Clay Fiske wrote the following on 3/27/2014 7:54 PM:
On Mar 27, 2014, at 12:16 PM, Blake Hudson wrote:
It's entirely likely that a spammer would try to get a hold of a key due to its value or
that someone you've done business with would share keys with a "business"
partner . But ideally you
Barry Shein wrote the following on 3/27/2014 6:32 PM:
On March 27, 2014 at 14:16 bl...@ispn.net (Blake Hudson) wrote:
>
> Barry Shein wrote the following on 3/27/2014 2:06 PM:
> >
> >
> > I suppose the obvious question is: What's to stop a spammer from
> > putting a totally legitimat
On 3/27/2014 6:51 AM, Blake Hudson wrote:
The primary issues I see with SMTP as a protocol related to the lack of
authentication and authorization. Take, for instance, the fact that the
SMTP protocol requires a mail from: and rcpt to: address (more or less
for authentication and authorization pur
On Mar 27, 2014, at 12:16 PM, Blake Hudson wrote:
> It's entirely likely that a spammer would try to get a hold of a key due to
> its value or that someone you've done business with would share keys with a
> "business" partner . But ideally you'd authorize each sender with a unique
> key (or
On March 27, 2014 at 14:16 bl...@ispn.net (Blake Hudson) wrote:
>
> Barry Shein wrote the following on 3/27/2014 2:06 PM:
> >
> >
> > I suppose the obvious question is: What's to stop a spammer from
> > putting a totally legitimate key into their spam?
> >
> It's entirely likely that a sp
Barry Shein wrote the following on 3/26/2014 11:24 PM:
Some will blanche at this but the entire spam problem basically arose
from the crap security in Windows systems, particularly prior to maybe
XP/SP2.
Not sure where all that leads us, however. Better security at those
major exploitation poi
Barry Shein wrote the following on 3/27/2014 2:06 PM:
I suppose the obvious question is: What's to stop a spammer from
putting a totally legitimate key into their spam?
It's entirely likely that a spammer would try to get a hold of a key due
to its value or that someone you've done business
On March 27, 2014 at 08:51 bl...@ispn.net (Blake Hudson) wrote:
> >
> The primary issues I see with SMTP as a protocol related to the lack of
> authentication and authorization. Take, for instance, the fact that the
> SMTP protocol requires a mail from: and rcpt to: address (more or less
>
On 03/26/2014 08:12 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
As far as i'm concerned if you can force the spammer to use their own
IP range, that they can setup RDNS for, then you have practically won,
for all intents and purposes, as it makes blacklisting feasible, once
again!
Spammers can jump through
mailbox@[IPv6:2001:12:34:56::78:ab:cd]
You aren't allowed to use :: to abbreviate one zero hexadectet according
to RFC 5952.
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=2467
Oh, look at that. I wonder how many people realized that it made an
incompatible change to RFC 4291 four years ag
Hi,
On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 01:52:27PM +, Tony Finch wrote:
> John Levine wrote:
> >
> > There are also some odd things in the spec. For example, according to
> > RFC 5321 this is not a syntactically valid e-mail address:
> >
> > mailbox@[IPv6:2001:12:34:56::78:ab:cd]
>
> You aren't allowed
Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> Two errors, actually… As an RFC-821 address, it should be user@[IP]:port
> in both cases (user@[192.0.2.1]:25 and user@[2001:db8::1]:25).
You have never been able to specify a port number in an email address.
Tony.
--
f.anthony.n.finchhttp://dotat.at/
Lundy, Fastnet:
John Levine wrote:
>
> There are also some odd things in the spec. For example, according to
> RFC 5321 this is not a syntactically valid e-mail address:
>
> mailbox@[IPv6:2001:12:34:56::78:ab:cd]
You aren't allowed to use :: to abbreviate one zero hexadectet according
to RFC 5952.
http://www.r
Jimmy Hess wrote the following on 3/26/2014 7:12 PM:
The problem is with SMTP and is probably best addressed in the
application layer through updates to SMTP or required bolt-ons
(e.g SPF or similar); it was just simpler
SPF is useful, but not a complete solution.
