Todd Glassey wrote:
I want to point out that the ability and use of DNS to transmit policy
statements is a valuable tool in dealing with certain types of DMA
sponsored emails which many of us wish would go away.
But we are also encouraging them to do so. It is now BCP by the DMA
community to
I want to point out that the ability and use of DNS to transmit policy
statements is a valuable tool in dealing with certain types of DMA
sponsored emails which many of us wish would go away.
The idea of being able to send a statement of the use rules for a MX
record for instance is a very pow
re could always be
> > another version moving the process forward in the appropriate direction.
> >
> > Tom Petch
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "Alessandro Vesely"
> > To:
> > Cc: "Zoltan Ordogh" ; "apps d
To:
> Cc: "Zoltan Ordogh" ; "apps discuss" ;
> "ietf"
> Sent: Friday, January 20, 2012 4:03 PM
> Subject: Please remove draft-ordogh-spam-reporting-using-imap-kleansed fromI-D
> repository
>
>
>> Dear IETF Secretariat,
>>
>> I hereb
uot; ; "apps discuss" ;
"ietf"
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2012 4:03 PM
Subject: Please remove draft-ordogh-spam-reporting-using-imap-kleansed fromI-D
repository
> Dear IETF Secretariat,
>
> I hereby ask that draft-ordogh-spam-reporting-using-imap-kleansed be
> remove
Hi all,
I would like to address the issues that involve SM, Alessandro and John first.
I understand the confusion has risen because my name is listed as an author on
draft-ordogh-spam-reporting-using-imap-kleansed-00.
I would like to make it clear that while
draft-ordogh-spam-reporting-using
Dear IETF Secretariat,
I hereby ask that draft-ordogh-spam-reporting-using-imap-kleansed be
removed from the I-D repository. I submitted it on 10 Jan 2012, in a
clumsy attempt to speed up a discussion about a similarly named I-D,
draft-ordogh-spam-reporting-using-imap. The editing I carried out
Hi Zoltan,
At 14:10 19-01-2012, Zoltan Ordogh wrote:
I understand the confusion has risen because my name is listed as an
author on draft-ordogh-spam-reporting-using-imap-kleansed-00.
I would like to make it clear that while
draft-ordogh-spam-reporting-using-imap-kleansed-00 bears my name and
nsiderations including the above.
That balance won't be easy to find especially since, as I am
sure you both know, there is no community agreement about the
degree to which it is appropriate to make normal, desired, email
work worse in order to provide better facilities for
spam-handling, espec
Hi Zoltan,
On 13/Jan/12 20:11, Zoltan Ordogh wrote:
>
> I would like to start with a story.
A rather similar story is summarized here:
http://wiki.asrg.sp.am/wiki/Adding_a_junk_button_to_MUAs
> A bit later, a liaison statement was sent from OMA to IETF, seeking
> collaboration and a “home” for
/msg04079.html ).
PS. I am solely a technical contributor, so asking me IPR-related
questions will always be a dead end. Please direct those questions
directly to the appropriate contact person, which, in, this case is
Sarah Guichard. Thank you.
draft-ordogh-spam-reporting-using-imap-kleansed
> -Original Message-
> From: apps-discuss-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:apps-discuss-boun...@ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of Peoples, Cathryn
> Sent: Friday, November 25, 2011 2:09 AM
> To: apps-disc...@ietf.org
> Subject: [apps-discuss] [CfP] IEEE/IFIP International Workshop on
> Management of the Fu
At 06:51 08-09-2011, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from the Messaging Abuse Reporting Format
WG (marf) to consider the following document:
- 'Email Feedback Report Type Value : not-spam'
as a Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few
guys - does EVERYONE need to see this - I've removed some of the list aliases
to bcc - please be careful when you REPLY all
-Original Message-
From: ietf-announce-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-announce-boun...@ietf.org] On
Behalf Of David Allan I
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2011 11:24 PM
T
On 06/Apr/11 16:01, Dave CROCKER wrote:
> On 4/1/2011 9:08 PM, Fred Baker wrote:
>> On Apr 1, 2011, at 10:28 PM, John R. Levine wrote:
>>> Some clever spambot seems to have scraped a bunch of addresses out
>>> of the
>>> archives and is sending spam with
On 4/1/2011 9:08 PM, Fred Baker wrote:
On Apr 1, 2011, at 10:28 PM, John R. Levine wrote:
Some clever spambot seems to have scraped a bunch of addresses out of the
archives and is sending spam with multiple addresses on the From: line
through IETF and IRTF mailing lists. Surely I'm no
John,
If you want to report a SPAM problem with an IETF mailing list, please report
it to . It will get prompt response.
