On Fri, 12 Mar 2004, Nathaniel Borenstein wrote:
I'm not talking about any party to the real end-to-end email
transaction. I'm talking about intermediaries. I have no problem at
all with user-controlled filters that do whatever they want. It's when
an ISP starts doing these things on
ah, intermediaries. while at MAPS i often heard complaints (from people
who wanted to send e-mail that some other people didn't want to receive)
that subscribing to a blackhole list overreached an ISP's rights and
responsibilities -- that customers should have to opt into such a service
on a case
Paul Vixie wrote:
nathaniel, john, i have a lot of respect for you but from reading this thread
it's clear that you have only been studying this issue for a couple of years.
please give it a decade, and read what's been written on the topic of digital
rights, before you go head to head with vjs
Paul -- With respect, I think this argument is going nowhere because
some of us want to discuss it in terms of property rights, and others
of us want to discuss it in terms of human rights. I believe that
communication should be viewed as a human right, and that property
rights can and should
From: Yakov Shafranovich [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Since the IETF is a standards organization, can both you and vsj tell us
in your opinion, if there is anything the IETF should or should not be
doing in the spam arena (changing existing standards, making new
standards, etc.)?
[204.127.198.35]_blocked_using_reject-mail.vix.com
Diagnostic-Code: smtp; Permanent Failure: Other undefined Status
Last-Attempt-Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 21:06:07 -
From: Nathaniel Borenstein [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: March 12, 2004 4:06:04 PM EST
To: Paul Vixie [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Su
From: Nathaniel Borenstein
...you
can't afford an expensive connection ...
... it's not
primarily about property rights, it's about our right to choose to
Perhaps you should ask this question of someone who actually _has_ studied
the problem for a number of years, and has reviewed the numerous legal
cases and the full text of their legal decisions, and sometimes even the
motions and briefs in the case, and has reveiwed the congressional
reports, and
For some reason, this message, sent at 17:43 EST, has not made it to the
list, or showed up in the list archive, even though a message sent after
it is in the archive.
http://info.av8.net/spamstuff/vix-spam-abatement-ietf
Mar 12 17:43:34 cirrus sendmail[23157]: i2CMhXMU023157:
from=[EMAIL
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Yakov Shafranovich) writes:
Since the IETF is a standards organization, can both you and vsj tell us
in your opinion, if there is anything the IETF should or should not be
doing in the spam arena (changing existing standards, making new
standards, etc.)?
yes there is, but
Vernon,
VS On the other hand, it would be distructive to let the IETF seriously
VS consider supporting claims of the unfettered right to send mail
VS regardless of the desires of mail targets and their duly appointed
VS agents including ISPs or of entitlements to real Internet access
VS at less
Nathaniel,
NB some of us want to discuss it in terms of property rights, and others
NB of us want to discuss it in terms of human rights.
Unfortunately, the IETF mailing list is not a very good venue for either
topic, because most of the folks on the IETF mailing list have no
qualifications or
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathaniel Borenstein) writes:
Paul -- With respect, I think this argument is going nowhere because
some of us want to discuss it in terms of property rights, and others
of us want to discuss it in terms of human rights. I believe that
communication should be viewed as a
On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 16:06:04 -0500, Nathaniel Borenstein wrote:
With respect, I think this argument is going nowhere because
some of us want to discuss it in terms of property rights, and others
of us want to discuss it in terms of human rights. I believe that
communication should be viewed as
From: Vernon Schryver [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Nathaniel Borenstein
...you
can't afford an expensive connection ...
... it's not
Joe Abley, you should be aware that your company is using a revenge list
for spam blocking. You might want to consider using a different email
address. But it makes an interesting end to this discussion, I think.
- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 10 Mar 2004, at 05:10, Dean Anderson wrote:
Joe Abley, you should be aware that your company is using a revenge
list
for spam blocking. You might want to consider using a different email
address. But it makes an interesting end to this discussion, I think.
If you ever really need to get hold
grenville armitage wrote:
Many moons ago Ed Gerck wrote:
If someone sends me a message asking for my comment
because they read some other comment I wrote, do I really
care who that someone is... or who they know?
You yourself have identified the criteria 'they read some other
On Wed, 03 Mar 2004, Dave Crocker wrote:
What makes this such an interesting problem is the critical need for
spontaneous (unsolicited and uncoordinated) communication is many
human activities. Eliminating the ability to have new people show up
without an appointment will cripple some
On Tue, 2 Mar 2004, Michael Thomas wrote:
Case 3: an external agent screens everything;
This is the only case that is new in the sense
that there isn't any standardized way to do this
now.
