Douglas Otis wrote:
This back-scatter problem can be resolved by implementing
BATV at the cost of two additional wafer-thin packets.
Sorry, we just discussed reputation, and that's completely
unrelated to SPF FAIL. You can publish SPF policies without
any FAIL-qualifier at all, for white
- Original Message -
From: Randy Presuhn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: ietf ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2005 9:46 PM
Subject: Re: Troubles with UTF-8
From: Tom.Petch [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Julian Reschke [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: ietf ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Wednesday, December 28,
Title: RE: The Value of Reputation (was Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: WG Review: DomainKeys Identified Mail (dkim))
Any form of reasoning based on past or predicted behavior can be considered to be 'reputation'.
So the claim is a tautology for a broad definition of reputation.
It is clearly not
On Fri, 2005-12-30 at 09:35 +0100, Frank Ellermann wrote:
Douglas Otis wrote:
This back-scatter problem can be resolved by implementing
BATV at the cost of two additional wafer-thin packets.
Simplified SES (or whatever BATV is) is _more_ restrictive
than SPF:
With effort, a compatible
Nathaniel Borenstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Dec 24, 2005, at 4:09 PM, Douglas Otis wrote:
Reputation remains the only solution able to abate the bulk of abuse.
... I think most of us pretty much agree about the critical role of
reputation.
I've noticed a lot of what I call lip
The ECRIT working group will be holding an interim meeting.
When:
2006 Feb. 1 08:30-18:00
2006 Feb. 2 08:30-18:00
Where:
NETWORK RELIABILITY SECURITY OFFICE (NRSO)
CONFERENCE CENTER
1100 New York Avenue, Suite 620 W
Washington, DC 20005
Directions:
