Re: A Zero Spam Mail System [Feedback Request]

[bzs]

I don't think there's anything wrong with sounding out some ideas if
they arose from careful thought and sufficient experience and subject
knowledge.

Just saying call us when you've got a unicorn in hand is a brush-off.

But one has to find the right venue for such brainstorming which I
think is the real problem here.

And of course being willing to be shot down and just go back to the
drawing board if one ever really got so far as a "drawing board".

I'll admit this dombox thing has gotten that far even if some were
dissatisfied with the "drawings", clearly a lot of work has gone into
the idea.

But venue might be everything.

A very large list oriented towards operational issues is probably not
the right venue unless one really believes most everyone will see the
brilliance of a solution after reading a short paragraph and perhaps
even want to help or at least become motivated to read further.

And if you don't get that then, well, time for some introspection.

Quite a few of us, myself included, did go and read at least enough of
the long whitepaper to respond with a lot more in specifics than "call
us when you have your unicorn".

-- 
-Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die| b...@theworld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD   | 800-THE-WRLD
The World: Since 1989  | A Public Information Utility | *oo*

Re: A Zero Spam Mail System [Feedback Request]

[William Herrin]

On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 11:42 AM  wrote:
> But when someone says to me spam isn't much of a problem because it's
> mostly blocked by local filtering (i.e., they don't see much spam in
> their inbox), usually in an attempt to shut down any discussion
> entirely, I know I'm hearing from someone who hasn't a clue what
> problems it causes operationally.

Hear hear. 99% of the email reaching my server is spam. That means I
need 100 times the server capacity to process mail than I would need
without spam. 100 times. Two orders of magnitude. I defy anyone to
tell me that's not an operational issue.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
Dirtside Systems . Web: 

Re: A Zero Spam Mail System [Feedback Request]

[bzs]

I'm sure some will react to this viscerally but I'd argue that a large
chunk of the spam issue is an operational issue due to factors like:

1. Volume, bandwidth
2. Spammers' address block hijacking and other misuse of resources
3. Revenge (typically DDoS) attacks by spammers
4. General operational, related to #1, but for example how spam
   stresses capex.

No doubt some others.

But when someone says to me spam isn't much of a problem because it's
mostly blocked by local filtering (i.e., they don't see much spam in
their inbox), usually in an attempt to shut down any discussion
entirely, I know I'm hearing from someone who hasn't a clue what
problems it causes operationally.

That's not to argue for opening the floodgates on spam mitigation on
nanog.

Only that it's not necessarily off-topic depending on the aspect
raised.

-- 
-Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die| b...@theworld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD   | 800-THE-WRLD
The World: Since 1989  | A Public Information Utility | *oo*

Re: A Zero Spam Mail System [Feedback Request]

[Grant Taylor via NANOG]

On 02/22/2019 09:28 AM, John Curran wrote:
If you (or your email service provider) deploy an optional solution 
(e.g. DMARC p=reject) that prevents you from receiving email from mailing 
lists sending in conformance with existing standards, then that’s 
your choice.


From the perspective of inbound email (as that sounds like the focus of 
your statement) I would want my email server / service to use all 
current standards.  If the current standards are to employ DMARC 
filtering, then I would expect my email server / service provider to do so.


In some ways, I view DMARC as the latest in the line evolving standards; 
DKIM, SPF, reverse DNS.  Each of which have been controversial on their own.


I also believe in actually honoring what domain owners publish.  I 
believe that actually rejecting with SPF's "-all" and DMARC's 
"p=reject".  I say this because I want to provide — hopefully gentle — 
push back against / feedback to the publisher for them to fix their 
problems.


Even if you don't reject despite domain owner's indication of the 
preference, I think you should use that signal in the rest of your 
hygiene filters.


I also believe that mailing lists need to evolve with the times to 
support the current standards.  IMHO they don't get a pass because they 
are mailing lists and have always worked that way.


One doesn’t communicate with folks who chose (or let their service 
provider chose) not to receive email accordingly existing standards. 


Industry standards change, and senders need to keep up with the times.

What those standards are and how appropriate they are is independent.



--
Grant. . . .
unix || die



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

RE: A Zero Spam Mail System [Feedback Request]

[Keith Medcalf]

On Friday, 22 February, 2019 09:36, Miles Fidelman :

> But re. "one doesn't communicate with folks .. etc." --- when one has
> ongoing communication with a large group of people (e.g., an email
> list) --- and a large provider shuts a door, the impact is on more than
> just the customers of that provider

It affects the self-selected group of folks who chose to invest an inherently 
untrustworthy "provider" with trusted status.

In other words they chose their petard willingly and with full knowledge and 
were hoisted by it.

Their swinging and choking is merely the logical outcome of their own choices.

You could be a good nanny and not allow folks to do stupid things -- but where 
would that get you?  As a responsible adult it is far better to allow children 
to make their own foolish mistakes and suffer the consequences thereof in the 
hopes that they will not be so foolish the next time around.

Some, however, never learn and the attempts to remedy ignorance with a 
clue-by-four are fruitless.

When being chased by bears and wolves it is clearly advantageous to permit the 
feeble and slow to jolly-along so they may preferentially satiate the bears and 
wolves.

---
The fact that there's a Highway to Hell but only a Stairway to Heaven says a 
lot about anticipated traffic volume.

Re: A Zero Spam Mail System [Feedback Request]

[Miles Fidelman]

On 2/22/19 11:28 AM, John Curran wrote:


On 22 Feb 2019, at 9:58 AM, Miles Fidelman  wrote:

On 2/22/19 10:07 AM, John Curran wrote:


On 22 Feb 2019, at 7:08 AM, Miles Fidelman  wrote:

On 2/22/19 12:03 AM, John Curran wrote:


Either way, until such time your solution is deployed widely enough to 
significantly impact network operations, it’s unlikely to be a particularly 
relevant topic for discussion here.


Notable exception:  DMARC.  Broke email lists everywhere - including those that 
folks use to solve problems on the net. Heck, it broke the ietf email list.

Indeed - while a self-inflicted injury on its customers, the network effects of 
massive operating scale effectively transition the problem space from private 
actor to public…

hence not an notable exception, but an actual example of "deployed widely 
enough”

Hmmm  But wasn't the initial impact of DMARC that so few senders of email 
had implemented it?

If you (or your email service provider) deploy an optional solution (e.g. DMARC 
p=reject) that prevents you from receiving email from mailing lists sending in 
conformance with existing standards, then that’s your choice.

Expecting that others will automatically change their behavior (such as 
wrapping email from mailing lists) isn’t reasonable - you’ve effectively 
decided (or let your provider decide) that you don’t want existing 
communications to work for some categories of standard-compliant email.   The 
alternative is ‘Internet Coordination’, but that requires actually coordination 
before making major changes that will break things.


Also, the impact wasn't just on customers, but on trading partners & 
communities - communications being a two way street and all.

One doesn’t communicate with folks who chose (or let their service provider 
chose) not to receive email accordingly existing standards.
In any case, irrelevant to the dombox situation, unless/until someone actually 
deploys at a scale large enough to require consideration.

Not relevant to the dombox approach - though, in fairness, haven't waded 
into it deep enough to conclude that.


But re. "one doesn't communicate with folks .. etc." --- when one has 
ongoing communication with a large group of people (e.g., an email list) 
--- and a large provider shuts a door, the impact is on more than just 
the customers of that provider


Miles




--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.   Yogi Berra

Re: A Zero Spam Mail System [Feedback Request]

[John Curran]

On 22 Feb 2019, at 9:58 AM, Miles Fidelman  wrote:
> 
> On 2/22/19 10:07 AM, John Curran wrote:
> 
>> On 22 Feb 2019, at 7:08 AM, Miles Fidelman  
>> wrote:
>>> On 2/22/19 12:03 AM, John Curran wrote:
>>> 
 Either way, until such time your solution is deployed widely enough to 
 significantly impact network operations, it’s unlikely to be a 
 particularly relevant topic for discussion here.
 
>>> Notable exception:  DMARC.  Broke email lists everywhere - including those 
>>> that folks use to solve problems on the net. Heck, it broke the ietf email 
>>> list.
>> Indeed - while a self-inflicted injury on its customers, the network effects 
>> of massive operating scale effectively transition the problem space from 
>> private actor to public…
>> 
>> hence not an notable exception, but an actual example of "deployed widely 
>> enough”
> 
> Hmmm  But wasn't the initial impact of DMARC that so few senders of email 
> had implemented it? 

If you (or your email service provider) deploy an optional solution (e.g. DMARC 
p=reject) that prevents you from receiving email from mailing lists sending in 
conformance with existing standards, then that’s your choice.

Expecting that others will automatically change their behavior (such as 
wrapping email from mailing lists) isn’t reasonable - you’ve effectively 
decided (or let your provider decide) that you don’t want existing 
communications to work for some categories of standard-compliant email.   The 
alternative is ‘Internet Coordination’, but that requires actually coordination 
before making major changes that will break things. 

> Also, the impact wasn't just on customers, but on trading partners & 
> communities - communications being a two way street and all.

One doesn’t communicate with folks who chose (or let their service provider 
chose) not to receive email accordingly existing standards. 
In any case, irrelevant to the dombox situation, unless/until someone actually 
deploys at a scale large enough to require consideration. 

/John

Re: A Zero Spam Mail System [Feedback Request]

[Miles Fidelman]

On 2/22/19 10:07 AM, John Curran wrote:


On 22 Feb 2019, at 7:08 AM, Miles Fidelman  wrote:

On 2/22/19 12:03 AM, John Curran wrote:


Either way, until such time your solution is deployed widely enough to 
significantly impact network operations, it’s unlikely to be a particularly 
relevant topic for discussion here.


Notable exception:  DMARC.  Broke email lists everywhere - including those that 
folks use to solve problems on the net. Heck, it broke the ietf email list.

Indeed - while a self-inflicted injury on its customers, the network effects of 
massive operating scale effectively transition the problem space from private 
actor to public…

hence not an notable exception, but an actual example of "deployed widely 
enough”



Hmmm  But wasn't the initial impact of DMARC that so few senders of 
email had implemented it?  Also, the impact wasn't just on customers, 
but on trading partners & communities - communications being a two way 
street and all.


Miles Fidelman



--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.   Yogi Berra

Re: A Zero Spam Mail System [Feedback Request]

[John Curran]

On 22 Feb 2019, at 7:08 AM, Miles Fidelman  wrote:
> 
> On 2/22/19 12:03 AM, John Curran wrote:
> 
>> Either way, until such time your solution is deployed widely enough to 
>> significantly impact network operations, it’s unlikely to be a particularly 
>> relevant topic for discussion here.
>> 
> Notable exception:  DMARC.  Broke email lists everywhere - including those 
> that folks use to solve problems on the net. Heck, it broke the ietf email 
> list.

Indeed - while a self-inflicted injury on its customers, the network effects of 
massive operating scale effectively transition the problem space from private 
actor to public…  

hence not an notable exception, but an actual example of "deployed widely 
enough”

/John

Re: A Zero Spam Mail System [Feedback Request]

[Mike Meredith]

On Wed, 20 Feb 2019 19:01:40 -0700, "Forrest Christian (List Account)"
 may have written:
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 1:24 PM Matthew Black 
> wrote:
> > Have you ever created a sendmail.cf without using M4?  
> 
> I still believe that sendmail is Alien technology.  How else can one
> explain sendmail.cf?And although I can't say for sure that I

I always thought of sendmail.cf as a language for writing MTAs in. I did do
*bits* in sendmail.cf but switched to Exim before I got too damaged. 

> sendmail.cf file which wasn't working as one would expect.   I'm also
> not 100% certain that m4 was even an option for the first sendmail

It wasn't a Sendmail 8 introduction perhaps?


-- 
Mike Meredith, University of Portsmouth
Chief Systems Engineer, Hostmaster, Security, and Timelord!
 


pgpavwLh2geSD.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: A Zero Spam Mail System [Feedback Request]

[Miles Fidelman]

On 2/22/19 12:03 AM, John Curran wrote:

Either way, until such time your solution is deployed widely enough to 
significantly impact network operations, it’s unlikely to be a 
particularly relevant topic for discussion here.


Notable exception:  DMARC.  Broke email lists everywhere - including 
those that folks use to solve problems on the net. Heck, it broke the 
ietf email list.


There might be a warning in there - when someone big "innovates" - say 
Google turning on DMARC rejection, for gmail - that can have rather huge 
operational impacts.  Still gives me nightmares on occasion (I run a 
bunch of small lists).


Sigh...

Miles Fidelman



--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.   Yogi Berra

Re: A Zero Spam Mail System [Feedback Request]...sendmail.cf

[bzs]

Boston Univ Computing Center Director: Barry, is it true that all our
BITNET email to/from the academic mainframe goes to our TCP/IP sites
(mostly computer science) via a gateway at the University Wisconsin?

