* Christopher Morrow:
I sort of wonder if this is really just yahoo trying to use a stick to
motivate people to do the right thing?
But what is the right thing here?
Do we really want that *all* mailing lists must not provider reply to
sender option to all their users? Will this list make
On Wed 16 Apr 2014 09:40:11 PM PDT, Jim Popovitch wrote:
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 12:19 AM, Private Sender nob...@snovc.com wrote:
On 04/14/2014 03:47 PM, Jim Popovitch wrote:
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 6:21 PM, Scott Howard sc...@doc.net.au wrote:
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 2:59 PM, Jim Popovitch
On 04/16/2014 09:19 PM, Private Sender wrote:
I'm sorry but is there a fundamental misunderstanding of dmarc going on
in this thread? Yahoo doesn't want you to be able to send @yahoo.com
email from anything other than THEIR servers which contain the private
key that corresponds to their DKIM
On Wed, 16 Apr 2014 21:19:18 -0700, Private Sender said:
I'm sorry but is there a fundamental misunderstanding of dmarc going on
in this thread?
Yes, apparently mostly on the part of Yahoo apologists...
There is no need to flame a company because they implemented a policy to
ensure QoS to
On 04/17/2014 08:34 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2014 21:19:18 -0700, Private Sender said:
I'm sorry but is there a fundamental misunderstanding of dmarc going on
in this thread?
Yes, apparently mostly on the part of Yahoo apologists...
There is no need to flame a
Michael Thomas wrote:
On 04/17/2014 08:34 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2014 21:19:18 -0700, Private Sender said:
I'm sorry but is there a fundamental misunderstanding of dmarc going on
in this thread?
Yes, apparently mostly on the part of Yahoo apologists...
There is no
On 04/14/2014 03:47 PM, Jim Popovitch wrote:
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 6:21 PM, Scott Howard sc...@doc.net.au wrote:
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 2:59 PM, Jim Popovitch jim...@gmail.com wrote:
7-April: Monday, Yahoo's dmarc change kicks everyone in the groin, the
last full week before the US tax
On 4/16/2014 11:19 PM, Private Sender nobody snovc com wrote:
Does that raise any alarms?
--
Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics
of System Administrators:
Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 12:29 AM, Larry Sheldon larryshel...@cox.netwrote:
On 4/16/2014 11:19 PM, Private Sender nobody snovc com wrote:
Does that raise any alarms?
Of course it does. http://whois.domaintools.com/snovc.com
computerguy0...@yahoo.com Bret Taylor
-Jim P.
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 12:19 AM, Private Sender nob...@snovc.com wrote:
On 04/14/2014 03:47 PM, Jim Popovitch wrote:
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 6:21 PM, Scott Howard sc...@doc.net.au wrote:
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 2:59 PM, Jim Popovitch jim...@gmail.com
wrote:
7-April: Monday, Yahoo's dmarc
Just a thought. I keep thinking that Yahoo's publishing of their
p=reject policy, and the subsequent massive denial of service to lost
of list traffic might be viewed as a computer security incident.
Anybody think that reporting via CERT channels might be an appropriate
response?
(I do,
I don't see what the big deal is here. They don't want your messages and they
made that clear. Their policy considers these messages spam. If you really
want to get your mailing list messages through, then you need to evade their
filters just like every other spammer has to.
-Laszlo
On
On Mon, 14 Apr 2014 16:56:46 -, Laszlo Hanyecz said:
If you really want to get your mailing list messages through,
The problem isn't the rest of us trying to mail to Yahoo.
The problem is when Yahoo users post to lists that use DMARC, and the
result is the yahoo user's mail getting
Isn't it the other way around? They don't want their users to be able
to send to mailing lists. They receive traffic from the lists just
fine. Their policy considers only effects mail originating from their
users. Yahoo subscribers can receive messages form nanog just fine, but
they can't
By their statement it's obvious that yahoo doesn't care about what they broke.
It's unfortunate that email has become so centralized that one entity can cause
so much 'trouble'. Maybe it's a good opportunity to encourage the affected
mailing list subscribers to use their own domains for
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 1:03 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
The problem is when Yahoo users post to lists that use DMARC, and the
result is the yahoo user's mail getting bounced or dumped on the postmaster.