Well, I don't understand because it sure seems to
me that the principle requires
On Tue, 2 Mar 2004, John Leslie wrote:
Dave Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What makes this such an interesting problem is the critical need for
spontaneous (unsolicited and uncoordinated) communication is many
human activities. Eliminating the ability to have new people show up
On Tue March 2 2004 19:32, John Leslie wrote:
- Errors returned after the close of the SMTP transaction are likely
to go to an innocent party; and should be deprecated for any email
identified as spam.
...and doubly so for viri (if you count those as spam -- they are
unsolicited, and
On Tue, 2 Mar 2004, Vernon Schryver wrote:
I'm not arguing for IP addresses as security tokens. I'm only pointing
out that issuing new identity cards to the usual suspects won't change
anything. No IETF protocol can synthesize trust for organizations
that are not trustworthy. Service
On Tue, 2 Mar 2004, David Morris wrote:
Your logic breaks over the fact that you got the message because of who
you both know ... the ietf.org mailing list. It was not unsolicited mail
from a party with which you have no relationship.
But c'mon, I get plenty of mail from people I REALLY
On Wed, 3 Mar 2004, Nathaniel Borenstein wrote:
The problem with this kind of proposal is that it punishes too many of
the wrong people. I myself was the victim of a blacklist for most of
last year; my ISP was blacklisted by another ISP, and they spent 6
months arguing about it, during
On Wed, 3 Mar 2004, Robert G. Brown wrote:
On Tue, 2 Mar 2004, David Morris wrote:
Your logic breaks over the fact that you got the message because of who
you both know ... the ietf.org mailing list. It was not unsolicited mail
from a party with which you have no relationship.
But
From: David Morris [EMAIL PROTECTED]
...
Well, I don't read such mail if I can avoid it ... I have never received
email of value where there was no pre-existing 'connection'. People with
business opportunities with mutual value continue to take the time to use
the telephone even though
On 3-mrt-04, at 1:14, Michael Thomas wrote:
Case 2: non-consent is presumed for unauthenticated senders;
Neither of these furthers the discourse since
nothing prevents you from making white/black lists
today.
Excuse me?!
Maybe the fact that everyone can claim to be anyone in SMTP might get
Ed Gerck wrote:
[..]
grenville armitage wrote:
[..]
and thus have gained entry to your circle of
people-worth-talking-with.
Solely by what you wrote, my point exactly.
Actually, your point appeared to be that you'd respond to a
previously-unknown correspondent who wrote
John Leslie writes:
Paul Vixie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
the principle i've always followed is that
all communications must be by mutual consent
...
Excellent principle, Paul. I'd like to put it at the head of the
list.
Ok, I'm dense. How do I meaningfully consent to
the principle i've always followed is that
all communications must be by mutual consent
Excellent principle, Paul. I'd like to put it at the head of the list.
Ok, I'm dense. How do I meaningfully consent to
somebody for which I have no a priori information
about their
Michael Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John Leslie writes:
Paul Vixie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
the principle i've always followed is that
all communications must be by mutual consent
...
Excellent principle, Paul. I'd like to put it at the head of the
list.
Ok, I'm dense. How do I
John Leslie writes:
Michael Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John Leslie writes:
Paul Vixie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
the principle i've always followed is that
all communications must be by mutual consent
...
Excellent principle, Paul. I'd like to put it at the head of
Michael Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Subject: Re: Principles of Spam-abatement
X-Mailer: VM 6.72 under 21.1 (patch 6) Big Bend XEmacs Lucid
John Leslie writes:
Michael Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John Leslie writes:
Paul Vixie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
all communications must
John Leslie writes:
Michael Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Paul Vixie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
all communications must be by mutual consent
Case 1: consent is presumed until content is observed;
others check caller-ID, and let an answering machine take any calls
I'm planning to post a summary to the MARID-planning list mentioned
elsewhere in this thread -- hopefully before 5:00 pm Korea time.
I expect there will be a proto-WG mailing list declared by the close of
the MARID BoF at 11:30 Thursday (Korea time). I recommend the discussion
continue there.
Paul,
Ok, I'm dense. How do I meaningfully consent to
somebody for which I have no a priori information
about their consentworthiness?
PV you can't. that's why you're getting spammed.
What makes this such an interesting problem is the critical need for
spontaneous (unsolicited and
Michael Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Michael Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
John Leslie writes:
Michael Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Paul Vixie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
all communications must be by mutual consent
Case 1: consent is presumed until content is observed;
Case
Dave Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What makes this such an interesting problem is the critical need for
spontaneous (unsolicited and uncoordinated) communication is many
human activities. Eliminating the ability to have new people show up
without an appointment will cripple some
John Leslie writes:
Dave Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What makes this such an interesting problem is the critical need for
spontaneous (unsolicited and uncoordinated) communication is many
human activities. Eliminating the ability to have new people show up
without an
Paul Vixie wrote:
i don't care who you are but i do care who you know.