Me: Yes that is correct, I set that up, they're ok with that.

BUCCD: So every email is traveling about 3,000 miles to get 150 feet
down the hall???

Me: That sounds about right.

BUCCD: *ARE YOU NUTS?!*

Me: Never, ever, feel sorry for the wires.


-- 
-Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die| b...@theworld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD   | 800-THE-WRLD
The World: Since 1989  | A Public Information Utility | *oo*

Re: A Zero Spam Mail System [Feedback Request]

[John Curran]

On 17 Feb 2019, at 8:03 PM, Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan  wrote:
> ...
> White Paper - https://www.dombox.org/dombox.pdf 
> 
Viruthagiri -

It does not appear that you require anything from this community, as it appears 
from reading your white paper that your proposed solution relies upon existing 
Internet protocols and extensions (e.g. SMTP, SPF, DNS, DNS TXT RR types, etc.) 
  

One of the nice things about the Internet is that folks can generally innovate 
without seeking permission from anyone – the protocols are mostly agnostic 
about the things running over them, so you can implement and promote your 
solution today – nothing prevents you from moving ahead, and if you have 
created something that is truly valuable, then you should have no trouble 
finding investors, customers, and partners for your proposed solution.  If your 
proposed solution doesn’t prove to have a useful return on investment, then 
that instead shall become apparent. 

Either way, until such time your solution is deployed widely enough to 
significantly impact network operations, it’s unlikely to be a particularly 
relevant topic for discussion here. 

/John

Re: A Zero Spam Mail System [Feedback Request]...sendmail.cf

[John Curran]

On 20 Feb 2019, at 9:16 PM, b...@theworld.com wrote:
> On February 20, 2019 at 15:29 br...@2mbit.com (Brielle Bruns) wrote:
>> On 2/20/2019 1:22 PM, Matthew Black wrote:
>>> Have you ever created a sendmail.cf without using M4?
> 
> I've certainly maintained them, one usually started with whatever came
> with the source distr or maybe you'd get someone to share something
> with you to bang on.
> 
> One reason sendmail.cf's seem so complicated is because sendmail was
> designed to gateway and route between very different email systems.
> ...

  sendmail.cf was fun, but MMDF channels were so much more amusing –
and rather necessary in order to deal with gatewaying BITNET, phonenet, DECNET, 
X25NET, uunp, and ondemand dialup-ip ppp and cslip domains in a semi-reliable 
manner on the relay.cs.net  and relay2.cs.net 
 servers.  

It didn’t help that many sendmail.cf files in those days shipped relay.cs.net 
 preset as 
their default smtp relay host…  always made for large queues and careful 
editing. 

/John

Re: A Zero Spam Mail System [Feedback Request]...sendmail.cf

[bzs]

On February 21, 2019 at 18:23 feld...@twincreeks.net (Steve Feldman) wrote:
 > On Feb 20, 2019, at 7:16 PM, b...@theworld.com wrote:
 > > 
 > > (Berknet was largly written by Eric Schmidt, as in the former Google CEO)
 > 
 > I'm pretty sure that was Eric Allman, though I had the privilege of being a 
 > lowly Masters student at Berkeley while both Erics, along with Bill Joy and 
 > a host of other Internet pioneers, were there.

I don't have personal knowledge about this but the wikipedia page on
berknet credits Eric Schmidt:

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berknet

and links to Eric Schmidt's master thesis on Berknet (postscript):

  http://web.mit.edu/daveg/Info/Links/doc/unix.manual.misc/berknet/berknet.PS

Eric Schmidt and Mike Lesk also wrote "lex", the unix lexical analyzer
program used primarily for compiler contruction, rewritten as 'flex'
(fast lex) on more modern systems.

-- 
-Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die| b...@theworld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD   | 800-THE-WRLD
The World: Since 1989  | A Public Information Utility | *oo*

Re: A Zero Spam Mail System [Feedback Request]

[Brett Watson]

> On Feb 21, 2019, at 20:21, Brett Watson  wrote:
> 
>> On Feb 20, 2019, at 19:01, Forrest Christian (List Account) 
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> I still believe that sendmail is Alien technology.  How else can one
>> explain sendmail.cf?
> 
> Eric Altman and scotch, lots of scotch (as I remember it from Usenix).

Right, *Allman* of course I meant.

Re: A Zero Spam Mail System [Feedback Request]

[Brett Watson]

On Feb 20, 2019, at 19:01, Forrest Christian (List Account) 
 wrote:
> 
> I still believe that sendmail is Alien technology.  How else can one
> explain sendmail.cf?

Eric Altman and scotch, lots of scotch (as I remember it from Usenix).

-b

Re: A Zero Spam Mail System [Feedback Request]...sendmail.cf

[Steve Feldman]

On Feb 20, 2019, at 7:16 PM, b...@theworld.com wrote:
> 
> (Berknet was largly written by Eric Schmidt, as in the former Google CEO)

I'm pretty sure that was Eric Allman, though I had the privilege of being a 
lowly Masters student at Berkeley while both Erics, along with Bill Joy and a 
host of other Internet pioneers, were there.

 Steve

Re: A Zero Spam Mail System [Feedback Request]

[Grant Taylor via NANOG]

On 2/20/19 8:44 PM, William Herrin wrote:
I only wish postfix had as good diagnostic tools for analyzing address 
transform and delivery selection.


~chuckle~

It's been a while since I've seen someone say they wished Postfix had 
something that Sendmail has.


I agree that Sendmail's rule test mode is quite powerful.



--
Grant. . . .
unix || die



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: A Zero Spam Mail System [Feedback Request]

[William Herrin]

On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 12:23 PM Matthew Black 
wrote:
> Have you ever created a sendmail.cf without using M4?

I started using sendmail before sendmail started using M4. I'm still using
the hand-hacked sendmail.cf I built up over time. I had to muck with the
sendmail package on my Linux distro which really strongly wanted to
generate sendmail.cf's from the M4 instead of using mine.

I only wish postfix had as good diagnostic tools for analyzing address
transform and delivery selection.

[magic:root:/etc/mail:1202] sendmail -bt
ADDRESS TEST MODE (ruleset 3 NOT automatically invoked)
Enter  
> 3,0 b...@herrin.us
3  input: bill @ herrin . us
6  input: bill < @ herrin . us >
6returns: bill < @ herrin . us >
3returns: bill < @ herrin . us >
0  input: bill < @ herrin . us >
47 input: bill < @ herrin . us >
46 input: bill @ herrin . us . < O > . bill @ herrin . us .
< > .
46 input: bill @ herrin . us . < O > . herrin @ dirtside .
com . < > .
46 input: bill @ herrin . us . < O > . herrin @ magic .
dirtside . com . < > .
46   returns: bill @ herrin . us . < O > . herrin @ magic .
dirtside . com . < unchd > . < > .
46   returns: bill @ herrin . us . < O > . herrin @ magic .
dirtside . com . < unchd > . < > .
46   returns: bill @ herrin . us . < O > . herrin @ magic .
dirtside . com . < unchd > . < > .
47   returns: herrin < @ magic . LOCAL >
30 input: herrin
3  input: herrin
3returns: herrin
0  input: herrin
9  input: herrin
9returns: herrin
0returns: $# local $: herrin
30   returns: $# local $: herrin
0returns: $# local $: herrin

Regards,
Bill Herrin

-- 
William Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
Dirtside Systems . Web: 

Re: A Zero Spam Mail System [Feedback Request]...sendmail.cf

[bzs]

On February 20, 2019 at 15:29 br...@2mbit.com (Brielle Bruns) wrote:
 > On 2/20/2019 1:22 PM, Matthew Black wrote:
 > > Have you ever created a sendmail.cf without using M4?

I've certainly maintained them, one usually started with whatever came
with the source distr or maybe you'd get someone to share something
with you to bang on.

One reason sendmail.cf's seem so complicated is because sendmail was
designed to gateway and route between very different email systems.

For example UUCP where email addresses looked like uunet!bu!bzs and
berknet (UCB) where it looked like host:user (Berknet was largly
written by Eric Schmidt, as in the former Google CEO), and chaosnet
(MIT), DECNET, IBM/SNA, BITNET, etc.

The "internet" really meant to many that we were going to tie all
those together at least somewhat and it was fairly successful for
email. I know I regularly used and admin'd decnet, bitnet, uucp, as
well as the usual ARPA stuff.

P.S. ISTR that someone wrote an adventure ("Collosal Cave") type game
as a sendmail config, it may have even produced a paper but I can't
find it (Usenix?)

-- 
-Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die| b...@theworld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD   | 800-THE-WRLD
The World: Since 1989  | A Public Information Utility | *oo*

Re: A Zero Spam Mail System [Feedback Request]

[Forrest Christian (List Account)]

On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 1:24 PM Matthew Black  wrote:
> Have you ever created a sendmail.cf without using M4?

I still believe that sendmail is Alien technology.  How else can one
explain sendmail.cf?And although I can't say for sure that I
created a sendmail.cf from scratch without using the M4 macros, I can
say for sure that I've definitely edited/modified/hacked an existing
sendmail.cf file which wasn't working as one would expect.   I'm also
not 100% certain that m4 was even an option for the first sendmail
install I did...  my first sendmail setup was probably 25 years ago at
this point.

I guess I can add my $0.02 to this thread since it resurrected:

There have been lots and lots of solutions proposed over the years
which would have 'solved' spam in one way or another.   Micropayments,
authentication, encryption, etc.   Each had their strengths and
weaknesses.   But at this point, pretty much every 'new' solution
seems to just be a rehash of an old idea, quite possibly because the
person proposing the new solution isn't aware of the past history.

I do wonder if some of the old suggested solutions might be more
viable today, just because of the increase of computing power
available.   For example, some of the cryptographic signature-based
systems might pay to be revisited since cryptography has become
relatively inexpensive CPU-wise.

Re: A Zero Spam Mail System [Feedback Request]

[Carsten Bormann]

Been there, done that (I wrote my own driver for the bisync card, so I didn’t 
have the latter problem, just had to tame a barely documented Motorola chip 
“helping” with the already weird DLE handling).  I’d still prefer doing that 
again over today’s spam problem.

(There actually is a teachable lesson here, which is about getting rid of 
gateways.  But that’s for another day…)

Grüße, Carsten


> On Feb 21, 2019, at 00:59, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 20 Feb 2019 20:22:51 +, Matthew Black said:
>> Have you ever created a sendmail.cf without using M4?
> 
> Sendmail 5.6mumble or so, for a machine that was on UUCP, Arpa/Milnet, and
> Bitnet and gatewayed between them.  Bitnet was particularly ugly because (a)
> EBCDIC and (b) no way to represent a null line in NJE.  Bonus points for the
> bisync interface card that claimed to do DLE stuffing for SDLC but didn't...
> 
> And of course, approaching any address that had all 3 of  %, ! and @ in them 
> was loads of fun because the semantics depended on which interface they
> came in on...
> 
> 

Re: A Zero Spam Mail System [Feedback Request]

[valdis . kletnieks]

On Wed, 20 Feb 2019 20:22:51 +, Matthew Black said:
>  Have you ever created a sendmail.cf without using M4?

Sendmail 5.6mumble or so, for a machine that was on UUCP, Arpa/Milnet, and
Bitnet and gatewayed between them.  Bitnet was particularly ugly because (a)
EBCDIC and (b) no way to represent a null line in NJE.  Bonus points for the
bisync interface card that claimed to do DLE stuffing for SDLC but didn't...

And of course, approaching any address that had all 3 of  %, ! and @ in them 
was loads of fun because the semantics depended on which interface they
came in on...

Re: A Zero Spam Mail System [Feedback Request]

[Suresh Ramasubramanian]

I've tried never to hand write a sendmail.cf, to be honest - I doubt even the 
sendmail authors recommended being that brave :). And I haven't done all that 
much with dmarc beyond using it.

--srs


From: NANOG  on behalf of Brielle Bruns 

Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2019 4:01 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: A Zero Spam Mail System [Feedback Request]

On 2/20/2019 1:22 PM, Matthew Black wrote:
> Have you ever created a sendmail.cf without using M4?

Well, that brought back memories I did not want to revisit.

You are going to make me want to take up drinking.

--
Brielle Bruns
The Summit Open Source Development Group
http://www.sosdg.org / http://www.ahbl.org

Re: A Zero Spam Mail System [Feedback Request]

[Brielle Bruns]

On 2/20/2019 1:22 PM, Matthew Black wrote:

Have you ever created a sendmail.cf without using M4?


Well, that brought back memories I did not want to revisit.

You are going to make me want to take up drinking.

--
Brielle Bruns
The Summit Open Source Development Group
http://www.sosdg.org/ http://www.ahbl.org

RE: A Zero Spam Mail System [Feedback Request]

[bzs]

Just to put my unwelcome, OT 2 cents in...

