The DDoS problem... handled wrong by the governments?
If I look on the Homepage of the National Infrastructure Protection Center (NIPC) http://www.nipc.gov/ (part of the FBI), I see there are Advisory's about the diffrent Distributed denial of service tools. But I think the way how its handled is really wrong. Instead of "enforcing" the people who are used as amplifiers to fix their networks there are tools to find such Denial of Service Tools on a system. I think this Virus-Scanner acting is kinda useless since the broadcast amplifiers are still existing, and the network admins of small ISP's or small company's are just to lazy to upgrade their network or don't know how (with loose of their bandwidth). In germany I heard there is a Task Force to fix this problem by the government too but they also want to fix the problem also by a detection of those easy new writeable tools. In a scenario coming up the next years there will be cellulars who flood someone, or a lot of DSL smurf kids... this is really sad, cause e.g. a small company would just get attacked than by a frustrated customer. Best Regards, Thomas Thomas Kuiper| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.tobit.com __ Core Development | ICQ #8345483 | /__/\ Tobit Software | PGP Key on Request| ask your server. \__\/
Request to Join
Good morning, I would like to request to join/sign up for information regarding upcoming audio/videocasts and any other events' announcements you provide. Thank you in advance for your help. Reply with inquiry if there is more information I need to provide. Betty Lorenz mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: fyi.. House Committee Passes Bill Limiting Spam E-Mail
It is also impossible to differentiate between so-called spam and expressions of a personal political, social or artistic nature. Herein lies one of the major issues that ought to be sorted out before anyone takes any steps to regulate spam. What is spam, exactly? There seems to be a wide variety of notions as to what constitutes a spam. Some people define it in its original context; i.e., unsolicited commercial email. Others broaden the definition to include offensive or off-topic remarks on a public or private list. Still others would include *any* email they didn't want to receive as 'spam.' It would be extremely challenging and largely useless to attempt to regulate what you can't even categorize, methinks. RGF Robert G. Ferrell Who goeth without humor goeth unarmed.
Re: fyi.. House Committee Passes Bill Limiting Spam E-Mail
It's easy to classify SPAM as "junkmail" or UCE but I think that leaves too much to interpretation these days. Especially given the almost completely commercial applications of "the net" (gawd, I hate to even think of Sandra B. and her magic octet). I think the answer could live in what is commonly referred to as a "pull" versus a "push" type of marketing. If you take the time to ask people, in a non-obtrusive way, what they're interested in, then usually, enough people will respond to help you "meet your numbers and get your trip" (or whatever motivates the source of information). The trick (or tightrope that must be walked), is to find a middle ground with consumers. How can enough information about you be gathered and analyzed (with your permission) to only (or for the most part) give you information that interests you. Cookies? not sure. PKI "hooks"? Not sure either. Heck, I'm not sure what the difference is if you really think all "hippy" about what they're really both being used (planned) for. The net has the potential to be a great vehicle for sales. The only reason I say it has potential, in spite of its obvious success, is that I think there's a long way to go with regards to security and other legal issues. These will all get resolved one way or the other, but once they are, this middle ground is where we should all be able to play as "consumers" AND "sellers" with product or information or opinion whatnot (what's the difference really). -- Randall Gale Regional Director Information Security Predictive Systems vox: 781-751-9629 fax: 781-329-9343 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.predictive.com --
Re: fyi.. House Committee Passes Bill Limiting Spam E-Mail
And I hope that the courts will finally realize that freedom of speech includes the freedom not to have your communications disrupted by people who want to sell you things. I dunno, Keith. What you are asking for is content control - you are saying that certain content shouldn't get to you. Usually, you are asking that content not be controlled in any way. actually I'd settle for well-defined mandatory labelling - at the SMTP level for big volume spammers and at the 822 level for everyone. But I have to say that this particular thread is fairly far afield of anything resembling an engineering topic. Would it be too onerous to ask that it be moved to a free-speech-includes-or-does-not-include-advertising discussion list? the relevance to IETF is that Congress, with the encouragement of the DMA, is pushing technically poor solutions. and IETF is the biggest store of technical expertise in Internet mail. whether IETF itself would want to send a message to Congress is something I hadn't yet thought about. it might be a good idea. but even if IETF as an organization didn't want to do this it's certainly not unusual for IETF to act via its individual members rather than as an organization. Keith
Re: fyi.. House Committee Passes Bill Limiting Spam E-Mail
actually I'd settle for well-defined mandatory labelling - at the SMTP level for big volume spammers and at the 822 level for everyone. Perhaps a future First Lady Tipper Gore will try to help you out there, as she did for the consumers of recorded music. Around here, we've been warned against sending "profane content" by people who obviously don't know the meaning of "profane".