>From the email you forwarded, it looks like a problem with lists hosted at
>ISI.EDU (that is, not at ietf.org).
Bob
p.s. Or should I have taken the date yo
Some clever spambot seems to have scraped a bunch of addresses out of the
archives and is sending spam with multiple addresses on the From: line through
IETF and IRTF mailing lists. Surely I'm not the only one who's seeing it.
DKIM is directly designed to address this... What do
On Apr 1, 2011, at 10:28 PM, John R. Levine wrote:
> Some clever spambot seems to have scraped a bunch of addresses out of the
> archives and is sending spam with multiple addresses on the From: line
> through IETF and IRTF mailing lists. Surely I'm not the only one who's
01.04.2011 23:28, John R. Levine wrote:
Some clever spambot seems to have scraped a bunch of addresses out of
the archives and is sending spam with multiple addresses on the From:
line through IETF and IRTF mailing lists. Surely I'm not the only one
who's seeing it.
Given the
--On Friday, April 01, 2011 16:28 -0400 "John R. Levine"
wrote:
> Some clever spambot seems to have scraped a bunch of addresses
> out of the archives and is sending spam with multiple
> addresses on the From: line through IETF and IRTF mailing
> lists. Surely I&#x
Some clever spambot seems to have scraped a bunch of addresses out of the
archives and is sending spam with multiple addresses on the From: line
through IETF and IRTF mailing lists. Surely I'm not the only one who's
seeing it.
Given the amount of legitimate mail with multiple From:
On Mon, May 03, 2010 at 05:42:16PM -, John Levine wrote:
> He still uses 130.105/16 that he stole from the OSF and 198.3.136.0/21
> that he got in 2004. Nullrouting those blocks can improve your
> quality of life.
+1
If null-routing is not an available option, firewalling those blocks
appear
t;
> On 2010-05-06, at 05:01, Robert Stangarone wrote:
>
>> I did just as you suggest (contact the FTC) some time ago, and Dean
>> stopped the SPAM.
>
> This sounds like valuable operational data. Given your experience, can you
> confirm exactly what you had to send and t
On 2010-05-06, at 05:01, Robert Stangarone wrote:
> I did just as you suggest (contact the FTC) some time ago, and Dean
> stopped the SPAM.
This sounds like valuable operational data. Given your experience, can you
confirm exactly what you had to send and to whom in order to make this
Todd,
I did just as you suggest (contact the FTC) some time ago, and Dean
stopped the SPAM.
Of course, he stated that I had never requested to be UNSUBSCRIBED from
his list, which I had.
Bob
On 05/03/2010 08:28 AM, todd glassey wrote:
> Folks - I have had it with Dean and his actions
On 5/5/2010 11:46 AM, Fred Baker wrote:
>
> On May 5, 2010, at 11:37 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
>
>> Sending mail to people who clearly don't want it is discourteous and abusive
>> at best and should not be encouraged in any way, especially by telling the
>> recipients that they can always filte
On May 5, 2010, at 11:37 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
> Sending mail to people who clearly don't want it is discourteous and abusive
> at best and should not be encouraged in any way, especially by telling the
> recipients that they can always filter.
What can I say. I don't receive email from De
--On Wednesday, May 05, 2010 17:05 +0200 Arnt Gulbrandsen
wrote:
> Just use a sieve script (or anything else) to reject the mail.
> The list software will eventually see that mail to you is
> persistently undeliverable, and unsubscribe you.
Arnt,
However appropriate it may be in this case, I
On 5/5/2010 8:05 AM, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
> On 05/03/2010 08:21 PM, todd glassey wrote:
>> These are extensions for Sendmail.
>
> No. Sendmail is just one implementer. There's at least a dozen others.
>
>> The problem is that Dean created a
>> list outside of the IETF and subscribed IETF membe
On 05/03/2010 08:21 PM, todd glassey wrote:
These are extensions for Sendmail.
No. Sendmail is just one implementer. There's at least a dozen others.
The problem is that Dean created a
list outside of the IETF and subscribed IETF members to it.
Just use a sieve script (or anything else) to
All human systems of sufficient size and significance need a means of
protection from "abuse of process". This IETF process uses email and
thus needs protection from the abuse thereof.