Spammers, individual spamming operations, send on the order of one
billion emails per day, per each.

Their business model depends on doing that.

That's why we all see the same sort of spams over and over to the
point one can make a joke about them (YOU JUST WON THE EUROLOTTERY!)
and everyone knows what you're referring to, everyone.

Anything which slows that down to a trickle -- what honest source
needs to send a billion emails per day? -- would likely make the worst
of the spamming business not worthwhile in general.

(yeah yeah don't explain bots or snowshoeing to me, thanks.)

The problem is that most proposals along those lines, somehow volume
limiting or charging for email (say beyond 100K/day might do it, even
1M/day might do it) are met with instant hostility usually in the form
of vague straw men about how something like that would have to work
and rejection of that straw man.

Which mostly just amounts to "I don't like volume limiting or charging
schemes for email so here's a really dumb way it would have to work
and why it's dumb".

(please don't reply with your straw men interpretations of how it
would have to work which you just thought up.)

Or the vague "acceptance" argument, that could take 10 YEARS they've
been saying for the past 20+ years. Or "spam is no longer a problem".

Whatever. I didn't mean to start a discussion on the specifics.

Just that in very broad terms those two, somehow rate-limiting or
charging or both, probably are the only which might make sense in the
abstract because they actually address the vast volume of email
spammers need to send to stay in business.

Spam has accomplished one thing while many fiddled uncomfortable with
the most likely mitigations: It's raised the cost of managing public
email services to the point that only someone like google/gmail can
afford it w/o some subsidizing income stream, and even for google it's
probably a cross-subsidized loss leader tho I really don't know.

P.S. If you PERSONALLY don't ever want to see a spam message again in
your inbox that's really easy: Hire A Secretary or Personal Assistant!

-- 
-Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die| b...@theworld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD   | 800-THE-WRLD
The World: Since 1989  | A Public Information Utility | *oo*

Re: A Zero Spam Mail System [Feedback Request]

[Dave Crocker]

On 2/20/2019 12:22 PM, Matthew Black wrote:
SIGH. I am far more inclined to listen to John Levine or Suresh 
Ramasubramanian, both who have been around for decades and have earned 
their chops with DMARC and Sendmail. Both with a proven track record, 
rather than someone lacking credentials. Since spam is a subjective 
term, I’d personally like to know how someone can design a solution that 
works for billions of people.



Listen to them, by all means, but I'll suggest something simpler:  This 
is already a long thread and has been both unproductive and unpleasant. 
Most folk who experience such a pattern in a mailing list do not ever 
see it change until the actors or the topic changes, and usually it 
takes both...


d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net

RE: A Zero Spam Mail System [Feedback Request]

[Matthew Black]

SIGH. I am far more inclined to listen to John Levine or Suresh 
Ramasubramanian, both who have been around for decades and have earned their 
chops with DMARC and Sendmail. Both with a proven track record, rather than 
someone lacking credentials. Since spam is a subjective term, I’d personally 
like to know how someone can design a solution that works for billions of 
people. Heck, you need to improve over existing technology that provides a 
false negative rate p < 0.01 and false positive p < 0.005.

Someone who thinks Gmail is e-mail 1.0 fails to grasp history. Have you ever 
created a sendmail.cf without using M4?

[This message represents views of the author and not any employer (present or 
former).]


From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Viruthagiri 
Thirumavalavan
Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2019 6:04 PM
To: nanog list
Subject: A Zero Spam Mail System [Feedback Request]

Hello Everyone,

My name is Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan. I'm the guy who proposed SMTP over TLS 
on Port 
26<https://web.archive.org/web/20190218001439/https:/lists.gt.net/nanog/users/202185>
 last month. I'm also the guy who attacked (???) John Levine.

Today I have something to show you.

Long story short I solved the email spam problem. Well... Actually I solved 
it long time back. I'm just ready to disclose it today. Again...

Yeah.. Yeah.. Yeah... If only I had a dime for every time people insult me for 
saying "I solved the spam problem"

They usually start with the insult like "You think you are the inventor of 
FUSSP?"

These guys always are the know-it-all assholes. They don't listen. They don't 
want to listen. They are like barking dogs. If one started to bark, everyone 
else gets the courage to do the same thing.

I'm tired of fighting these assholes in every mailing list.  I'm on your side 
morons. So how about you all knock it off?

Six months back, it was John Levine who humiliated me in the DMARC list. 
Apparently, for him 50 words are enough to attack me.

Töma Gavrichenkov and Suresh Ramasubramanian even started to defend this man 
saying 50 words are enough to judge a 50,000 words paper.  [We are gonna figure 
it out today]

--

@Töma Gavrichenkov

In theory, I can easily recall a few cases in my life when going
through just 50 words was quite enough for a judgment.

How can you be so sure that you didn't fuck up none of the lives of these "few 
cases"? Or in more technical terms, How can you be absolutely sure that there 
is no "False Positives"?

--

@Suresh Ramasubramanian

Yes, 50 words are more than enough to decide a bad idea is bad.  You don't have 
to like that, or like any of us, but facts are facts

Merely appending the text "facts are facts" not gonna convert a bullshit 
statement into a fact.

You know what's the meaning of the word "fact"? It's a statement that can be 
proved TRUE.

Let's do a little experiment. 100 researchers presents their lifetime work to 
us. Each of their research paper contain 50,000 words. We are gonna judge them.

You are gonna judge them based on only the first 50 words. And I'm gonna judge 
them by tossing a coin. Can you guess who is gonna fuck up less number of 
researcher lives?

I'm claiming that I solved the email spam problem. If that's true, then you 
should know, common sense is one of the very basic requirement for that.

I designed my email system. Every inch of it. I wrote my research paper. Every 
word of it. I made my prototype video. Every second of it. So I'm the captain 
of my ship. Not you. But you all think you know my system better than me? That 
too, with only 50 words?

My research paper has around 50,000 words. And you think 50 words are enough to 
judge my work? Let me make sure I get this right. You are all saying, you know 
what's in the rest of the 49,950 words based on only the first 50 words? That's 
stupid on so many levels.

If you are gonna do a half-assed job and relay that misinformation to thousands 
of people, why volunteer in the first place? And by the way, by saying you are 
all doing half-assed job, I'm actually insulting the people who are REALLY 
doing the half-assed job.

--

John Levine vs. me

One month back, some of you may have noticed a thread created by John 
Levine<https://web.archive.org/web/20190218001726/https:/lists.gt.net/nanog/users/202213>
 where he goes like "He's Forum Shopping". The whole gist of that message was 
"We already have DANE and MTA-STS. We don't a third solution". And then I used 
some harsh words to defend myself. But that was the Season 2 of his "Shitshow". 
The Season 1 was aired 6 months back. You all missed that show. This is what 
happened in Season 1.


  1.  Six months back, I posted on three mailing list saying "I solved the 
email spam problem" and asked the

Re: A Zero Spam Mail System [Feedback Request]

[Miles Fidelman]

On 2/19/19 12:37 AM, Scott Weeks wrote:


--- beec...@beecher.cc wrote:
From: Tom Beecher 

Every single person on this list has either
sent an email they later regret[...]
--


Not me.  No way.  Never.  ;)

scott


Bet you're about to regret this one. :-)

Miles

--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.   Yogi Berra

Re: A Zero Spam Mail System [Feedback Request]

[Stephen Satchell]

On 2/18/19 9:37 PM, Scott Weeks wrote:
> Not me.  No way.  Never.  ;)

Then why is Mr. Murphy tapping you on the shoulder?  Didn't your Mom and
Dad ever tell you to never say "never"?

Re: A Zero Spam Mail System [Feedback Request]

[Scott Weeks]

--- beec...@beecher.cc wrote:
From: Tom Beecher 

Every single person on this list has either 
sent an email they later regret[...]
--


Not me.  No way.  Never.  ;)

scott

Re: A Zero Spam Mail System [Feedback Request]

[Jason Hellenthal via NANOG]

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-nRlbTO3RH1s/Uo-X_PX6WBI/JLU/mirPbTYFa6U/s1600/unnamed.jpg

-- 
 J. Hellenthal

The fact that there's a highway to Hell but only a stairway to Heaven says a 
lot about anticipated traffic volume.

> On Feb 18, 2019, at 16:57, Tom Beecher  wrote:
> 
> Every single person on this list has either sent an email they later regret , 
> or will do so eventually. 
> 
> Full credit to you for acknowledging and owning this. 
> 
> Best of luck to you. 
> 
>> On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 09:08 Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan  
>> wrote:
>> @Everyone
>> 
>> I'm not gonna justify my behaviour. Yes my post was rude. I made a mistake. 
>> I was way over in my head. When I typed the original message I was obsessed 
>> with the man John Levine. He was responsible for the attacks on me in 4 
>> mailing lists. DMARC, DKIM, IETF and this one (the old thread).  
>> 
>> I didn't want to face the same thing again. So I was rude. I'm not gonna 
>> make him responsible for this thread. This one is my mistake. I could have 
>> been more professional in my original post.  But I screwed up.
>> 
>> My apologies to everyone here for making you witness my rant. I'm leaving 
>> this mailing list too. But if anyone complete my white paper in the future, 
>> I would love to hear your feedback. I won't be receiving any mails from 
>> nanog. So contact me off-list in that case.
>> 
>> Thanks for the guys who helped in my other threads.
>> 
>> Good luck to you all. 

Re: A Zero Spam Mail System [Feedback Request]

[Tom Beecher]

Every single person on this list has either sent an email they later regret
, or will do so eventually.

Full credit to you for acknowledging and owning this.

Best of luck to you.

On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 09:08 Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan 
wrote:

> @Everyone
>
> I'm not gonna justify my behaviour. Yes my post was rude. I made a
> mistake. I was way over in my head. When I typed the original message I was
> obsessed with the man John Levine. He was responsible for the attacks on me
> in 4 mailing lists. DMARC, DKIM, IETF and this one (the old thread).
>
> I didn't want to face the same thing again. So I was rude. I'm not gonna
> make him responsible for this thread. This one is my mistake. I could have
> been more professional in my original post.  But I screwed up.
>
> My apologies to everyone here for making you witness my rant. I'm leaving
> this mailing list too. But if anyone complete my white paper in the future,
> I would love to hear your feedback. I won't be receiving any mails from
> nanog. So contact me off-list in that case.
>
> Thanks for the guys who helped in my other threads.
>
> Good luck to you all.
>

Re: A Zero Spam Mail System [Feedback Request]

[valdis . kletnieks]

On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 12:29:54 -0700, "Anne P. Mitchell, Esq." said:
> Especially when they are well-respected members of both NANOG and the greater
> email community. Seriously?? Attacking John and Suresh??

It's been a while since the time somebody was dorksplaining RIP to Tony Li. :)

Re: A Zero Spam Mail System [Feedback Request]

[bzs]

On February 18, 2019 at 12:29 amitch...@isipp.com (Anne P. Mitchell, Esq.) 
wrote:
 > 
 > 
 > > On Feb 17, 2019, at 7:14 PM, Ross Tajvar  wrote:
 > > 
 > > I'd be a lot more inclined to read your paper if you weren't so 
 > > self-righteous about it. Rehashing all the times people disagreed with 
 > > ("attacked") you is a poor way to encourage others to earnestly engage 
 > > with your ideas.
 > 
 > Especially when they are well-respected members of both NANOG and the 
 > greater email community. Seriously?? Attacking John and Suresh??

Uh-oh, this leads to "Why didn't he attack me? Don't I rate as
well-respected?"

I suppose in the proximal case because I didn't attack him :-)

-- 
-Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die| b...@theworld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD   | 800-THE-WRLD
The World: Since 1989  | A Public Information Utility | *oo*

Re: A Zero Spam Mail System [Feedback Request]

[Anne P. Mitchell, Esq.]

> On Feb 17, 2019, at 7:14 PM, Ross Tajvar  wrote:
> 
> I'd be a lot more inclined to read your paper if you weren't so 
> self-righteous about it. Rehashing all the times people disagreed with 
> ("attacked") you is a poor way to encourage others to earnestly engage with 
> your ideas.

Especially when they are well-respected members of both NANOG and the greater 
email community. Seriously?? Attacking John and Suresh??

Anne

*Typed with 1.5 eyes as I'm recuperating from a torn retina, so apologies for 
any typos.

Anne P. Mitchell, 
Attorney at Law
GDPR, CCPA (CA) & CCDPA (CO) Compliance Consultant
Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal anti-spam law)
Legislative Consultant
CEO/President, Institute for Social Internet Public Policy
Board of Directors, Denver Internet Exchange
Board of Directors, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop
Legal Counsel: The CyberGreen Institute
Legal Counsel: The Earth Law Center
California Bar Association
Cal. Bar Cyberspace Law Committee
Colorado Cyber Committee
Ret. Professor of Law, Lincoln Law School of San Jose
Ret. Chair, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop

RE: A Zero Spam Mail System [Feedback Request]

[Michel Py]

> Ross Tajvar wrote :
> Not to derail this highly relevant thread, and forgive my ignorance, but 
> what's the issue with IPv6 multihoming?

