On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 04:40:42PM +0200, Arturo Servin wrote:
> Captchas? Recaptchas?
Captchas et.al. are completely worthless. They're defeated at will by
the first adversary who comes along that's willing to expend the minimal
resources required to overcome them.
The best methods for blog
First, an enthusiastic +1 to Steve's comments re security being
compatible with risk.
Second, Mailman is -- at this point -- easily the best available option
for mailing list management. That is not to say it's perfect, of course
it's not -- but in terms of capability, support, development, commu
On Fri, Nov 09, 2012 at 08:00:19PM -0500, Arturo Servin wrote:
> People is asking how to evolve the IETF, well, one possibility is to
> start thinking global and to reach more people outside the common venues.
Another is to not have any (physical) meetings, ever. I've heard
all the arguments
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 09:47:57AM -0400, John C Klensin wrote:
> Borrowing a bit from Randy, the solution to really large
> attachments is to ban them. Personally, I'd find it perfectly
> reasonable to have any message in the megabyte range or above
> (or probably even an order of magnitude small
On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 10:34:15PM -0400, John R. Levine wrote:
> >Hmm. Are you talking about SiteFinder-like services?
>
> Not really. There turn out to be a significant number of domains,
> in the hundreds of thousands at least, that are purely evil.
IMHO, "tens of millions" is closer to rea
On Mon, May 03, 2010 at 05:42:16PM -, John Levine wrote:
> He still uses 130.105/16 that he stole from the OSF and 198.3.136.0/21
> that he got in 2004. Nullrouting those blocks can improve your
> quality of life.
+1
If null-routing is not an available option, firewalling those blocks
appear
A) I think that says much more about the low quality of a particular
PDF reader than about PDF itself. The point solution is obvious: never
use that piece of software.
B) For many of us who need to refer to IETF standards while looking at
the world through a 24x80 ssh session, ASCII is most conv
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 03:46:24PM -0400, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
> N.B. It is extremely unlikely that I'd attend a meeting in that slot,
> regardless of where it was; my current $DAYJOB doesn't give me the
> luxury of attending most IETF meetings.
To piggyback on this, much the same situation e
I've found it quite useful to block all traffic from persistent
spammers' network domains/network blocks. There's really no need
for anyone, regardless of affiliation or role, to endure abuse
of this nature. The originators of that abuse are disposable,
and should be treated as such.
---Rsk
___
On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 10:22:39AM +, Michael Dillon wrote:
> If you really want to limit it to people subscribed to the list, forget the
> boilerplate, just configure Mailman differently.
Enthusiastic second, as this is a better and cleaner idea, preferable
over the overly-complex alternative
On Mon, Feb 09, 2009 at 04:38:00PM -0800, Dave CROCKER wrote:
> 1. Permanently and irrevocably ban postings from any and all addresses
> that Dean controls. An organized attack warrants it.
>
> 2. Highten strictures on ietf list posting. I'm not entirely clear
> what level the current bar i
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 02:21:33PM +, Bob Jolliffe wrote:
> It seems clear that, whereas the IPR Disclosure statement asserts that
> the proposed standard can be implemented without infringing on the
> RedPhone patent, from my reading it would be very difficult to work
> around parts 2, 3 and 4
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,
On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 01:45:51PM -0500, John C Klensin wrote:
> > This is not a DNSBL problem. This is a problem with the
> > subscriber's ISP, which is not operating their mail system per
> > de facto best practices -- which include making sure that
> > rejection notices provide an alternate-ch
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 06:15:53PM -0500, Keith Moore wrote:
> For instance, what would happen if mail servers provided feedback to
> both senders (on a per message basis in the form of NDNs) and recipients
> (say, via a web page that listed messages blocked due to DNSBLs)...in
> both cases describ
On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 11:33:46AM -0800, Randy Presuhn wrote:
> Huh? Concrete, real example: I send a message to an IETF mailing list.
> A list subscriber's ISP rejects the forwarded message. IETF's mailman
> drops the subscriber, because this has been happened multiple times.
> I can't notify
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 02:57:32PM -0800, Randy Presuhn wrote:
> This may be due to misuse of DNSxL technology or other reputation
> systems, but if this small sample is any indication of the
> extent to which the technology is being used inappropriately
> or incorrectly, it suggests that significa
On Sat, Nov 08, 2008 at 07:32:09PM -0500, Chris Lewis wrote:
> It's been through at least four iterations on the ASRG, so it already
> has been worked on there. Extensively.
Having witnessed those iterations (and contributed in a very minor
way to them), I can report that the process was lively,
On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 08:13:23PM +0200, Eliot Lear wrote:
> I think there is probably convenience value to housing the mailing lists
> at the IETF. It allows for a single whitelist, reduction in those
> annoying monthly messages that we eventually all filter into the
> bitbucket.
I'll concur
19 matches
Mail list logo
