Every domain would have to have a public key that the public could find.
Then every mailserver would have to check every message.
And spammers could still send spam, because they are authorized to send
email from some ISP, using that ISP's domain, and that ISP mailserver will
sign their email.
And how much before Randy was moderator?
I'm on other large, subscriber-restricted, public lists, where this isn't
a significant problem.
--Dean
On Fri, 6 Dec 2002, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
How much spam is going to namedroppers?
Well none since Randy Bush and a bunch
--On Friday, 06 December, 2002 16:22 -0700 Vernon Schryver
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Marc Schneiders [EMAIL PROTECTED]
...
It might be easier to write a new protocol to succeed email,
instant messaging, mobile phones (something useful in itself)
with built-in abuse control from the
Don't discount the unexloited features already supported in the deployed
base.
In particular most mail servers support inline SSL connection upgrades,
or can be upgraded to do so with minimal hassle.
Another instance in which a self signed cert is possibly sufficient
authentication - although
I vote for DP1 - Moving the WGs back to one of the
existing permanent areas. Otherwise, the problem of
coordination with related permanent areas is likely
to get worse.
regards,
suresh
--- Alex Zinin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
FYI below. (Sorry for cross-posting.)
Please post follow-ups to
for what it's worth here is my personal opionion on what we should
do in the question of the sub-ip area
I think we should go with the status quo (with the IESG selecting two
suck^H^H^H^Hvolunteers to manage the area next March)
I do not think that we can make a reasoned decision to do
Vernon Schryver wrote:
It's been years since it was possible to be amused by the number of
people who assume that spammers are more ignorant and less competent
than they are, and so propose spam solutions predicated on spammers
being unable to register as many names, keys, identities, or
Paul Vixie wrote:
- many ISPs won't let you forward or submit mail through someone
else's SMTP server, even if you have permission to do so. so you
can't forward your mail through your home ISP's mail server to
allow the mail from check to work.
in that case you'd be wise to not
Scott Bradner wrote:
for what it's worth here is my personal opionion on what we should
do in the question of the sub-ip area
I think we should go with the status quo (with the IESG selecting two
volunteers to manage the area next March)
I do not think that we can make a reasoned decision to do
This seems clever, however, it will also take significant computational
effort to verify the computational effort was actually done. Even if a
class of functions are found that are easier to verify than to compute,
they will no doubt still take up a significant fraction of time.
Also, all
This doesn't adequately describe backup relays. If uunet is providing an
alternate relay service, then all or any of uunet's relays might be
providing that service. So it would have to be able to recursively look up
uunets mail-from mx's, and the mail-from mx's of any subdomains listed by
uunet.
On Fri, 6 Dec 2002, Ayyasamy, Senthilkumarwrote:
If the proof of effort requires, say, 10 seconds to compute, then the
economics of sending spam are radically altered, as a single machine
can send only 8,000 messages per day.
Wouldn't something like this cause problems for (large/free)
To make them do all the work, and you do little to verify, you need a lot
of things done independently, so that a random sample can be selected that
is much smaller than the work they had to do. This will get bulky. The
less they send, the larger the fraction of work you have to do in relation
to
On Sun, 8 Dec 2002, Lloyd Wood wrote:
Sender pays is good. The penny black stamp effectively introduced a
flat-rate tax on sending letters, rather than a variable-rate tax on
receiving them, effectively turning mail into a common good available
to all society.
You assume this really means the
Let's also let the VRRP WG decide on the fate of SIP WG documents, the CALSCH WG
decide on the fate of OSPF WG docs... Let's particularly ignore the fact that
the folks closest to the issues have the most interest in getting the best
possible outcome.
You might not think that's a fair analogy,
Vach Kompella wrote:
Let's also let the VRRP WG decide on the fate of SIP WG documents, the CALSCH WG
decide on the fate of OSPF WG docs... Let's particularly ignore the fact that
the folks closest to the issues have the most interest in getting the best
possible outcome.
We don't let WGs
Here's my personal opinion.
I think we have two suck^H^H^H^Hvolunteers :-)
I think the area's WGs need ADs who have been close enough to keep the
continuity of relations with other standards bodies, the past work, etc.
Regarding whether there is a need for an area long-term, it would depend on
From: Stephen Sprunk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
...
The problem I've seen repeatedly, including in an off-list discussion I'm
having about this topic, is people confusing authentication with
authorization.
...