In the original spec of IPv6, there were no PI addresses, only PA; one of the 
unfulfilled promises of IPv6 was that the IPv6 DFZ would remain very small.
This made IPv6 multihoming very difficult, and lots of people wasted a lot of 
time trying to accommodate the "no PI" thing. What happenned is that the RIRs, 
against the IETF, started to issue IPv6 PI addresses, which solved the 
multihoming problem by doing it the IPv4 way : a prefix in the DFZ.

Michel.

TSI Disclaimer:  This message and any files or text attached to it are intended 
only for the recipients named above and contain information that may be 
confidential or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not 
forward, copy, use or otherwise disclose this communication or the information 
contained herein. In the event you have received this message in error, please 
notify the sender immediately by replying to this message, and then delete all 
copies of it from your system. Thank you!...

Re: A Zero Spam Mail System [Feedback Request]

[John Von Essen]

This is great news...  

> On Feb 18, 2019, at 12:02 PM, Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan  
> wrote:
> 
> I'm leaving this mailing list too.

Can a Nanog Op please ban this guy from joining again?

Re: A Zero Spam Mail System [Feedback Request]

[Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan]

@Everyone

I'm not gonna justify my behaviour. Yes my post was rude. I made a mistake.
I was way over in my head. When I typed the original message I was obsessed
with the man John Levine. He was responsible for the attacks on me in 4
mailing lists. DMARC, DKIM, IETF and this one (the old thread).

I didn't want to face the same thing again. So I was rude. I'm not gonna
make him responsible for this thread. This one is my mistake. I could have
been more professional in my original post.  But I screwed up.

My apologies to everyone here for making you witness my rant. I'm leaving
this mailing list too. But if anyone complete my white paper in the future,
I would love to hear your feedback. I won't be receiving any mails from
nanog. So contact me off-list in that case.

Thanks for the guys who helped in my other threads.

Good luck to you all.

Re: A Zero Spam Mail System [Feedback Request]

[William Herrin]

On Sun, Feb 17, 2019 at 10:58 PM Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan
 wrote:
> Literally everyone attacking me here. Could you tell me why?

Because we disapprove of argumentum ad hominem and assume that if your
reasoning leads with that fallacy right out of the gate it will
contain the other errors as well.

https://thebestschools.org/magazine/15-logical-fallacies-know/

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
Dirtside Systems . Web: 

Re: A Zero Spam Mail System [Feedback Request]

[Brielle Bruns]

On 2/17/2019 11:58 PM, Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan wrote:

Just gone through all your replies.

Literally everyone attacking me here. Could you tell me why? 


Technical people like what you'd find on this list tend to want to get 
right to the point on things.  If you want them to hear you out, you 
can't hand them a 300 page 'white paper' and demand that they read it.


When presenting to technical, esp sysadmin and networking types, use the 
RFCs as a template for how you should be presenting your idea to them.


It also helps to target your audience well - while most people here do 
consider spam a serious problem, many of them are not in a position to 
professionally do anything about it, or have the time to do anything 
about it.


Your proper audience is Mailops and people like me (ie: former DNSbl 
maintainers, postmasters, abuse desks).


Just going to come right out and say this too - your 'solution', no 
matter how good you may think it is, depends on people paying you as a 
service.


That means I have zero interest in it.  I have enough subscriptions and 
payments I have to make for things which are much more important as it is.


Dare I bring up Spamhaus's .mail proposal and the shitshow that was?


--
Brielle Bruns
The Summit Open Source Development Group
http://www.sosdg.org/ http://www.ahbl.org

Re: A Zero Spam Mail System [Feedback Request]

[valdis . kletnieks]

On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 12:28:21 +0530, Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan said:

> Literally everyone attacking me here. Could you tell me why? Because I have
> been rude to John Levine, right?

No, it's because (a) every aspect we could understand from your writing has 
already
been tried and failed, and (b) you've repeatedly proven that you're totally
unaware of the state of the art on both the spammer side and the anti-spammer
side. Oh, and (c) you appear to be totally unaware of just how little you know.

Re: A Zero Spam Mail System [Feedback Request]

[Jimmy Hess]

On Sun, Feb 17, 2019 at 8:05 PM Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan
 wrote:

> These guys always are the know-it-all assholes. They don't listen. They don't 
> want to listen.

I would simply like to remind everyone that NANOG is a Mailing list
that has some rules.
They could be found here:   https://www.nanog.org/list
I would like to request for the Communications Committee to look at
this thread,  except the list  of
NANOG Committee members seems to be secret -  https://nanog.org/governance/cc

The message I reply to seems to be a long string of major deviations
from AUP, specifically:

:  4.  Postings that are defamatory, abusive, profane, threatening, or
include foul language,
:  character assassination, and lack of respect for other participants
are prohibited.

We get really tired about people bringing up disputes and personal
issues -- this is not the right place.
> Long story short I solved the email spam problem. Well... Actually I 
> solved it long time back. I'm just ready to disclose it today. Again...

While you have some technical solution and some ideas that appear to
have merit such as  "Isolated
mailboxes"  (Isolated Mailboxes are not really a new idea -- but there
is currently no agreed
protocol/standard to make such function convenient enough for people to use);

Prompting e-mail senders to answer "CAPTCHA"  sounds too burdensome to
use;  This is also
not Spam-Free,   as  spammers will find ways to answer CAPTCHAs.

The overall claims to have "zero" spam or completely "solved" the spam
problem technically
are way too bold and are close to "Product Marketing" in my view,
since some Dombox dot com
service is being advertised.

Most Network Operators like those that subscribe to NANOG usually have
little to say about
technical details involved in developing standards regarding e-mail
protocols;  please see
IETF for on-topic discussion groups.

--
-JH

Re: A Zero Spam Mail System [Feedback Request]

[Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan]

Thanks James for the feedback.

I created that medium post for non-technical audience. But yes your
feedback is quite valid. I just removed plenty of content from the blog
post.

You don't need a throw-away email account in my system.

If I had to create an entry for each domain I wanted to received mail from
> I'd pull my eyes out with frustration.


You would do this only for the unique domains just like you do in "Password
Manager". For example, you would create a box for nanog.

We deal with "spammers" only in the "injection" phase. If you have not read
until the part where it says "Hot Gates Strategy", then it's really hard to
connect the dots.

Thanks

On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 2:21 PM James Bensley  wrote:

>
>
> On 18 February 2019 06:58:21 GMT, Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan <
> g...@dombox.org> wrote:
> >Just gone through all your replies.
> >
> >Literally everyone attacking me here. Could you tell me why? Because I
> >have
> >been rude to John Levine, right? So you all think you have the right to
> >give me "mob justice". But as an innocent man I have to suffer all John
> >Levine attacks because he is a most valued member of NANOG. Is that
> >what
> >you are all saying?
> >
> >There is only one regret I have in this situation. I shouldn't have
> >been
> >rude with Töma Gavrichenkov and Suresh Ramasubramanian. That's because
> >they
> >didn't know what happened between John and me 6 months back. Most
> >probably
> >they would never have behaved with me in the way John behaved. I wasn't
> >paying attention to that part. When I noticed the word "50 words", I
> >thought they are mocking me too.
> >
> >-
> >@Töma Gavrichenkov and Suresh Ramasubramanian
> >
> >I don't think I can go back and correct my mistakes. But trust me. I do
> >regret for my words. I'm really sorry for being rude with you two. Take
> >this as my sincerest apology. You two deserve that.
> >-
> >
> >@Everyone
> >
> >It sucks when you sit on the "humiliation" chair when the mistake is
> >not
> >yours. I'm a farmer's son from a third world country, yet trying to
> >contribute to this world in the way I can.
> >
> >Asking for feedback is not a mistake. But I have been attacked in
> >multiple
> >lists for that. This is the only thread I was rude and cocky.
> >
> >What you all think I spend my time only in attacking others? Have you
> >ever
> >noticed my other threads ? I
> >usually give respect to everyone. But I can't give respect to people
> >who
> >don't care about others feelings. What you all think, I'm a heartless
> >man?
> >
> >One guy was attacking me for my poor english skills. Excuse me for not
> >being poetic in my paper. I studied in my local language. English was
> >an
> >alien language to me. I started to learn "English" only in my early
> >twenties. I just turned 30. This is what I picked in the past 10 years.
> >
> >Just because the ball is in your court doesn't mean, you all can throw
> >at
> >me in the way you can. I explained what happened between John Levine
> >and me
> >in my original post. That's because I don't want this man to go and
> >create
> >another thread to attack me or meddle in my efforts.
> >
> >I'm a guy who spend day and night in working on things I believe. I'm
> >definitely not gonna turn into a Mark Zuckerberg. But I'm gonna make a
> >difference to this world one way or another.
> >
> >None of never completed my paper. Most probably you have no idea what's
> >in
> >it. But you all think you have the right to attack me, because I was
> >rude
> >with John? This is an engineering community. Don't convert it into a
> >"Prison Brotherhood" where the new guy always has to bend over.
>
>
> I have no idea who you are, or who John is, or what sort if disagreement
> you guys had. I also don't care. I'm a user of this list, I read the
> threads that look interesting when I can (when I have time) and sometimes
> post responses. You haven't offended me and I don't owe you anything, so
> here is my impartial response;
>
> Your white paper is 300 pages long. That is literally 10x the length of
> what a white paper should be. White papers are not instruction manuals on
> exactly how something works and how to set it up, they're short succinct
> documents that give the highlights of the product, who can benefit from it,
> how, why etc.
>
> Who is your target audience for your writing? I read somewhere up to about
> half of your medium blog post. You start by explaining what different kinds
> of email are (spam vs phishing, transactional vs promotional) etc. This is
> an introduction for what email is. That's too basic for sending to a
> technical audience. Skip right to the main course, people have short
> attention spans, I hate having to skim through pages of stuff I know to
> find what I'm looking for.
>
> I didn't finish the blog post. I read that I'd have to create a mailbox
> (Dombox) for each domain I want to receive mail form and I switched off. I
> read 

Re: A Zero Spam Mail System [Feedback Request]

[Töma Gavrichenkov]

On Mon, Feb 18, 2019, 9:56 AM Stephane Bortzmeyer  > Sequoia Capital is one of the well known venture firm in the
> > world. They have invested in over 250 companies since 1972,
> > including Apple, Google, Oracle, PayPal, Stripe, YouTube, Instagram,
> > Yahoo! and WhatsApp.
>
> Come on, most people on this list have a lot of experience with the
> wonderful world of Silicon Valley startups. We have seen a lot of
> dollars invested in really stupid projects. "One VC gave me money"
> proves nothing, except that some people have too much money and too
> little sense.
>

Well, if I read it correctly, that VC hasn't in fact ever given the OP a
cent.  *Sometimes*, VCs might make obvious mistakes, that's right, but
their balance sheets prove it doesn't happen quite often.

--
Töma

>

Re: A Zero Spam Mail System [Feedback Request]

[James Bensley]

On 18 February 2019 06:58:21 GMT, Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan  
wrote:
>Just gone through all your replies.
>
>Literally everyone attacking me here. Could you tell me why? Because I
>have
>been rude to John Levine, right? So you all think you have the right to
>give me "mob justice". But as an innocent man I have to suffer all John
>Levine attacks because he is a most valued member of NANOG. Is that
>what
>you are all saying?
>
>There is only one regret I have in this situation. I shouldn't have
>been
>rude with Töma Gavrichenkov and Suresh Ramasubramanian. That's because
>they
>didn't know what happened between John and me 6 months back. Most
>probably
>they would never have behaved with me in the way John behaved. I wasn't
>paying attention to that part. When I noticed the word "50 words", I
>thought they are mocking me too.
>
>-
>@Töma Gavrichenkov and Suresh Ramasubramanian
>
>I don't think I can go back and correct my mistakes. But trust me. I do
>regret for my words. I'm really sorry for being rude with you two. Take
>this as my sincerest apology. You two deserve that.
>-
>
>@Everyone
>
>It sucks when you sit on the "humiliation" chair when the mistake is
>not
>yours. I'm a farmer's son from a third world country, yet trying to
>contribute to this world in the way I can.
>
>Asking for feedback is not a mistake. But I have been attacked in
>multiple
>lists for that. This is the only thread I was rude and cocky.
>
>What you all think I spend my time only in attacking others? Have you
>ever
>noticed my other threads ? I
>usually give respect to everyone. But I can't give respect to people
>who
>don't care about others feelings. What you all think, I'm a heartless
>man?
>
>One guy was attacking me for my poor english skills. Excuse me for not
>being poetic in my paper. I studied in my local language. English was
>an
>alien language to me. I started to learn "English" only in my early
>twenties. I just turned 30. This is what I picked in the past 10 years.
>
>Just because the ball is in your court doesn't mean, you all can throw
>at
>me in the way you can. I explained what happened between John Levine
>and me
>in my original post. That's because I don't want this man to go and
>create
>another thread to attack me or meddle in my efforts.
>
>I'm a guy who spend day and night in working on things I believe. I'm
>definitely not gonna turn into a Mark Zuckerberg. But I'm gonna make a
>difference to this world one way or another.
>
>None of never completed my paper. Most probably you have no idea what's
>in
>it. But you all think you have the right to attack me, because I was
>rude
>with John? This is an engineering community. Don't convert it into a
>"Prison Brotherhood" where the new guy always has to bend over.


