> Am 19.05.2022 um 19:16 schrieb John Levine via mailop :
>
> It appears that Luis E. Muñoz via mailop said:
>> If implemented, the proposal for email could work similarly, if the large
>> ESPs took the same approach. This would only leave us with the
>> "other" type of spam to deal with. I wou
On 19 May 2022, at 12:29, Dave Crocker via mailop wrote:
> oh. gosh. we've been wrong about this. for 20 years.
Would you care to enlighten me on how the DNC "technological requirements"
differ from the hypothetical "DNE" list we have been discussing, and in
particular, pertaining to the simpli
On 5/19/2022 7:57 AM, Luis E. Muñoz via mailop wrote:
In this case, not really.
oh. gosh. we've been wrong about this. for 20 years.
d/
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
Ahoj,
Dňa 19 May 2022 13:16:13 -0400 John Levine via mailop
napísal:
> Also remember that the legal rule nearly everywhere outside the US is
> opt-in for bulk mail, so everyone is on the "do not spam" list.
Sure, it is more logical, even more intelligent.
Consider when some smart head will int
> On May 19, 2022, at 11:16 AM, John Levine via mailop
> wrote:
>
> Although they rarely talk about it, every ESP has a suppression list they
> apply to
> their outgoing mail. Partly it's to avoid complaints, partly it's so if a
> customer
> tries to mail to suppressed addresses, they know
On Thu 19/May/2022 14:42:13 +0200 Dave Crocker wrote:
On 5/19/2022 2:41 AM, Alessandro Vesely via mailop wrote:
On Wed 18/May/2022 03:01:49 +0200 Dave Crocker via mailop wrote:
Note that, in spite of DMARC, we still do not have per-user authentication.
The FTC report required *domain-level* a
It appears that Luis E. Muñoz via mailop said:
>If implemented, the proposal for email could work similarly, if the large ESPs
>took the same approach. This would only leave us with the
>"other" type of spam to deal with. I would think that a spamtrap included in
>the "do not spam" registry coul
> On May 19, 2022, at 8:11 AM, Dave Crocker via mailop
> wrote:
>
> As noted earlier in the thread, there are some actors who are not criminally
> inclined. Ignorant and/or aggressive, but willing to follow the rules, or at
> least mostly. So, for example, they properly identify themselves
On 19 May 2022, at 10:11, Dave Crocker via mailop wrote:
> Telephone-level DNC is a different category of technological requirement.
> Very different.
In this case, not really. As implemented in practice, you have to run your list
of phone numbers through a filter that will remove matching phon
On 5/19/2022 6:58 AM, Luis E. Muñoz via mailop wrote:
On 19 May 2022, at 9:41, Dave Crocker via mailop wrote:
So, sure. We haven't been able to do individual-level blocking, so let's add a
requirement for an additional bit of complexity. That will probably make this
mechanism work a lot bet
On 2022-05-19 at 09:58:37 UTC-0400 (Thu, 19 May 2022 09:58:37 -0400)
Luis E. Muñoz via mailop
is rumored to have said:
IIRC, there is (was?) a "National Do Not Call List" implemented in the
US at the federal level. Telemarketers and other organizations are
required by law to scrub their own li
On 19 May 2022, at 9:41, Dave Crocker via mailop wrote:
> So, sure. We haven't been able to do individual-level blocking, so let's add
> a requirement for an additional bit of complexity. That will probably make
> this mechanism work a lot better...
Heh, appreciate the humor. It certainly won't
On 5/19/2022 6:30 AM, Luis E. Muñoz via mailop wrote:
On 19 May 2022, at 8:42, Dave Crocker via mailop wrote:
[⋯] Domain level is not sufficient.
But is it though? A corporate providing email to its own users should certainly
be able to express a policy that it does not want to allow any fo
On 19 May 2022, at 8:42, Dave Crocker via mailop wrote:
> [⋯] Domain level is not sufficient.
But is it though? A corporate providing email to its own users should certainly
be able to express a policy that it does not want to allow any form of mailing
list email to its users.
Best regards
-l
On 5/19/2022 2:41 AM, Alessandro Vesely via mailop wrote:
On Wed 18/May/2022 03:01:49 +0200 Dave Crocker via mailop wrote:
Note that, in spite of DMARC, we still do not have per-user
authentication.
The FTC report required *domain-level* authentication. They wrote:
...
They were assuming t
On 2022-05-19 05:41, Alessandro Vesely via mailop wrote:
Couldn't the Do Not Email Registry also be domain-based?...
It could. Rodney Joffe (if my memory serves me right), implemented that
very thing and offered it up for domain owners to use.
