on 2005-06-16 01:53 Henning Schulzrinne said the following:
> Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
>
>> Sounds like a good idea. However it requires direct integration with the
>> tracker, which means that the tools team can't just put up a prototype,
>
> Not really - one could associate the WGLC with just t
> I don't see that sort of probing on our MXs, except on rare occasions, and
> we haven't seen it recently.
FWIW, my logs on mrochek.com (my home domain) show around 35,000 relay attempts
during the past 6 months. This number is almost certainly much too low, in that
I have various other blocks in
I don't see that sort of probing on our MXs, except on rare occasions, and
we haven't seen it recently.
What sort of mail volume to you handle? 2000-4000 attempts isn't a lot
for large volume domain handling millions of messages per day.
You said it is more prevalent on hosts named mail or smt
> The notion that email authentication has helped reduce spam is completely
> unsubstantiated by actual practice.
Which bit of text in the document are your referring to?
> Email authentication isn't a weakness that is exploited by spammers.
But the lack of accountability for message senders
Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
Sounds like a good idea. However it requires direct integration with the
tracker, which means that the tools team can't just put up a prototype,
Not really - one could associate the WGLC with just the draft name, and
use that name as the key into the tracker. A simila
On Wed, 15 Jun 2005, Dean Anderson wrote:
>
> Had anyone bothered to ask, I would have reported that open relay abuse
> has dropped off to nearly nothing since the open relay blacklists shutdown
> in 2003.
MXs are routinely probed by relay attempts: we see about 2000-4000 such
attacks each day. A
on 2005-06-15 22:31 Bruce Lilly said the following:
>> Date: 2005-06-15 15:06
>> From: wayne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>> In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Bruce Lilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> > Note that "tools.ietf.org" is:
>> >
>> > [dns info about tools.ietf.org deleted]
>>
>> I'm sorry, but I do
Folks,
It has been suggested to me via private mail that because my Last Call
comments about this document were sent only to IESG, that people might
be left with the impression that the disagreement over this document was
without substance. For this reason, I've enclosed a copy of my Last
Ca
There is a tremendous amount of myth propogated in this document.
The notion that email authentication has helped reduce spam is completely
unsubstantiated by actual practice. We have just recently observed the
failure of SPF, largely due to the fact it didn't work. Email
authentication, even if
> Date: 2005-06-15 15:06
> From: wayne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Bruce Lilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Note that "tools.ietf.org" is:
> >
> > [dns info about tools.ietf.org deleted]
>
> I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you are trying to point out
> with this info
On 2005-06-15 21:02 Jeffrey Hutzelman said the following:
>
> On Wednesday, June 15, 2005 08:06:08 PM +0200 Henrik Levkowetz
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> True on both counts. I have code in place to track WG last calls, but
>> haven't had resources to handle the mails from all mailing lis
I very much like the goals of this document, but I think there's a little
room for improvement and clarification, as follows:
Authentication vs. authorization
The draft mostly talks about authentication (authn) rather than
authorization (authz). I'm not sure whether the aim is to require actual
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Keith Moore writes:
> In response to Dave Crocker's challenge to me to submit replacement
> text for portions of draft-hutzler-spamops-04.txt, I decided to try my
> hand at writing my own set of recommendations with similar (though not
> identical) scope.[big snip]
I l
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Bruce Lilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Date: 2005-06-15 10:20
>> From: wayne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>> In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Lucy E. Lynch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > Many of the issues related to WG progress can be managed using the
>> > excellent web tools
On Wednesday, June 15, 2005 08:06:08 PM +0200 Henrik Levkowetz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
True on both counts. I have code in place to track WG last calls, but
haven't had resources to handle the mails from all mailing list so far.
Possibly I'll have that in place before IETF-63.
Maybe an
Hi Henning and Lucy,
First thanks, Lucy, for the ack on the wg tools :-)
More inline:
On 2005-06-15 11:05 Henning Schulzrinne said the following:
> Lucy E. Lynch wrote:
>> Excuse top posting, please.
