I have not been following this topic closely.
To the point of open relays being a problem.
I think that the judgment as to if open replays are a problem
or not depends on which spam lists you are on.
With my system and by grep-ing through my last 4 weeks of logs
there were 22,870 of 26,157 spam
There are several issues for the IESG:
In summary, people have brought up several reasons that this draft
shouldn't be approved. But I think these are sufficient:
1) End run around SMTP developers, as Keith Moore pointed out.
2) "spamops" past unreasonable and irrational demands and views requ
On Mon, 20 Jun 2005, Nicholas Staff wrote:
> Dean,
>
> I couldn't agree with you more - thanks for saying it.
You're welcome.
> whats funny to me is if anything would have given spammers a reason to
> exploit open relays it would have been the blacklists.
No, this isn't the case, and ironica
Everybody,
Most of the mail under this subject field is of little help to
the IESG in judging whether the draft in question is ready to
become a BCP. Please ask yourself "Does my message address specific
issues in the draft?" before hitting the send button.
Thanks
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Message -
From: "Carl Hutzler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: ;
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2005 5:57 AM
Subject: Re: Last Call: 'Email Submission Between Independent Networks' to
BCP - Clarification
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>On Tue, 2005-06-21 at 00:28, Nicholas Staff
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2005-06-21 at 00:28, Nicholas Staff blames the victims:
whats funny to me is if anything would have given spammers a reason to
exploit open relays it would have been the blacklists. I mean when
you
arbitrarily blacklist millions of their ISP's addre
On Tue, 2005-06-21 at 00:28, Nicholas Staff blames the victims:
> whats funny to me is if anything would have given spammers a reason to
> exploit open relays it would have been the blacklists. I mean when
you
> arbitrarily blacklist millions of their ISP's addresses you leave them with
> no oth
From: "Dave Crocker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Nicholas Staff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; ;
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2005 9:09 PM
Subject: Re: Last Call: 'Email Submission Between Independent Networks' to
BCP - Clarification
> See what worries me is whe
t; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Tony Finch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: ;
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2005 1:20 PM
Subject: Re: Last Call: 'Email Submission Between Independent Networks' to
BCP - Clarification
On Mon, 20 Jun 2005, Tony Finch wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Jun 2005, Dean
> See what worries me is when you didn't understand the relevence of my post
> you didn't ask me one question.
What makes you think I didn't understand the relevance of your post?
d/
---
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
+1.408.246.8253
dcrocker a t ...
WE'VE MOVED to:
help or not) and I just think so much
brilliance could be directed elsewhere.
Thanks and best regards,
Nick Staff
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Best regards,
Nick Staff
- Original Message -
From: "Dave Crocker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Nicholas Staff" <[EMAIL PRO
On Mon, 20 Jun 2005, Tony Finch wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Jun 2005, Dean Anderson wrote:
> >
> > Neither open relays nor lack of email authentication are
> > problems that are exploited by spammers.
>
> Neither of those statements are true. I've already addressed the first.
No, you haven't addressed a
On Sun, 19 Jun 2005, Dean Anderson wrote:
>
> Neither open relays nor lack of email authentication are
> problems that are exploited by spammers.
Neither of those statements are true. I've already addressed the first.
Regarding the second, we dealt with an incident last year where a spammer
exploi
On Sun, 19 Jun 2005, Dave Crocker wrote:
> The methods in the draft BCP are intended to close some holes and improve
> up-stream (source) accountability. It's a small but necessary step towards
> finding ways to develop trust, since trust begins with accountability.
Except that, it doesn't close
> When I wrote that "nobody would be complaining if spam primarily consisted
>
> of Bloomingdale's catalogues and coupon val-paks" I didn't mean we wouldn't
> complain if we recieved the same amount of spam but it was from legitimate
> companies. I meant that maybe 1% of my spam comes from leg
This is an interesting observation, and the SPF group shed some light on
this quite by accident last year. One of the differences between CAN-SPAM
and the IEMCC proposal that was rejected by anti-spammers in 1997, is that
IEMCC proposed to label commercial bulk email with a special header.
CAN-
Because I have already recieved several comments relating to one aspect of
my original post I thought a clarification was in order as I didn't explain
myself properly and there is some misunderstanding.
When I wrote that "nobody would be complaining if spam primarily consisted
of Bloomingdale's
17 matches
Mail list logo
