Internet Force Stats
from: http://www.internetforce.org/tiki/tiki-stats.php 24 days online 43 pages 200 pages view per day 32 Users including 13 User Profiles New Wiki Pages: Privacy Technology Niue Nauru www.internetforce.org Is a site where any can contribute and write about any Internet Issue, informing the general public about the challenges the Internet is facing, while directing the public to more in depth information on other sites. The Internet Force supports the work of the Internet Society: www.isoc.org Franck Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] SOPAC, Fiji GPG Key fingerprint = 44A4 8AE4 392A 3B92 FDF9 D9C6 BE79 9E60 81D9 1320 Toute connaissance est une reponse a une question G.Bachelard signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Since when is ietf@ietf.org a website stats list? (RE: Internet Force Stats)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Franck Martin wrote: from: http://www.internetforce.org/tiki/tiki-stats.php 24 days online 43 pages 200 pages view per day 32 Users including 13 User Profiles Is everybody going to show their webstats on the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list ? Greets, Jeroen -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: Unfix PGP for Outlook Alpha 13 Int. Comment: Jeroen Massar / http://unfix.org/~jeroen iQA/AwUBQAFnIimqKFIzPnwjEQKNwwCgqt/Oi4zxdiuYjpTWlM4MDWZHst0Ani34 UKU+VCUqjdtfHQd2Ai3RpZpZ =CHnT -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: SMTP Minimum Retry Period - Proposal To Modify Mx
From: Keith Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] ... In any case, what standing do you have to comment on what mail is rejected by other peoples SMTP servers? Sites can reject mail to their own servers if they want to. the issue is whether they're being misled about the criteria used by a blacklist. If that is an issue, it ought to be raised by those who are being misled, the targets of mail, instead of senders and other third parties. I think that as long as those using blacklists get what they ask for, no outsiders have any business commenting, and particularly not would be senders of unsolicited bulk mail. Apparently you also think that it's acceptable to forward mail from people you don't like to DCC, misrepresenting it as spam. The only reasonable response to people with this kind of attitude ends with and the horse you rode in on. Actually, that's being far too polite. First, contrary to Keith Moore's the baloney, DCC clients detect bulk mail. It is impossible to (mis)represent mail as unsolicited bulk mail or spam by forwarding it to a DCC server. Doing so only reports it as bulk. Are the courtesy copies mailing list contributions that Keith Moore insists on sending bulk? If they are private, then forwarding them to the DCC instead of my mailbox can have no effect because no one else will see them. If they are bulk, then some extra reporting also has no effect; if DCC clients haven't marked them solicited bulk by whitelisting the IETF list, they should be rejected as unsolicited bulk mail. That's how the DCC works. So why is Keith Moore so exercised? Consider courtesy copies of mailing list messages and the people who send them. Many courtesy copies are sent unthinkingly by using a reply all function, but others are intentional. The intentional copies amount to microphone queue jumping. Their senders they feel their targets should see and respond to their words first. When the IETF reflector took literally days to finish sending copies to people at the end of alphabet like me, there might have been other reasons, but today it finishes within several dozen minutes. I didn't realize that courtesy copies are often intentional queue jumping until I noticed that senders of courtesy copies tend to foam at the mouth about the evils of MAPS, the RBL, blacklists, and spam filtering in general. I did not notice that common thread until I tired of courtesy copies of foaming flaming nonsense and started dropping senders into my personal, non-published blacklist. If you want to see apoplectic fits, use a sendmail access_DB instead of procmail to for your filtering. That will spare your system a few cycles, but it also lets senders know they're not being heard. People who hate the RBL and DUL for impersonally filtering their earthshaking words really hate being being personally shunned. Vernon Schryver[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: SMTP Minimum Retry Period - Proposal To Modify Mx
... It's never clear to me what Keith Moore means by RBL when he repeats that claim. Those three letters are a registered service mark for a product that historically has been run so conservatively that claims that should not be used to reject mail sound silly. Yes, RBL did indeed reject valid mail, I never heard of any examples of mail considered valid by its targets that was rejected as the result of RBL listings. Maybe you ought to get out more. Could you point to significant amounts of real mail, as opposed to theoretical examples, that might reasonably have consider legitimate by its targets but that was rejected as the result of a MAPS RBL listing? Yes, but I'm not going to dig back through backup tapes looking from complaints from users who didn't get their na-digests just because you're in denial. In any case, what standing do you have to comment on what mail is rejected by other peoples SMTP servers? Sites can reject mail to their own servers if they want to. the issue is whether they're being misled about the criteria used by a blacklist. I think that as long as those using blacklists get what they ask for, no outsiders have any business commenting, and particularly not would be senders of unsolicited bulk mail. Apparently you also think that it's acceptable to forward mail from people you don't like to DCC, misrepresenting it as spam. The only reasonable response to people with this kind of attitude ends with and the horse you rode in on. Actually, that's being far too polite.
