On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 09:56:52 BST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
1) What *immediate* benefits do you get if you are among the first to
deploy?
(For instance, note that you can't stop accepting plain old SMTP till
everybody else deploys).
You can replace complex and buggy spam filtering software
of course not. but the first thing to do is ignore naysayers. anybody
who tells you something can't be done should be suspected of extreme and
pervasive laziness until either they or you prove otherwise.
thanks for the great technical analysys
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And so we should do nothing?
No, but neither should we plan on engineering a solution. As Neil say - and
many know Neil and I generally disagree on principal about everything - a
technical solution will never get rid of spam. It may reduce it for a time,
but not for
And so we should do nothing?
No, but neither should we plan on engineering a solution.
not necessarily. as i have been trying to point out for some years,
look at bellovin's presentation at a nanog a few years ago on pushback
(sorry, i am on dialup and searches are a major pain). that isps
The web of trusted email servers would use a new and improved mail
transfer protocol (NIMTP) that would only be used to exchange email
between trusted servers. Users could continue to use authenticated SMTP
to
initiate the sending of email, but nobody would accept any
unauthenticated
SMTP
we all knew that profitable large network owners would change the
landscape
compared to merely ebitda-positive large network owners, and here's an
example of how big company cost management practices can go up against
reasonable and customary internet behaviour and pretty much ignore it.
Having
Speaking on Deep Background, the Press Secretary whispered:
Having an abuse@ email address may be customary Internet behavior but it
is no longer reasonable. The fact is that SMTP email has outlived its
usefulness and needs to be replaced with something that provides a chain
of
On Mon, 04 Aug 2003 13:38:37 BST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
The web of trusted email servers would use a new and improved mail
transfer protocol (NIMTP) that would only be used to exchange email
between trusted servers. Users could continue to use authenticated SMTP to
initiate the sending
Also the fact that the transition time would require many companies to
run 2 or more protocols. And simply put the majority of SMTP isn't
bad, if fully implemented as a single standard and implemented by
vendors and developers.
But the idea isn't bad, but may have massive cost additions, if
Valdis Kletnieks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1) What *immediate* benefits do you get if you are among the first to
deploy? (For instance, note that you can't stop accepting plain old
SMTP till everybody else deploys).
The immediate benefit (as sender) is that you reduce the (now
I would have though people would have learned by now that
there is no technical solution to spam. You can go ahead
with all these wonderfully expensive
authentication/filtration/insertantispambuzzword systems until
the cows come home and you will +_still_+ recieve spam.
Regards,
Neil.
On Mon, 04 Aug 2003 19:41:35 BST, Richard D G Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
The immediate benefit (as sender) is that you reduce the (now ever-increasing)
risk of your mail being rejected by filtration processes and will be trusted
on arrival; the benefit for the recipient is of course less
On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 12:16:12PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 04 Aug 2003 13:38:37 BST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
The web of trusted email servers would use a new and improved mail
transfer protocol (NIMTP) that would only be used to exchange email
between trusted servers.
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 18:50:36 -0400 (EDT)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
And so we should do nothing?
If a _few_ networks null-route abusers, said networks isolate
themselves. If _all_ networks cut off abusers, who becomes the
island?
Fixing the Internet is difficult. What can't be tackled
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And so we should do nothing?
of course not. but the first thing to do is ignore naysayers. anybody
who tells you something can't be done should be suspected of extreme and
pervasive laziness until either they or you prove otherwise.
--
Paul Vixie
Here is a company who thinks they have a solution for spam
http://www.nwtechusa.com/ironmail-zd-srit-enterprise-security.html
-Henry[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would have though people would have learned by now that there is no technical solution to spam. You can go ahead with all these
To add to the eternally annoying list of companies that ignore
abuse@ mail... ebay now requires that you fill in their lovely
little web form to send them a note. Even if, say, you're
trying to let them know about another scam going around that
tries to use the machine www.hnstech.co.kr to
... ebay now requires that you fill in their lovely little web form to
send them a note. Even if, say, you're trying to let them know about
another scam going around that tries to use the machine www.hnstech.co.kr
to extract people's credit card information.
one can easily imagine that
At 09:41 AM 8/3/2003, Paul Vixie wrote:
... ebay now requires that you fill in their lovely little web form to
send them a note. Even if, say, you're trying to let them know about
another scam going around that tries to use the machine www.hnstech.co.kr
to extract people's credit card
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Vixie) [Sun 03 Aug 2003, 18:42 CEST]:
[..]
this sounds like i'm defending them. i'm not. but while reprehensible and
irresponsible and socially radical, the web form approach's only real cause
for failure is when the lack of a useful feedback channel curtails
My bitch about no mail, use this stooopid webform is I then
get no file copy in my Out box. You get silence back from them...
--
A host is a host from coast to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
no one will talk to a host that's close[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't
On Sun, 3 Aug 2003, David G. Andersen wrote:
To add to the eternally annoying list of companies that ignore
abuse@ mail... ebay now requires that you fill in their lovely
little web form to send them a note. Even if, say, you're
trying to let them know about another scam going around that
At 12:53 PM 8/3/2003, Gerald wrote:
I even went to the web page they suggested to try
and give them a copy of the msg with full headers and none of their
categories at the time matched: Good willed person trying to give you
ammunition for a company abusing your name.
I gave up, and left it as
I submitted ebay.com to rfc-ignorant.org for this RFC violation almost a
year ago (which they of course accepted):
http://www.rfc-ignorant.org/tools/detail.php?domain=ebay.comsubmitted=1029353643table=abuse
Companies like this could simply care less. If you don't run a mail
system with
24 matches
Mail list logo
