other side has queued up RCPT
and DATA commands in the HELO packet.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Chris Lewis
Sent: Thu 11/13/2008 3:52 PM
Cc: IETF
Subject: Re: IP-based reputation services vs. DNSBL (long)
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
> To answer y
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
> To answer your question about how they got round port 25 blocking, my
> guess is that they sent the initial packet out on yet another connection
> that was unblocked.
Actually, I answered that question - they didn't "get around port 25
blocking". They never sent fro
ckets.
I have seen something similar described recently in the context of a
cyber-conflict type attack.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Chris Lewis
Sent: Wed 11/12/2008 12:59 PM
Cc: IETF
Subject: Re: IP-based reputation services vs. DNSBL (long)
Hallam-
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
> Agree with your conclusion but your statement is not quite accurate.
I know that. I had composed a footnote outlining split-routing in my
original email, but removed it because it would confuse the issue
precisely for the reasons you yourself outline below, without
based reputation services vs. DNSBL (long)
TS Glassey wrote:
> Matthias
> Any DNS BL Listing process where those listings are based on complaints
> would create this. [spoofed IPs in DNSBLs]
Few DNSBL listing processes rely on "complaints" as you put it.
Certainly, none of t
TS Glassey wrote:
> Matthias
> Any DNS BL Listing process where those listings are based on complaints
> would create this. [spoofed IPs in DNSBLs]
Few DNSBL listing processes rely on "complaints" as you put it.
Certainly, none of the popular ones use them extensively, and most
refuse them. Eg:
Matthias
Any DNS BL Listing process where those listings are based on complaints
would create this.
The issue is that if SPAM HEADERS can have the source addresses forged
then the DNS Blocking systems which were listed in those forged headers
need to take that into account. So far as I can te
On 11/11/08 10:22 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
DNSBLs are a temporary band-aid solution for a badly broken
Internet email architecture. They have provided the community
with an education but that doesn't mean that they should be
standardised by the IETF.
DNSBLs are over 10 years old and ar
TS Glassey schrieb:
>> 4. effects of DNS caching. if a host is removed from a blacklist it
>> should arguably be removed from all caches instantly, but DNS isn't
>> designed to facilitate that.
>
> The use of the term "SHOULD" here has legal implications - since many of
> these hosts were put
Keith Moore schrieb:
> 1. suitability of the DNS data and query model. right now this protocol
> essentially communicates one bit of information to be used in a decision
> - i.e. whether the address or domain name is good or bad. I suspect
This is wrong. For todays DNSxLs, many queries return
Keith Moore wrote:
Tony Finch wrote:
On Sun, 9 Nov 2008, Keith Moore wrote:
It is worth repeating that just because the notion of a reputation
service has value, and such services are widely used, does not imply
that using IP addresses as identifiers or the DNS protocol as a means of
Dave CROCKER wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> DNSBLs are a temporary band-aid solution for a badly broken
>> Internet email architecture.
>
>
> DNS-based reputation lists have been in production use for at least 11
> years? There is no industry move to reduce their use.
and yet spam remains
Tony Finch wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Nov 2008, Keith Moore wrote:
>> It is worth repeating that just because the notion of a reputation
>> service has value, and such services are widely used, does not imply
>> that using IP addresses as identifiers or the DNS protocol as a means of
>> transmitting reputa
On Sun, 9 Nov 2008, Keith Moore wrote:
>
> It is worth repeating that just because the notion of a reputation
> service has value, and such services are widely used, does not imply
> that using IP addresses as identifiers or the DNS protocol as a means of
> transmitting reputation are technically s
I have serious concerns with doing ANYTHING with the DNSBL entity
because of the damage that it may do to our sponsors...
The IETF operates Standards not third party services, and so somehow
this seems inappropriate.
Todd Glassey
Keith Moore wrote:
Eliot Lear wrote:
The working group c
Keith, I find myself in complete agreement with your message. I
particularly like the fact that you took the time to go through a
complicated reasoning process in a slow, clear manner so that your
readers could determine whether they agree with your reasoning and if
not, where they disagree.
Well, we have a critical dependency on a star that is going to run out of
hydrogen at some point...
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Dave CROCKER
Sent: Tue 11/11/2008 10:42 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: IP-based reputation
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
DNSBLs are a temporary band-aid solution for a badly broken
Internet email architecture.
DNS-based reputation lists have been in production use for at least 11 years?
There is no industry move to reduce their use.
By what metric does this qualify as "temporary"?
Eliot Lear wrote:
On 11/10/08 10:37 PM, John Levine wrote:
What would be the point of yet another WG to reinvent this wheel?
I tend to agree. Here are a few questions for the IESG when considering
this matter:
I strongly urge community and IESG folk to think carefully about the question
Lawrence Rosen wrote:
Lisa and Chris have stated that they're open to consider chartering
new WG if there seems to be consensus on a charter.
What about it, folks?
As one of the people who objected when the previous spam WG was under way, I
now support this proposal to form a new WG to
Eliot Lear wrote:
>> The working group could analyze the requirements of a reputation service
>> based on IP address, determine whether and how any newly discovered
>> requirements could be met using DNS, and fill in any details that are
>> missing from the informational specification that are nee
Keith,
1. Would declining to publish as a standard harm or hurt the
community? Would refusing to publish as a standard stop implementations
or merely create potential interoperability issues that could lead to
more legitimate messages being dropped?
How are either of these questions rel
Eliot Lear wrote:
> On 11/10/08 10:37 PM, John Levine wrote:
>>> I hope the charter, unlike the previous one, will require the
>>> development of a protocol for communicating email sender reputation
>>> that can be implemented in email products without known patent
>>> encumbrances that are incompa
> Would refusing to publish as a standard stop
> implementations or merely create potential interoperability
> issues that could lead to more legitimate messages being dropped?
How would refusing to publish a document that is already public,
CREATE potential interoperability issues? The questio
On 11/10/08 10:37 PM, John Levine wrote:
I hope the charter, unlike the previous one, will require the
development of a protocol for communicating email sender reputation
that can be implemented in email products without known patent
encumbrances that are incompatible with open source software. E
From: John Levine [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, November 10, 2008 1:38 PM
> To: ietf@ietf.org
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: IP-based reputation services vs. DNSBL (long)
>
> >I hope the charter, unlike the previous one, will require the
> >development
>I hope the charter, unlike the previous one, will require the
>development of a protocol for communicating email sender reputation
>that can be implemented in email products without known patent
>encumbrances that are incompatible with open source software. Email
>is simply too important to allow
re Freedom and
Intellectual Property Law" (Prentice Hall 2004)
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> John Leslie
> Sent: Monday, November 10, 2008 12:38 PM
> To: Keith Moore
> Cc: IETF
> Subj
I find myself in complete agreement with Keith's major points:
Keith Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 1. Several people have argued (somewhat convincingly) that:
>...
> It's important to keep these in mind, as they appear to make a
> compelling case for some kind of standardized reputation
29 matches
Mail list logo
