[..]
You might also want to go re-read the ASRG mailing list archives, your proposal
(and variants thereof) has been kicked down the beach like a dead whale
multiple times already.
[..]
If you would like to refer me to some specific threads (with links please), then
I will be
IMO, this (whether Hotmail will implement a specific feature) is a fairly irrelevant
(an 80 out of 80/20 rule) fork of the debate relative to the main point of the
proposal, so let's try to wrap this fork up with one or two go rounds max okay.
Interestingly note that Hotmail makes you pay to
On Sun, 7 Sep 2003, Shelby Moore wrote:
I run a few mail servers, and have built many more. I personally would
have no desire for my mail to be handled by POP3, passed in cleartext
across the public internet, when I simply log into
my machine securely (locally or remotely) and type mail to
From: Shelby Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED]
...
And I tell *MY* UIDL from Keith Moore's UIDL from Vernon Schreyer's UIDL how?
How did I get involved in this?
15 years ago I had a boss that finally taught me to never use real
names in examples or scenarios even when I was sure I was being
nice. It's
The second is raising the cost to the spammer. Personally, I like the idea of
taking up a collection among the ISPs and other providers, and hiring some good
ethnic muscle (there's competition in the field, a number of experienced and
ruthless groups are available). I'm sure the spam
At 01:43 AM 9/7/2003 -0400, you wrote:
On Sun, 07 Sep 2003 13:07:10 +0800, Shelby Moore said:
It is a wrong assumption to equate commercial email with bulk email.
Which is why you're trying to rewrite how bulk email is done in order to deal
with *one segment* of commercial e-mail. Now I
At 01:54 AM 9/7/2003 -0400, you wrote:
The evidence indicates that the senders will use whatever is more likely to
result in the receiver seeing the message. This is different from seeing
it where the receiver would like to see it.
I get your point and it is a reasonable one that must be
Don't get me wrong, but respectfully, this has *NOTHING* to do with SMTP.
SMTP is not involved and not changed.
Therin lies the flaw in your plan, as smtp must continually change in a
distributed fashion in order to effectively reduce the amount of
egregiously time-wasting email that flows
On Sun, 07 Sep 2003 14:02:30 +0800, Shelby Moore said:
POPing once (one list mailing) versus processing one email with zillion RCPT
TOs (one list mailing) is not a very big cost difference. One might be
slightly less than the other and we really can't say which one, but it is
irrelevant
I want to create a ID in Windows.Is there any software like nroff and troff
in windows? Will MS-Word or something else be useful? thanks.
On Sun, 07 Sep 2003 12:56:04 +0800
Shelby Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What you are saying IMO, is that you can't force bulk emailers or spammers
to use opt-in.
Let's be even clearer. What's being claimed is that you can't force bulk
emailers to send their email via pull technology
Shelby Moore wrote:
[..]
I join mailing lists for a short time to get something
done, then I leave asap.
This appears to be the root of our problem.
At least there's an upside.
gja
I'll be back here in this list later (probably a year from now) when your needs have
changed to a more dire state regarding email.
Thank you for playing.
sleekfreak pirate broadcast
world tour 2002-3
live from the pirate hideout
http://sleekfreak.ath.cx:81/
Information theory says that such things are impossible. One can not
construct a spam-free protocol because this is the same problem as
constructing a system free of covert channels, which information theory
says is impossible. It is not simply hard. It is impossible, like
perpetual motion.
On zondag, sep 7, 2003, at 21:45 Europe/Amsterdam, Dean Anderson wrote:
Information theory says that such things are impossible. One can not
construct a spam-free protocol because this is the same problem as
constructing a system free of covert channels, which information theory
says is
Iljitsch van Beijnum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is not immune to spam, though it distributes spam and other
broadcast
messages much more efficiently than typical email systems.
Ouch! :-)
Fixable with authentication.
no.
--Johnny
At 04:24 AM 9/8/2003 +0800, Shelby Moore wrote:
At 11:51 AM 9/7/2003 +0800, you wrote:
You can get mail no matter where you are with a POP account also.
shelby, that's actually not true. If you have an enterprise email service
that requires access to a VPN and the internet service you access it
Keith, IMHO you started an excellent line for further debate (and not just because we
have the same last name :). It would be nice to see debate from both sides so that
pros and cons could be fully explored. I am not sure I am the one to carry the debate
to extreme end (due to time
This is getting way off topic.