I have no idea who you are, or who John is, or what sort if disagreement you 
guys had. I also don't care. I'm a user of this list, I read the threads that 
look interesting when I can (when I have time) and sometimes post responses. 
You haven't offended me and I don't owe you anything, so here is my impartial 
response;

Your white paper is 300 pages long. That is literally 10x the length of what a 
white paper should be. White papers are not instruction manuals on exactly how 
something works and how to set it up, they're short succinct documents that 
give the highlights of the product, who can benefit from it, how, why etc.

Who is your target audience for your writing? I read somewhere up to about half 
of your medium blog post. You start by explaining what different kinds of email 
are (spam vs phishing, transactional vs promotional) etc. This is an 
introduction for what email is. That's too basic for sending to a technical 
audience. Skip right to the main course, people have short attention spans, I 
hate having to skim through pages of stuff I know to find what I'm looking for.

I didn't finish the blog post. I read that I'd have to create a mailbox 
(Dombox) for each domain I want to receive mail form and I switched off. I read 
further to see the examples but this killed my interest. Its too much effort 
for the average person. I'm emailing you now from throw-away Gmail account, 
which is free with world class spam filtering, I get like 1 spam email in my 
inbox per month. 1! And the reason I have this Gmail account is so that I can 
be reckless with handing out this this email address and it has no negative 
consequences for me. It's signed up to about 50 mailing lists right now, I get 
hundreds of emails. If I had to create an entry for each domain I wanted to 
received mail from I'd pull my eyes out with frustration.

Also, this already exists. I could just run my own mail server and deny a mail 
except from domains or addresses which I have explicitly white listed in my 
server config, so how is your solution bettering that? I can even use a two 
step system: free email with Gmail to use their excellent spam filtering 

Re: A Zero Spam Mail System [Feedback Request]

[Töma Gavrichenkov]

On Mon, Feb 18, 2019, 5:05 AM Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan 
wrote:

> @Töma Gavrichenkov
>
> In theory, I can easily recall a few cases in my life when going
>> through just 50 words was quite enough for a judgment.
>
>
> How can you be so sure that you didn't fuck up none of the lives of these
> "few cases"? Or in more technical terms, How can you be absolutely sure
> that there is no "False Positives"?
>

Easily.

I shouldn't have been rude with Töma Gavrichenkov
>

Oh, feel free to, I don't really care.

--
Töma

>

Re: A Zero Spam Mail System [Feedback Request]

[Stephane Bortzmeyer]

On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 12:28:21PM +0530,
 Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan  wrote 
 a message of 111 lines which said:

> Just gone through all your replies.

And apparently you did not read them and did not take any lesson in
it.

> Literally everyone attacking me here.

In the current thread, NOT ONE reply was an attack. All the replies
were kind and considerate (franly, much more than what you deserved)
and explained why you are wrong. Read them again. Really. It would
help you. This is probably your last chance before everyone definitely
classify you as "useless crank".

> One guy was attacking me for my poor english skills. Excuse me for
> not being poetic in my paper. I studied in my local
> language. English was an alien language to me.

English is not my mother tongue either and I make many mistakes. But I
try to fix them, and do not complain when people who speak better
english correct me. Frankly, as someone who has trouble understanding
people speaking at the IETF meetings, I do not think that english is
your main problem. 

> None of never completed my paper.

Nobody is forced to. There are more interesting papers to read that
anyone have time to do so. We have to decide what to read and what to
ignore. Why should we drop promising papers and read yours, when the
external appearance is that of a guy who does not listen, does not
know what he is talking about, and just complains endlessly how the
world is unfair?

Re: A Zero Spam Mail System [Feedback Request]

[Mark Tinka]

On 18/Feb/19 08:58, Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan wrote:

>
> It sucks when you sit on the "humiliation" chair when the mistake is
> not yours. I'm a farmer's son from a third world country, yet trying
> to contribute to this world in the way I can. 
>
> Asking for feedback is not a mistake. But I have been attacked in
> multiple lists for that. This is the only thread I was rude and cocky. 
>
My simple advice, take 2 weeks and think about how this thread has gone,
cool down, and then decide how you want to proceed next.

While nobody can take your work away from you, it does not mean that
they have to accept it either. Your circumstances are your
circumstances, as are everybody else's. Most people can smell a guilt
trip, and often times, they don't like it.

As I used to tell my friends who had trouble dating girls, "You don't
get what you deserve, you get what you negotiate". Part of the gig is
endearing yourself to people so that they can consider what you have to
say. I do not know of any law that obliges anyone to give you attention.

There is no shortage of brilliant minds that have never had their ideas
realized - or even heard - simply because they could not deal with the
social side of the gig. Please don't fall into that trap. Everybody
wakes up everyday with their own set of problems. They have no
obligation to be a part of yours, so make it easier for folk to listen
to you. Whether you are right or wrong, bickering about the past deafens
your core message, and simply turns people away so they don't have to
add your problems on to theirs.

Mark.

Re: A Zero Spam Mail System [Feedback Request]

[Ross Tajvar]

You are so missing the point. This isn't about your interaction with John
Levine. You came her asking for feedback (after an extensive and very
unprofessional rant) and you got it. Just because you don't like the
feedback doesn't mean people are "attacking" you.

This is so irrelevant to NANOG. Please stop.

On Mon, Feb 18, 2019, 2:00 AM Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan  Just gone through all your replies.
>
> Literally everyone attacking me here. Could you tell me why? Because I
> have been rude to John Levine, right? So you all think you have the right
> to give me "mob justice". But as an innocent man I have to suffer all John
> Levine attacks because he is a most valued member of NANOG. Is that what
> you are all saying?
>
> There is only one regret I have in this situation. I shouldn't have been
> rude with Töma Gavrichenkov and Suresh Ramasubramanian. That's because they
> didn't know what happened between John and me 6 months back. Most probably
> they would never have behaved with me in the way John behaved. I wasn't
> paying attention to that part. When I noticed the word "50 words", I
> thought they are mocking me too.
>
> -
> @Töma Gavrichenkov and Suresh Ramasubramanian
>
> I don't think I can go back and correct my mistakes. But trust me. I do
> regret for my words. I'm really sorry for being rude with you two. Take
> this as my sincerest apology. You two deserve that.
> -
>
> @Everyone
>
> It sucks when you sit on the "humiliation" chair when the mistake is not
> yours. I'm a farmer's son from a third world country, yet trying to
> contribute to this world in the way I can.
>
> Asking for feedback is not a mistake. But I have been attacked in multiple
> lists for that. This is the only thread I was rude and cocky.
>
> What you all think I spend my time only in attacking others? Have you ever
> noticed my other threads ? I
> usually give respect to everyone. But I can't give respect to people who
> don't care about others feelings. What you all think, I'm a heartless man?
>
> One guy was attacking me for my poor english skills. Excuse me for not
> being poetic in my paper. I studied in my local language. English was an
> alien language to me. I started to learn "English" only in my early
> twenties. I just turned 30. This is what I picked in the past 10 years.
>
> Just because the ball is in your court doesn't mean, you all can throw at
> me in the way you can. I explained what happened between John Levine and me
> in my original post. That's because I don't want this man to go and create
> another thread to attack me or meddle in my efforts.
>
> I'm a guy who spend day and night in working on things I believe. I'm
> definitely not gonna turn into a Mark Zuckerberg. But I'm gonna make a
> difference to this world one way or another.
>
> None of never completed my paper. Most probably you have no idea what's in
> it. But you all think you have the right to attack me, because I was rude
> with John? This is an engineering community. Don't convert it into a
> "Prison Brotherhood" where the new guy always has to bend over.
>

Re: A Zero Spam Mail System [Feedback Request]

[Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan]

Just gone through all your replies.

Literally everyone attacking me here. Could you tell me why? Because I have
been rude to John Levine, right? So you all think you have the right to
give me "mob justice". But as an innocent man I have to suffer all John
Levine attacks because he is a most valued member of NANOG. Is that what
you are all saying?

There is only one regret I have in this situation. I shouldn't have been
rude with Töma Gavrichenkov and Suresh Ramasubramanian. That's because they
didn't know what happened between John and me 6 months back. Most probably
they would never have behaved with me in the way John behaved. I wasn't
paying attention to that part. When I noticed the word "50 words", I
thought they are mocking me too.

-
@Töma Gavrichenkov and Suresh Ramasubramanian

I don't think I can go back and correct my mistakes. But trust me. I do
regret for my words. I'm really sorry for being rude with you two. Take
this as my sincerest apology. You two deserve that.
-

@Everyone

It sucks when you sit on the "humiliation" chair when the mistake is not
yours. I'm a farmer's son from a third world country, yet trying to
contribute to this world in the way I can.

Asking for feedback is not a mistake. But I have been attacked in multiple
lists for that. This is the only thread I was rude and cocky.

What you all think I spend my time only in attacking others? Have you ever
noticed my other threads ? I
usually give respect to everyone. But I can't give respect to people who
don't care about others feelings. What you all think, I'm a heartless man?

One guy was attacking me for my poor english skills. Excuse me for not
being poetic in my paper. I studied in my local language. English was an
alien language to me. I started to learn "English" only in my early
twenties. I just turned 30. This is what I picked in the past 10 years.

Just because the ball is in your court doesn't mean, you all can throw at
me in the way you can. I explained what happened between John Levine and me
in my original post. That's because I don't want this man to go and create
another thread to attack me or meddle in my efforts.

I'm a guy who spend day and night in working on things I believe. I'm
definitely not gonna turn into a Mark Zuckerberg. But I'm gonna make a
difference to this world one way or another.

None of never completed my paper. Most probably you have no idea what's in
it. But you all think you have the right to attack me, because I was rude
with John? This is an engineering community. Don't convert it into a
"Prison Brotherhood" where the new guy always has to bend over.

Re: A Zero Spam Mail System [Feedback Request]

[Stephane Bortzmeyer]

On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 07:33:32AM +0530,
 Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan  wrote 
 a message of 515 lines which said:

> My name is Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan. I'm the guy who proposed SMTP
> over TLS on Port 26

Besides all the excellent remarks that were made here (and I seriously
urge you to read them; really), I want to add:

> It's my 5 years of research. So it's worth more than 50 words.

You have a very strange way of measuring the importance of
something. A lot of people spent 30 years or more on useless and
stupid things. The time past is *not* a good indicator of value.

> My prototype codebase has around 200,000 lines of code. [To be exact:
> 466,965 ++ 254,169 --]

Same thing for source code. Boasting of the number of lines, as if it
measured value of the program, won't make people interested. Really,
this metric was abandoned or at east downplayed more than thirty years
ago.

> Sequoia Capital is one of the well known venture firm in the
> world. They have invested in over 250 companies since 1972,
> including Apple, Google, Oracle, PayPal, Stripe, YouTube, Instagram,
> Yahoo! and WhatsApp.

Come on, most people on this list have a lot of experience with the
wonderful world of Silicon Valley startups. We have seen a lot of
dollars invested in really stupid projects. "One VC gave me money"
proves nothing, except that some people have too much money and too
little sense.

Re: A Zero Spam Mail System [Feedback Request]

[John Adams]

Agreed.

I’ve never seen someone so excited to have reinvented TMDA from the 1990’s. 
Please, tell us more how the Internet will readdress itself to meet your 
fascinating solution. 

Can we go back to talking about network engineering now?

