on Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 04:51:34PM -0800, william(at)elan.net wrote:
...a very long and useful and informative message, for which I thank him.
Off to go decipher the madness that is RFC3982,
Steve
--
hesketh.com/inc. v: +1(919)834-2552 f: +1(919)834-2554 w: http://hesketh.com
join us! http:/
>> Basically a call to operators to adopt a consistent forward and
>> reverse DNS naming pattern for their mailservers, static IP netblocks,
>> dynamic IP netblocks etc.
>
> ...and to ISPs to facilitate the process by supporting their users who
> want to run mail servers, and helping the rest of u
Steven Champeon wrote:
on Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 10:25:18AM +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 23:19:47 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 19:19:24 PST, Dave Crocker said:
In general, that's what dkeys/iim and csv (and maybe spf) are attempti
on Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 10:25:18AM +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 23:19:47 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 19:19:24 PST, Dave Crocker said:
> > > In general, that's what dkeys/iim and csv (and maybe spf) are attempting
> >
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 23:19:47 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 19:19:24 PST, Dave Crocker said:
> > In general, that's what dkeys/iim and csv (and maybe spf) are attempting to
> > provide.
>
> Yes, but he asked for a rDNS solution specifically...
I think
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 19:19:24 PST, Dave Crocker said:
> On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 17:40:10 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > 1) any legitimate mail source MUST have valid, functioning, non-generic
> > >rDNS indicating that it is a mail server or source.
> >
> > And how, exactly, does it indicat
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 17:40:10 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > 1) any legitimate mail source MUST have valid, functioning, non-generic
> >rDNS indicating that it is a mail server or source.
>
> And how, exactly, does it indicate it's a mail server or source?
In general, that's what dkeys
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005, Steven Champeon wrote:
> > In a sense, I am suggesting a similar reallocation of resources.
> > Rather than put those resources into filtering spam, I'd suggest that
> > we will get a better result by shifting the resources into mail
> > relaying and managing mail peering ag
Taking your comment in reverse order.
> Or, alternately, you're simply saying that those who care about net
> abuse are shackled by ICANN's bylaws and therefore we can do nothing.
I don't think you have a monopoly on "care" (or clue) about net abuse,
but it is pretty clear that you're not tall e
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 10:59:43 EST, Steven Champeon said:
> 1) any legitimate mail source MUST have valid, functioning, non-generic
>rDNS indicating that it is a mail server or source.
And how, exactly, does it indicate it's a mail server or source?
For that matter, how do you define 'non-gene
on Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 04:24:42PM +, Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland
Maine wrote:
(quoting Anonymous):
> > Numerous (as in "at least hundreds, probably more") of spam gangs are
> > purchasing domains and "burning through" them in spam runs. In many
> > cases, there's a pattern to them; i
> Why is it considered such a crazy proposition that domains should have
> valid and correct whois data associated with them?
There is no relationship between data and funcion. The data is not
necessary to implement function-based policy.
> Bah. You're saying that you're uninterested in discussi
on Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 05:28:45PM +, Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland
Maine wrote:
> "All" is too blunt a tool.
So, then, when registering a domain, there should be a little checkbox
saying "I intend to abuse the Internet with this domain"? It makes no
sense to have a universal policy if i
> I suppose it depends on how you define 'unpublished'; and how you define
> 'non-resolving'.
Your opening remark was that policy foo must be applied to all domains.
This doesn't accomplish anything for the set of domains that will never
be published (registry reserved strings), nor those that a
> Numerous (as in "at least hundreds, probably more") of spam gangs are
> purchasing domains and "burning through" them in spam runs. In many
> cases, there's a pattern to them; in others, if there's a pattern,
> it's not clear to me what it might be.
>From my point of view, "pattern" is which r
on Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 12:41:44PM -0600, Adi Linden wrote:
> > 0) for the love of God, Montresor, just block port 25 outbound already.
>
> What is wrong with dedicating port 25 to server to server communication
> with some means of authentication (DNS?) to ensure that it is indeed a
> vaild mail
on Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 01:49:53PM +, Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland
Maine wrote:
>
> > Why would it matter if you deactivated an unpublished/non-resolving domain?
>
> How do "you deactivate an unpublished/non-resolving domain"? You may borrow
> a registrar or registry hat if that is use
> 0) for the love of God, Montresor, just block port 25 outbound already.
What is wrong with dedicating port 25 to server to server communication
with some means of authentication (DNS?) to ensure that it is indeed a
vaild mail server. Mail clients should be using port 587 to submit
messages to t
> Why would it matter if you deactivated an unpublished/non-resolving domain?
How do "you deactivate an unpublished/non-resolving domain"? You may borrow
a registrar or registry hat if that is useful to answer the question.
> If you care about the domain, keep the whois data up to date and accur
on Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 12:55:06PM +, Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland
Maine wrote:
> > 4) all domains with invalid whois data MUST be deactivated (not
> >confiscated, just temporarily removed ...
>
> All? Even those unpublished and therefore non-resolving? Sensible for the
> scoped-to-
> 4) all domains with invalid whois data MUST be deactivated (not
>confiscated, just temporarily removed ...
All? Even those unpublished and therefore non-resolving? Sensible for the
scoped-to-totality trademarks weenies who argue that the stringspace is a
venue for dilution, whether the regi
on Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 10:32:13AM -0600, Chris Adams wrote:
>
> Once upon a time, Steven Champeon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > 7) all ISPs MUST act on ANY single abuse report (including being
> >informed of infected customer machines, which MUST be removed from
> >the Internet ASAP. No
Once upon a time, Steven Champeon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> 7) all ISPs MUST act on ANY single abuse report (including being
>informed of infected customer machines, which MUST be removed from
>the Internet ASAP. No excuses)
One problem I have with this one is people do forge reports, a
23 matches
Mail list logo