One of the other things you see to be handwaving a bit about is
the notion of handing out user IDs, passwords, and other
credentials to mail accounts to people so they can help with
spam (or other problems).
My proposal has nothing to do with IDs so let's just
Iljitsch van Beijnum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On maandag, sep 8, 2003, at 00:08 Europe/Amsterdam, Johnny Eriksson
wrote:
It is not immune to spam
Fixable with authentication.
no.
As each individual news article is piped through a relatively small
number of servers in the core
As each individual news article is piped through a relatively small
number of servers in the core of the distribution system, it becomes
relatively easy to blacklist known offenders. That is, if they are
recognizable as such. This is where the authentication comes in. The
tricky part is
As each individual news article is piped through a relatively small
number of servers in the core of the distribution system, it becomes
relatively easy to blacklist known offenders. That is, if they are
recognizable as such.
No way.
My proposal does not depend on authentication of what
Excuse me, it is a valid issue that spammers will try to pipe through mailing lists
(legitimate bulk email) to avoid *BE enforcers.
Mailing list administrators will continue to carry this burden and probably more so
under my proposal.
Thus yes I agree that authentication of incoming to pull
* From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Sep 7 10:47:33 2003
* X-Originating-IP: [211.67.24.168]
* From: wang liang [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Subject: How to create ID in Windows system?
* Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2003 23:14:43 +0800
* MIME-Version: 1.0
*
However, what is the harm in making an RFC and then find out if enforcers
will enforce??
you appear to presume that you can get consensus support for such a plan
from within IETF. even if you could get such support (which you cannot)
note that there's no enforcement of IETF's other
so far, nobody has figured out how to impose their will on
the rest of the net.
thankfully
Keith
sleekfreak pirate broadcast
world tour 2002-3
live from the pirate hideout
http://sleekfreak.ath.cx:81/
On Sun, Sep 07, 2003 11:14:43PM +0800, wang liang allegedly wrote:
I want to create a ID in Windows.Is there any software like nroff and troff
in windows? Will MS-Word or something else be useful? thanks.
emacs and http://xml.resource.org
I am nearing the end of my allow time to respond, so if I do not respond in future, it
doesn't mean I agree :)
below...
2. Regarding additional burden on *legitimate* bulk message *senders*:
a. These senders are much, much fewer than the # of receivers suffering
from spam. Any
However, what is the harm in making an RFC and then find out if enforcers
will enforce??
you appear to presume that you can get consensus support for such a plan
from within IETF.
No, no. I try to never beg.
I came here to make a public proposal and some points for the purposes of
From: Keith Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED]
However, what is the harm in making an RFC and then find out if enforcers
will enforce??
you appear to presume that you can get consensus support for such a plan
from within IETF. even if you could get such support (which you cannot)
note that
Evening all,
have we completely deprecated 's for A6's or is still considered
bcp?
Scott
sleekfreak pirate broadcast
world tour 2002-3
live from the pirate hideout
http://sleekfreak.ath.cx:81/
have we completely deprecated 's for A6's or is still considered
bcp?
we're keeping them both as we have moved ipv4 to experimental
/sarcasm
Whew! That is a long list, and fortunately I don't exhibit any of your stated
symptoms of Anti-Spam Kook so I guess I should feel sane??
Too many to addresses all, but here are a few...
I've been compiling a list in the style of Jeff Foxworthy.
You Might Be An Anti-Spam Kook
- despite being the inventor of the UFPSTTSP, you are unfamiliar with
false positive, false negative, UBE, tarpit, teergrube,
Brightmail, ...
Another interesting tidbit is that Enrique Salem, the CEO of BrightMail (which is a
Symantec company), is my former classmate from Culver
I've tried to improve that one
Vernon,
rant
What are you improving? Oxymoron.
Would it be any thing related to Internet Engineering (as in IETF)?
Is this really appropriate posting for someone who apparently runs the DCC, which is
apparently supposed to a professional service that millions
35 matches
Mail list logo