In my opinion, the IETF method of deciding to bar people from various
mailing lists is fine and the IETF is prett
On 05/05/2010 03:48 PM, todd glassey wrote:
What that means is like auditors NO email may be excluded from the
history of the vetting process lest the practice be subjected to random
and uncontrolled censorship.
You seem to be saying that pests cannot be kicked off WG/IETF lists...
or do I mis
On 5/3/2010 11:06 AM, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
>>> On 05/03/2010 07:48 PM, todd glassey wrote:
>>>> Maybe Joe but I do not want to be a party to his mailing lists, and he
>>>> will not allow me off of them, so I have no choice but to file the spam
>>>> complian
be a party to his mailing lists, and he
> >> will not allow me off of them, so I have no choice but to file the spam
> >> compliant.
> >
> > I direct your attention to the IETF's standard for unilateral list
> > unsubscription, RFC 5228 as extended by RFC 5429.
&
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 7:28 AM, todd glassey wrote:
> I would encourage all of you - and I mean all of you who are as annoyed
> with this spamming as I am [ ... ]
One is reminded of the old saw about not having to be faster than
the bear, just faster than your hiking companion.
Melinda
_
On 5/3/2010 11:06 AM, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
> On 05/03/2010 07:48 PM, todd glassey wrote:
>> Maybe Joe but I do not want to be a party to his mailing lists, and he
>> will not allow me off of them, so I have no choice but to file the spam
>> compliant.
>
> I direct y
On 05/03/2010 07:48 PM, todd glassey wrote:
Maybe Joe but I do not want to be a party to his mailing lists, and he
will not allow me off of them, so I have no choice but to file the spam
compliant.
I direct your attention to the IETF's standard for unilateral list
unsubscription, RFC 52
On 5/3/2010 10:25 AM, Joe Baptista wrote:
> I think Dean does a good job of keeping the IETF honest.
>
> cheers
> joe baptista
Maybe Joe but I do not want to be a party to his mailing lists, and he
will not allow me off of them, so I have no choice but to file the spam
compliant.
T
>Obviously the only recourse is a formal spam compliant with the FTC so
>the first complaint's filing number is 26303937.
CAN SPAM only regulates commercial mail. Dean's mail is incoherent and
annoying, but it's not commercial.
He still uses 130.105/16 that he stole from th
On 5/3/10 11:25 AM, Joe Baptista wrote:
> I think Dean does a good job of keeping the IETF honest.
If only we could say the same thing about the IETF's effect on Dean.
/psa
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
___
Ietf mailing list
mirror lists which he calls
> "IETF-Honest" and which he subscribes IETF members to against their will
> after being told numerous times to cease and desist.
>
> Obviously the only recourse is a formal spam compliant with the FTC so
> the first complaint's filing number is
and desist.
Obviously the only recourse is a formal spam compliant with the FTC so
the first complaint's filing number is 26303937.
I would encourage all of you - and I mean all of you who are as annoyed
with this spamming as I am to visit the FTC website and file your own
complaint as if there
I'm more impressed that my spam filter caught it and the only reason I
known about it is this blowback complaint discussion.
On Thu, 15 Apr 2010, Yoav Nir wrote:
> You have to admit, though, that sending spam in a link to Google docs is
> impressive. Shows real ingenuity and inno
You have to admit, though, that sending spam in a link to Google docs is
impressive. Shows real ingenuity and innovation from the spamming community.
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Robert
Stangarone
Sent: Thursday, April 15
Today I see a second spam email from antonyjeyase...@gmail.com.
Is it possible to remove him from the mailing list?
Bob
This mail originated from the whataboutbob.org domain.
For any issues related to this mail, or the
+1
John C Klensin пишет:
+1
Well, OK. Let me rephrase my question: why do you believe
that removing the IETF's MX record will
a) decrease the amount of spam it receives?
b) not damage its legitimate mail flow?
Based on my experience and that of other people, neither is
true.
e that removing the
> IETF's MX record will
>
> a) decrease the amount of spam it receives?
>
> b) not damage its legitimate mail flow?
Because, on inspection, both now and in the past, that is what it seems to do,
for my personal domains. The difference in spam,
Well, OK. Let me rephrase my question: why do you believe
> that removing the IETF's MX record will
>
> a) decrease the amount of spam it receives?
>
> b) not damage its legitimate mail flow?
