On Feb 22, 2007, at 1:41 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
The level of bulk unsolicited messages exceed more than 90% of the
volume in many cases
I estimate 95% of moderated non-member mail that hits the IESG list
to be b.u.m.
Much that slips past somewhat static (and not very effective) lis
On Thu, 22 Feb 2007, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>
> Interesting. Do they also run content filters?
SpamAssassin deals with most of the rest.
Tony.
--
f.a.n.finch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://dotat.at/
PLYMOUTH BISCAY FITZROY SOLE: SOUTH OR SOUTHWEST 5 TO 7, OCCASIONALLY GALE 8.
ROUGH OR VERY ROUGH
On Wed, 21 Feb 2007, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
> The question Brian raised is not the percentage of spam that blacklists
> catch, it's the false positive rate.
Yes, you have to be careful about which blacklists you use and how you use
them. The reputable ones (e.g. Spamhaus) have a negligible
The level of bulk unsolicited messages exceed more than 90% of the volume in
many cases
I estimate 95% of moderated non-member mail that hits the IESG list to be b.u.m.
Brian
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listi
On 2007-02-21 17:07, Tony Finch wrote:
On Wed, 21 Feb 2007, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Blacklists at the level of sending domains (or reputation systems
that function like blacklists) are a failure.
I was talking about IP address blacklists.
Right. That can work, of course.
Perhaps 90% was a
On Feb 21, 2007, at 4:31 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2007-02-18 13:46, Tony Finch wrote:
On Sun, 18 Feb 2007, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
If this was effective, blacklists would have solved the spam
problem.
They are 90% effective
You what? Which Internet would that be?
Blacklists
> -Original Message-
> From: Tony Finch [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 11:08 AM
> To: Brian E Carpenter
> Cc: ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Identifications dealing with Bulk Unsolicited
> Messages (BUMs)
>
> On Wed, 21 Feb 2007, Bria
On Wed, 21 Feb 2007, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>
> Blacklists at the level of sending domains (or reputation systems
> that function like blacklists) are a failure.
I was talking about IP address blacklists. Perhaps 90% was a bit
over-optimistic - my stats from cam.ac.uk show more than 80% of spam
On 2007-02-18 13:46, Tony Finch wrote:
On Sun, 18 Feb 2007, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
If this was effective, blacklists would have solved the spam problem.
They are 90% effective
You what? Which Internet would that be?
Blacklists at the level of sending domains (or reputation systems
On Sun, 2007-02-18 at 13:20 -0800, Douglas Otis wrote:
---
The safe way forward would be to demand that security be considered
first and foremost. In a store and forward scheme, start the chain of
identification from the transmitting entity, where the originating
entity is then able to authorize
On Sun, 2007-02-18 at 12:51 +0100, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> On second thought, I know that you know this field well enough that I
> *must* have misunderstood your message.
>
> Could you please restate your missive in such a way that it's clear:
>
> - What problem you think the IETF can h
On Sun, 18 Feb 2007, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
>
> If this was effective, blacklists would have solved the spam problem.
They are 90% effective which I think is pretty good. You can't expect to
eliminate spam, so using 100% effectiveness as a criterion for "solving
the spam problem" is pointl
On second thought, I know that you know this field well enough that I
*must* have misunderstood your message.
Could you please restate your missive in such a way that it's clear:
- What problem you think the IETF can help solve
- What action you think the IETF should take to solve it?
I'm afra
--On 18. februar 2007 03:10 -0800 Douglas Otis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The IP address of the SMTP client can be found within an ASN to uncover
a network provider. Helos might verify, which may then also identify a
domain used by a network provider's customer. Of course the host names
with
14 matches
Mail list logo