Basically, this is just like old ORBS. If you were an ISP, you had to
check your
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 1:25 PM, Laszlo Hanyecz las...@heliacal.net wrote:
By their statement it's obvious that yahoo doesn't care about what they
broke. It's
unfortunate that email has become so centralized that one entity can cause so
much 'trouble'. Maybe it's a good opportunity to
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 10:25 AM, Laszlo Hanyecz las...@heliacal.netwrote:
By their statement it's obvious that yahoo doesn't care about what they
broke. It's unfortunate that email has become so centralized that one
entity can cause so much 'trouble'. Maybe it's a good opportunity to
Christopher Morrow wrote:
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 1:25 PM, Laszlo Hanyecz las...@heliacal.net wrote:
By their statement it's obvious that yahoo doesn't care about what they broke.
It's
unfortunate that email has become so centralized that one entity can cause so
much 'trouble'. Maybe it's a
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 1:33 PM, Matthew Petach mpet...@netflight.com wrote:
So, I take it you prefer a world in which there's no sender
validation, and receiving floods of spoofed sender email
spam is just part of the price of being on the internet?
That is clearly not what this issue is
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 11:24 AM, Jim Popovitch jim...@gmail.com wrote:
DMARC hasn't cut down on yahoo spam so far. Yahoo's spam problem was
(is?) centered on account hijacks.
I just checked my spam folder for the past month.
Out of about 80 messages from Yahoo, I can see about 3 that went
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 4:10 PM, Scott Howard sc...@doc.net.au wrote:
Whilst I don't agree with the way that Yahoo has done this (particularly
around communication),
how could they have communicated this better? how can we all learn from this?
-chris
On 04/14/2014 01:20 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 4:10 PM, Scott Howard sc...@doc.net.au wrote:
Whilst I don't agree with the way that Yahoo has done this (particularly
around communication),
how could they have communicated this better? how can we all learn from this?
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 10:20 PM, Christopher Morrow
morrowc.li...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 4:10 PM, Scott Howard sc...@doc.net.au wrote:
Whilst I don't agree with the way that Yahoo has done this (particularly
around communication),
how could they have communicated this
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 4:28 PM, Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us wrote:
The obvious ones would have been to announce a flag day somewhere far enough
in advance to give list software devs time to adapt, and to work with list
software devs on a solution.
where would they communicate this?
on the
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 4:34 PM, Matthias Leisi matth...@leisi.net wrote:
They could have communicated, as in listen folks, we are going to make a
critical change that will affect mailing lists (etc...) in four weeks time.
communicated it where?
They could have made the change not late on a
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 4:38 PM, Christopher Morrow
morrowc.li...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 4:28 PM, Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us wrote:
The obvious ones would have been to announce a flag day somewhere far enough
in advance to give list software devs time to adapt, and to
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 1:39 PM, Christopher Morrow morrowc.li...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 4:34 PM, Matthias Leisi matth...@leisi.net
wrote:
They could have communicated, as in listen folks, we are going to make a
critical change that will affect mailing lists (etc...) in
On 04/14/2014 01:38 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 4:28 PM, Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us wrote:
The obvious ones would have been to announce a flag day somewhere far enough
in advance to give list software devs time to adapt, and to work with list
software devs on a
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 4:39 PM, Christopher Morrow
morrowc.li...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 4:34 PM, Matthias Leisi matth...@leisi.net wrote:
They could have communicated, as in listen folks, we are going to make a
critical change that will affect mailing lists (etc...) in four
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 4:44 PM, Scott Howard sc...@doc.net.au wrote:
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 1:39 PM, Christopher Morrow
morrowc.li...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 4:34 PM, Matthias Leisi matth...@leisi.net
wrote:
They could have communicated, as in listen folks, we are going
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 4:44 PM, Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us wrote:
On 04/14/2014 01:38 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 4:28 PM, Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us wrote:
The obvious ones would have been to announce a flag day somewhere far
enough
in advance to give
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 10:33:40AM -0700, Matthew Petach wrote:
So, I take it you prefer a world in which there's no sender
validation, and receiving floods of spoofed sender email
spam is just part of the price of being on the internet?