Yes, that's a good way of putting the problem, but only for those able
and willing to see
At 11:15 AM 12/9/2002 -0800, Vach Kompella wrote:
Let's also let the VRRP WG decide on the fate of SIP WG documents, the
CALSCH WG decide on the fate of OSPF WG docs... Let's particularly ignore
the fact that the folks closest to the issues have the most interest in
getting the best possible
All,
On Wed Dec 4th, we asked for input to help us decide on the future of
the SUB-IP Area. See our posting at
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg18370.html
We had a large majority of people at the SUBIP Area meeting in Atlanta
expressing that they want the area to be
You normally don't get to last call without having gotten the WG's opinion on
whether it should even go to the IESG. I think the IESG expects that due
diligence from the WG. It has been pointed out that the sub-ip area meeting had
an majority that wished the area to continue, at least for the
On Mon, Dec 09, 2002 10:21:59PM +0100, Harald Tveit Alvestrand allegedly wrote:
The opinions expressed so far seem to show clearly that the community is
divided on the issue, with perhaps some preference for the status quo
(alternative 3).
That means to me you should just leave it alone for
On Mon, 09 Dec 2002 11:52:26 CST, Stephen Sprunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
The problem I've seen repeatedly, including in an off-list discussion I'm
having about this topic, is people confusing authentication with
authorization.
Authentication: Yes, you seem to be Jeffrey Dahlmer.
At 01:38 PM 12/9/2002 -0800, Vach Kompella wrote:
It has been pointed out that the sub-ip area meeting had an majority that
wished the area to continue, at least for the time being. I don't want
that to be ignored, or dismissed as just the choir's opinion.
I don't believe it is being ignored.
Thus spake [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Authentication: Yes, you seem to be Jeffrey Dahlmer.
Authorization: You say you'd like to borrow a steak knife?
Usually clears up the confusion in all but the most sluggish mind.. ;)
That's a very clear example, thanks.
However, authorization usually implies
Let's particularly ignore the fact that
the folks closest to the issues have the most interest in getting the best
possible outcome.
increasingly often I find WGs whose definition of the best possible
outcome is inconsistent with, and in some cases almost diametrically
opposed to, the
At 16:53 -0500 12/9/02, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
However, authorization usually implies authentication beforehand.
Does anybody have a reference on an authorization scheme that
doesn't imply any authentication?
World readable files.
--
I'm in favor of 1/
3/, again, seems contradictory. The status quo is that it disappears.
Continuing it without a fixed end date is to subversively result in 2/
without a clear charter definition and Nomcom participation.
To be specific, I don't think 3/ should be on the table, at least not
I haven't been involved in, or even particularly tracking, Sub-IP
efforts since the start of 2001. That makes me either irrelevant or
independent, your choice. I was lurking around some of the Sub-IP
topics prior to November 2000, so my perspective is probably past
its 'best before' date.
I haven't personally tried myself to opt out. But I've read they have the
form. If they told you they don't have a form to sort out junk mail for you
I'd say they were full out it. I'd call the Postmaster General's office.
- Original Message -
From: Stephen Sprunk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To:
THE PRESENT SET OF AREA DIRECTORS ARE DOING A GREAT JOB.
THIS IS A CONTINUATION OF A LONG STANDING TREND.
(Is that better, Fred?)
I support option 3). I also suspect that this is not a
case of ignoring the consensus of those attending the
meeting. Some people may feel that the best way for the
Does anybody have a reference on an authorization scheme that
doesn't imply any authentication?
You will deliver the satchel to the one who presents the matching
half of this hundred-euro note.
On Mon, 09 Dec 2002 17:47:58 EST, Edward Lewis said:
Does anybody have a reference on an authorization scheme that
doesn't imply any authentication?
World readable files.
We know how to do that already ;)
I was thinking more along the lines of a zero-knowledge proof or
something like that
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
All,
snip
If you have a strong preference for one (or two) of these, and have not
yet said so, please indicate your opinion (and your reasons) by mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] before Thursday.
my preferences are 2 or 3, so far i've not seen any other argument
--On Monday, 09 December, 2002 16:17 -0600 Stephen Sprunk
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thus spake [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Authentication: Yes, you seem to be Jeffrey Dahlmer.
Authorization: You say you'd like to borrow a steak knife?
Usually clears up the confusion in all but the most sluggish
FWIW, I support Scott's suggestion. We went somewhat different paths,
but finally came to the same conclusion. I'm personally skeptical at
this moment about SUB-IP becoming a permanent area (area overlaps,
mission statement, expected number of WGs, etc.), but we did hear in
Atlanta a strong
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does anybody have a reference on an authorization scheme that
doesn't imply any authentication?