Sent from my iPhone

> On Feb 17, 2019, at 19:21, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 07:33:32 +0530, Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan said:
>> My name is Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan. I'm the guy who proposed SMTP over
>> TLS on Port 26
> 
> Unfortunately, your attempt there didn't demonstrate an in-depth knowledge of
> the email ecology of the sort needed to *actually* solve the spam problem.
> 
>> Today I have something to show you.
>> 
>> Long story short I solved the email spam problem. Well... Actually I
>> solved it long time back. I'm just ready to disclose it today. Again...
> 
> So actually *disclose* it already, rather than whining about how you've been
> treated.
> 
> And there's this telling statement:
> 
>> [Today's discussion is about whether I solved the spam problem. Not about how
>> I'm gonna distribute the solution]
> 
> You apparently don't understand that how the solution gets distributed is a
> very important part of whether the solution will work.
> 
> Bottom line: You hit most of the points in Vernon Schryver's FUSSP list, plus
> an amazing number of points in John Baez's crackpot index. Not a good way to
> start.
> 
> So because I'm needing some entertainment, I went to go check the Medium post.
> 
>> "Spammers have no idea what's going on INSIDE the email system. i.e. They
>> have no idea whether their mail gets marked as spam or not."
> 
> Oh, you poor, poor uneducated person.  Spammers have a *very good* idea
> of whether it was marked as spam.
> 
>> "Now, what if your first mail get rejected with an error message like 
>> "Unauthorized Sender"?
>> Would you still write your follow-up mail? No, right?"
> 
> At which point you totally miss the point - for a spammer, the reasonable 
> thing to do
> is *send another mail with a different From: value*, in hopes of hitting one 
> that's
> an "authorized sender".
> 
>> "So when mails get rejected with an error message, spammers gonna remove your
>> email address from their email list. That's because your email address is a
>> dead end for them."
> 
> OK, I'm done here. We obviously have a total lack of understanding of the
> problem space, and it's very unlikely that an actually correct solution will
> arise from that.
> 
> Also, I'll offer you a totally free piece of technical advice: Those SAD
> entries in the DNS that you're hoping to use to tie domains together are
> trivially forgeable.
> 
> To save everybody else the effort:  As far as I can tell, he's re-invented 
> plus
> addressing, and says that if everybody creates mailboxes 
> john.sm...@example.com
> for personal mail, and a john.smith+na...@example.com for nanog mail, and
> john.smith+my-b...@example.com for his bank emails, spam will apparently give
> up in defeat
> 
> There's a whole bunch more, including assuming that Joe Sixpack *will* create 
> a
> separate address for each "transactional" piece of mail, that spammers won't
> send mail that looks like personal mail, that spammers won't create bogus DNS
> entries, and a few other whoppers...
> 

Re: A Zero Spam Mail System [Feedback Request]

[James Downs]

> On Feb 17, 2019, at 19:26, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:

> I was thinking more of the guy who was convinced that each octet in an IPV4
> address could store 0 through 256.

That's what the overflow flag is for, right?

Re: A Zero Spam Mail System [Feedback Request]

[bzs]

I made it a few dozen pages into the white paper, it's 200+ pages long
and TBH just rambles on about what spam bots are and other basic
definitions.

No one who doesn't know all that will even attempt to read your paper
I don't think.

THAT SAID, I got to the point where it required CAPTCHAs of senders
and thought well, that's theoretically possible, but quite a threshold
to expect of others who may not much care if you read their email, but
you the recipient may care a lot and oh well you never get the mail.

It doesn't add much, really, and spammers figured out how to bust
things like CAPTCHAs decades ago*.

I accept there's probably more to your idea, put it on one or two
pages.

* Take the CAPTCHA image, flash it up on another site which offers
access to free porn for solving the CAPTCHA, forward answer to
original site.

-- 
-Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die| b...@theworld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD   | 800-THE-WRLD
The World: Since 1989  | A Public Information Utility | *oo*

Re: A Zero Spam Mail System [Feedback Request]

[hank]

On 18/02/2019 04:03, Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan wrote:

If that is the case you should have a startup worth at least $10M with  
numerous VC banging down your door.  If not, you need to ask yourself  
the question "why not?".


-Hank


Hello Everyone,

My name is Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan. I'm the guy who proposed SMTP  
over TLS on Port 26 last month. I'm also the guy who attacked (???)  
John Levine.


Today I have something to show you. Long story short I solved  
the email spam problem. Well... Actually I solved it long time back.  
I'm just ready to disclose it today. Again...


@Everyone

Here is what you all should know.

It's my 5 years of research. So it's worth more than 50 words. I  
started my work back in 2013 and I used to call my work "XMail" at  
that time. It's now called "Dombox"


My prototype codebase has around 200,000 lines of code. [To be  
exact: 466,965 ++  254,169 --]


Sequoia Capital is one of the well known venture firm in the world.  
They have invested in over 250 companies since 1972, including  
Apple, Google, Oracle, PayPal, Stripe, YouTube, Instagram, Yahoo!  
and WhatsApp. Bill Coughran is a senior investor in Sequoia Capital.  
According to his linkedin profile, he started as a Programmer in the  
late 60s and held many engineering related positions over the years.  
Worked in Bell Laboratories for 20 years. Worked as SVP of  
Engineering in Google for 8.5 years. To quote his words "I have some  
level of expertise about the current email systems, which is why I  
was did some investigating". So this man is one of the toughest  
person to impress. But he is one of the nicest investor I have met.  
When I asked him whether he can take a look, he didn't insult me  
with words like "You think you are the inventor of FUSSP?" He just  
told me "Sure, I'd be happy to." He went through my entire paper and  
then sent me this mail. He later turned me down because it's hard  
for a startup to distribute a new solution. Maybe he is right. Or  
maybe I'll overcome that too. [Today's discussion is about whether I  
solved the spam problem. Not about how I'm gonna distribute the  
solution]


Yesterday I published my work on a medium blog post and linked my  
white paper. An engineer read my white paper and sent me this mail.  
These guys see value in my white paper because they completed my  
~300 pages white paper. --


Materials:

System Overview -  
https://medium.com/@Viruthagiri/dombox-the-zero-spam-mail-system-2b08ff7432cd


White Paper - https://www.dombox.org/dombox.pdf

Flowcharts - https://www.dombox.org/flowcharts.pdf

Prototype - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VK2eSfCurx4 [This is the  
video I uploaded before posting to DMARC list. So the interface is  
little outdated]


--
Best Regards,

Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan
Dombox, Inc.

Re: A Zero Spam Mail System [Feedback Request]

[Matt Harris]

On Sun, Feb 17, 2019 at 9:23 PM  wrote:

>
> > [Today's discussion is about whether I solved the spam problem. Not
> about how
> > I'm gonna distribute the solution]
>
> You apparently don't understand that how the solution gets distributed is a
> very important part of whether the solution will work.
>

If only everyone would change everything about how they do everything
overnight, pay me/my company, and trust me/my company as a central
authority... well, we'd have no problems, *I guarantee it!*

I tried whole-assedly skimming the first two dozen pages of his pdf doc and
switched to half-assedly for the latter several hundred pages.  My
take-away is that he has a company called dombox/teleport, and if we pay
him to authorize us as not being spammers, then we're not spammers.  But
instead of simply that, also every system and the way everyone uses email,
including trusting him as a primary point of authority, has to change
before it works.  Page 121 states that every website on the entire internet
will need to implement his buttons.

There's also some rather onerous sounding stuff around page 115 where he
states that users won't be able to delete their email accounts, or the
contents thereof.  So I'm pretty sure this system is entirely in violation
of European law.


> > "Now, what if your first mail get rejected with an error message like
> "Unauthorized Sender"?
> > Would you still write your follow-up mail? No, right?"
>
> At which point you totally miss the point - for a spammer, the reasonable
> thing to do
> is *send another mail with a different From: value*, in hopes of hitting
> one that's
> an "authorized sender".
>

Further, most recipients can't be burdened with having to authorize every
potential sender.  Systems implementing that logic have been implemented in
various and sundry places, and never for very long.

To save everybody else the effort:  As far as I can tell, he's re-invented
> plus
> addressing, and says that if everybody creates mailboxes
> john.sm...@example.com
> for personal mail, and a john.smith+na...@example.com for nanog mail, and
> john.smith+my-b...@example.com for his bank emails, spam will apparently
> give
> up in defeat
>

I'm pretty sure there was something in there about paying him to act as a
central authority too, you've gotta half-assedly skim another hundred pages
to get to it, though.

Take care,
Matt

Re: A Zero Spam Mail System [Feedback Request]

[valdis . kletnieks]

On Sun, 17 Feb 2019 22:16:50 -0500, Jon Lewis said:
> Anyone else having flashbacks to Jim Fleming telling us about how IPv8 was 
> the final ultimate solution to IPv4 runout?

I was thinking more of the guy who was convinced that each octet in an IPV4
address could store 0 through 256.

Re: A Zero Spam Mail System [Feedback Request]

[valdis . kletnieks]

On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 07:33:32 +0530, Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan said:
> My name is Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan. I'm the guy who proposed SMTP over
> TLS on Port 26

Unfortunately, your attempt there didn't demonstrate an in-depth knowledge of
the email ecology of the sort needed to *actually* solve the spam problem.

> Today I have something to show you.
>
> Long story short I solved the email spam problem. Well... Actually I
> solved it long time back. I'm just ready to disclose it today. Again...

So actually *disclose* it already, rather than whining about how you've been
treated.

And there's this telling statement:

> [Today's discussion is about whether I solved the spam problem. Not about how
> I'm gonna distribute the solution]

You apparently don't understand that how the solution gets distributed is a
very important part of whether the solution will work.

Bottom line: You hit most of the points in Vernon Schryver's FUSSP list, plus
an amazing number of points in John Baez's crackpot index. Not a good way to
start.

So because I'm needing some entertainment, I went to go check the Medium post.

> "Spammers have no idea what's going on INSIDE the email system. i.e. They
> have no idea whether their mail gets marked as spam or not."

Oh, you poor, poor uneducated person.  Spammers have a *very good* idea
of whether it was marked as spam.

> "Now, what if your first mail get rejected with an error message like 
> "Unauthorized Sender"?
> Would you still write your follow-up mail? No, right?"

At which point you totally miss the point - for a spammer, the reasonable thing 
to do
is *send another mail with a different From: value*, in hopes of hitting one 
that's
an "authorized sender".

> "So when mails get rejected with an error message, spammers gonna remove your
> email address from their email list. That's because your email address is a
> dead end for them."

OK, I'm done here. We obviously have a total lack of understanding of the
problem space, and it's very unlikely that an actually correct solution will
arise from that.

Also, I'll offer you a totally free piece of technical advice: Those SAD
entries in the DNS that you're hoping to use to tie domains together are
trivially forgeable.

To save everybody else the effort:  As far as I can tell, he's re-invented plus
addressing, and says that if everybody creates mailboxes john.sm...@example.com
for personal mail, and a john.smith+na...@example.com for nanog mail, and
john.smith+my-b...@example.com for his bank emails, spam will apparently give
up in defeat

There's a whole bunch more, including assuming that Joe Sixpack *will* create a
separate address for each "transactional" piece of mail, that spammers won't
send mail that looks like personal mail, that spammers won't create bogus DNS
entries, and a few other whoppers...

Re: A Zero Spam Mail System [Feedback Request]

[Jon Lewis]

Anyone else having flashbacks to Jim Fleming telling us about how IPv8 was 
the final ultimate solution to IPv4 runout?


On Mon, 18 Feb 2019, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:


... and of all those, once you solve v6 multihoming (possibly with ipv9) do 
come back to nanog where I'm sure it will be operational.

On 18/02/19, 8:23 AM, "NANOG on behalf of Michel Py"  wrote:

   > Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan wrote :
   > I solved the email spam problem.

   Oh, this is wonderful news.
   There are plenty of other problems that need your brilliance. In no specific 
order :

   - Global warming.
   - Nuclear proliferation.
   - Peace in the middle east.
   - World hunger.
   - IPv6 multihoming.

   We will be looking for your next improvement.

   TSI Disclaimer:  This message and any files or text attached to it are 
intended only for the recipients named above and contain information that may 
be confidential or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you must 
not forward, copy, use or otherwise disclose this communication or the 
information contained herein. In the event you have received this message in 
error, please notify the sender immediately by replying to this message, and 
then delete all copies of it from your system. Thank you!...






--
 Jon Lewis, MCP :)   |  I route
 |  therefore you are
_ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_

Re: A Zero Spam Mail System [Feedback Request]

[Ross Tajvar]

Not to derail this highly relevant thread, and forgive my ignorance, but
what's the issue with IPv6 multihoming?

On Sun, Feb 17, 2019, 10:01 PM Suresh Ramasubramanian  ... and of all those, once you solve v6 multihoming (possibly with ipv9)
> do come back to nanog where I'm sure it will be operational.
>
> On 18/02/19, 8:23 AM, "NANOG on behalf of Michel Py" <
> nanog-boun...@nanog.org on behalf of michel...@tsisemi.com> wrote:
>
> > Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan wrote :
> > I solved the email spam problem.
>
> Oh, this is wonderful news.
> There are plenty of other problems that need your brilliance. In no
> specific order :
>
> - Global warming.
> - Nuclear proliferation.
> - Peace in the middle east.
> - World hunger.
> - IPv6 multihoming.
>
> We will be looking for your next improvement.
>
> TSI Disclaimer:  This message and any files or text attached to it are
> intended only for the recipients named above and contain information that
> may be confidential or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient,
> you must not forward, copy, use or otherwise disclose this communication or
> the information contained herein. In the event you have received this
> message in error, please notify the sender immediately by replying to this
> message, and then delete all copies of it from your system. Thank you!...
>
>
>
>

Re: A Zero Spam Mail System [Feedback Request]

[Jon Lewis]

On Mon, 18 Feb 2019, Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan wrote:


Hello Everyone,

My name is Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan. I'm the guy who proposed SMTP over TLS 
on Port 26 last month.
I'm also the guy who attacked (???) John Levine.

