--On Saturday, April 04, 2009 9:11 PM +0100 Nix wrote:
I hasten to point out (a little late) that the talk itself was excellent
and hiliarious, but that you need excellent eyes or telepathy to grasp
it all without the slides.
Agreed. The presenter is very entertaining and the poor quality of
On 3 Apr 2009, n...@esperi.org.uk stated:
> (Worst *video* of a talk, from the POV of actual videoing, that I've
> ever seen. Almost solid black screen plus encoding artifacts. Focus on
> the screen, ye gods!)
I hasten to point out (a little late) that the talk itself was excellent
and hiliarious,
On 30 Mar 2009, Kenneth Porter spake thusly:
>> It's a good overview of how broken the RFCs are, with an extra helping
>> of zombie humour on top. Worth a look if you have an hour to spare,
>> though some of the slides are a bit blurry.
s/a bit blurry/completely unreadable/
Are the slides themse
John Rudd wrote:
> There are some interesting thoughts here about how to solve email's
> problems ... but I'd like to put forward some thoughts...
Thank you for sharing your insightful and well considered ideas. If
this were one of those new-fangled web 2.0 social networking sites I
would "mod it
On Thursday, April 02, 2009 12:13 PM -0600 LuKreme
wrote:
You should be sending mail out through your ISP which should be accepting
your outbound mail as from you since they know who you are. Once your
ISP (with their correctly configured SASL enabled mailserver) passes it
along to the next s
On 1-Apr-2009, at 16:53, mouss wrote:
do you guys know that designing a protocole is at least as hard as
writing code? now, is there still anyone around who does believe in
perfect code?
protocol design is actually harder:
This is precisely why it hasn't happened, and why the mail system is,
On 1-Apr-2009, at 01:55, John GALLET wrote:
[repost from yesterday, I was not using the correct From address for
this list...]
Yes, it means that every Received: header in an email is valid with
a valid IP, valid configuration (whatever that is deemed to be),
and valid DNS. Only servers th
Seriously guys,
Not to sound like a total jerk, but this is REALLY far OT, it is
certainly interesting, but it's not appropriate for the SA list..
Joe Vieira
John Rudd wrote:
There are some interesting thoughts here about how to solve email's
problems ... but I'd like to put forward some
There are some interesting thoughts here about how to solve email's
problems ... but I'd like to put forward some thoughts...
I believe it was Cantor, of Cantor and Siegel, the first big and
_well_known_ spammer of Usenet and the Internet (but not the first
outright spammer of the internet), who s
On Thursday, April 02, 2009 12:53 AM +0200 mouss
wrote:
Spam is a social problem, and social problems can't be solved by
technical means only. technology des certainly help, to some extent.
One of the ways technology can help is by increasing the cost of spam. SA
has already done that by ma
Kenneth Porter a écrit :
> --On Monday, March 30, 2009 7:52 PM +0100 Rik
> wrote:
>
>> The MAIL RFC's were conceives a long time ago and have had some changes.
>> Sure - the mail system is not ideal - however, with no RFC's we would
>> end up with closed, stupid proprietary systems that don't tal
Hi,
[repost from yesterday, I was not using the correct From address for this
list...]
Yes, it means that every Received: header in an email is valid with a
valid IP, valid configuration (whatever that is deemed to be), and valid
DNS. Only servers that were correctly classified as mailserver
On 31-Mar-2009, at 12:13, Kenneth Porter wrote:
--On Tuesday, March 31, 2009 3:03 AM -0600 LuKreme
wrote:
Because the idea is to be able to simply retire the current SMTP
and that
will be a lot simpler if the new service is on a new port. It will
also
be much easier to justify.
You're
--On Tuesday, March 31, 2009 3:03 AM -0600 LuKreme
wrote:
Because the idea is to be able to simply retire the current SMTP and that
will be a lot simpler if the new service is on a new port. It will also
be much easier to justify.
You're reminding me how long it's taking to get IPv6 adopted.
On 31-Mar-2009, at 04:07, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 30-Mar-2009, at 11:52, Rik wrote:
The MAIL RFC's were conceives a long time ago and have had some
changes.
On 30.03.09 14:13, LuKreme wrote:
The changes (RFC2822) did not change enough. What is really needed
is
SoSMTP (Son of SMT
> On 30-Mar-2009, at 11:52, Rik wrote:
> >The MAIL RFC's were conceives a long time ago and have had some
> >changes.
On 30.03.09 14:13, LuKreme wrote:
> The changes (RFC2822) did not change enough. What is really needed is
> SoSMTP (Son of SMTP) defined for port 26.
You Might Be An Anti-Spa
On 30-Mar-2009, at 19:58, Kenneth Porter wrote:
On Monday, March 30, 2009 2:13 PM -0600 LuKreme
wrote:
The changes (RFC2822) did not change enough. What is really needed
is
SoSMTP (Son of SMTP) defined for port 26. It would be 8bit
compatible
and would NOT be backward compatible with c
On Monday, March 30, 2009 2:13 PM -0600 LuKreme wrote:
The changes (RFC2822) did not change enough. What is really needed is
SoSMTP (Son of SMTP) defined for port 26. It would be 8bit compatible
and would NOT be backward compatible with current SMTP. It would not
have folding of headers line
On 30-Mar-2009, at 11:52, Rik wrote:
The MAIL RFC's were conceives a long time ago and have had some
changes.
The changes (RFC2822) did not change enough. What is really needed is
SoSMTP (Son of SMTP) defined for port 26. It would be 8bit compatible
and would NOT be backward compatible w
--On Monday, March 30, 2009 7:52 PM +0100 Rik
wrote:
The MAIL RFC's were conceives a long time ago and have had some changes.
Sure - the mail system is not ideal - however, with no RFC's we would
end up with closed, stupid proprietary systems that don't talk.
Microsoft Exchange is one reason
On Mon, 2009-03-30 at 10:32 -0700, Kenneth Porter wrote:
> This video was recently posted to the MIMEDefang list, and illustrates how
> bad the RFC's for mail format are. No wonder SA has such trouble deciding
> what's spam and what's legitimate. NOTHING is legitimate, due to problems
> with th
This video was recently posted to the MIMEDefang list, and illustrates how
bad the RFC's for mail format are. No wonder SA has such trouble deciding
what's spam and what's legitimate. NOTHING is legitimate, due to problems
with the standards. (And this doesn't even discuss SMTP, just the format
22 matches
Mail list logo
