On Mon, 12 Jan 2004, Mike S wrote:
> At 09:58 PM 1/12/2004, Dean Anderson wrote...
> >On Mon, 12 Jan 2004, Mike S wrote:
> >1) privacy - routing via my ISP's outbound SMTP gives them
> >> the right to intercept and read my email, according the ECPA;
> >
> >Err, Just the opposite is more freqently
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 10:46:17 PST, Paul Hoffman / IMC <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> At 12:48 PM -0500 1/13/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 07:21:53 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike S) said:
> >
> > > As I said, fascist.
> >
> >Godwin.
>
> Valdis, you have confused two protocols tha
At 12:48 PM -0500 1/13/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 07:21:53 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike S) said:
> As I said, fascist.
Godwin.
Valdis, you have confused two protocols that produced similar results
but used different underlying transports and different signalling.
--Paul
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 07:21:53 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike S) said:
> As I said, fascist.
Godwin.
pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
> From: Nathaniel Borenstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > You might be ignorant instead of dishonest.
>
> How very kind of you to consider two possibilities, thank you.
My original words that you felt labelled you dishonest explicitly
included that possibility. Most people have strong opinions about
At 10:45 PM 1/12/2004, Vernon Schryver wrote...
>Mr. Sauve could rent an IP address that is not on dial-up or dynamic
>blacklists and run his systems there.
Proven wrong, Vernon now changes his tack to one of trying to rationalize interference
with legitimate email and attempting to place the bur
At 10:45 PM 1/12/2004, Vernon Schryver wrote...
>Mr. Sauve could rent an IP address that is not on dial-up or dynamic
>blacklists and run his systems there.
Proven wrong, you now change your argument to one of trying to rationalize
interference with legitimate email, and attempting to place the b
At 06:50 PM 1/12/2004, Vernon Schryver wrote...
>Instead of paying the extra cost to hire an ISP that cares
>enough to not have spamming customers, people complain about the evils
>of blacklists.
Feh. Once again with the incorrect assumptions. I don't spam. I would preferentially
route email dir
At 06:41 PM 1/9/2004, Vernon Schryver wrote...
>Could you point to significant amounts of real mail, as opposed to
>theoretical examples, that might reasonably have consider legitimate
>by its targets but that was rejected as the result of a MAPS RBL
>listing? Note that the validity of mail is de
On Tuesday, January 13, 2004, at 10:42 AM, Vernon Schryver wrote:
You might be ignorant instead of dishonest.
How very kind of you to consider two possibilities, thank you.
Are you calling me and those who point out that some blacklists
detect 70-90% of spam with false positive rates below 1%
> From: Nathaniel Borenstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> ...
> > Mr. Sauve could rent an IP address that is not on dial-up or dynamic
> > blacklists and run his systems there.
>
> In other words, because some ISP with whom he has NO relationship has
> deemed his own ISP spam-friendly, he should abandon
I'm sorry, I know I said I wasn't going to be lured into another
exchange in this thread, but I can't help it...
On Monday, January 12, 2004, at 10:45 PM, Vernon Schryver wrote:
Mr. Sauve could rent an IP address that is not on dial-up or dynamic
blacklists and run his systems there.
In other w
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike S)
> ...
> >Instead of paying the extra cost to hire an ISP that cares
> >enough to not have spamming customers, people complain about the evils
> >of blacklists.
> ...
> I can't do so because my IP address is on a blacklist. I have
> cable modem, but the world th
At 09:58 PM 1/12/2004, Dean Anderson wrote...
>On Mon, 12 Jan 2004, Mike S wrote:
>1) privacy - routing via my ISP's outbound SMTP gives them
>> the right to intercept and read my email, according the ECPA;
>
>Err, Just the opposite is more freqently the case.The ECPA specifically prohibits the
>I
On Mon, 12 Jan 2004, Mike S wrote:
> At 06:50 PM 1/12/2004, Vernon Schryver wrote...
> >Instead of paying the extra cost to hire an ISP that cares
> >enough to not have spamming customers, people complain about the evils
> >of blacklists.
>
> Feh. Once again with an argument based on incorrect ass
At 06:50 PM 1/12/2004, Vernon Schryver wrote...