I'm curious w
On Mar 27, 2014, at 3:24 AM, Franck Martin wrote:
>
> On Mar 26, 2014, at 11:26 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>>
>> On Mar 26, 2014, at 8:12 PM, Robert Drake wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 3/26/2014 10:16 PM, Franck Martin wrote:
and user@2001:db8::1.25 with user@192.0.2.1:25. Who had the goo
On Mar 26, 2014, at 11:26 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> On Mar 26, 2014, at 8:12 PM, Robert Drake wrote:
>
>>
>> On 3/26/2014 10:16 PM, Franck Martin wrote:
>>>
>>> and user@2001:db8::1.25 with user@192.0.2.1:25. Who had the good idea to
>>> use : for IPv6 addresses while this is the separato
On Mar 26, 2014, at 8:12 PM, Robert Drake wrote:
>
> On 3/26/2014 10:16 PM, Franck Martin wrote:
>>
>> and user@2001:db8::1.25 with user@192.0.2.1:25. Who had the good idea to use
>> : for IPv6 addresses while this is the separator for the port in IPv4? A few
>> MTA are confused by it.
> At
On March 26, 2014 at 20:21 d...@dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) wrote:
> On 3/26/2014 11:22 AM, Barry Shein wrote:
> > What makes IP address mobility possible is mass, unauthorized if not
> > simply illegal use of others' resources, such as with botnets or
> > massive exploiting of holes in web ho
On 3/26/2014 11:22 AM, Barry Shein wrote:
What makes IP address mobility possible is mass, unauthorized if not
simply illegal use of others' resources, such as with botnets or
massive exploiting of holes in web hosting sites' software.
Except that compromised personal computers are 'valid' by a
On 3/26/2014 10:16 PM, Franck Martin wrote:
and user@2001:db8::1.25 with user@192.0.2.1:25. Who had the good idea to use :
for IPv6 addresses while this is the separator for the port in IPv4? A few MTA
are confused by it.
At the network level the IPv6 address is just a big number. No
confus
On Mar 26, 2014, at 5:47 PM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
>
> On Mar 25, 2014, at 8:31 PM, Cutler James R
> wrote:
>
>> 3. Arguing about IPv6 in the context of requirements upon SMTP connections
>> is playing that uncomfortable game with one’s own combat boots. And not
>> particularly produc
>To my knowledge, there are three impacts that IPv6 implementation makes on an
>SMTP implementation. One is that the OS
>interface to get the address of the next MUA or MTA needs to use getaddrinfo()
>instead of gethostbyname() (and would
>do well to observe RFC 6555�s considerations).
In practi
On Mar 26, 2014, at 8:47 PM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
>
> On Mar 25, 2014, at 8:31 PM, Cutler James R
> wrote:
>
>> 3. Arguing about IPv6 in the context of requirements upon SMTP connections
>> is playing that uncomfortable game with one’s own combat boots. And not
>> particularly product
On Mar 25, 2014, at 8:31 PM, Cutler James R wrote:
> 3. Arguing about IPv6 in the context of requirements upon SMTP connections
> is playing that uncomfortable game with one’s own combat boots. And not
> particularly productive.
That is one of my two big take-aways from this conversation. T
On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 5:16 PM, Blake Hudson wrote:
>
>>> With this in mind, how hard is it for a spamming operation to setup
> rDNS for their IPv6 ranges? Not very hard, just like their ability to use
> SPF or DKIM (they will do it if it improves their deliverability). This is
> separate from
On 3/25/2014 10:41 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
(1) Architectural layers are a protocol design construction, only, which
assist with standardization. They are not a separation of
responsibilities.
Actually, they are specifically a separation of responsibilities.
That the separation doesn't work ade
Daniel Taylor wrote the following on 3/26/2014 7:45 AM:
On 03/25/2014 11:18 PM, John Levine wrote:
3. Arguing about IPv6 in the context of requirements upon SMTP
connections is playing that uncomfortable game with
one�s own combat boots. And not particularly productive.