>>
>> Many of the issues related to WG progress can be managed using the
>> excellent web to
JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
On 16:07 14/06/2005, John C Klensin said:
John, I don't see any text in RFC 2026 that gives an appeal
suspensive effect. However, as a matter of common sense, I
have asked the Secretariat to request the RFC Editor to
suspend RFC publication.
I support this. It cre
> Date: 2005-06-15 10:20
> From: wayne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Lucy E. Lynch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Many of the issues related to WG progress can be managed using the
> > excellent web tools provided at tools.ietf.org - see for example:
> > http://tools.ietf.or
wayne wrote:
"Lucy E. Lynch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Many of the issues related to WG progress can be managed using the
excellent web tools provided at tools.ietf.org - see for example:
http://tools.ietf.org/wg/ccamp/
Very useful. For example, apparently IESG is waiting for the authors of
> In the part 4 (external submission), the document offers no recommendation
> concerning the blocking of SMTP port 25.
> Even if the ISP decides not to block it, this ISP should be covered by
> this future RFC to legitimate its choice of closing port 25.(a single MAY
> can be enough)
Unfortu
At 9:20 -0500 6/15/05, wayne wrote:
It is hard to get people to use tools when they don't know they exist
and are very hard to find.
I'd like to add a me too to that and a few suggestions...
I'd like to add that the datatracker be easier to find that having it
"buried" under the IESG roster
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Lucy E. Lynch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Many of the issues related to WG progress can be managed using the
> excellent web tools provided at tools.ietf.org - see for example:
> http://tools.ietf.org/wg/ccamp/
This link should be put on the font page of the IETF websit
Spencer Dawkins wrote:
Whether "the main problem with timeliness is now in the WG process
itself" is true or not, it is worth removing systemic sources of delay
in the WG process.
You can also read it as "we've tried to reform the tail end of the
process and we have either succeeded or run o
Henning,
Thank you for a series of reasonable suggestions.
My thoughts are inline.
Spencer
There has been a fair amount of effort in accelerating the tail end
of the document process, i.e., after IETF last call. It is unclear
whether this has succeeded (as there don't seem to be any publish
> > > But I will insist that it be fixed and that the fixes get adequate
> > > review.
> > i apologize. i did not realize that you had a personal veto.
> >
> and I didn't realize that you had personal authority to expect that your
> documents be published as IETF consensus documents without a
> Dave, you don't have a leg to stand on here.
boy, it's a good think i'm sitting.
> But I will insist that it be fixed and that the fixes get adequate review.
>
i apologize. i did not realize that you had a personal veto. i always thought
that the ietf requirement was to obtain support fr
Hi,
My comment on the "Email Submission Between Independent Networks
draft-hutzler-spamops-04" document :
In the part 4 (external submission), the document offers no recommendation
concerning the blocking of SMTP port 25.
Even if the ISP decides not to block it, this ISP should be covered by t
> Perhaps ... or perhaps ...
or perhaps, or perhaps , or perhaps...
> I consider it a contribution to the discussion.
Keith, if you want your postings to have a constructive effect, it would help if
they took a constructive tone and had constructive content, rather than making
essentially slan
Comments in line below...
On Jun 14, 2005, at 5:31 AM, Geoff Huston wrote:
It seems to me that what would be required to do so would be three
statements:
ISOC's appointees do not represent ISOC, in the same way that IAB
and IESG appointees do not represent the IAB or IESG. They serve
Keith Moore wrote:
>
> http://www.cs.utk.edu/~moore/opinions/email-submission-recommendations.html
I wish to compliment Keith on an excellent first draft.
Alas, there's no hope of reaching consensus on all his points.
Personally, I'd be willing to work on editing his points into
draft
Keith,
I think there are two stages of chartering:
- the early "we don't quite know what we're doing and what shape this
will take, just the general direction"
and the
- "most work items have drafts associated with them"
In my suggestion, a WG would amend the charter with additional detail
Lucy E. Lynch wrote:
Excuse top posting, please.
Many of the issues related to WG progress can be managed using the
excellent web tools provided at tools.ietf.org - see for example:
http://tools.ietf.org/wg/ccamp/
This site makes review quick and easy. Clicking on a draft title
gets you not jus
32 matches
Mail list logo