>Instead of paying the extra cost to hire an ISP that cares
>enough to not have spamming customers, people complain about the evils
>of blacklists.
Feh. Once again with an argument based on incorrect assumptions.
I don't spam. I would preferential
> From: Bill Sommerfeld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> ...
> One problem with dropping suspected spam into a spam cesspool as
> opposed to rejecting it outright in the SMTP session is that many
> people (myself included) have neither the time nor the inclination to
> wade through our spam cesspools on a re
> Good point. That's why I favor giving users access to their spam pool
> when they suspect problems, and using challenge/response in certain
> (carefully defined) situations.
> A good filtering mechanism is not nearly as black and white as a blacklist.
so, you're conflating two things here:
[my final message to the list on this thread]
On Monday, January 12, 2004, at 03:51 PM, Vernon Schryver wrote:
I also have to say that I fear your approach would help the larger
ISPs
use spam as an excuse to kill off smaller ISP's...
How so? Exactly what is my approach?
I'm sorry, you're right
> From: Nathaniel Borenstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> ...
> I also have to say that I fear your approach would help the larger ISPs
> use spam as an excuse to kill off smaller ISP's...
How so? Exactly what is my approach? Please note what I've said too
many times:
- I don't currently use a pu
On Monday, January 12, 2004, at 12:49 PM, Vernon Schryver wrote:
Several times? As far as I know, most people I know have never been
collateral or other kinds of blacklist damage. Do you use what might
be called marginal ISPs? Some large outfits such as UUNet have long
refused to care enough a
Hi -
> From: "Vernon Schryver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Monday, January 12, 2004 9:49 AM
> Subject: Re: SMTP Minimum Retry Period - Proposal To Modify Mx
...
> Several times? As far as I know, most people I know have neve
> From: Nathaniel Borenstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> FWIW, I believe Keith is probably right. Blacklisting has been a major
> impediment to my own email usage. I don't know about any *particular*
> blacklisting service because when your ISP gets blacklisted by mistake
> and you're simply collat
FWIW, I believe Keith is probably right. Blacklisting has been a major
impediment to my own email usage. I don't know about any *particular*
blacklisting service because when your ISP gets blacklisted by mistake
and you're simply collateral damage, it's very hard for you to get an
explanation
> Keith Moore
> Somehow I doubt the IETF list cares enough to
> want to keep reading this exchange,
There's definitely some of the readers that are tired of reading you.
Michel.
You are a barefaced liar.
How so in that assertion of mine?
Folks who can't see the hole in your analysis for themselves can ask me
in private mail. Somehow I doubt the IETF list cares enough to want to
keep reading this exchange, and you've already demonstrated that you
don't care what I say.
> Cc: Keith Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> From: Keith Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Vernon Schryver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>> If that is an issue, it ought to be raised by those who are being
> >>> misled, the targets of mail, instead of senders and other third
> >>> parties.
>
If that is an issue, it ought to be raised by those who are being
misled, the targets of mail, instead of senders and other third
parties.
it IS being raised by them, for those who are actually able to figure
out what's going on. of course, when the recipient doesn't receive
the
mail he's expecti
> Cc: Keith Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> From: Keith Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Vernon Schryver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> ...
> > If that is an issue, it ought to be raised by those who are being
> > misled, the targets of mail, instead of senders and other third
> > parties.
>
In any case, what standing do you have to comment on what mail is
rejected by other peoples SMTP servers?
Sites can reject mail to their own servers if they want to. the issue
is whether they're being misled about the criteria used by a
blacklist.
If that is an issue, it ought to be raised by tho
> From: Keith Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> ...
> > In any case, what standing do you have to comment on what mail is
> > rejected by other peoples SMTP servers?
>
> Sites can reject mail to their own servers if they want to. the issue
> is whether they're being misled about the criteria used by a
...
It's never clear to me what Keith Moore means by "RBL" when he
repeats
that claim. Those three letters are a registered service mark for a
product that historically has been run so conservatively that claims
that should not be used to reject mail sound silly.
Yes, "RBL" did indeed reject vali
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike S)
> ...
> The RBL and DUL are quite clearly (and openly) designed and
> intended to be used to implement denial of service. Doing so with
> the explicit authorization of the email recipient would be legal.
> ...
> The MAPS system does not, and cannot, distinguish
Mike S wrote:
[..]
