" and "the community isn't entitled to know
> that the discussions are being held".
True.
Vernon Schryver[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
seem inappropriate for confidentiality.
I don't care about bureaucratic organizing and almost certainly would
not read published minutes of whatever. I don't see any issues that
aren't better handled by people other than me. Or until the supposed
need to keep stuff secret was i
ng things in secret is always expensive. Sometimes the costs
of secrecy are less than the alternatives, but they always exist. In
this case, I'm now convinced that the reorganization stuff is less
boring than I assumed. I still prefer to let you and others deal with
it in private than to
id, if you must have contradictions between your ABNF and your
English, you must accept the fact that most technical people will
assume your ABNF is right and your English is wrong. That fact seemed
to me to conflict with statements in this thread, and that suggests a
problem in your working group and
> From: "Peter Constable" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>
> --===1521567419==
> Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
> Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
> boundary="_=_NextPart_001
TF version of the printer
protocol was just plain broken.
Other targets of this exercise describe protocols that were never
implemented and should never have been allowed on the standards track.
Why not scale back the exercise to attack only obvioulsy dead or
stillborn protocols?
Vernon Schryver
it has in recent months. Such stuff
would have been flatly inconceivable for the IETF of the 1980s. However,
it's best to acknowledge and deal with such irresistible changes.
They're the stuff of life and death.
Vernon Schryver[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
F doesn't want to work on language tags by
having a WG and the rest of those delays and work, then so be it. Let
the standards body that evidently does care do it...unless the incredible
"I'm gona tell the Liason on you" threat was the vacuous, standards
committee politicing as usual that it sounded like.
Vernon Schryver[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
ssumed from everyone outside the IESG.
Of course, 20 years or 25 years ago, things were nominally different.
In practical terms, the bar was higher still.
Vernon Schryver[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
age the first time, I was reminded of an
IETF slogan about rejecting kings and presidents as well as ancient
friction between the DDN protocol designers and users and the ISO.
I suspect that the language tag saga is not as bad as it seems and
that some good new IETF documents might come of it.
an't see any significance for Mr. Phillips comment except as yet
more evidence that the default answer for individual submissions
must be "ABSOLUTE NO!" He is basically saying "You must publish our
BCP because we followed all of the steps as we
gs document here and now.
That would sound like a decision to me, but I'm not sure I'd call
it hasty even as committee clocks count time.
Vernon Schryver[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
What about those of us who are growing weary
of dozens of such messages per day? Shouldn't the dozen or so of you
have already retired to a special purpose mailing list as you promised?
It's bad enough that many of your messages consist of thousands of
bytes saying no more than "M
squatters.
> > Using domains will become
> > easier.
>
> Empirical evidence indicates the biggest problem is finding the 1 out of 41M
> .com domains and avoiding all the typosquatters...
and neither of those has anything to do with the last 4 characters of the
name.
Vernon Schryver[EMAIL PROTECTED]
d to spammers or sound cool
to spammers and other incompetent sales people.
Of course, you're mileage may vary, especially if you have a legitimate
domain in one of those TLDs.
Vernon Schryver[EMAIL PROTECTED]
h
lawyers, require bonds (e.g. creditcard numbers), or any of many
other things, but anything would cost them money.
Vernon Schryver[EMAIL PROTECTED]
spammer, then the stranger is not really a stranger.
Vernon Schryver[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ng at free providers. With a white list of your friends
who use free providers, that is an extremely effective spam filter.
Vernon Schryver[EMAIL PROTECTED]
g idea. There
is at at least a factor of 100 in CPU speeds of current hosts. How
do you ensure that the fastest commodity CPU that a spammer might use
is forced to slow down more than the limit already imposed by network
bottlenecks without making old systems useless?
Vernon Schryver[EMAIL PROTECTED]
t; CPU? ...
Would you whitelist it for the next 10 years? If there are very
few, white-listing works. If not, you've got that bootstrapping problem,
and you've invited the white-listing camel into your tent.
Vernon Schryver[EMAIL PROTECTED]
using PGP or
S-MIME for our private mail. That's also why I see many more SMTP-TLS
connections to my SMTP server than I expected (many including from
spammers), and why almost none of them are authenticated. To use
SMTP-TLS you need only install and configure a current SMTP server.
To use authenticated SMTP-TLS, you must use PKI or exchange keys.
Vernon Schryver[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ain contacts
are useless for contacting spammers.
Besides, domain contact addresses generally unrelated and are
certainly irrelevant to the contact addresses for collecting money
in almost all spam.
Vernon Schryver[EMAIL PROTECTED]
such bounces would not have reached Dr. Bernstein. However, that's
irrelevant to the general principle that bounces are necessary for
the special cases of IETF lists.
Vernon Schryver[EMAIL PROTECTED]
to get rich or at least famous by Finally Stopping All Spam.
As with b-to-b, b-to-c, disintermediation, CMR, multi-media, and the
other SuperHypeWay crazes, people are rushing to market regardless of
history, archives, or any other consideration.
Vernon Schryver[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ngering doubts and crystalize consensus.
