On 23/Sep/10 21:16, John R. Levine wrote:
All of this emphasis on complex designs for MLMs strikes me as a waste
of time, since it's a tiny corner of the mail space that has not
historically been a vector for abuse, and shows no sign of becoming one.
That's why my advice is that lists should
Alessandro Vesely:
On 23/Sep/10 21:16, John R. Levine wrote:
All of this emphasis on complex designs for MLMs strikes me as a waste
of time, since it's a tiny corner of the mail space that has not
historically been a vector for abuse, and shows no sign of becoming one.
That's why my
On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 8:40 AM, Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org wrote:
Alessandro Vesely:
On 23/Sep/10 21:16, John R. Levine wrote:
All of this emphasis on complex designs for MLMs strikes me as a waste
of time, since it's a tiny corner of the mail space that has not
historically been
On 9/24/2010 7:52 AM, Jeff Macdonald wrote:
It may be productive if we distinguish between two-way discussion lists
where participants send mail to the list, and one-way broadcast lists where
only the owner (or their agent) sends mail to the list.
The difference between these is to be large
Wietse Venema wrote:
According to Murray's definition, MLMs include ESPs and email
marketers, which originate a volume of traffic and have historically
been a vector for abuse. Indeed, except for subscription mechanisms
and deployed software, most of the problems are similar.
It may be
On 24/Sep/10 17:06, Dave CROCKER wrote:
On 9/24/2010 7:52 AM, Jeff Macdonald wrote:
It may be productive if we distinguish between two-way discussion lists
where participants send mail to the list, and one-way broadcast lists where
only the owner (or their agent) sends mail to the list.
On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 12:46 PM, Alessandro Vesely ves...@tana.it wrote:
On 24/Sep/10 17:06, Dave CROCKER wrote:
On 9/24/2010 7:52 AM, Jeff Macdonald wrote:
It may be productive if we distinguish between two-way discussion lists
where participants send mail to the list, and one-way
On Thursday, September 23, 2010 03:16:53 pm John R. Levine wrote:
Ian, this makes no sense to me. If a signing domain is concerned enough
to choose to implement ADSP, why would they reduce what they are signing
to accommodate a small percentage of their mail going to MLMs that they
may or
Do concepts generalize enough to allow issuing
draft-ietf-dkim-mailinglists also for these authoring MLMs?
No. All of the complications in mailing lists arise from the fact
that the author of the message is not related to the operator of the
list.
Even though ESPs are generally sending mail
On 23/Sep/10 21:16, John R. Levine wrote:
All of this emphasis on complex designs for MLMs strikes me as a waste
of time, since it's a tiny corner of the mail space that has not
historically been a vector for abuse, and shows no sign of becoming one.
It may be tiny, but users will not
All of this emphasis on complex designs for MLMs strikes me as a waste
of time, since it's a tiny corner of the mail space that has not
historically been a vector for abuse, and shows no sign of becoming one.
It may be tiny, but users will not tolerate the total destruction of
mailing list
On 24 Sep 2010, John R. Levine wrote:
Since RFC 5617 says that discardable domains should not send mail to
lists, nobody who can read should be affected by that.
But that means DKIM/ADSP gets deployed so rarely at the sender side, that
it could just as well not exist. And that still leaves the
Looking through my notes, I see one report of an IETF list where a sender
who hadn't read RFC 5617 sent mail from a discardable domain, and a
recipient who also hadn't read RFC 5617 rejected rather than discarding on
discardable missing signatures, and got themselves bounced off the list.
The
John R. Levine wrote:
Looking through my notes, I see one report of an IETF list where a sender
who hadn't read RFC 5617 sent mail from a discardable domain, and a
recipient who also hadn't read RFC 5617 rejected rather than discarding on
discardable missing signatures, and got themselves
14 matches
Mail list logo