Well, that's not how we learned to communicate in 1,000s of
years of history. For example, the message is usually far
more important than who you are or who you know. If you author
a book I think it is interesting then
Ed Gerck wrote:
Paul Vixie wrote:
i don't care who you are but i do care who you know.
[..]
If someone sends me a message asking for my comment
because they read some other comment I wrote, do I really
care who that someone is... or who they know? No, in fact I
am delighted if
grenville armitage wrote:
Ed Gerck wrote:
Paul Vixie wrote:
i don't care who you are but i do care who you know.
[..]
If someone sends me a message asking for my comment
because they read some other comment I wrote, do I really
care who that someone is... or who they
The problem with this kind of proposal is that it punishes too many of
the wrong people. I myself was the victim of a blacklist for most of
last year; my ISP was blacklisted by another ISP, and they spent 6
months arguing about it, during which time all my email to users of the
other ISP was
Your logic breaks over the fact that you got the message because of who
you both know ... the ietf.org mailing list. It was not unsolicited mail
from a party with which you have no relationship.
On Tue, 2 Mar 2004, Ed Gerck wrote:
I'd suggest that in this case you _are_ reacting to who
Dr. Jeffrey Race [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John, your summary distils a lot of hard work but is deeply troubling,
because it is constructed entirely on a make the victims pay
foundation.
Frankly I don't see make the victims pay in any of the principles.
As long as that is your stance,
i don't care who you are but i do care who you know.
[..]
If someone sends me a message asking for my comment
because they read some other comment I wrote, do I really
care who that someone is... or who they know? No, [...]
I'd suggest that in this case you _are_ reacting to who
[smtp] is what the world uses today and will continue to use for quite
some time. reports of its death are just a tad premature.
When folks agree on the new mail transfer services that we need and
when we try to add them to smtp and fail, THEN we can have productive
discussions about a
Paul,
When folks agree on the new mail transfer services that we need and
when we try to add them to smtp and fail, THEN we can have productive
discussions about a replacement transfer protocol.
PV well, except that that's not how dns was created, or http, or html, or
PV nntp, or xml, or
Quoting Dave Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
_New_ services get created in all sorts of ways and for all sorts of
reason. However changing an existing, popular service is subject to
very different concerns than a new service. In particular, it is
subject to careful attention to preservation of
-
From: Paul Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Dave Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Dave Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Paul Vixie [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 01, 2004 9:08 PM
Subject: Re: Principles of Spam-abatement
Quoting Dave Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
_New_ services get
On Mon, 1 Mar 2004, Paul Vixie wrote:
And everyone else needs to move from the generic reference to
consent on to something that is more concrete, as well as being
integrated into a full range of human uses for email.
i'm pretty comfortable with www.dictionary.com's definition of
PV well, except that that's not how dns was created, or http, or html, or
PV nntp, or xml, or rpc/xdr/nfs, or sip, or pgp, or jabber.
_New_ services get created in all sorts of ways and for all sorts of reason.
if you believe that ssh was a new service (compared to telnet) then i agree
with
i'm pretty comfortable with www.dictionary.com's definition of consent.
Ah, are we about to develop psmtp (psychic simple mail transport protocol)?
no. but through a combination of open source and public benefit licensing,
we are eventually going to be able to tell whether a message was
From: Paul Vixie [EMAIL PROTECTED]
...
we are eventually going to be able to tell whether a message was generated
by someone who was present and gave consent, or whether it's just wormware;
and whether the owner of an ip-using device intends to act as a mail server;
and whether a bond has
If transitive trust could be made to work, then government security
clearances would be easy. If it could work, we would have more than 3
credit reporting agencies, and we would not have so much machinery to
deal with their errors. If transitive trust cannot be made to work for
those cases
On Mon, 1 Mar 2004, Robert G. Brown wrote:
On Mon, 1 Mar 2004, Paul Vixie wrote:
And everyone else needs to move from the generic reference to
consent on to something that is more concrete, as well as being
integrated into a full range of human uses for email.
i'm pretty
From: Paul Vixie [EMAIL PROTECTED]
...
that's not an unreasonable question. and yet, the meatspace world copes.
The real world copes only by having laws against enforced violations
of trust. Until the first spammer goes to jail for breaking the laws
that have long made most current spam
Paul,
_New_ services get created in all sorts of ways and for all sorts of reason.
PV if you believe that ssh was a new service (compared to telnet) then i agree
PV with this perspective. i think that you won't, though. new ways of doing
PV old things can appear, and old ways of doing those
John,
unfortunately, that act of communication _is_ the adverse side
effect. it tells the spammer that yours is an active, responsive
email account.
JLI must disagree.