AOL and several other majors, including very
On Wed 18/May/2022 03:01:49 +0200 Dave Crocker via mailop wrote:
On 5/17/2022 4:40 PM, Anne Mitchell via mailop wrote:
"why we can't do that", culminating in "the Commission concludes that, under
present conditions, a National Do Not Email Registry in any form would not
have any beneficial impa
On 5/18/2022 11:01 AM, John R Levine wrote:
but even though both are technically sound, nobody uses them outside of a
few specialized communities which suggests that it's not going to happen.
btw, neither does cert management in a way that has been shown to scale
across the open, hetero
On 5/17/2022 8:44 PM, Luis E. Muñoz wrote:
I wonder if this one
( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
should be complemented with a crypto version, to avoid triggering those that
hate cryptos being compared with money?
Indeed. In fact it seems clear to me that this is
On 5/18/2022 11:01 AM, John R Levine wrote:
Hm, your copy of the message appears to have been cut off. Here's the
rest which you presumably missed:
I didn't.
Your opening echoed my language, in a form casting it as taking
exception to it.
I was noting that your choice for interpreting m
Note that, in spite of DMARC, we still do not have per-user
authentication.
We have at least two flavors in PGP and S/MIME,
When something exists for 30 years and has market penetration that cannot
even rise to the level of being called 'meager'. /WE/ -- it, the Internet
community -- does not
On 5/18/2022 10:32 AM, John Levine wrote:
> It appears that Dave Crocker via mailop said:
...
Note that, in spite of DMARC, we still do not have per-user
>> authentication.
We have at least two flavors in PGP and S/MIME,
When something exists for 30 years and has market penetration that
It appears that Dave Crocker via mailop said:
>
>
>On 5/17/2022 4:40 PM, Anne Mitchell via mailop wrote:
>> "why we can't do that", culminating in "the Commission concludes that, under
>> present conditions, a National Do Not Email Registry in any form would not
>> have any beneficial impact on
On 5/17/22 16:40, Anne Mitchell via mailop wrote:
For those who didn't know, you may find this infuria...interesting. Did you know that CAN-SPAM mandated that the FTC look at creating a Do Not Email list and report their findings within 6 months of CAN-SPAM being enacted?
Of course, because la
It appears that Luis E. Muñoz via mailop said:
>On 17 May 2022, at 21:59, Dave Crocker via mailop wrote:
>
>> I keep enjoying that it has the style of satire, but is so well done is it
>> /extremely/ useful for legitimate use.
>
>I wonder if this one
>
>( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new f
> On May 17, 2022, at 8:10 PM, Paul Vixie via mailop wrote:
>
> that was vernon schryver, and the list is still online, and vernon still adds
> to it from time to time. rather than post the url itself, i'll post the
> KARKIVE link from news.admin.net-abuse.email where it was first announced.
On 17 May 2022, at 21:59, Dave Crocker via mailop wrote:
> I keep enjoying that it has the style of satire, but is so well done is it
> /extremely/ useful for legitimate use.
I wonder if this one
( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
should be complemented with a crypto vers
Dave Crocker via mailop wrote on 2022-05-17 18:01:
..., the bigger problem, IMO, are the folk who operate in a criminal
style, ignoring rules.
my view has always been that the people who don't know what the rules
are, and the people who know what the rules are but see them broadly
ignored, cr
On 5/17/2022 5:01 PM, Justin Scott via mailop wrote:
I seem to recall a list of "reasons your anti-spam proposal won't work"
http://craphound.com/spamsolutions.txt
Some of us send it pretty automatically to whatever the next proposal is.
Cory just told me that he got it from somewhere
Justin Scott via mailop wrote on 2022-05-17 17:01:
Ah, the Good Old Days(tm). I seem to recall a list of "reasons your
anti-spam proposal won't work" someone would post every time someone
came up with a new way to fight spam that included things like "It
requires spammers to change their beh
On 5/17/2022 4:40 PM, Anne Mitchell via mailop wrote:
"why we can't do that", culminating in "the Commission concludes that, under
present conditions, a National Do Not Email Registry in any form would not have any beneficial
impact on the spam problem. It is clear, based on spammers’ abiliti
So are we making our own list? This happening? I just use this right
now: https://www.stopforumspam.com/downloads
On 2022-05-17 18:40, Anne Mitchell via mailop wrote:
For those who didn't know, you may find this infuria...interesting.
Did you know that CAN-SPAM mandated that the FTC look at cre
Ah, the Good Old Days(tm). I seem to recall a list of "reasons your
anti-spam proposal won't work" someone would post every time someone came
up with a new way to fight spam that included things like "It requires
spammers to change their behavior" and "it involves a central authority or
agency to
For those who didn't know, you may find this infuria...interesting. Did you
know that CAN-SPAM mandated that the FTC look at creating a Do Not Email list
and report their findings within 6 months of CAN-SPAM being enacted? That
report was created and delivered, and it is 60 pages of "why we can
34 matches
Mail list logo
