On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 11:53:06PM +0200,
Jeroen Massar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 49 lines which said:
not even thinking of all the nice security issues which come along
(home, mycomputer and .exe etc anyone ?
This requires serious elaboration. How could you use a domain in
.exe
On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 05:56:23PM -0400, Jean-Fran?ois Mezei wrote:
The original mantra of either discarding the email during SMTP
conversation, or sending a non delivery notification should be strictly
adhered to. When email becomes unreliable (thanks to microsoft), people
stop using it.
I
The problem is
that while I can go and register a Mycompany LLC in Wisconsin and a
Mycompany LLC in Illinois, there is only one mycompany.com available,
though mycompany.wi.us and mycompany.il.us are both available and do
not collide.
1. register .local [1]
3. n * profit!
brandon
[1] I
On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 17:25:16 -0500
Chris Owen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
So should I have bounced all 4,602? Since ninety some percent of
them came from forged addresses that would not only be pointless but
would be contributing to the problem (and get us into bl.spamcop.com).
Of
Rich Kulawiec wrote:
notification is essential in order to provide a heads-up about
problems (and that once problems are noticed, cooperation is
essential in order to fix them). But mail should never be
discarded without notice
In practice we've found that (notification) is the core issue.
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 10:37:34PM -0500,
Frank Bulk - iNAME [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 37 lines which said:
...which is why it might be a strategy to blacklist all new TLDs (if
this proposal gets through) and whitelist just .com, .net, etc.
Interesting. I do not know if this
On Jun 29, 2008, at 5:45 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 11:53:06PM +0200,
Jeroen Massar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 49 lines which said:
not even thinking of all the nice security issues which come along
(home, mycomputer and .exe etc anyone ?
This requires
On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 07:55:07AM -0700, Roger Marquis wrote:
Quoting http://www.postconf.com/docs/spamrep/ :
The only reliable way to avoid false-positives is by monitoring
the email server or gateway logs and allowing end-users to receive
a daily report of email sent to their account
This requires serious elaboration. How could you use a domain in
.exe to actually attack someone? (No handwaving, please, actual
study.)
I think it would be the other way around - I would assume that that
was a near worthless TLD, as it
would come with a built in DOS : If I had
On Sat, 28 Jun 2008, Joe Greco wrote:
For example, I *ought* to be able to find the Police Department for the City
of Milwaukee at something reasonable, such as police.ci.milwaukee.wi.us.
If I then needed the police for Wauwatosa, police.ci.wauwatosa.wi.us, or
for Waukesha,
On 28 Jun 2008, at 22:31, Joe Greco wrote:
For example, I *ought* to be able to find the Police Department for
the City
of Milwaukee at something reasonable, such as
police.ci.milwaukee.wi.us.
If I then needed the police for Wauwatosa,
police.ci.wauwatosa.wi.us, or
for Waukesha,
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 01:32:05PM -0700,
Roger Marquis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 22 lines which said:
Security-aware programmers will now be unable to apply even cursory
tests for domain name validity.
I am very curious of what tests a security-aware programmer can do,
based on
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 10:24:48AM -0700,
Scott Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 32 lines which said:
what problem is ICANN trying to solve with this
proposal? What about the current system that's broken, does this new
system fix?
ICANN is simply responding to demand. Some
On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 06:19:19PM -0400,
Jean-François Mezei [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 47 lines which said:
I think that IANA should have long ago become quite strict with
domain name registrations. .COM should have been only to companies
operating worldwide.
Wow, .fr, like
[Wow, operational content!]
On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 05:25:16PM -0500,
Chris Owen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 53 lines which said:
At some point what is the difference between putting the mail into a
spam folder and sending them to /dev/null?
To me, there is a huge difference. I
On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 1:21 PM, Peter Beckman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Let the search engines organize the web, not DNS.
OK, (assuming you believe that), why keep dns around. Why not go back
to just IP addrs and hosts files for those that need them.
