-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2009-12-12 05:28, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> On 12/11/09 9:08 PM, Mihael Pranjić wrote:
>> On 2009-12-12 04:06, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>>> On 12/9/09 2:51 PM, Jesse Thompson wrote:
On 12/3/2009 3:02 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> On 12/2/
On 12/11/09 9:08 PM, Mihael Pranjić wrote:
> On 2009-12-12 04:06, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> On 12/9/09 2:51 PM, Jesse Thompson wrote:
>>> On 12/3/2009 3:02 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
On 12/2/09 2:22 PM, Jesse Thompson wrote:
> Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> On 11/25/09 11:53 AM, Jesse
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2009-12-12 04:06, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> On 12/9/09 2:51 PM, Jesse Thompson wrote:
>> On 12/3/2009 3:02 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>>> On 12/2/09 2:22 PM, Jesse Thompson wrote:
Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> On 11/25/09 11:53 AM, Jesse Th
On 12/9/09 2:51 PM, Jesse Thompson wrote:
> On 12/3/2009 3:02 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> On 12/2/09 2:22 PM, Jesse Thompson wrote:
>>> Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
On 11/25/09 11:53 AM, Jesse Thompson wrote:
> Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>>> I think that the key for the 'right/best' anti
On 12/3/2009 3:02 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
On 12/2/09 2:22 PM, Jesse Thompson wrote:
Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
On 11/25/09 11:53 AM, Jesse Thompson wrote:
Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
I think that the key for the 'right/best' anti-SPAM XMPP solution
is to
involve regular/polite XMPP users in a
On 12/3/2009 2:42 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
On 12/2/09 2:35 PM, Adam Seabrook wrote:
I have not been reading all of this thread so I apologise if this has
already been raised. Why not just set up something similar to
www.senderbase.org where we all report the number of messages received
from
On 12/2/09 2:22 PM, Jesse Thompson wrote:
> Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> On 11/25/09 11:53 AM, Jesse Thompson wrote:
>>> Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> I think that the key for the 'right/best' anti-SPAM XMPP solution
> is to
> involve regular/polite XMPP users in any way.
I have my dou
On 12/2/09 2:35 PM, Adam Seabrook wrote:
> I have not been reading all of this thread so I apologise if this has
> already been raised. Why not just set up something similar to
> www.senderbase.org where we all report the number of messages received
> from each server and each account. Any server o
I have not been reading all of this thread so I apologise if this has
already been raised. Why not just set up something similar to www.senderbase.org
where we all report the number of messages received from each server
and each account. Any server or account that has an uncharacteristic
in
Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
On 11/25/09 11:53 AM, Jesse Thompson wrote:
Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
I think that the key for the 'right/best' anti-SPAM XMPP solution is to
involve regular/polite XMPP users in any way.
I have my doubts that normal users will bother to flag messages as spam.
However,
On 11/25/09 11:53 AM, Jesse Thompson wrote:
> Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>>> I think that the key for the 'right/best' anti-SPAM XMPP solution is to
>>> involve regular/polite XMPP users in any way.
>>
>> I have my doubts that normal users will bother to flag messages as spam.
>> However, given that
On 11/25/09 11:18 AM, Jesse Thompson wrote:
> Philipp Hancke wrote:
>> Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>>> As I always say, we don't need to be perfect, just more difficult to
>>> attack than other networks. Part of raising the cost (mostly the cost in
>>> time) would involve requiring TLS with CA-issued
Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
I think that the key for the 'right/best' anti-SPAM XMPP solution is to
involve regular/polite XMPP users in any way.
I have my doubts that normal users will bother to flag messages as spam.
However, given that I have only ever received a few spam messages over
XMPP (an
Philipp Hancke wrote:
Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
As I always say, we don't need to be perfect, just more difficult to
attack than other networks. Part of raising the cost (mostly the cost in
time) would involve requiring TLS with CA-issued certificates for s2s
(perhaps we can get there eventually!
On 11/21/09 8:41 AM, Philipp Hancke wrote:
> I doubt that requiring a certificate will ever work for such reasons.
> The main problem is keeping "open federation" while maximizing security.
>
> By taking those "bogus" certificates out of the equation, we could
> increase the number of cases where
Dave Cridland wrote:
On Sat Nov 21 12:07:33 2009, Philipp Hancke wrote:
Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
As I always say, we don't need to be perfect, just more difficult to
attack than other networks. Part of raising the cost (mostly the cost in
time) would involve requiring TLS with CA-issued certifi
On Sat Nov 21 12:07:33 2009, Philipp Hancke wrote:
Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
As I always say, we don't need to be perfect, just more difficult
to
attack than other networks. Part of raising the cost (mostly the
cost in
time) would involve requiring TLS with CA-issued certificates for
s2s
(pe
Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
As I always say, we don't need to be perfect, just more difficult to
attack than other networks. Part of raising the cost (mostly the cost in
time) would involve requiring TLS with CA-issued certificates for s2s
(perhaps we can get there eventually!). But as you say there
On 11/18/09 5:22 PM, Peter Viskup wrote:
> Hi all,
> I just went trough the discussions 'How is XMPP better than SMTP for
> spam prevention?' [1] and fresh 'DNSBLs' [2] and was little bit thinking
> about the fighting against SPAM accounts.
> I have one - probably not bad/well - opinion:
>- def
On 11/18/09 6:40 PM, Sean Dilda wrote:
> I like the sound of this. But its worth remembering that this is only
> one piece of the puzzle. Your solution makes the assumption that
> everyone who runs an XMPP server is benevolent. Unfortunately, that's
> not something we can assume. As such, a mul
On 11/19/09 4:49 AM, Kevin Smith wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 8:08 AM, Peter Viskup wrote:
>> Anyway - I am still not convinced SPAM in XMPP is real.
>> Does anybody have real experience with SPAM in XMPP network?
>
> Yes, jabber.org has seen some spam-like attacks.
Most of the spam we've se
I spent some time to went through some pages:
XMPP Anti Abuse Initiative - Meeting [1]
XAAI homepage [2]
Jabber.org Restrictions [3]
and now I understand it little bit better ;-)
[1]
http://im.flosoft.biz/muclogs/x...@conference.im.flosoft.biz/2008/05/05.html
[2] https://support.process-one.net/
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 8:08 AM, Peter Viskup wrote:
> Anyway - I am still not convinced SPAM in XMPP is real.
> Does anybody have real experience with SPAM in XMPP network?
Yes, jabber.org has seen some spam-like attacks.
/K
Anyway - I am still not convinced SPAM in XMPP is real.
Does anybody have real experience with SPAM in XMPP network? I know about
SPAM from 'transported' IM's (e.g. ICQ), but this is not an issue of XMPP
and should not be handled by XMPP servers.
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 1:22 AM, Peter Viskup wrot
I like the sound of this. But its worth remembering that this is only
one piece of the puzzle. Your solution makes the assumption that
everyone who runs an XMPP server is benevolent. Unfortunately, that's
not something we can assume. As such, a multi-pronged approach is
needed. Something
Hi all,
I just went trough the discussions 'How is XMPP better than SMTP for
spam prevention?' [1] and fresh 'DNSBLs' [2] and was little bit thinking
about the fighting against SPAM accounts.
I have one - probably not bad/well - opinion:
- define XEP in this way (sorry for any not well forme
26 matches
Mail list logo