JLIljitsch stated it precisely and well: the fact that a message is
JL discarded as spam need not give any
John,
JLWhile I am _very_ sympathetic to the need to limit the discussion,
JL I really don't see how anything useful can be accomplished if the
JL chair rules principles of spam-abatement to be irrelevant.
It is a small matter of seeking to have a productive meeting.
Discussion about the
unfortunately, that act of communication _is_ the adverse side effect.
it tells the spammer that yours is an active, responsive email account.
that's only true from the smtp perspective. since smtp does not encode any
aspect of consent, existence implies reachability. however, since smtp is
Paul,
unfortunately, that act of communication _is_ the adverse side effect.
it tells the spammer that yours is an active, responsive email account.
PV that's only true from the smtp perspective. since smtp does not encode any
PV aspect of consent, existence implies reachability.
rogue
inline
Tom Petch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One reason why spam works is that it is so cheap to send 1M messages
that even if 99.99% fail to reach a destination, the operation is still
a success. If sending 1M messages got back a 1% response saying 'you
failed' with no clue as to which 1%
excuse me but...
One reason why spam works is that it is so cheap to send 1M messages
...
There may be a Principle there, about any cost imposed upon
spammers tending to reduce the spam problem...
...
Yes, that is what I had in mind; use any means available to make it
unattractive;
On Sat, 28 Feb 2004, Tom Petch wrote:
extract
*** Anonymous Bulk Email Software
*** is a super fast bulk email software that sends out at speeds greater
than 1,000,000 emails per hour* on a dedicated mailing server. *** has the
capability to use Proxies and Relays and also to send
Paul Vixie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
the principle i've always followed is that
all communications must be by mutual consent
...
Excellent principle, Paul. I'd like to put it at the head of the
list.
I've also gleaned (mostly from this list over the last week):
Ed Gerck [EMAIL
At 20:46 28/02/04, Paul Vixie wrote:
let's not lose sight of the principle, which is consent, while we deal
with methods, like authentication.
Full agreement. Five basic Human e-Rights seem to be to e-exist, to e-own,
to e-send and e-receive what one wants, to e-associate. The principle
should
Dave Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If we can communicate the fact that a message is discarded because it
was categorized as spam back to the sender without adverse side
[ effects, then occasional false positives aren't much of a problem.]
unfortunately, that act of communication _is_
From: Dave Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: John Leslie [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Iljitsch van Beijnum [EMAIL PROTECTED]; IETF Discussion
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 27 February 2004 07:38
Subject: Re: Principles of Spam-abatement
John,
If we can communicate the fact that a message is discarded because
Tom Petch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Dave Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If we can communicate the fact that a message is discarded because it
was categorized as spam back to the sender without adverse side
unfortunately, that act of communication _is_ the adverse side
effect. it tells the
On Fri February 27 2004 09:29, Tom Petch wrote:
If sending 1M messages got back a 1% response
saying 'you failed' with no clue as to which 1% failed, we might cut
down on the spam.
Maybe I just have too much blood in my caffeine stream, but I don't see
the connection. J. Random Spammer
At 9:29 AM -0500 02/27/2004, John Leslie wrote:
While I am _very_ sympathetic to the need to limit the discussion,
I really don't see how anything useful can be accomplished if the
chair rules principles of spam-abatement to be irrelevant.
Perhaps this would be clearer: The BoF proposes that
Dave Aronson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri February 27 2004 09:29, Tom Petch wrote:
If sending 1M messages got back a 1% response saying 'you failed'
with no clue as to which 1% failed, we might cut down on the spam.
Maybe I just have too much blood in my caffeine stream,
;^)
but
On Fri February 27 2004 11:26, John Leslie wrote:
Dave Aronson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri February 27 2004 09:29, Tom Petch wrote:
If sending 1M messages got back a 1% response saying 'you failed'
with no clue as to which 1% failed, we might cut down on the spam.
[...]
What
Dave Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The difference is that there are practicalities of implementation and
use that we have to anticipate. This falls under the unfortunate
reality that the real-world is not conducted so carefully.
I have great respect for Dave's viewpoint on that issue.
Vernon Schryver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: John Leslie [EMAIL PROTECTED]
But I, at least, am thinking in terms of an implementation where we
notify the SMTP-sending-server during the SMTP session, with a message
including a URL for more information. IMHO, this would tend to converge
to
Please note that the BoF scheduled for Korea, MARID, has a
very specific topic and that discussion of other spam-related
issues is not appropriate for that session. The BoF agenda is
available at:
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/04mar/marid.txt
To quote the salient part of the agenda:
This BoF will be
John,
If we can communicate the fact that a message is discarded because it
was categorized as spam back to the sender without adverse side
unfortunately, that act of communication _is_ the adverse side
effect. it tells the spammer that yours is an active, responsive
email account.
d/
--
101 - 179 of 179 matches
Mail list logo