-Jim P.
You mean, you don't employ *any* spam mitigation techniques besides sorting?
Because if you do anything, even as basic as RBLs, you're not being
consistent with your stance.
Frank
-Original Message-
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2008 3:08 PM
Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
It is because, if someone reports (by telephone, IRC or IRL) that he
sent an email and I did not receive it, I regard as VERY IMPORTANT to
be able to check the spam folder (with a search tool, not by hand) and
go back to him saying No, we really did not receive it.
On Sun, 29 Jun 2008, Tuc at T-B-O-H.NET wrote:
This requires serious elaboration. How could you use a domain in
.exe to actually attack someone? (No handwaving, please, actual
study.)
I think it would be the other way around - I would assume that that
was a near worthless TLD, as it
would
You do have a choice if you're not concerned about the deliverability of
your e-mail. Remember, the Internet remains a group of service
providers/organizations/subscribers that voluntarily work together and can
choose what goes in or out. And so if they decide not to receive traffic
from you,
On Sun, 29 Jun 2008, John Levine wrote:
We already see this in the email world, where a self-appointed cartel
like the MAAWG can decide technical rules and policies, bypassing
both IETF and ICANN.
As an active participant in both the IETF and MAAWG, and a former
member of the ICANN ALAC, I can
mack wrote:
In 25 years a name will map to .com or be irrelevant with the current proposal.
I would be happy to be proven wrong but time will tell.
And of course by then all but BGP (between routers) and HTTP will have
been blocked as security risks.
--
Requiescas in pace o email
Rich Kulawiec wrote:
Quoting http://www.postconf.com/docs/spamrep/ :
The only reliable way to avoid false-positives is by monitoring
the email server or gateway logs and allowing end-users to receive
a daily report of email sent to their account that was identified
as spam and filtered.
On Sun, 29 Jun 2008, Jim Popovitch wrote:
On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 1:21 PM, Peter Beckman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Let the search engines organize the web, not DNS.
OK, (assuming you believe that), why keep dns around. Why not go back
to just IP addrs and hosts files for those that need
Stephane Bortzmeyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am very curious of what tests a security-aware programmer can do,
based on the domain name, which will not be possible tomorrow, should
ICANN allow a few more TLDs.
The difference between '[a-z0-9\-\.]*\.[a-z]{2-5}' and
'[a-z0-9\-\.]*\.[a-z\-]*'
You do have a choice if you're not concerned about the deliverability of
your e-mail. Remember, the Internet remains a group of service
providers/organizations/subscribers that voluntarily work together and can
choose what goes in or out. And so if they decide not to receive traffic
from
If you test that the TLD exists... it will still work.
Only if A) you are always online with B) reliable access to the
tld's nameserver/s, and C) can deal with the latency. In practice
this is often not the case.
Even under the most wildly optimistic scenarios, it's hard to imagine
new TLDs
On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 02:14:58PM -0400, Joe Abley wrote:
The only decision that is required is whether new generic top-level
domains are desired. If not, do nothing. Otherwise, shake as much
energy into the system as possible and sit back and let it find its
own steady state.
Joe
* Jeroen Massar:
Some people are going to get very rich over this. I hope that they
drown in the money just as the Internet will drown in all the crap
TLD's, not even thinking of all the nice security issues which come
along (home, mycomputer and .exe etc anyone ? :)
.exe abd .com are
this may actually be the straw that triggers a serious redesign of the
Internet's lookup system(s)... if not this, then IPv6 has a good chance.
Incremental changes are good - are stable (usually), and often can be
compartmentalized. But sometimes - revolutionary changes are needed.
and if
i am looking for date-stamped rib dumps going back years from a peering
edge router that is fairly 'stable', i.e. multi-peer dfz but the number
of peers changes infrequently.
[ routeviews and ris do not meet the above description as they are not
at all stable in the number of peers. ]
[ your
31 matches
Mail list logo