From:-line based email filters.
-- Cos (Ofer Inbar) -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://cos.polyamory.org/
-- WBRS (100.1 FM) -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Harald == Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Harald 2/ establish a long-term area: decide that the SUB-IP
Harald area will be a long-term one, clearly define its charter, and ask the
Harald nomcom to select one or two
Stephen,
Monday, December 9, 2002, 9:52:26 AM, you wrote:
Stephen The devil is in determining what senders are authorized once we've
Stephen authenticated them.
The concept of being authorized to send someone mail has good logic, but
goes against established human communication practises for
My question is, what harm will be done to the WG's ability to deliver
and close by moving them? If there were are real need for cross group
coordination within the sub-IP area, that would be a little clearer.
Instead we have a situation where these groups need to coordinate with a
real area to
And is that because members of the larger community were not allowed to
participate in those WGs whose decisions adversely impacted their interests?
Because, by your assertion, if they had participated, they would have been part
of making the WG decision, which would therefore not have been in the
increasingly often I find WGs whose definition of the best possible
outcome is inconsistent with, and in some cases almost diametrically
opposed to, the interests of the larger community.
I have two problems with this statement. First, while I am all for
being critical of our processes for
The workings of special interest groups can and often do have a
significant effect on the general population, but nobody can afford the
time and energy it takes to keep track of every special interest group
that might affect him.
Often it seems as though the WGs
increasingly often I find WGs whose definition of the best possible
outcome is inconsistent with, and in some cases almost diametrically
opposed to, the interests of the larger community.
I have two problems with this statement. First, while I am all for
being critical of our processes
The workings of special interest groups can and often do have a
significant effect on the general population, but nobody can afford the
time and energy it takes to keep track of every special interest group
that might affect him.
Often it seems as though the WGs
Eric Rosen wrote:
[..]
Often it seems as though the WGs reflect the broad consensus of the
community, and the IESG is the special interest group.
Given that the IETF *is* a special interest group, I take this as a feature
rather than a bug.
cheers,
gja
Michael Richardson wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Harald == Harald Tveit Alvestrand writes:
Harald 2/ establish a long-term area: decide that the SUB-IP
Harald area will be a long-term one, clearly define its charter, and
ask the
Harald nomcom to select
Paul Hoffman / IMC wrote:
- The statement that some of the WGs in the SubIP area are about to
finish up may be deceptive. Some of the WGs are accepting new
proposals on wide-ranging topics.
This is an important point. An example is PPVPN, which is chartered to
work on specification of
At 4:50 PM -0800 12/9/02, Tony Hain wrote:
If there were are real need for cross group
coordination within the sub-IP area, that would be a little clearer.
A presentation at the SubIP Area meeting in Atlanta drove home the
point that the amount of coordination in the area was not as high as
Blinded coins a la digicash
http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/articles/oceanno.htm#xtocid583124
On Mon, 9 Dec 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 09 Dec 2002 17:47:58 EST, Edward Lewis said:
Does anybody have a reference on an authorization scheme that
doesn't imply any
--On Monday, 09 December, 2002 17:49 -0500 Bill Cunningham
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I haven't personally tried myself to opt out. But I've read
they have the form. If they told you they don't have a form to
sort out junk mail for you I'd say they were full out it. I'd
call the Postmaster
At 09:55 PM 12/4/2002 +0100, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
The options seem to be:
1/ move WGs (back) to permanent areas: migrate the SUB-IP
working groups to other IETF areas sometime soon, likely before next
summer and close the SUB-IP area. Also, reconstitute the SUB-IP
- Original Message -
From: John C Klensin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Bill Cunningham [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Stephen Sprunk [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, December 09, 2002 9:16 PM
Subject: Re: namedroppers, continued
--On Monday, 09 December, 2002 17:49 -0500 Bill
I have an interesting set of questions for you Harold,
1) How effective would the IESG be with 2 more members, more effective,
or less
2) What would happen to any new IESG members in the SUB-IP area, if
the area is shut down ?
In otherwords, does the IESG think that a two new members would help
Bill Strahm wrote:
I have an interesting set of questions for you Harold,
1) How effective would the IESG be with 2 more members, more effective,
or less
2) What would happen to any new IESG members in the SUB-IP area, if
the area is shut down ?
I think this is a seductively
55 matches
Mail list logo
