On 11/23/22 8:38 AM, Slavko via mailop wrote:
Anyway, using SPF on shared environment is something, what negates SPF
purpose at all, as anyone from that shared provider can succesfuly pass
SPF for any other domain in it (sharing the same TXT records). Thus in
these shared services is SPF
On 2022-11-23 at 13:54 +0100, Tobias Fiebig wrote:
> But I am currently stuck at 'getting a /23', which is surprisingly
> difficult without $30k to blow... so if one of you has some spare v4,
> I wouldn't say no. ;-)
IPv4 addresses are scarce now, but universities and NRENs were assigned
large
On 2022-11-24 14:01, Tobias Fiebig via mailop wrote:
And to circle back to on-topic: The result of that is what then pops up in
/var/log/maillog.
So it isn't about 'should VT change [something]'; It is more 'shouldn't society
change the incentive structure and general setup around academia as
Hello Andrew
> If VT PhD students don't have the experience needed in the topics they study,
> then shouldn't VT change either the students or the topics ?
As I said, this is not about specific instances, people, or VT in particular.
It is more of an observation that while in 1988, you could go
On Wed, 23 Nov 2022, Tobias Fiebig via mailop wrote:
We can have an awful lot of discussions about this, and there is
a lot going on; Besides the obvious 'is it good or not' and 'is
this really science?', we essentially deal with 'science' with
all its incentives (publish or perish); This means
Heho,
> Please, give us the IP ranges these clowns are using so we can block all
> traffic from them.
Not sure which 'clowns' you refer to;
If this is about the sum of researchers under the mechanics of current academia
which might release crappy measurements to the public, I sadly lack such a
It appears that Tobias Fiebig via mailop said:
>My argument was that it is hardly possible to gain a sufficient understanding
>of many protocols to be able to thoroughly design network
>measurements while accounting for all possible harms within the time available
>for a PhD.
I happen to have
Hello John,
> So if they were competemnt and ethical, tney would stop and find people to
> work with who understand the issues so they can do research that is not
> abusive and could have useful results. Unfortunately, as we have seen, they
> are neither.
I personally believe (and sincerely
It appears that Tobias Fiebig via mailop said:
>Yes, I do, see Footnote ** of my previous mail; But to recap: It is a complex
>problem between how academia is setup, what it incentivizes, what
>it requires, what it rewards, and who does network measurement research
>(usually people without
Hey Bill,
> Do you know why his students have at least twice in the past engaged in
> deceptive spamming to gather data?
Yes, I do, see Footnote ** of my previous mail; But to recap: It is a complex
problem between how academia is setup, what it incentivizes, what it requires,
what it
Dňa 23. novembra 2022 14:32:51 UTC používateľ "Taejoong (tijay) Chung via
mailop" napísal:
>Yes. As Tobias explained, we can observe certain phenomena (e.g., some mail
>servers look up SPF records more than 100 times) from data, but we don't
>know *why* it happens; we have interviewed around
You can decide at every
> step of the process. If the questions were presented along with the consent
> request, they would be presented without collecting consent to present the
> questions, which kind of defeats the point of consent in the first place.
>
> [0]
> https://doin
/receiving-an-email.html
-Original Message-
From: mailop On Behalf Of Alessandro
Vesely via mailop
Sent: Wednesday, 23 November 2022 12:17
To: mailop@mailop.org
Cc: ti...@vt.edu
Subject: Re: [mailop] SPF (and other email security protocols) Survey
On Tue 22/Nov/2022 16:41:44 +0100
2022 12:17
To: mailop@mailop.org
Cc: ti...@vt.edu
Subject: Re: [mailop] SPF (and other email security protocols) Survey
On Tue 22/Nov/2022 16:41:44 +0100 Todd Herr via mailop wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 2:00 PM Taejoong (tijay) Chung via mailop wrote:
>>
>> The Sender Policy
On Tue 22/Nov/2022 16:41:44 +0100 Todd Herr via mailop wrote:
On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 2:00 PM Taejoong (tijay) Chung via mailop wrote:
The Sender Policy Framework (SPF) is an easy way to check whether the
sender is authorized to send emails – however, it may cause some security
holes if it
On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 2:00 PM Taejoong (tijay) Chung via mailop <
mailop@mailop.org> wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> The Sender Policy Framework (SPF) is an easy way to check whether the
> sender is authorized to send emails – however, it may cause some security
> holes if it causes too many DNS
On Tue 22/Nov/2022 02:17:14 +0100 L. Mark Stone via mailop wrote:
IMHO, asking me to grant rights before I know to what it is that I am granting
rights is, at best, not nice.
What right(s) did you (omit to) grant?
The first page questions were about consent to participate and understanding
On Nov 21, 2022, at 7:45 PM, Stuart Henderson via mailop
wrote:
>
> On 2022/11/21 13:55, Taejoong (tijay) Chung via mailop wrote:
>> Please note that we do NOT collect any personal information, thus
>> the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at Virginia Tech determined the
>> survey as Non-Human
America's Leading Zimbra VAR/BSP/Training Partner
For Companies With Mission-Critical Email Needs
- Original Message -
From: "Sebastian Nielsen via mailop"
To: "Mailing List"
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2022 5:49:15 PM
Subject: Re: [mailop] SPF (and other email security
of clothes do you buy?"
-Ursprungligt meddelande-
Från: Stuart Henderson via mailop
Skickat: den 21 november 2022 20:38
Till: Taejoong (tijay) Chung
Kopia: mailop@mailop.org
Ämne: Re: [mailop] SPF (and other email security protocols) Survey
On 2022/11/21 13:55, Taejoong (tijay) Chun
It appears that Stuart Henderson via mailop said:
>On 2022/11/21 13:55, Taejoong (tijay) Chung via mailop wrote:
>> Please note that we do NOT collect any personal information, thus
>> the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at Virginia Tech determined the
>> survey as Non-Human Subjects Research.
>
On 2022/11/21 13:55, Taejoong (tijay) Chung via mailop wrote:
> Please note that we do NOT collect any personal information, thus
> the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at Virginia Tech determined the
> survey as Non-Human Subjects Research.
eh, that doesn't make any kind of sense.
Greetings,
The Sender Policy Framework (SPF) is an easy way to check whether the
sender is authorized to send emails – however, it may cause some security
holes if it causes too many DNS lookups.
Together with researchers from Virginia Tech and Max-Planck-Institut für
Informatik, we would like
23 matches
Mail list logo
