[Apologies for the lateness of this review. I somehow mis-recorded the
due date. Here's my review hoping late is better than never.]
I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/ar
Paul Hoffman wrote:
> At 11:57 AM -0500 12/10/08, Theodore Tso wrote:
>> The point I was trying to make is that there seems to be an inherent
>> assumption by some people, perhaps because the people who make these
>> assumptions run large mail servers, that the problem with someone who
>> is wrongl
Hi -
> From: "Dave CROCKER" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Theodore Tso" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc:
> Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 10:23 AM
> Subject: Re: How I deal with (false positive) IP-address blacklists...
...
> Really: If there is a larger issue that the IETF can and should tackle, then
At 11:57 AM -0500 12/10/08, Theodore Tso wrote:
>The point I was trying to make is that there seems to be an inherent
>assumption by some people, perhaps because the people who make these
>assumptions run large mail servers, that the problem with someone who
>is wrongly blocked rests solely with th
Theodore Tso wrote:
On Tue, Dec 09, 2008 at 11:23:10AM -0800, Dave CROCKER wrote:
Perhaps you can clarify the purpose of your note. How should it be
incorporated into the IETF's deliberations?
The point I was trying to make is that there seems to be an inherent
assumption by some people, pe
On Tue, Dec 09, 2008 at 11:23:10AM -0800, Dave CROCKER wrote:
> Evidently you believe that the anecdote you posted proves something, but
> I am not sure what.
>
> Some others have suggested that it proves something which, I strongly
> suspect, is not what you had in mind.
>
> Perhaps you can clar
Hi Ben,
Sorry for the delay..
Substantive Comments:
-- It is not clear to me why this is to be an informational RFC. It
seems to be defining protocol. If that protocol is not intended to
be a standard, then it would help to have an applicability
statement to that effect.
Good point, w
On Tue, Dec 09, 2008 at 02:03:51AM -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:
> Well, it blocked a legitimate e-mail message, so by definition the
> rejection was false positive.
That's incorrect. Determining whether the rejection was a false positive
or true positive is the sole prerogative of the recipient,
I wanted to send a message about my conclusion of this thread, as the
draft is now progressing to IESG review.
I sympathize with the desire to pull as much data as possible with a
simple request and no prior knowledge of what sessions exist. I think it
is obvious that with a better understandi
(While Dave's response to this is exactly correct - notihng in my original
note had anything to do with sacrificing small scale setups - our failure
to discuss these matters sensibly has some very important implications for
small operators that deserve further comment.)
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Schemes that attempt to assess the desirability of the email
> to the recipient have been tried - personal whitelists,
> personal Bayesian filters, etc. etc. In practice they haven't
> worked all that well, perhaps due to the average user's
> inability to capably and consistently perform such
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Like it or not, sample size reallly does matter. But if you really do prefer
> individual anecdotal evidence, I'll point out that in practically every bogus
> blocking incident I've seen of late, the fault lies not with an operation like
> Spamhaus, but with some local
12 matches
Mail list logo