Re: SMTP Minimum Retry Period - Proposal To Modify Mx
In any case, what standing do you have to comment on what mail is rejected by other peoples SMTP servers? Sites can reject mail to their own servers if they want to. the issue is whether they're being misled about the criteria used by a blacklist. If that is an issue, it ought to be raised by those who are being misled, the targets of mail, instead of senders and other third parties. it IS being raised by them, for those who are actually able to figure out what's going on. of course, when the recipient doesn't receive the mail he's expecting, he has no idea where to look - so he tends to blame the sender. Apparently you also think that it's acceptable to forward mail from people you don't like to DCC, misrepresenting it as spam. The only reasonable response to people with this kind of attitude ends with and the horse you rode in on. Actually, that's being far too polite. First, contrary to Keith Moore's the baloney, DCC clients detect bulk mail. whatever. your mail server claims it's forwarding my mail to DCC, and it's not bulk mail. Consider courtesy copies of mailing list messages and the people who send them. Many courtesy copies are sent unthinkingly by using a reply all function, but others are intentional. The intentional copies amount to microphone queue jumping. and the horse you rode in on. you are misleading people, and you know it.
Re: SMTP Minimum Retry Period - Proposal To Modify Mx
Cc: Keith Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Keith Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Vernon Schryver [EMAIL PROTECTED] ... If that is an issue, it ought to be raised by those who are being misled, the targets of mail, instead of senders and other third parties. it IS being raised by them, for those who are actually able to figure out what's going on. of course, when the recipient doesn't receive the mail he's expecting, he has no idea where to look - so he tends to blame the sender. Keith Moore is not complaining about mail he has not received because of the dasterdly misinformation from the RBL. He is either a third party sender of reject mail that he is certain was wanted by its targets despite being rejected or he is a fourth party presuming to speak for the first parties (spam targets) against the second parties (blacklist providers). An odd thing about users of DNS blacklists and other filters is that many users avoid confronting senders of rejected mail. Many users are happy to let senders assume what the senders want to believe, that the evil nasty rbl consipracy used lies, bribery, and extortion to force an ISPs to use a blacklist. Never mind that after being informed of that evil nexus by senders, most users do nothing but demand even more filtering. Ignore the fact that blacklists are free or cost money and are now generally selling points. Of course popularity in the market is not proof of virtue, but it does poke holes in the claims of senders of rejected mail about blacklists. ... whatever. your mail server claims it's forwarding my mail to DCC, and it's not bulk mail. The first phrase is true but only of mail sent directly from Keith Moore to my SMTP server. His second statement is false. Bulk mail includes any message which has a a bunch of copies sent to one or more mailboxes. All mail sent through non-trivial mailing list reflectors is bulk. Spam is bulk mail that is unsolicited. A bunch varies depending on whom you ask and when. Keith Moore has long known that his courtesy copies to my mailbox are unsolicited and unwelcome. They are identical except in headers to hundreds of copies of the same messages, and so are bulk. I tolerate (and sometimes find interesting) the copies of his messages that arrive through the IETF reflector, but I object to duplicate copies of flames and insults. If your a bunch threshold for bulk is 2, then Keith Moore's attempts to put 2 copies of his messages in my mailbox are spam regardless of the hundreds of copies sent elsewhere. (Some people say 2 is the right threshold for bulk, but I run my DCC client with a threshold of 5. 5 is a common choice for vanity domains. Choices for real domains range from 20 to 200 as well as the overflow value of many.) Consider courtesy copies of mailing list messages and the people who send them. Many courtesy copies are sent unthinkingly by using a reply all function, but others are intentional. The intentional copies amount to microphone queue jumping. and the horse you rode in on. you are misleading people, and you know it. Notice that he does not specify whom is being misled or the falsehood. Sheesh!--what would a reasonable person do who knows that one of his targets doesn't want his courtesy copies? Vernon Schryver[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: SMTP Minimum Retry Period - Proposal To Modify Mx
Cc: Keith Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Keith Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Vernon Schryver [EMAIL PROTECTED] If that is an issue, it ought to be raised by those who are being misled, the targets of mail, instead of senders and other third parties. it IS being raised by them, for those who are actually able to figure out what's going on. of course, when the recipient doesn't receive the mail he's expecting, he has no idea where to look - so he tends to blame the sender. Keith Moore is not complaining about mail he has not received because of the dasterdly misinformation from the RBL. He is either a third party sender of reject mail that he is certain was wanted by its targets despite being rejected or he is a fourth party presuming to speak for the first parties (spam targets) against the second parties (blacklist providers). You are a barefaced liar. How so in that assertion of mine? Unless I missed something that seems unlikely, Keith Moore is not complaining about mail he has failed to receive. He surely would not have been misled by blacklist operators into configuring his SMTP servers to use one of their evil nasty cheating lying dishonest fraudulent unhealthy fattening cancer-causing end-to-end principle breaking RBLs. The remaining possibilities are that he writing is on behalf of himself as a sender of rejected mail or he is a fourth party presuming to speak for the people actually involved, senders, receivers, and blacklist operators. I admit that I would not be surprised if his opinion of anti-spam blacklists was informed long ago when some of his more or less innocent mail was rejected with a reference to MAPS's RBL. I've no evidence of that except his use of archaic jargon and what his courtesy copies and statements about how I've configured my SMTP server show of his views of those who would be happier with fewer of his words. Concerning how I've configured my SMTP server--Juging from the headers of the IETF list messages, today it has rejected 2 copies of and the horse you rode in on and one copy of You are a barefaced liar. That seems like a Good Thing(tm), but perhaps not enough. Vernon Schryver[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: SMTP Minimum Retry Period - Proposal To Modify Mx
If that is an issue, it ought to be raised by those who are being misled, the targets of mail, instead of senders and other third parties. it IS being raised by them, for those who are actually able to figure out what's going on. of course, when the recipient doesn't receive the mail he's expecting, he has no idea where to look - so he tends to blame the sender. Keith Moore is not complaining about mail he has not received because of the dasterdly misinformation from the RBL. He is either a third party sender of reject mail that he is certain was wanted by its targets despite being rejected or he is a fourth party presuming to speak for the first parties (spam targets) against the second parties (blacklist providers). You are a barefaced liar.
Re: SMTP Minimum Retry Period - Proposal To Modify Mx
You are a barefaced liar. How so in that assertion of mine? Folks who can't see the hole in your analysis for themselves can ask me in private mail. Somehow I doubt the IETF list cares enough to want to keep reading this exchange, and you've already demonstrated that you don't care what I say.
RE: SMTP Minimum Retry Period - Proposal To Modify Mx
Keith Moore Somehow I doubt the IETF list cares enough to want to keep reading this exchange, There's definitely some of the readers that are tired of reading you. Michel.
