Steven Champeon wrote:
on Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 10:25:18AM +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 23:19:47 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 19:19:24 PST, Dave Crocker said:
In general, that's what dkeys/iim and csv (and maybe spf) are
Basically a call to operators to adopt a consistent forward and
reverse DNS naming pattern for their mailservers, static IP netblocks,
dynamic IP netblocks etc.
...and to ISPs to facilitate the process by supporting their users who
want to run mail servers, and helping the rest of us use
on Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 04:51:34PM -0800, william(at)elan.net wrote:
...a very long and useful and informative message, for which I thank him.
Off to go decipher the madness that is RFC3982,
Steve
--
hesketh.com/inc. v: +1(919)834-2552 f: +1(919)834-2554 w: http://hesketh.com
join us!
on Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 01:52:43PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think that a secure email infrastructure is a good thing to have, in
and of itself. By secure, I mean one in which messages get to their
destination reliably, i.e. not lost in some spam filter, and one in
which a recipient
Once upon a time, Steven Champeon [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
7) all ISPs MUST act on ANY single abuse report (including being
informed of infected customer machines, which MUST be removed from
the Internet ASAP. No excuses)
One problem I have with this one is people do forge reports, and
on Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 10:32:13AM -0600, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Steven Champeon [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
7) all ISPs MUST act on ANY single abuse report (including being
informed of infected customer machines, which MUST be removed from
the Internet ASAP. No excuses)
4) all domains with invalid whois data MUST be deactivated (not
confiscated, just temporarily removed ...
All? Even those unpublished and therefore non-resolving? Sensible for the
scoped-to-totality trademarks weenies who argue that the stringspace is a
venue for dilution, whether the
on Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 12:55:06PM +, Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland
Maine wrote:
4) all domains with invalid whois data MUST be deactivated (not
confiscated, just temporarily removed ...
All? Even those unpublished and therefore non-resolving? Sensible for the
0) for the love of God, Montresor, just block port 25 outbound already.
What is wrong with dedicating port 25 to server to server communication
with some means of authentication (DNS?) to ensure that it is indeed a
vaild mail server. Mail clients should be using port 587 to submit
messages to
on Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 01:49:53PM +, Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland
Maine wrote:
Why would it matter if you deactivated an unpublished/non-resolving domain?
How do you deactivate an unpublished/non-resolving domain? You may borrow
a registrar or registry hat if that is useful to
on Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 12:41:44PM -0600, Adi Linden wrote:
0) for the love of God, Montresor, just block port 25 outbound already.
What is wrong with dedicating port 25 to server to server communication
with some means of authentication (DNS?) to ensure that it is indeed a
vaild mail
Numerous (as in at least hundreds, probably more) of spam gangs are
purchasing domains and burning through them in spam runs. In many
cases, there's a pattern to them; in others, if there's a pattern,
it's not clear to me what it might be.
From my point of view, pattern is which registars
I suppose it depends on how you define 'unpublished'; and how you define
'non-resolving'.
Your opening remark was that policy foo must be applied to all domains.
This doesn't accomplish anything for the set of domains that will never
be published (registry reserved strings), nor those that
on Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 05:28:45PM +, Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland
Maine wrote:
All is too blunt a tool.
So, then, when registering a domain, there should be a little checkbox
saying I intend to abuse the Internet with this domain? It makes no
sense to have a universal policy if it is
Why is it considered such a crazy proposition that domains should have
valid and correct whois data associated with them?
There is no relationship between data and funcion. The data is not
necessary to implement function-based policy.
Bah. You're saying that you're uninterested in discussing
on Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 04:24:42PM +, Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland
Maine wrote:
(quoting Anonymous):
Numerous (as in at least hundreds, probably more) of spam gangs are
purchasing domains and burning through them in spam runs. In many
cases, there's a pattern to them; in others,
Taking your comment in reverse order.
Or, alternately, you're simply saying that those who care about net
abuse are shackled by ICANN's bylaws and therefore we can do nothing.
I don't think you have a monopoly on care (or clue) about net abuse,
but it is pretty clear that you're not tall
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005, Steven Champeon wrote:
In a sense, I am suggesting a similar reallocation of resources.
Rather than put those resources into filtering spam, I'd suggest that
we will get a better result by shifting the resources into mail
relaying and managing mail peering
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 17:40:10 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1) any legitimate mail source MUST have valid, functioning, non-generic
rDNS indicating that it is a mail server or source.
And how, exactly, does it indicate it's a mail server or source?
In general, that's what dkeys/iim
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 19:19:24 PST, Dave Crocker said:
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 17:40:10 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1) any legitimate mail source MUST have valid, functioning, non-generic
rDNS indicating that it is a mail server or source.
And how, exactly, does it indicate it's a
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 23:19:47 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 19:19:24 PST, Dave Crocker said:
In general, that's what dkeys/iim and csv (and maybe spf) are attempting to
provide.
Yes, but he asked for a rDNS solution specifically...
I think Steve
on Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 10:25:18AM +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 23:19:47 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 19:19:24 PST, Dave Crocker said:
In general, that's what dkeys/iim and csv (and maybe spf) are attempting
to
22 matches
Mail list logo