If you can figure ou
On March 25, 2014 at 23:33 larryshel...@cox.net (Larry Sheldon) wrote:
>
> Is spam fighting really about SMTP? Or is it about abuse of the
> transport layer by (among other things) the SMTP?
That is the point, isn't it.
Most see spam as its content.
The real problem with spam is its volum
On 03/26/2014 08:05 AM, rw...@ropeguru.com wrote:
On Wed, 26 Mar 2014 07:45:06 -0500
Daniel Taylor wrote:
On 03/25/2014 11:18 PM, John Levine wrote:
3. Arguing about IPv6 in the context of requirements upon SMTP
connections is playing that uncomfortable game with
one�s own combat boots. An
On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 09:05:52AM -0400, rw...@ropeguru.com wrote:
> most cases, would that not make things easier? So those that want to
> run email servers SHOULD be on ISP's that allow for rDNS
> configuration for IPv6.
Several years ago now the IETF DNSOP WG worked on a document about
reverse
On Wed, 26 Mar 2014 07:45:06 -0500
Daniel Taylor wrote:
On 03/25/2014 11:18 PM, John Levine wrote:
3. Arguing about IPv6 in the context of requirements upon SMTP
connections is playing that uncomfortable game with
one�s own combat boots. And not particularly productive.
If you can figure o
On 03/25/2014 11:18 PM, John Levine wrote:
3. Arguing about IPv6 in the context of requirements upon SMTP connections is
playing that uncomfortable game with
one�s own combat boots. And not particularly productive.
If you can figure out how to do effective spam filtering without
looking at th
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 11:07 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
> On 3/25/2014 10:31 PM, Cutler James R wrote:
>
>>
> 2. SMTP is an Application Layer Protocol, supposedly independent of
>> Routing and lower layers of the protocol stack. Various communities have
>> added connection initiation requirements
>> But, as always, I'm not holding my breath.
>
>Is spam fighting really about SMTP? Or is it about abuse of the
>transport layer by (among other things) the SMTP?
I don't think that your typical spam recipient cares how the spam got
into her inbox. Anyone who has any familiarity with large sca
On 3/26/2014 12:33 AM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
> On 3/25/2014 11:18 PM, John Levine wrote:
>>> 3. Arguing about IPv6 in the context of requirements upon SMTP
>>> connections is playing that uncomfortable game with
>>> ones own combat boots. And not particularly productive.
>>
>> If you can figure o
On 3/25/2014 11:18 PM, John Levine wrote:
3. Arguing about IPv6 in the context of requirements upon SMTP connections is
playing that uncomfortable game with
ones own combat boots. And not particularly productive.
If you can figure out how to do effective spam filtering without
looking at th
>3. Arguing about IPv6 in the context of requirements upon SMTP connections is
>playing that uncomfortable game with
>one�s own combat boots. And not particularly productive.
If you can figure out how to do effective spam filtering without
looking at the IP addresses from which mail arrives, yo
On 3/25/2014 10:31 PM, Cutler James R wrote:
Wow, what a lot of NANOG traffic about IPv6 readiness for SMTP!
Please explain my misunderstanding on the following:
1. IPv6 is a Routing Layer Protocol (with some associated helpers, like RA,
ND, DHCP-PD, and the like).
2. SMTP is an Application
On 3/26/2014 午後 12:31, Cutler James R wrote:
Wow, what a lot of NANOG traffic about IPv6 readiness for SMTP!
Please explain my misunderstanding on the following:
1. IPv6 is a Routing Layer Protocol (with some associated helpers, like RA,
ND, DHCP-PD, and the like).
2. SMTP is an Application
Wow, what a lot of NANOG traffic about IPv6 readiness for SMTP!
Please explain my misunderstanding on the following:
1. IPv6 is a Routing Layer Protocol (with some associated helpers, like RA,
ND, DHCP-PD, and the like).
2. SMTP is an Application Layer Protocol, supposedly independent of Rou
40 matches
Mail list logo
