On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 8:54 PM, Rich Kulawiec [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 05:51:23PM -0700, chuck goolsbee wrote:
Thanks for the update Jared. I can understand your request to not be used
as a proxy, but it exposes the reason why Yahoo is thought to be clueless:
On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 11:15 AM, Roger Marquis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sounds like the party line inside Yahoo, but there are plenty of ISPs that
do a really good job of combating spam. They do it with standard tools
like RBLs, Spamassassin, OCR, ClamAV and without ineffective diversions
Roger Marquis wrote:
Sounds like the party line inside Yahoo, but there are plenty of ISPs that
do a really good job of combating spam. They do it with standard tools
like RBLs, Spamassassin, OCR, ClamAV and without ineffective diversions
like SPF or DKIM.
Seen from inside, it is not
At 01:58 AM 4/13/2008, you wrote:
Why should large companies participate here about mail issues? Last I
checked this wasn't the mailing list for these issues:
True, though some aspects of mail service are inextricably tied to
broader networking issues, and thus participation here might still
On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 3:57 PM, Rob Szarka [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
True, though some aspects of mail service are inextricably tied to broader
networking issues, and thus participation here might still benefit them. But
sadly Yahoo doesn't even seem to participate in more relevant forums,
On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 1:58 AM, Ross [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[ clip ]
I heartily second this. Yahoo (and Hotmail) (and Comcast and Verizon)
mail system personnel should be actively participating here, on mailop,
on spam-l, etc. A lot of problems could be solved (and some avoided)
On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 8:24 PM, Martin Hannigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Having some provider or group(MAAWG?) explain the new and improved
overhead driven mail/abuse desk would make an excellent NANOG
presentation, IMHO, and it could include a V6 slant like and to
handle V6 abuse
Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 3:57 PM, Rob Szarka [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
True, though some aspects of mail service are inextricably tied to broader
networking issues, and thus participation here might still benefit them. But
sadly Yahoo doesn't even seem to
On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 10:09 PM, Joel Jaeggli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
MAAWG, is fine but the requirements for participation are substantially
higher than the nanog list.
* Quite a lot of ISPs who already attend nanog are also maawg members
* Lots of independent tech experts (Dave Crocker,
At 08:49 AM 4/13/2008, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
There are other lists, far more relevant than spam-l or nanae.
Feel free to suggest some that you feel would be more appropriate or
effective. Since reaching them via [EMAIL PROTECTED] or any of their
published phone numbers doesn't seem
I realize it's natural and predictable, when spam is mentioned, to
repeat the folklore...then the robots came and we were all driven
underground to survive...
However my point was something more in the realm of standards and
operations and what we can do rather than going back over what we
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jon R. Kibler) writes:
Anyone have any info on either of these domains?
I have seen several recent web sites that had an iframe
that pointed to clickbank.net and interesting / hidden
links to bundleway.com.
Haven't found much of use in a quick search of Google,
At 02:18 PM 4/13/2008, Barry Shein wrote:
Is it [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] or
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (very commonly used) or [EMAIL PROTECTED] Who cares? But
let's pick ONE, stuff it in an RFC or BCP and try to get each other to
conform to it.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] is
Gak, there isn't even a standard code which means MAILBOX FULL or
ACCOUNT NOT RECEIVING MAIL other than MAILBOX FULL, maybe by choice,
maybe non-payment, as specific as a site is comfortable with.