>
> Based on my experience and that of other people, neither is
> true.
>
&
there is an MX. Where did you get the idea that not having an MX
offers protection from spambots?
That's interesting, but not what I described.
Well, OK. Let me rephrase my question: why do you believe that removing
the IETF's MX record will
a) decrease the amount of spam it re
On 26 Feb 2010, at 16:45, SM wrote:
At 20:11 25-02-10, Sabahattin Gucukoglu wrote:
>> Discussion, please. See below for my take; the IETF is one host, MX is
>> really meaningless, and there are benefits to avoiding a ton of spambot
>> zombie spam.
>
> While we are on
On 26 Feb 2010, at 15:42, John Levine wrote:
mail.ietf.org. is ietf.org., so you can remove your MX records for
>>>> ietf.org. This should cut down on spam since a lot of spambots
>>>> will skip over domains whose MX list cannot be obtained. Real
>>>> m
@ietf.org;
postmas...@ops.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rt.ietf.org #24364] mail.ietf.org. is ietf.org.,Remove MX
Records For Less Spam
On 26 Feb 2010, at 05:19, Dean Anderson wrote:
I get spam to hosts with MX records. I don't think removing MX records
> will have any effect on spam. Spambots, aren
On 26 Feb 2010, at 05:19, Dean Anderson wrote:
I get spam to hosts with MX records. I don't think removing MX records
> will have any effect on spam. Spambots, aren't fully autonomous agents
I just transitioned my email host for a few small domains, and didn't trouble
to
--On Friday, February 26, 2010 6:49 AM + John Levine
wrote:
Discussion, please. See below for my take; the IETF is one host, MX is
really meaningless, and there are benefits to avoiding a ton of spambot
zombie spam.
That's not a very good idea. I wouldn't count on zombie
Hi Sabahattin,
At 20:11 25-02-10, Sabahattin Gucukoglu wrote:
Discussion, please. See below for my take; the IETF is one host, MX
is really meaningless, and there are benefits to avoiding a ton of
spambot zombie spam.
While we are on this topic, which of the following methods would you
>>> mail.ietf.org. is ietf.org., so you can remove your MX records for
>>> ietf.org. This should cut down on spam since a lot of spambots
>>> will skip over domains whose MX list cannot be obtained. Real
>>> mailers will of course fall back to A/AAA
the bad
actors are quite good at adapting.
d/
On 2/26/2010 12:11 PM, Sabahattin Gucukoglu wrote:
Discussion, please. See below for my take; the IETF is one host, MX is really
meaningless, and there are benefits to avoiding a ton of spambot zombie spam.
Begin forwarded message:
From: "
>Discussion, please. See below for my take; the IETF is one host, MX is really
>meaningless, and there are
>benefits to avoiding a ton of spambot zombie spam.
That's not a very good idea. I wouldn't count on zombies ignoring the
IETF, nor would I count on there not being
Discussion, please. See below for my take; the IETF is one host, MX is really
meaningless, and there are benefits to avoiding a ton of spambot zombie spam.
Begin forwarded message:
> From: "Glen via RT"
> Date: 25 February 2010 18:16:44 GMT
> To: m...@sabahattin-gucu
owever, it turns out that the rule was hitting
all email past 2009. Because the rule had a base score of 20, which is
well above the threshhold of 5 used by the IETF lists, almost every email
sent was being tagged as Spam.
... so I was beguiled by the name of the rule, which clearly clouded by
deci
All -
For those of you who may have experienced alcohol-related blackouts in
the past 48 hours, please be advised that the year is now 2010.
This is relevant for many reasons, one of which is that there appears to
be a bug in "SpamAssassin", one of the spam filtering programs used on
o
On 29/08/2009, at 2:50 PM, Jari Arkko wrote:
I'd like to push back a little on this. My personal preference is a
specification style which makes everything very explicit. If a block
has been used for examples, I think we owe it to the reader to say
what its fate was. I do agree though tha
Geoff,
Is everyone happy with this course of action?
works for me
Good.
I would avoid this - the problem is that if a future rfc3330 revision
drops another block from the reserved set, then this raises the
question of if you really meant it if the explicit documentation is
missing.
I'
.