Sender validation means NOTHING in a world with hundreds
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 4:52 PM, Christopher Morrow
morrowc.li...@gmail.com wrote:
if you're going to do something that has the potential to affect (say,
for example) email to a wide set of people, most of which are NOT your
direct users, how do you go about making that public?
'the
Matthias Leisi wrote:
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 10:20 PM, Christopher Morrow
morrowc.li...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 4:10 PM, Scott Howard sc...@doc.net.au wrote:
Whilst I don't agree with the way that Yahoo has done this (particularly
around communication),
how could they have
Christopher Morrow wrote:
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 4:44 PM, Scott Howard sc...@doc.net.au wrote:
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 1:39 PM, Christopher Morrow
morrowc.li...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 4:34 PM, Matthias Leisi matth...@leisi.net
wrote:
They could have communicated, as in
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 5:24 PM, Miles Fidelman
mfidel...@meetinghouse.net wrote:
Matthias Leisi wrote:
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 10:20 PM, Christopher Morrow
morrowc.li...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 4:10 PM, Scott Howard sc...@doc.net.au wrote:
Whilst I don't agree with the
[mailto:mfidel...@meetinghouse.net]
Sent: Monday, April 14, 2014 5:28 PM
Cc: NANOG
Subject: Re: DMARC - CERT?
Christopher Morrow wrote:
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 4:44 PM, Scott Howard sc...@doc.net.au wrote:
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 1:39 PM, Christopher Morrow
morrowc.li...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 14
On Apr 14, 2014, at 3:58 PM, Rich Kulawiec r...@gsp.org wrote:
As I've said many times, email forgery is not the problem. It's a symptom
of the problem, and the problem is rotten underlying security coupled
with negligent and incompetent operational practice. But fixing that
is hard, and
Jim Popovitch wrote:
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 5:24 PM, Miles Fidelman
mfidel...@meetinghouse.net wrote:
Matthias Leisi wrote:
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 10:20 PM, Christopher Morrow
morrowc.li...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 4:10 PM, Scott Howard sc...@doc.net.au wrote:
Whilst I
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 2:29 PM, Jim Popovitch jim...@gmail.com wrote:
They could have made the change not late on a Friday afternoon (or well
into the weekend for most of the world).
On the weekend before tax filings are due in the US! And a couple of
days
before Passover.
and in
Leo Bicknell wrote:
Ultimately the way to reduce spam is to catch spammers, prosecute them,
and put them in prison. The way we keep all of those other crimes low
is primarily by enforcement; making the punishment not worth the crime.
With spam, the chance that a spammer will be punished is
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 5:48 PM, Scott Howard sc...@doc.net.au wrote:
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 2:29 PM, Jim Popovitch jim...@gmail.com wrote:
They could have made the change not late on a Friday afternoon (or well
into the weekend for most of the world).
On the weekend before tax
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 2:59 PM, Jim Popovitch jim...@gmail.com wrote:
7-April: Monday, Yahoo's dmarc change kicks everyone in the groin, the
last full week before the US tax filing deadline.
The change was made on the previous Friday, so that date is largely
irrelevant.
7-April: OpenSSL's
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 3:21 PM, Scott Howard sc...@doc.net.au wrote:
7-April: OpenSSL's *public* advisory (after a full week of private
notifications, of which yahoo surely was one tech company in on the
early notifications)
Given that many of their main services were vulnerable at the
In article cal9jlazjjppz7vzw2ue4qfqwrkcbu7cs1ed3uu1nhudhxxk...@mail.gmail.com
you write:
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 4:10 PM, Scott Howard sc...@doc.net.au wrote:
Whilst I don't agree with the way that Yahoo has done this (particularly
around communication),
how could they have communicated this
Jim Popovitch wrote:
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 5:48 PM, Scott Howard sc...@doc.net.au wrote:
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 2:29 PM, Jim Popovitch jim...@gmail.com wrote:
They could have made the change not late on a Friday afternoon (or well
into the weekend for most of the world).
On the weekend
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 6:21 PM, Scott Howard sc...@doc.net.au wrote:
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 2:59 PM, Jim Popovitch jim...@gmail.com wrote:
7-April: Monday, Yahoo's dmarc change kicks everyone in the groin, the
last full week before the US tax filing deadline.
The change was made on the
48 matches
Mail list logo