That's what I mean by standards and at least trying to focus on what
can be done rather than
This GoogleAd appeared while reading this thread:
$400k ClickBank Website - www.AffiliateSiteX.com - Get your very own
ClickBank website And let me show you how to push it
Thanks, Google! (Link obviously redacted for security reasons.) Leads to
www.affiliatesitex.com, which appears to be an alias
On April 13, 2008 at 15:17 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob Szarka) wrote:
At 02:18 PM 4/13/2008, Barry Shein wrote:
Is it [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] or
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (very commonly used) or [EMAIL PROTECTED] Who cares? But
let's pick ONE, stuff it in an RFC
On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 12:58:59AM -0500, Ross wrote:
On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 8:54 PM, Rich Kulawiec [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I heartily second this. Yahoo (and Hotmail) (and Comcast and Verizon)
mail system personnel should be actively participating here, on mailop,
on spam-l, etc. A
On April 13, 2008 at 14:24 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joe Greco) wrote:
I would have thought it was obvious, but to see this sort of enlightened
ignorance(*) suggests that it isn't: The current methods of spam filtering
require a certain level of opaqueness.
Indeed, that must be the problem.
of abuse might be useful for large providers, but since we can't even
get many domains even to set up the already-specified abuse@ address, much
less read the mail we send to it,
When someone like AOL offloads their user complaints of spams to all the
abuse@ addresses instead of verifying
On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 3:24 PM, Rich Kulawiec [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 12:58:59AM -0500, Ross wrote:
On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 8:54 PM, Rich Kulawiec [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I heartily second this. Yahoo (and Hotmail) (and Comcast and Verizon)
mail system
On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 5:27 AM, Rob Szarka [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 01:58 AM 4/13/2008, you wrote:
Why should large companies participate here about mail issues? Last I
checked this wasn't the mailing list for these issues:
True, though some aspects of mail service are
I was asked to forward this to the list by Eric:
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2008 10:27:40 -0700
From: Eric Brunner-Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (Macintosh/20080213)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Problems sending mail from .mumble
On April 13, 2008 at 14:24 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joe Greco) wrote:
I would have thought it was obvious, but to see this sort of enlightened
ignorance(*) suggests that it isn't: The current methods of spam filtering
require a certain level of opaqueness.
Indeed, that must be the
At 04:41 PM 4/13/2008, Geo. wrote:
of abuse might be useful for large providers, but since we can't even
get many domains even to set up the already-specified abuse@
address, much less read the mail we send to it,
When someone like AOL offloads their user complaints of spams to all
the
On Sun, 13 Apr 2008, Geo. wrote:
of abuse might be useful for large providers, but since we can't even
get many domains even to set up the already-specified abuse@ address, much
less read the mail we send to it,
When someone like AOL offloads their user complaints of spams to all the
FBi Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 15:42:29 -0500
FBi From: Frank Bulk - iNAME
FBi Sounds like the obvious thing to tell customers complaining about
FBi their e-mail not getting to Yahoo! is to tell them that Yahoo!
FBi doesn't want it.
Obviously. That's when the client asked if their servers (perhaps
Massive quoting gets old fast so I'll try to summarize and if I
misrepresent your POV in any way my profuse apologies in advance.
First and foremost let me say that if we had a vote here tomorrow on
the spam problem I suspect you'd win but that's because most people,
even (especially) people
I agree that they aren't completely useless. From our environment the abuse
desks can be somewhat overwhelmed though. If you setup feedback loops for
networks size of
1x /16
2x /17
2x /18
1x /19
to receive abuse complaints on dedicated / collocated customers you do get a
some good complaints.
On Apr 13, 2008, at 5:04 PM, Barry Shein wrote:
Massive quoting gets old fast so I'll try to summarize and if I
misrepresent your POV in any way my profuse apologies in advance.
First and foremost let me say that if we had a vote here tomorrow on
the spam problem I suspect you'd win but
Bottom line first:
We need OOB metadata (trust/distrust) information exchange that scales
better than the current O(N^2) nonsense, yet is not PKI.
And now, the details... which ended up longer reading than I intended.
My apologies. As Mark Twain said, I didn't have time to write a short
On Apr 13, 2008, at 2:24 PM, Joe Greco wrote:
For example, I feel very strongly that if a user signs up for a
list, and
then doesn't like it, it isn't the sender's fault, and the mail
isn't spam.