>
> I'm on many mailing lists. I participate in all of them. I am
> aware of the approximate volume of mail I get from them
> everyday, at least by orders of magnitude. If a list that
> normally sees 20-30 emails a day doesn't have any for a day,
> I'm likely to
use of reject necessarily creates additional message
traffic, and more specifically when used to deal with joe-jobs can itself be a
source of blowback spam, Sun's filtering GUI did not offer an out-of-the-box
option for users to specify use of reject. We have also pushed back hard on any
suggested u
tions can be changed in only a short period of
time. See
http://www.rhyolite.com/anti-spam/you-might-be.html#senior-IETF-member-5
and the surrounding context for further discussion on that issue.
The bottom line is that a debate about prohibiting SIEVE from
returning NDNs is meaningless without ch
Matthew Elvey writes:
> If a system implementing the specs we're working on works on a
> store-and-forward basis, then it MUST NOT MISLEAD, i.e. LIE TO ITS
> USERS by claiming to support the enhanced standard we are writing.
> -07 allows an implementation to mislead its users by claiming to
> s
rotocol level rejections. I don't see why or how these need to be changed.
Unfortunately, claiming that the current specification results in a
"spam-friendly RFC" is going to anger a lot of people who have spent a lot
of time trying to address spam issues as best as possible. I
g and supporting -08 is this:
In plain English, the specification up for vote (-07) allows compliant
email system implementations to continue to be a source for vast amounts
of spam, while the current draft (-08) does not.
Support for ereject (in the form of a successful )
MUST be a clear message to
On Aug 13, 2008, at 11:16 PM, Matthew Elvey wrote:
Hi.
I have a court-imposed filing deadline to meet of Aug 31 (See www.caringaboutsecurity.wordpress.com
and/or www.elvey.com/spam/70-ORDER-GrantingElveyLeaveToFileMemorandumExplainingObjections.pdf
- it's apropos my representation
Hi.
I have a court-imposed filing deadline to meet of Aug 31 (See
www.caringaboutsecurity.wordpress.com and/or
www.elvey.com/spam/70-ORDER-GrantingElveyLeaveToFileMemorandumExplainingObjections.pdf
- it's apropos my representation of 6 million TD Ameritrade customers in
an Identity
wg/update/> ->
step 1 "add new entry" -> proceed -> step 2 **THIS**.
[gateway old <-> new list instead of list <-> archive]
> what it facilitates is using the same mechanisms in
> the same way to control the SPAM problem. It is an
> operational simplification
-- On Tuesday, April 15, 2008 11:36 PM +0200 Frank Ellermann
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote regarding Re: IESG Statement on
Spam Control on IETF Mailing Lists --
> >| As a service to the community, the IETF Secretariat
> >| operates a mailing list archive for working group
Hi Cullen,
On 2008-04-16 00:01 Cullen Jennings said the following:
Hi Henrik,
Seems this email about email still needs some more discussion - I have
not been involved much with this much but I suspect that Chris Newman
would probably be the best person on the IESG to work with on both
cla
, Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
>
> On 2008-04-15 16:59 James Galvin said the following:
> >
> > -- On Monday, April 14, 2008 10:25 PM +0200 Henrik Levkowetz
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote regarding Re: IESG Statement on Spam
> > Control on IETF Mailing Lists --
> >
I don't think it is helpful for the IETF to describe its work product as
'flavor-of-the-month'.
DKIM is an IETF Proposed Standard.
Using DKIM is thus a dog-food issue. SPF/Sender-ID on the other hand are
arguably not at the same status but there is a general consensus am
e
verification procedure. As far as I can tell it the Web
form creates a request to the chosen AD, the AD can then
accept, reject, or ignore it. The accept state could be
split to arrange the archive subscriptions. Lots of fun
there, but there aren't many "other list", and most hav
On 2008-04-15 16:59 James Galvin said the following:
>
> -- On Monday, April 14, 2008 10:25 PM +0200 Henrik Levkowetz
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote regarding Re: IESG Statement on Spam
> Control on IETF Mailing Lists --
>
>>> * IETF mailing lists MUST prov
On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 08:13:23PM +0200, Eliot Lear wrote:
> I think there is probably convenience value to housing the mailing lists
> at the IETF. It allows for a single whitelist, reduction in those
> annoying monthly messages that we eventually all filter into the
> bitbucket.
I'll concur
-- On Monday, April 14, 2008 2:11 PM -0700 Ned Freed
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote regarding Re: IESG Statement on Spam
Control on IETF Mailing Lists --
> > +1 to Henrik's comments. I don't think the two MUSTs
> > that he comments on are algorithmically possible.