Today I have something to show you. 

Long story short I solved the email spam problem. Well... Actually I solved 
it long time back. I'm
just ready to disclose it today. Again...


Spam and email really aren't "on-topic" for NANOG.  That said, I was 
intrigued, so I did get a several dozen pages into your white paper.


1) If you wrote that, you need to stop and hire/con someone else to do
   your tech writing.  To say your writing is atrocious does not do it
   justice.

2) The ideas look like they may have some merit, except that the average
   Internet/email user is neither capable of nor willing to manage domboxes
   for every entity from which they expect to receive transactional email.

I didn't get much further into the paper than this, because, as mentioned, 
your writing style SUCKS and I'm not strapped into my poetry appreciation 
chair, so you can't make me endure any more of it.


So, in summary, too complicated for my mom to use, and such a crappy 
delivery of the idea that I can't imagine anyone will get through the 
entire pitch (to tell you what the other flaws are).


--
 Jon Lewis, MCP :)   |  I route
 |  therefore you are
_ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_

Re: A Zero Spam Mail System [Feedback Request]

[Suresh Ramasubramanian]

... and of all those, once you solve v6 multihoming (possibly with ipv9) do 
come back to nanog where I'm sure it will be operational.

On 18/02/19, 8:23 AM, "NANOG on behalf of Michel Py"  wrote:

> Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan wrote :
> I solved the email spam problem.

Oh, this is wonderful news.
There are plenty of other problems that need your brilliance. In no 
specific order :

- Global warming.
- Nuclear proliferation.
- Peace in the middle east.
- World hunger.
- IPv6 multihoming.

We will be looking for your next improvement.

TSI Disclaimer:  This message and any files or text attached to it are 
intended only for the recipients named above and contain information that may 
be confidential or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you must 
not forward, copy, use or otherwise disclose this communication or the 
information contained herein. In the event you have received this message in 
error, please notify the sender immediately by replying to this message, and 
then delete all copies of it from your system. Thank you!...

Re: A Zero Spam Mail System [Feedback Request]

[Miles Fidelman]

I can't get past all the blabbering to bother reviewing stuff.

But why does this guy remind me of Shiva Ayyadurai - you know, the 
"inventor of email."


Seriously - isn't the general rule to start with a demonstration, not a 
polemic?  (Shiva actually built an email system.  And people actually 
used it.)


On 2/17/19 9:52 PM, Michel Py wrote:

Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan wrote :
I solved the email spam problem.

Oh, this is wonderful news.
There are plenty of other problems that need your brilliance. In no specific 
order :

- Global warming.
- Nuclear proliferation.
- Peace in the middle east.
- World hunger.
- IPv6 multihoming.

We will be looking for your next improvement.

TSI Disclaimer:  This message and any files or text attached to it are intended 
only for the recipients named above and contain information that may be 
confidential or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not 
forward, copy, use or otherwise disclose this communication or the information 
contained herein. In the event you have received this message in error, please 
notify the sender immediately by replying to this message, and then delete all 
copies of it from your system. Thank you!...


--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.   Yogi Berra

RE: A Zero Spam Mail System [Feedback Request]

[Michel Py]

> Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan wrote :
> I solved the email spam problem.

Oh, this is wonderful news.
There are plenty of other problems that need your brilliance. In no specific 
order :

- Global warming.
- Nuclear proliferation.
- Peace in the middle east.
- World hunger.
- IPv6 multihoming.

We will be looking for your next improvement.

TSI Disclaimer:  This message and any files or text attached to it are intended 
only for the recipients named above and contain information that may be 
confidential or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not 
forward, copy, use or otherwise disclose this communication or the information 
contained herein. In the event you have received this message in error, please 
notify the sender immediately by replying to this message, and then delete all 
copies of it from your system. Thank you!...

Re: A Zero Spam Mail System [Feedback Request]

[Suresh Ramasubramanian]

There's this small percentage of cranks that are brilliant Doc Emmett
Brown level inventors who come up with truly brilliant products and
solutions.  And then there's the much larger percentage of cranks that
have a bad idea that they're prepared to defend to the last.  Very
well then ..

On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 7:51 AM Brielle  wrote:
>
> You literally lost my interest in reading your solution when I realized that 
> 99.999% of this post is just you railing against people.
>
> People are right, if you can’t get my attention in 50 words, then either your 
> solution isn’t a solution but a marketing ploy, or you need someone who 
> actually knows how to present things to people in this field.
>
> Im a former DNSbl maintainer - I get excited over new anti spam solutions and 
> love to throw resources at new solutions.
>
> So yeah, this is a non starter.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Feb 17, 2019, at 7:03 PM, Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan  
> wrote:
>
> Hello Everyone,
>
> My name is Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan. I'm the guy who proposed SMTP over TLS 
> on Port 26 last month. I'm also the guy who attacked (???) John Levine.
>
> Today I have something to show you.
>
> Long story short I solved the email spam problem. Well... Actually I 
> solved it long time back. I'm just ready to disclose it today. Again...
>
> Yeah.. Yeah.. Yeah... If only I had a dime for every time people insult me 
> for saying "I solved the spam problem"
>
> They usually start with the insult like "You think you are the inventor of 
> FUSSP?"
>
> These guys always are the know-it-all assholes. They don't listen. They don't 
> want to listen. They are like barking dogs. If one started to bark, everyone 
> else gets the courage to do the same thing.
>
> I'm tired of fighting these assholes in every mailing list.  I'm on your side 
> morons. So how about you all knock it off?
>
> Six months back, it was John Levine who humiliated me in the DMARC list. 
> Apparently, for him 50 words are enough to attack me.
>
> Töma Gavrichenkov and Suresh Ramasubramanian even started to defend this man 
> saying 50 words are enough to judge a 50,000 words paper.  [We are gonna 
> figure it out today]
>
> --
>
> @Töma Gavrichenkov
>
>> In theory, I can easily recall a few cases in my life when going
>> through just 50 words was quite enough for a judgment.
>
>
> How can you be so sure that you didn't fuck up none of the lives of these 
> "few cases"? Or in more technical terms, How can you be absolutely sure that 
> there is no "False Positives"?
>
> --
>
> @Suresh Ramasubramanian
>
>> Yes, 50 words are more than enough to decide a bad idea is bad.  You don't 
>> have to like that, or like any of us, but facts are facts
>
>
> Merely appending the text "facts are facts" not gonna convert a bullshit 
> statement into a fact.
>
> You know what's the meaning of the word "fact"? It's a statement that can be 
> proved TRUE.
>
> Let's do a little experiment. 100 researchers presents their lifetime work to 
> us. Each of their research paper contain 50,000 words. We are gonna judge 
> them.
>
> You are gonna judge them based on only the first 50 words. And I'm gonna 
> judge them by tossing a coin. Can you guess who is gonna fuck up less number 
> of researcher lives?
>
> I'm claiming that I solved the email spam problem. If that's true, then you 
> should know, common sense is one of the very basic requirement for that.
>
> I designed my email system. Every inch of it. I wrote my research paper. 
> Every word of it. I made my prototype video. Every second of it. So I'm the 
> captain of my ship. Not you. But you all think you know my system better than 
> me? That too, with only 50 words?
>
> My research paper has around 50,000 words. And you think 50 words are enough 
> to judge my work? Let me make sure I get this right. You are all saying, you 
> know what's in the rest of the 49,950 words based on only the first 50 words? 
> That's stupid on so many levels.
>
> If you are gonna do a half-assed job and relay that misinformation to 
> thousands of people, why volunteer in the first place? And by the way, by 
> saying you are all doing half-assed job, I'm actually insulting the people 
> who are REALLY doing the half-assed job.
>
> --
>
> John Levine vs. me
>
> One month back, some of you may have noticed a thread created by John Levine 
> where he goes like "He's Forum Shopping". The whole gist of that message was 
> "We already have DANE and MTA-STS. We don't a third solution". And then I 
> used some harsh words to defend myself. But that was the Season 2 of his 
> "Shitshow". The Season 1 was aired 6 months back. You all missed that show. 
> This is what happened in Season 1.
>
> Six months back, I posted on three mailing list saying "I solved the email 
> spam problem" and asked them to provide feedback on my invention. Those three 
> mailing lists were 

Re: A Zero Spam Mail System [Feedback Request]

[Todd Underwood]

This is truly awful and off topic for network engineering. Please stop and
try to listen to the people who are offering you feedback. On other lists.
Not here.

Thanks!

T

On Sun, Feb 17, 2019, 21:05 Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan  Hello Everyone,
>
> My name is Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan. I'm the guy who proposed SMTP over
> TLS on Port 26
> 
>  last
> month. I'm also the guy who attacked (???) John Levine.
>
> Today I have something to show you.
>
> Long story short I solved the email spam problem. Well... Actually I
> solved it long time back. I'm just ready to disclose it today. Again...
>
> Yeah.. Yeah.. Yeah... If only I had a dime for every time people insult me
> for saying "I solved the spam problem"
>
> They usually start with the insult like "You think you are the inventor of
> FUSSP?"
>
> These guys always are the know-it-all assholes. They don't listen. They
> don't want to listen. They are like barking dogs. If one started to bark,
> everyone else gets the courage to do the same thing.
>
> I'm tired of fighting these assholes in every mailing list.  I'm on your
> side morons. So how about you all knock it off?
>
> Six months back, it was John Levine who humiliated me in the DMARC list.
> Apparently, for him 50 words are enough to attack me.
>
> Töma Gavrichenkov and Suresh Ramasubramanian even started to defend this
> man saying 50 words are enough to judge a 50,000 words paper.  [We are
> gonna figure it out today]
>
> --
>
> @Töma Gavrichenkov
>
> In theory, I can easily recall a few cases in my life when going
>> through just 50 words was quite enough for a judgment.
>
>
> How can you be so sure that you didn't fuck up none of the lives of these
> "few cases"? Or in more technical terms, How can you be absolutely sure
> that there is no "False Positives"?
>
> --
>
> @Suresh Ramasubramanian
>
> Yes, 50 words are more than enough to decide a bad idea is bad.  You don't
>> have to like that, or like any of us, but facts are facts
>
>
> Merely appending the text "facts are facts" not gonna convert a bullshit
> statement into a fact.
>
> You know what's the meaning of the word "fact"? It's a statement that can
> be proved TRUE.
>
> Let's do a little experiment. 100 researchers presents their lifetime work
> to us. Each of their research paper contain 50,000 words. We are gonna
> judge them.
>
> You are gonna judge them based on only the first 50 words. And I'm gonna
> judge them by tossing a coin. Can you guess who is gonna fuck up less
> number of researcher lives?
>
> I'm claiming that I solved the email spam problem. If that's true, then
> you should know, common sense is one of the very basic requirement for that.
>
> I designed my email system. Every inch of it. I wrote my research paper.
> Every word of it. I made my prototype video. Every second of it. So I'm the
> captain of my ship. Not you. But you all think you know my system better
> than me? That too, with only 50 words?
>
> My research paper has around 50,000 words. And you think 50 words are
> enough to judge my work? Let me make sure I get this right. You are all
> saying, you know what's in the rest of the 49,950 words based on only the
> first 50 words? That's stupid on so many levels.
>
> If you are gonna do a half-assed job and relay that misinformation to
> thousands of people, why volunteer in the first place? And by the way, by
> saying you are all doing half-assed job, I'm actually insulting the people
> who are REALLY doing the half-assed job.
>
> --
>
> John Levine vs. me
>
> One month back, some of you may have noticed a thread created by John
> Levine
> 
> where he goes like "He's Forum Shopping". The whole gist of that message
> was "We already have DANE and MTA-STS. We don't a third solution". And then
> I used some harsh words to defend myself. But that was the Season 2 of his
> "Shitshow". The Season 1 was aired 6 months back. You all missed that show.
> This is what happened in Season 1.
>
>
>1. Six months back, I posted on three mailing list saying "I solved
>the email spam problem" and asked them to provide feedback on my invention.
>Those three mailing lists were SPF, DKIM and DMARC. That's because my
>solution relied on them and those three were the only email related mailing
>lists I knew at that time.
>2. In DMARC community, John Levine started to insult me after reading
>only the first 50 words.
>3. Dave Crocker joined the cast and did a flawless job on abusing me.
>He asked me to kill my project. I told him he is being rude. And this is 
> what
>he replied for that . He is one
>of the most radical and ignorant person I have seen in tech. He didn't even
>stop 

Re: A Zero Spam Mail System [Feedback Request]

[Brielle]

You literally lost my interest in reading your solution when I realized that 
99.999% of this post is just you railing against people.