Now, if the user revokes permission to mail, and the sender keeps
sending,
that's covered as
Massive quoting gets old fast so I'll try to summarize and if I
misrepresent your POV in any way my profuse apologies in advance.
First and foremost let me say that if we had a vote here tomorrow on
the spam problem I suspect you'd win but that's because most people,
even (especially)
On Sun, Apr 13, 2008, Joe Greco wrote:
browsers such as Firefox and Thunderbird. But it is a LARGE paradigm
shift, and it doesn't even solve every problem with the e-mail system.
I am unconvinced that there aren't smaller potential paradigm shifts that
could be made. However...
There
On Sun, Apr 13, 2008, Joe Greco wrote:
browsers such as Firefox and Thunderbird. But it is a LARGE paradigm
shift, and it doesn't even solve every problem with the e-mail system.
I am unconvinced that there aren't smaller potential paradigm shifts that
could be made. However...
Another alternative is something we've been working on that we call
Perspectives:
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dwendlan/perspectives/
Warning: This is a work in progress. The Mozilla plugin is a little
flaky and the paper is still being revised for the final revision for
USENIX. The SSH
AC Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 10:18:40 +0800
AC From: Adrian Chadd
AC There already has been a paradigm shift. University students
AC (college for you 'merkins) use facebook, myspace (less now,
AC thankfully!) and IMs as their primary online communication method.
IOW: Must establish trust OOB
On Mon, 14 Apr 2008, Adrian Chadd wrote:
There already has been a paradigm shift. University students (college for
you
'merkins) use facebook, myspace (less now, thankfully!) and IMs as their
primary online communication method. A number of students at my university
use email purely because
SL Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 14:47:12 +1200 (NZST)
SL From: Simon Lyall
SL The question is what tool are people going to use to talk to people,
SL government bodies and companies that they are not friends with?
SL Even if the person you want to contact is on IM it is likely they
SL will block
On Mon, Apr 14, 2008, Simon Lyall wrote:
That is not anything new. ICQ is 10 years old and IRC was common in the
early 90s. I would guess plenty of people on this list use (and used back
then) both to talk to their friends and team mates.
There's a difference here. In the 90's we used IRC
On Sun, Apr 13, 2008, Joe Greco wrote:
I believe this is functionally equivalent to the block 25 and consider
SMTP dead FUSSP.
It's worth noting that each newer system is being systematically attacked
as well. It isn't really a solution, it's just changing problem platforms.
The abuse
1. They are not complaints as such. They are what AOL users click report spam on
2. They are sent in a standard format - http://www.mipassoc.org/arf/ -
and if you weed out the obvious (separate forwarding traffic out
through another IP, and ditto for bounce traffic), then you will find
that -
On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 08:04:12PM -0400, Barry Shein wrote:
A number of things that are true, including:
I say the core problem in spam are the botnets capable of delivering
on the order of 100 billion msgs/day.
But I say the core problem is deeper. Spam is merely a symptom of an
On Sun, Apr 13, 2008, Joe Greco wrote:
I believe this is functionally equivalent to the block 25 and consider
SMTP dead FUSSP.
It's worth noting that each newer system is being systematically attacked
as well. It isn't really a solution, it's just changing problem platforms.
The
On Apr 13, 2008, at 5:36 PM, Edward B. DREGER wrote:
Bottom line first:
We need OOB metadata (trust/distrust) information exchange that
scales
better than the current O(N^2) nonsense, yet is not PKI.
Not sure why PKI should be excluded, but, so far, this is too abstract
to know what the
On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 11:48:31PM -0400, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 08:04:12PM -0400, Barry Shein wrote:
A number of things that are true, including:
I say the core problem in spam are the botnets capable of delivering
on the order of 100 billion msgs/day.
But I say
On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 10:34 AM, Owen DeLong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Now I'm lost again. You've mixed so many different metaphors from
interdomain routing to distance-vector computaton to store-and-forward
that I simply don't understand what you are proposing or how one
could begin to
46 matches
Mail list logo