> The change interferes with the delivery of email to a "protected
> computer," i.e. the computer of the person to whom the email is sent.
> The ISP's mail exchanger is simply an intermediary.
You have no right, without a contract, to *demand* transit service from
any IS
At 06:07 PM 1/10/2004, Daniel Pelstring wrote...
>The administrator doing the blocking would be in the clear, since
>they are authorized to access this computer (and are in fact authorized to
>change this information, even if you disagree with the change.)
The law prohibits "intentionally
this was helpful.
-Daniel Pelstring
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike S
Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2004 11:45 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: SMTP Minimum Retry Period - Proposal To Modify Mx
At 10:32 PM 1/9/2004, Ken
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 12:48:39 -0500 Mike S <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 12:08 PM 1/10/2004, Richard Welty wrote...
> >might i suggest citing some case law demonstrating the relevance
> >of the statute you cited?
> Non sequitor. By your implied logic, no new laws could be
> effectively created o
At 01:55 PM 1/10/2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote...
>I'm sure if that legal theory were sustainable, MAPS would have been served notice
>of a lawsuit by now
So, your argument amounts to the equivalent of "If life is possible on Mars, then life
must exist on Mars." You'd better let NASA know, it
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 12:48:39 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike S) said:
> The relevant code is relatively new, so only limited, if any, case law can be
> expected to be extant in any case.>
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/1030_new.html
Title of the page is "18 USC 1030, as amended Oct 11,
At 12:08 PM 1/10/2004, Richard Welty wrote...
>might i suggest citing some case law demonstrating the relevance
>of the statute you cited?
Non sequitor. By your implied logic, no new laws could be effectively created or
enforced, since all would lack precedent. The relevant code is relatively new
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 11:27:53 -0500 Mike S <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 08:42 AM 1/10/2004, Bill Sommerfeld wrote...
> >> > If you think there's some violation of law going on here, please be more
> >> > specific. What law, and in what country?
> >>
> >> Try to keep up. A specific citation h
At 10:32 PM 1/9/2004, Ken Raeburn wrote...
>Not in any mail I've seen so far, but the other traffic since implies I've missed
>something. Investigating that... my apologies.
18 U.S.C. 1030
>In any case, the quotations I've seen suggest you believe that the blocking is done
>without authoriza
At 06:41 PM 1/9/2004, Vernon Schryver wrote...
>Could you point to significant amounts of real mail, as opposed to
>theoretical examples, that might reasonably have consider legitimate
>by its targets but that was rejected as the result of a MAPS RBL
>listing? Note that the validity of mail is de
At 08:42 AM 1/10/2004, Bill Sommerfeld wrote...
>> > If you think there's some violation of law going on here, please be more
>> > specific. What law, and in what country?
>>
>> Try to keep up. A specific citation has already been made.
>
>and already been debunked.
If one considers spraying
> The RBL, and particularly the DUL, are not "good faith," as it is
> well known that both block significant amounts of legitimate,
> non-spam, non-uce, recipient-desired email.
I guess it depends on your definition of "significant". I haven't
noticed a problem, but the amount of spam I get is la
> > If you think there's some violation of law going on here, please be more
> > specific. What law, and in what country?
>
> Try to keep up. A specific citation has already been made.
and already been debunked.
- Bill
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 06:45:57PM -, Sabahattin Gucukoglu wrote:
> On 9 Jan 2004 at 9:18, Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spoke, thus:
>
> > Why doesn't your friend use ETRN to trigger delivery of his queued mail
> > from his mate whenever he gets online?
>
> He doesn't want his
On Friday, Jan 9, 2004, at 22:06 US/Eastern, Mike S wrote:
At 06:43 PM 1/9/2004, Ken Raeburn wrote...
If you think there's some violation of law going on here, please be
more
specific. What law, and in what country?
Try to keep up. A specific citation has already been made.
Not in any mail I've s
At 06:43 PM 1/9/2004, Ken Raeburn wrote...
> If you think there's some violation of law going on here, please be more
> specific. What law, and in what country?
Try to keep up. A specific citation has already been made.
> That law reads in part:
>
> "Whoever... knowingly causes the transmission of a program,
> information, code, or command, and as a result of such conduct,
> intentionally causes damage without authorization, to a protected
> computer...shall be punished..."