People are right, if you can’t get my attention in 50 words, then either your 
solution isn’t a solution but a marketing ploy, or you need someone who 
actually knows how to present things to people in this field.

Im a former DNSbl maintainer - I get excited over new anti spam solutions and 
love to throw resources at new solutions.  

So yeah, this is a non starter. 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Feb 17, 2019, at 7:03 PM, Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan  
> wrote:
> 
> Hello Everyone,
> 
> My name is Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan. I'm the guy who proposed SMTP over TLS 
> on Port 26 last month. I'm also the guy who attacked (???) John Levine.
> 
> Today I have something to show you. 
> 
> Long story short I solved the email spam problem. Well... Actually I 
> solved it long time back. I'm just ready to disclose it today. Again...
> 
> Yeah.. Yeah.. Yeah... If only I had a dime for every time people insult me 
> for saying "I solved the spam problem"
> 
> They usually start with the insult like "You think you are the inventor of 
> FUSSP?"
> 
> These guys always are the know-it-all assholes. They don't listen. They don't 
> want to listen. They are like barking dogs. If one started to bark, everyone 
> else gets the courage to do the same thing.
> 
> I'm tired of fighting these assholes in every mailing list.  I'm on your side 
> morons. So how about you all knock it off?
> 
> Six months back, it was John Levine who humiliated me in the DMARC list. 
> Apparently, for him 50 words are enough to attack me. 
> 
> Töma Gavrichenkov and Suresh Ramasubramanian even started to defend this man 
> saying 50 words are enough to judge a 50,000 words paper.  [We are gonna 
> figure it out today]
> 
> --
> 
> @Töma Gavrichenkov
> 
>> In theory, I can easily recall a few cases in my life when going
>> through just 50 words was quite enough for a judgment.
> 
> How can you be so sure that you didn't fuck up none of the lives of these 
> "few cases"? Or in more technical terms, How can you be absolutely sure that 
> there is no "False Positives"? 
> 
> --
> 
> @Suresh Ramasubramanian
> 
>> Yes, 50 words are more than enough to decide a bad idea is bad.  You don't 
>> have to like that, or like any of us, but facts are facts 
> 
> Merely appending the text "facts are facts" not gonna convert a bullshit 
> statement into a fact.
> 
> You know what's the meaning of the word "fact"? It's a statement that can be 
> proved TRUE.
> 
> Let's do a little experiment. 100 researchers presents their lifetime work to 
> us. Each of their research paper contain 50,000 words. We are gonna judge 
> them.
> 
> You are gonna judge them based on only the first 50 words. And I'm gonna 
> judge them by tossing a coin. Can you guess who is gonna fuck up less number 
> of researcher lives? 
> 
> I'm claiming that I solved the email spam problem. If that's true, then you 
> should know, common sense is one of the very basic requirement for that.
> 
> I designed my email system. Every inch of it. I wrote my research paper. 
> Every word of it. I made my prototype video. Every second of it. So I'm the 
> captain of my ship. Not you. But you all think you know my system better than 
> me? That too, with only 50 words?
> 
> My research paper has around 50,000 words. And you think 50 words are enough 
> to judge my work? Let me make sure I get this right. You are all saying, you 
> know what's in the rest of the 49,950 words based on only the first 50 words? 
> That's stupid on so many levels.
> 
> If you are gonna do a half-assed job and relay that misinformation to 
> thousands of people, why volunteer in the first place? And by the way, by 
> saying you are all doing half-assed job, I'm actually insulting the people 
> who are REALLY doing the half-assed job.
> 
> --
> 
> John Levine vs. me
> 
> One month back, some of you may have noticed a thread created by John Levine 
> where he goes like "He's Forum Shopping". The whole gist of that message was 
> "We already have DANE and MTA-STS. We don't a third solution". And then I 
> used some harsh words to defend myself. But that was the Season 2 of his 
> "Shitshow". The Season 1 was aired 6 months back. You all missed that show. 
> This is what happened in Season 1.
> 
> Six months back, I posted on three mailing list saying "I solved the email 
> spam problem" and asked them to provide feedback on my invention. Those three 
> mailing lists were SPF, DKIM and DMARC. That's because my solution relied on 
> them and those three were the only email related mailing lists I knew at that 
> time.
> In DMARC community, John Levine started to insult me after reading only the 
> first 50 words. 
> Dave Crocker joined the cast and did a flawless job on abusing me. He asked 
> me 

Re: A Zero Spam Mail System [Feedback Request]

[Ross Tajvar]

I'd be a lot more inclined to read your paper if you weren't so
self-righteous about it. Rehashing all the times people disagreed with
("attacked") you is a poor way to encourage others to earnestly engage with
your ideas.

On Sun, Feb 17, 2019, 9:06 PM Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan  Hello Everyone,
>
> My name is Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan. I'm the guy who proposed SMTP over
> TLS on Port 26
> 
>  last
> month. I'm also the guy who attacked (???) John Levine.
>
> Today I have something to show you.
>
> Long story short I solved the email spam problem. Well... Actually I
> solved it long time back. I'm just ready to disclose it today. Again...
>
> Yeah.. Yeah.. Yeah... If only I had a dime for every time people insult me
> for saying "I solved the spam problem"
>
> They usually start with the insult like "You think you are the inventor of
> FUSSP?"
>
> These guys always are the know-it-all assholes. They don't listen. They
> don't want to listen. They are like barking dogs. If one started to bark,
> everyone else gets the courage to do the same thing.
>
> I'm tired of fighting these assholes in every mailing list.  I'm on your
> side morons. So how about you all knock it off?
>
> Six months back, it was John Levine who humiliated me in the DMARC list.
> Apparently, for him 50 words are enough to attack me.
>
> Töma Gavrichenkov and Suresh Ramasubramanian even started to defend this
> man saying 50 words are enough to judge a 50,000 words paper.  [We are
> gonna figure it out today]
>
> --
>
> @Töma Gavrichenkov
>
> In theory, I can easily recall a few cases in my life when going
>> through just 50 words was quite enough for a judgment.
>
>
> How can you be so sure that you didn't fuck up none of the lives of these
> "few cases"? Or in more technical terms, How can you be absolutely sure
> that there is no "False Positives"?
>
> --
>
> @Suresh Ramasubramanian
>
> Yes, 50 words are more than enough to decide a bad idea is bad.  You don't
>> have to like that, or like any of us, but facts are facts
>
>
> Merely appending the text "facts are facts" not gonna convert a bullshit
> statement into a fact.
>
> You know what's the meaning of the word "fact"? It's a statement that can
> be proved TRUE.
>
> Let's do a little experiment. 100 researchers presents their lifetime work
> to us. Each of their research paper contain 50,000 words. We are gonna
> judge them.
>
> You are gonna judge them based on only the first 50 words. And I'm gonna
> judge them by tossing a coin. Can you guess who is gonna fuck up less
> number of researcher lives?
>
> I'm claiming that I solved the email spam problem. If that's true, then
> you should know, common sense is one of the very basic requirement for that.
>
> I designed my email system. Every inch of it. I wrote my research paper.
> Every word of it. I made my prototype video. Every second of it. So I'm the
> captain of my ship. Not you. But you all think you know my system better
> than me? That too, with only 50 words?
>
> My research paper has around 50,000 words. And you think 50 words are
> enough to judge my work? Let me make sure I get this right. You are all
> saying, you know what's in the rest of the 49,950 words based on only the
> first 50 words? That's stupid on so many levels.
>
> If you are gonna do a half-assed job and relay that misinformation to
> thousands of people, why volunteer in the first place? And by the way, by
> saying you are all doing half-assed job, I'm actually insulting the people
> who are REALLY doing the half-assed job.
>
> --
>
> John Levine vs. me
>
> One month back, some of you may have noticed a thread created by John
> Levine
> 
> where he goes like "He's Forum Shopping". The whole gist of that message
> was "We already have DANE and MTA-STS. We don't a third solution". And then
> I used some harsh words to defend myself. But that was the Season 2 of his
> "Shitshow". The Season 1 was aired 6 months back. You all missed that show.
> This is what happened in Season 1.
>
>
>1. Six months back, I posted on three mailing list saying "I solved
>the email spam problem" and asked them to provide feedback on my invention.
>Those three mailing lists were SPF, DKIM and DMARC. That's because my
>solution relied on them and those three were the only email related mailing
>lists I knew at that time.
>2. In DMARC community, John Levine started to insult me after reading
>only the first 50 words.
>3. Dave Crocker joined the cast and did a flawless job on abusing me.
>He asked me to kill my project. I told him he is being rude. And this is 
> what
>he replied for that . He is one
>of the most radical and ignorant 

Re: A Zero Spam Mail System [Feedback Request]

[John Sage]

On 02/17/2019 06:03 PM, Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan wrote:

Hello Everyone,




- John

A Zero Spam Mail System [Feedback Request]

[Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan]

Hello Everyone,

My name is Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan. I'm the guy who proposed SMTP over
TLS on Port 26

last
month. I'm also the guy who attacked (???) John Levine.

Today I have something to show you.

Long story short I solved the email spam problem. Well... Actually I
solved it long time back. I'm just ready to disclose it today. Again...

Yeah.. Yeah.. Yeah... If only I had a dime for every time people insult me
for saying "I solved the spam problem"

They usually start with the insult like "You think you are the inventor of
FUSSP?"

These guys always are the know-it-all assholes. They don't listen. They
don't want to listen. They are like barking dogs. If one started to bark,
everyone else gets the courage to do the same thing.

I'm tired of fighting these assholes in every mailing list.  I'm on your
side morons. So how about you all knock it off?

Six months back, it was John Levine who humiliated me in the DMARC list.
Apparently, for him 50 words are enough to attack me.

Töma Gavrichenkov and Suresh Ramasubramanian even started to defend this
man saying 50 words are enough to judge a 50,000 words paper.  [We are
gonna figure it out today]

--

@Töma Gavrichenkov

In theory, I can easily recall a few cases in my life when going
> through just 50 words was quite enough for a judgment.


How can you be so sure that you didn't fuck up none of the lives of these
"few cases"? Or in more technical terms, How can you be absolutely sure
that there is no "False Positives"?

--

@Suresh Ramasubramanian

Yes, 50 words are more than enough to decide a bad idea is bad.  You don't
> have to like that, or like any of us, but facts are facts


Merely appending the text "facts are facts" not gonna convert a bullshit
statement into a fact.

You know what's the meaning of the word "fact"? It's a statement that can
be proved TRUE.

Let's do a little experiment. 100 researchers presents their lifetime work
to us. Each of their research paper contain 50,000 words. We are gonna
judge them.

You are gonna judge them based on only the first 50 words. And I'm gonna
judge them by tossing a coin. Can you guess who is gonna fuck up less
number of researcher lives?

I'm claiming that I solved the email spam problem. If that's true, then you
should know, common sense is one of the very basic requirement for that.

I designed my email system. Every inch of it. I wrote my research paper.
Every word of it. I made my prototype video. Every second of it. So I'm the
captain of my ship. Not you. But you all think you know my system better
than me? That too, with only 50 words?

My research paper has around 50,000 words. And you think 50 words are
enough to judge my work? Let me make sure I get this right. You are all
saying, you know what's in the rest of the 49,950 words based on only the
first 50 words? That's stupid on so many levels.

If you are gonna do a half-assed job and relay that misinformation to
thousands of people, why volunteer in the first place? And by the way, by
saying you are all doing half-assed job, I'm actually insulting the people
who are REALLY doing the half-assed job.

--

John Levine vs. me

One month back, some of you may have noticed a thread created by John Levine

where he goes like "He's Forum Shopping". The whole gist of that message
was "We already have DANE and MTA-STS. We don't a third solution". And then
I used some harsh words to defend myself. But that was the Season 2 of his
"Shitshow". The Season 1 was aired 6 months back. You all missed that show.
This is what happened in Season 1.


   1. Six months back, I posted on three mailing list saying "I solved the
   email spam problem" and asked them to provide feedback on my invention.
   Those three mailing lists were SPF, DKIM and DMARC. That's because my
   solution relied on them and those three were the only email related mailing
   lists I knew at that time.
   2. In DMARC community, John Levine started to insult me after reading
   only the first 50 words.
   3. Dave Crocker joined the cast and did a flawless job on abusing me. He
   asked me to kill my project. I told him he is being rude. And this is what
   he replied for that . He is one
   of the most radical and ignorant person I have seen in tech. He didn't even
   stop for a moment and think "Am I attacking an Innocent person?". He even
   went to other mailing lists to attack me. He abused all his power and kept
   on attacking me just to have some "dopamine orgasm". Something tells me he
   slept peacefully on that day.
   4. And then bunch of other guys joined. So the whole thread gone crazy.
   This is because John Levine successfully distributed wrong version of the
   story