Re: fyi.. House Committee Passes Bill Limiting Spam E-Mail
While this may be important enough to have some discusion on the general IETF list, I would point out that there does exist an IETF working group in this area: RUN, Responsible Use of the Net http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/run-charter.html. This working group produced RFC 2635 which was adopted by the IETF Consensus process. Donald From: "Robert G. Ferrell" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 10:37:35 -0500 (CDT) Reply-To: "Robert G. Ferrell" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Loop: [EMAIL PROTECTED] It is also impossible to differentiate between so-called spam and expressions of a personal political, social or artistic nature. Herein lies one of the major issues that ought to be sorted out before anyone takes any steps to regulate spam. What is spam, exactly? There seems to be a wide variety of notions as to what constitutes a spam. Some people define it in its original context; i.e., unsolicited commercial email. Others broaden the definition to include offensive or off-topic remarks on a public or private list. Still others would include *any* email they didn't want to receive as 'spam.' It would be extremely challenging and largely useless to attempt to regulate what you can't even categorize, methinks. RGF Robert G. Ferrell Who goeth without humor goeth unarmed.
Re: fyi.. House Committee Passes Bill Limiting Spam E-Mail
Chip Rosenthal [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 09:35:23PM -0400, Keith Moore wrote: And I hope that the courts will finally realize that freedom of speech includes the freedom not to have your communications disrupted by people who want to sell you things. The biggest problem with the bill, as it currently reads, is that the transport notification has been dropped. There was an ID by Hoffman and Levine (I believe since expired, can't find it now) that allowed an organization to "opt out" from unsolicited commercial email by indicating so in the SMTP banner. Rescap Profile for Mail User Agents draft-hoffman-rescap-mua-02.txt November 20, 1999 -- Mark Atwood | It is the hardest thing for intellectuals to understand, that [EMAIL PROTECTED] | just because they haven't thought of something, somebody else | might. http://www.friesian.com/rifkin.htm http://www.pobox.com/~mra
Re: fyi.. House Committee Passes Bill Limiting Spam E-Mail
From: "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" [EMAIL PROTECTED] While this may be important enough to have some discusion on the general IETF list, I would point out that there does exist an IETF working group in this area: RUN, Responsible Use of the Net http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/run-charter.html. This working group produced RFC 2635 which was adopted by the IETF Consensus process. ... Herein lies one of the major issues that ought to be sorted out before anyone takes any steps to regulate spam. What is spam, exactly? There seems to be a wide variety of notions as to what constitutes a spam. Some people define it in its original context; i.e., unsolicited commercial email. Others broaden the definition to include offensive or off-topic remarks on a public or private list. Still others would include *any* email they didn't want to receive as 'spam. ... There are surely better places to argue about spam. If you can use killfiles, the news.admin.net-abuse.email newsgroup is a hotbed of discussions of such as the definition of spam. RFC 2635 does not really define email spam. The following definitions are common. I list them not to start a long flame war, but to counter the (surprising to me) ignorance about the issue. If you disagree with my blatant bias, please assume everyone else will and don't bother correcting me. 1. unsolicited bulk email, or email at least some of which is received by many people who did not explicitly or implicitly ask for it (e.g. by foolishly giving their addresses to sleazy vendors that don't say they won't spam.) 2. unsolicited commercial mail even if not bulk. 3. unsolicited promotional including commercial mail, also even if not bulk. 4. anything someone doesn't like. 5. various definitions from kooks and sleazy merchants and advertisers trying to carve exceptions for their missives or trying to paint as kooks or fools all who don't like unsolicited advertising. Among people with technical and administrative clues, #1 is the very clear consensus. In it, "bulk" is intentionally vague, but almost no one who favors #1 is willing to argue against any definition of "bulk" between half a dozen and a few gross. The messages that comprise a spam spew defined by #1 need be only essentially identical instead of byte-for-byte the same, partly because spammers like to "target" their drivel, partly because they try to evade spam filters, and mostly because they're incompetent at everything including sending bulk email. When you're running systems, it's usually easy to painfully easy to know when a message is "bulk" because your systems will often hiccup, your logs will overflow, and you'll get complaints from many targets. On the other hand, people with operational responsibilities rarely want to get involved in the judging of content that the other definitions require--at least not after a little real world experience. #2 is favored by many individuals who have never had operational responsibilities, because it is usually impossible for an individual spam target to know instead of merely reliably guess whether an unsolicited message is one of a bulk blast, and because they're often not gun-shy about judging content. #2 is also favored by CAUCE and many other self-described charitable and political organizations who presumably hope to send unsolicited notes promoting their causes and soliciting funds. (Or perhaps CAUCE advocates #1 but with an exception for non-profit spam; I forget. That is one cause for the previously mentioned distrust of CAUCE. Another is the continued, paid involvement of a major CAUCE figure with AllAdvantage.com, which some people view as an unrepentant, irredeemable solicitor of spam because they say AllAdvantage.com continues to pay spammers money.) #3 is commonly advocated by individuals without operational experience, but who dislike political and charitable spam as much as other advertising. #4 is commonly proposed by spammers as a straw man to show how impossible it would be to regulate or prohibit spam, as well as by people who haven't thought about the problem. Vernon Schryver[EMAIL PROTECTED]