That it is so similar to previous rounds such as the TAP/IDENT "debate"
is probably irrelevant.
Vernon Schryver[EMAIL PROTECTED]
sses such
as requiring a new customer to sign a contract and return it by paper
mail (including terms of service that impose significant penalties
for abuse). The problem with such measures is that the are not free.
It's cheaper to put up the razor wire fences around the tenements.
Vernon Schryver[EMAIL PROTECTED]
hing with spam reports is far more expensive and requires more
effort than filtering SYNs. Charging or terminating resellers
for their spammers risks alienating resellers.
- pointed hair
...
The interesting question is whether a clear statement by the IETF
would help. Because of
re about dialup modems. Most spammers don't use
throw-away modem accounts as they once did. Instead they abuse open
proxies on DSL and cable-modem networks. The IP address of those
proxes are often listed in "dialup" blacklists.
However, I see practically no little spam that is not caught by
mechanisms other than "dialup" blacklists.
Vernon Schryver[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Disclaimer/advertisement: http://www.dcc-servers.net/
e price of email would not be zilch. Instead we'd have safe,
closed, far less useful islands like the current text messaging mess,
or the old AOL, x.400, UUCP, Microsoft, etc. mail islands. Weren't some
of the proprietary dial-up mail systems of the 1980's and 1990's
profitable? They certainly had prices a lot higher.
Vernon Schryver[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RTF.
There's a lot of "spam filtering" out there today. That some of the
filters listed in http://www.google.com/search?q=%22spam+filter%22
finds is from some of the worst spammers is a symptom and proof of
the power of running code over obvious principles and common sense.
Vernon Schryver[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I guess I shouldn't have used the V-word when talking about spam on
the IRTF's mailing list about spam.
sheesh!--talk about utterly lame and misguided spam filters.
Vernon Schryver[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> S
character sets.
They should probably also reject any MIME multipart mail, except that
that would not only reject HTML junk but also signed messages.
On the other hand, the messages with 5 KBytes of signature are at best
irritating.
I think they should also use the DCC to reject all bulk mail, but
that's probably only my bias speaking.
Vernon Schryver[EMAIL PROTECTED]
hould also use the DCC to reject all bulk mail, but
> > that's probably only my bias speaking.
>
> That's a _much_ better idea than banning specific character sets or mime.
Maybe so or maybe not. Using the DCC to reject all bulk mail would
prune a lot of conference announcemen
ulk mail.
CFPs are often bulkier than 5 or 10 when they first appear on an IETF
mailing list. After one copy has been exploded on one IETF list, another
copy to another IETF list is likely to be a 100 or 1000 times bulkier.
Vernon Schryver[EMAIL PROTECTED]
y=FAIL" in the received header when
the authentication part fails, but I think I recall a sendmail.cf
switch that says "refuse mail without a good certificate."
Vernon Schryver[EMAIL PROTECTED]
an errno value that indicates that the kernel has received
an ICMP Unreachable.
The code I'm thinking of is fairly portable, and so I've also had to
#ifdef it to ignore error numbers that ought to indicate an Unreachable
but don't on some UNIX-like systems or are not reported.
Vernon Schryver[EMAIL PROTECTED]
nd other nonsense about the costs of bandwidth, CPU
cycles, disk space, and even human system administrator time to deal
with spam.
Again, if spam costs mail providers much more than $1 or $2/month/user,
then how can free providers offer mailboxes and how can you buy full
Internet service including the use of modem pools or whatever for
$10-$15/month?
Vernon Schryver[EMAIL PROTECTED]
t? I hate to say
that, because the flood of clue-challenged, chest-thumping noise in
the ASRG mailing list has tailed off in recent weeks.
Vernon Schryver[EMAIL PROTECTED]
selling anti-spam services or software,
- counting coup on spammers by "LARTing" them, signing them up for
junk postal mail, etc,
- becoming famous for having stopped spam, or at least getting into
the RFC index.
Vernon Schryver[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> status quo.
I do not agree with that. Some people do have usually unconcious
interests in the status quo, but most people are doing illogical
things like attacking header forgery as if spammers could not create
zillions of valid user names at free or cheap providers or domain
names and avoid header forgery.
Vernon Schryver[EMAIL PROTECTED]
example, Cisco will stop receiving spam as well as inquiries from
prospective customers, at least not as freely and with semi-anomity
as today. This mailing list will stop receiving new subscriptions by
the old mechanism of sending a "subscribe" mail message.
Vernon Schryver[EMAIL PROTECTED]
preferred to facing facts.
The IETF will design SMTPng and the world will replace SMTP with SMTPng
in fewer than 10 or 20 years, and the proof of that is HTTP needed 5
years to reach critical mass without any significant competition and
in a trivially tiny network compared to the Internet of today?
http://www.w3.org/History.html
Vernon Schryver[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ibility of determining which customer
of a reseller is a spammer and seriously consider terminating the
reseller, spam cannot be reduced by technical mechanisms.
Vernon Schryver[EMAIL PROTECTED]
1 - 100 of 361 matches
Mail list logo
