JINMEI Tatuya / wrote:
At Mon, 26 Feb 2007 16:30:46 -0500,
Andrew Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Title : Considerations for the use of DNS Reverse Mapping
Author(s) : D. Senie, A. Sullivan
Filename: draft-ietf-dnsop-reverse-mapping-co
> BTW, one technical point about AOL:
>
> AOL is not an ISP;
It really does not matter what the genesis of AOL was they are a
ISP today. Also AOL started in 1985. The Internet pre-dates AOL.
Fast Facts as of November, 2006
* AOL is the leading Internet service pro
I didn't _assume_ their assumptions were false. I showed the reasons why
their assumptions were false.
--Dean
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007, Joe Abley wrote:
>
> On 26-Mar-2007, at 14:48, Dean Anderson wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 26 Mar 2007, Robert Story wrote:
> >
> >> DA> Assuming an 'appare
BTW, one technical point about AOL:
AOL is not an ISP; AOL is an online content provider. AOL/Compuserve
predates the internet. Internet email is a free option that AOL doesn't
have to provide. AOL can drop internet access without violating their
user contract, which is for AOL proprietary online
On 26-Mar-2007, at 14:48, Dean Anderson wrote:
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007, Robert Story wrote:
DA> Assuming an 'apparent inability to update reverse tree' is a
false
DA> assumption:
But you can't dictate other peoples assumptions. Assumptions are
often
based on ones personal experiences, and i
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007, Robert Story wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 18:39:59 -0400 (EDT) Dean wrote:
> DA> Real anti-spam groups at large ISPs don't use reverse DNS for spam
> DA> filtering. There have been attempts to do so in the past, but those
> DA> ended in (sometimes well-publicized) disasters
On Mar 26, 2007, at 7:33 AM, Robert Story wrote:
On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 18:39:59 -0400 (EDT) Dean wrote:
DA> Real anti-spam groups at large ISPs don't use reverse DNS for spam
DA> filtering. There have been attempts to do so in the past, but
those
DA> ended in (sometimes well-publicized) disas
Dear colleagues,
Dean has already made clear, in a previous exchange on this list, that
he does not think draft-ietf-dnsop-reverse-mapping-considerations in
any revision, past or future, can be made to address his concerns; my
understanding is that this is why he has offered an alternative draft
t
On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 18:39:59 -0400 (EDT) Dean wrote:
DA> Real anti-spam groups at large ISPs don't use reverse DNS for spam
DA> filtering. There have been attempts to do so in the past, but those
DA> ended in (sometimes well-publicized) disasters.
This is patently and provably false. AOL clearly
On Wed, 21 Mar 2007, Ted Lemon wrote:
> On Mar 20, 2007, at 8:05 PM, Evan Hunt wrote:
> > But spam fighters are a real constituency, who (so I'm told) get
> > real and useful information from reverse DNS, and they don't seem to
> > be very well-represented here.
Spam fighters are very well repres
On Mar 20, 2007, at 8:05 PM, Evan Hunt wrote:
But spam fighters are a real constituency,
who (so I'm told) get real and useful information from reverse DNS,
and
they don't seem to be very well-represented here.
In the original message you were responding to, I believe I said that
noticing
> This is not germane to the discussion, but it would be a great issue
> to waste mailing list bandwidth on. So please let's not. We
> really don't need to discuss the vagaries of spam assassination here.
I wholeheartedly agree that the vagaries of spam assassination aren't
relevant to th
At Mon, 19 Mar 2007 14:58:07 -0400,
Andrew Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > They don't have to work. If they are stupid, they oughtn't to work.
> > E.g., if your ssh server is checking your reverse record to make
> > sure you are who you claim to be, it's kind of missing the point -
> > it
On Mar 20, 2007, at 2:04 AM, Evan Hunt wrote:
But, as I understand it, that is *exactly* the datum that people
who use
the reverse tree for spam detection are interested in. They want
to know
whether or not you have control over your reverse tree. If you don't,
then the odds that you're a f
On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 11:06:48PM +0100, Ted Lemon wrote:
> Fortunately, in a spam scoring system, as long as you don't use this
> as your exclusive score, it's probably okay - hopefully other
> indicators will tell you a different story.
Right; this is why I think the "security" and "utility" q
> Actually, there is one reason to consider it stupid: I might have
> control over my forward tree, but not over the reverse tree for the
> IP address I have.
But, as I understand it, that is *exactly* the datum that people who use
the reverse tree for spam detection are interested in. They
On Mar 19, 2007, at 7:58 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
One thing that popped for me during your presentation today, Andrew,
is that you say that the stupid things people are doing with the
reverse zone have to work. This isn't true.
Yikes. If that's the way I put it, my apologies; it certainly
On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 06:25:54PM +0100, Ted Lemon wrote:
> One thing that popped for me during your presentation today, Andrew,
> is that you say that the stupid things people are doing with the
> reverse zone have to work. This isn't true.
Yikes. If that's the way I put it, my apologi
One thing that popped for me during your presentation today, Andrew,
is that you say that the stupid things people are doing with the
reverse zone have to work. This isn't true. They don't have to
work. If they are stupid, they oughtn't to work. E.g., if your
ssh server is checking
At Mon, 26 Feb 2007 16:30:46 -0500,
Andrew Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Title : Considerations for the use of DNS Reverse Mapping
> > Author(s) : D. Senie, A. Sullivan
> > Filename: draft-ietf-dnsop-reverse-mapping-considerations-02.txt
> > Pages
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dean Anderson wrote:
> FYI, I have submitted an alternate draft as an individual submission. It
> was submitted after the meeting cutoff and so will not be processed
> until Monday, March 19 at 9:00 AM ET, when Internet-Draft posting
> resumes.
>
> Th
On Tue, 6 Mar 2007, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>
> I don't understand what is in section 3.1 of -anderson- that is not in
> -reverse-mapping- -02. In particular, I don't see what any of
>
>Myth: "Registries require IP users to populate reverse mapping."
>
>Fact: Registries generally encour
Hi Dean,
On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 11:08:50AM -0500, Dean Anderson wrote:
> The draft can be found in the meantime at
>
> http://www.av8.net/IETF-watch/Drafts/draft-anderson-reverse-dns-status-00.txt
Thanks for the contribution to the discussion. I have read this
draft, and I have some questions
FYI, I have submitted an alternate draft as an individual submission. It
was submitted after the meeting cutoff and so will not be processed
until Monday, March 19 at 9:00 AM ET, when Internet-Draft posting
resumes.
The draft can be found in the meantime at
http://www.av8.net/IETF-watch/Drafts/dr
Dear colleagues,
On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 03:50:02PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories.
> This draft is a work item of the Domain Name System Operations Working Group
> of the IETF.
>
> Title : Consi
25 matches
Mail list logo