Except that use of DNSBL's is generall
On Sat, 2004-01-10 at 11:00, Mike S wrote:
At 05:42 PM 1/9/2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote...
>On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 15:13:50 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike S) said:
>Note that MAPS is *NOT* blocking a single piece of e-mail itself. None. Zip. Zero.
Of course not. MAPS is simply a database. As I
Mike S wrote:
[..]
> "Whoever... knowingly causes the transmission of a program, information, code, or
> command, and as a result of such conduct, intentionally causes damage without
> authorization, to a protected computer...shall be punished..."
Your email is not authorized to enter and
On Friday, Jan 9, 2004, at 18:00 US/Eastern, Mike S wrote:
Meanwhile, the site that's actually rejecting your mail has made that
decision *itself*,
that it doesn't want to receive mail from you, possibly with MAPS as
one component
of the information used to make said decision.
To have a chance o
> From: Keith Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> ...
> > It's never clear to me what Keith Moore means by "RBL" when he repeats
> > that claim. Those three letters are a registered service mark for a
> > product that historically has been run so conservatively that claims
> > that should not be used to
At 05:42 PM 1/9/2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote...
>On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 15:13:50 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike S) said:
>
>> Use of the MAPS RBL and DUL clearly impairs the availability and integrity of
>> the Internet email system and the information transferred using that system.
>> MAPS RBL and DU
On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 10:56:04 MST, Vernon Schryver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> It's never clear to me what Keith Moore means by "RBL" when he repeats
> that claim. Those three letters are a registered service mark for a
> product that historically has been run so conservatively that claims
Unfor
On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 15:13:50 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike S) said:
> Use of the MAPS RBL and DUL clearly impairs the availability and integrity of
> the Internet email system and the information transferred using that system.
> MAPS RBL and DUL participants are actively participating in illegal d
> On 9 Jan 2004 at 9:18, Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> spoke, thus:
>
> > Why doesn't your friend use ETRN to trigger delivery of his queued
> > mail from his mate whenever he gets online?
>
> He doesn't want his mate getting his mail while he's not available if
> he will be avail
> > His mate is a wise man. RBLs are a really terrible idea, and
> > they've caused a lot of valid mail to be rejected. There's really
> > no way to reliably determine that a message is spam based on the IP
> > address or sender's domain name. The most you should do with RBLs
> > is delay or rat
At 12:03 PM 1/9/2004, Keith Moore wrote...
>> There's
>> just one more condition - his mate, though great as mates go, is an anti-
>> RBL purist. He refuses to use RBLs.
>
>His mate is a wise man. RBLs are a really terrible idea, and they've
>caused a lot of valid mail to be rejected.
Not only
On 9 Jan 2004 at 9:18, Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spoke, thus:
> Why doesn't your friend use ETRN to trigger delivery of his queued mail
> from his mate whenever he gets online?
He doesn't want his mate getting his mail while he's not available if he
will be available shortly af
> From: Keith Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> ...
> His mate is a wise man. RBLs are a really terrible idea, and they've
> caused a lot of valid mail to be rejected. There's really no way to
> reliably determine that a message is spam based on the IP address or
> sender's domain name. The most you
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi people,
I have a friend whose on ADSL and who wants to run his own email service,
but is periodically disconnected. He likes his mail delivered straight to
his primary host, but his mate is there across the other side of the
country if ever he'
Why doesn't your friend use ETRN to trigger delivery of his queued mail
from his mate whenever he gets online?
That way, the 4-hour delay is avoided without requiring global changes to
the Internet infrastructure
> There's
> just one more condition - his mate, though great as mates go, is an anti-
> RBL purist. He refuses to use RBLs.
His mate is a wise man. RBLs are a really terrible idea, and they've
caused a lot of valid mail to be rejected. There's really no way to
reliably determine that a message
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi people,
I have a friend whose on ADSL and who wants to run his own email service,
but is periodically disconnected. He likes his mail delivered straight to
his primary host, but his mate is there across the other side of the
country if ever he'
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi people,
I have a friend whose on ADSL and who wants to run his own email service,
but is periodically disconnected. He likes his mail delivered straight to
his primary host, but his mate is there across the other side of the
country if ever he'
67 matches
Mail list logo