>
he third bullet
is a response to the first bullet "running amok". In other words,
if you're going to have SPAM control, you have to deal with the
problem of false negatives. It seems to me that all the third
bullet is trying to say is that when individuals find themselves
s
-- On Monday, April 14, 2008 10:25 PM +0200 Henrik Levkowetz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote regarding Re: IESG Statement on Spam
Control on IETF Mailing Lists --
> > * IETF mailing lists MUST provide a mechanism for legitimate
> > technical participants to determine if an a
- Original Message -
From: "Tom.Petch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Eliot Lear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "IETF Discussion"
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2008 6:09 AM
Subject: Re: IESG Statement on Spam Control on IETF Mailing Lists
> - Origin
-- On Monday, April 14, 2008 8:58 PM +0200 Frank Ellermann
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote regarding Re: IESG Statement on
Spam Control on IETF Mailing Lists --
> Russ Housley wrote:
>
> > When IETF lists are housed somewhere other than ietf.org,
> > they are suppos
- Original Message -
From: "Eliot Lear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Russ Housley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "IETF Discussion"
Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 8:13 PM
Subject: Re: IESG Statement on Spam Control on IETF Mailing Lists
>
> Russ,
>
- Original Message -
From: "IESG Secretary" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "IETF Announcement list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 5:39 PM
Subject: IESG Statement on Spam Control on IETF Mailing Lists
> The f
ainst spam/viruses and that could do the job, see
http://www.mailscanner.info/
--
Tim
___
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
t;> of moderation is simply an allowed-poster whitelist.
>
>> So it seems to me that you've failed to see the problem.
>
>> Anybody who considers themselves a valid poster is supposed to be able to
>> bypass moderation, challenge-response and spam-filtering.
>
> Hi -
> > From: "Ned Freed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: "Henrik Levkowetz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Cc: "Ned Freed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
> > Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 9:12 PM
> > Subject: Re: IESG Statement on
gers can whitelist people, that's fine,
but in that case it desperately needs to be rewritten so it says what
it means, e.g.:
* IETF lists MUST provide a mechanism that allows list managers to
whitelist mail from legitimate technical participants to bypass
moderation and spam filters, and to allow
> > The following principles apply to spam control on IETF mailing lists:
> >
> > * IETF mailing lists MUST provide spam control.
> > * Such spam control SHOULD track accepted practices used on the Internet.
> These two bullets are well-intentioned, but have no cl
Hi -
> From: "Ned Freed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Henrik Levkowetz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: "Ned Freed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
> Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 9:12 PM
> Subject: Re: IESG Statement on Spam Control on IETF Mail
seems to me that you've failed to see the problem.
> Anybody who considers themselves a valid poster is supposed to be able to
> bypass moderation, challenge-response and spam-filtering.
I see nothing in the requirements that says this supposed to be possible as a
unilateral acti
ve failed to see the problem.
Anybody who considers themselves a valid poster is supposed to be able to
bypass moderation, challenge-response and spam-filtering. This would also
include a spammer who considers himself a valid poster. At the same time,
the IETF lists MUST provide spam contr
> On 2008-04-14 23:11 Ned Freed said the following:
> >> +1 to Henrik's comments. I don't think the two MUSTs
> >> that he comments on are algorithmically possible.
> >
> > These two MUSTs (the ability to whitelist specific posters without them
&
Dear IESG,
IESG Secretary wrote:
> The following principles apply to spam control on IETF mailing lists:
>
> * IETF mailing lists MUST provide spam control.
> * Such spam control SHOULD track accepted practices used on the Internet.
These two bullets are well-intentioned, but h
On 2008-04-14 23:11 Ned Freed said the following:
>> +1 to Henrik's comments. I don't think the two MUSTs
>> that he comments on are algorithmically possible.
>
> These two MUSTs (the ability to whitelist specific posters without them having
> to receive list ma
On 2008-04-15 09:11, Ned Freed wrote:
>> +1 to Henrik's comments. I don't think the two MUSTs
>> that he comments on are algorithmically possible.
>
> These two MUSTs (the ability to whitelist specific posters without them having
> to receive list mail and spam
> +1 to Henrik's comments. I don't think the two MUSTs
> that he comments on are algorithmically possible.
These two MUSTs (the ability to whitelist specific posters without them having
to receive list mail and spam rejection) are both completely trivial to
implement with our soft
1 - 100 of 1096 matches
Mail list logo
