From: "Magnus Holmgren" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For that matter, how in would an IMAP MUA handle BCC?
{^_-}
In much the same way as when you send mail with sendmail -t, I suppose.
The MUA adds a Bcc field and the IMAP server removes it.
That means the IMAP server must communicate with two SMTP
On Friday 04 August 2006 05:06, jdow took the opportunity to say:
> From: "Kenneth Porter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > --On Wednesday, August 02, 2006 12:02 PM -0700 MennovB
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > wrote:
> >> Anyway, IMHO with SYN throttle you would only be rate-limiting the
> >> zombies, I
On Fri, August 4, 2006 05:06, jdow wrote:
> For that matter, how in would an IMAP MUA handle BCC?
the exact same way as squirrelmaill :-)
--
Benny
John Rudd wrote:
I've been re-thinking Marc's "IMAP for sending, instead of SMTP"
proposal. And this "block Bcc" part got me thinking even more.
I think he may be on to something. But lets take it one step further.
Email via fingerd. That'll throw off the spammers.
Wouldn't identd be more
On Aug 3, 2006, at 11:16 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: "Kenneth Porter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--On Wednesday, August 02, 2006 12:02 PM -0700 MennovB
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Anyway, IMHO with SYN throttle you would only be rate-limiting the
zombies, I would rather they stopped send
>> From: "Kenneth Porter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>> > --On Wednesday, August 02, 2006 12:02 PM -0700 MennovB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Anyway, IMHO with SYN throttle you would only be rate-limiting the
>> >> zombies, I would rather they stopped sending spam completely..
>> >
From: "Kenneth Porter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--On Thursday, August 03, 2006 6:43 AM +0100 Graham Murray
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
ADSL is both always on and a 'fixed' (ie your phone line is physically
connected to a DSLAM port) so the ISPs must have sufficient IP addresses
for all their ADSL cu
From: "Kenneth Porter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--On Wednesday, August 02, 2006 2:47 PM -0700 jdow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
That slightly more than a year I spent as perhaps one of
the VERY first online stalking victims ever (1985-1987) was a hell
I'd rather not repeat.
Is this written up some
From: "Kenneth Porter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--On Wednesday, August 02, 2006 12:02 PM -0700 MennovB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Anyway, IMHO with SYN throttle you would only be rate-limiting the
zombies, I would rather they stopped sending spam completely..
What I don't understand is how makin
From: "MennovB" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
jdow wrote:
The direct in that case is probably the fault of the underlying cable
provider more than Earthlink. Did the spam come through the Earthlink
servers or merely from an address that claimed to be Earthlink? By the
way, there is no such address as "ca
On Wed, 2 Aug 2006, John Andersen wrote:
> On Wednesday 02 August 2006 20:55, Sanford Whiteman wrote:
> > Because ?of ?that experience, I find myself
> > agreeing ?with ?the ?overall reaction of, in essence: "Kill me now, if
> > his ?proposal ?is ?going ?to be disseminated by any entity who doesn'
Kenneth Porter wrote:
>
> Will ISP's do anything? Are they doing anything now for outbound spam?
>
They will have to otherwise they will end up in a blacklist ;-)
Most of the ISP's here are already scanning on inbound spam, not too hard to
do it for outgoing then.
The ISP I use the most reacts
Marc Perkel wrote:
So you think that viruses are going to know how to find and decrypt the
passwords of all email programs?
Network sniffers, keystroke loggers, weak encryption, maliciously
patching the email app -- that's four possibilities off the top of my head.
They don't even need to be
--On Thursday, August 03, 2006 8:47 AM -0700 MennovB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
I don't want to make the zombies use the ISP's SMTP server, I want to stop
them from spamming.
Right now they can only connect directly to the Internet so if the ISP
blocks direct SMTP outgoing the zombies stop work
--On Thursday, August 03, 2006 6:43 AM +0100 Graham Murray
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
ADSL is both always on and a 'fixed' (ie your phone line is physically
connected to a DSLAM port) so the ISPs must have sufficient IP addresses
for all their ADSL customers.
Not necessarily. A lot of provide
--On Wednesday, August 02, 2006 2:47 PM -0700 jdow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
That slightly more than a year I spent as perhaps one of
the VERY first online stalking victims ever (1985-1987) was a hell
I'd rather not repeat.
Is this written up somewhere? I'd be interested in understanding the
--On Wednesday, August 02, 2006 3:25 PM -0700 jdow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
I keep several gigabytes of email data around. With POP3 it is easy
to store locally. With IMAP it's a pain in the .
My boss logs in from several computers, including a laptop he takes
everywhere. I got tired of ke
Kenneth Porter wrote:
>
> What I don't understand is how making them use the ISP server stops them
> from spamming any more than rate-limiting direct port 25 connections. Why
> do the packets need to be reassembled in an MTA and stored and forwarded?
> What does that step buy you?
>
I don't
--On Wednesday, August 02, 2006 2:03 PM -0500 Logan Shaw
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What might really be nice is some sort of language that could
be used to write up a document to configure a mail client for a
given ISP and user. It could configure all necessary settings
and would work with an
--On Wednesday, August 02, 2006 12:02 PM -0700 MennovB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Anyway, IMHO with SYN throttle you would only be rate-limiting the
zombies, I would rather they stopped sending spam completely..
What I don't understand is how making them use the ISP server stops them
from sp
jdow wrote:
>
> The direct in that case is probably the fault of the underlying cable
> provider more than Earthlink. Did the spam come through the Earthlink
> servers or merely from an address that claimed to be Earthlink? By the
> way, there is no such address as "cable.earthlink.net". The add
From: "MennovB" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
jdow wrote:
Menno, if the Earthlink "progressive delays" strategy is adopted then
even spam relayed through ISPs becomes time expensive.
Personally I don't believe much in delaying/throttling, there are so much
zombies that it's just a matter of dispersin
jdow wrote:
>
> Menno, if the Earthlink "progressive delays" strategy is adopted then
> even spam relayed through ISPs becomes time expensive.
>
Personally I don't believe much in delaying/throttling, there are so much
zombies that it's just a matter of dispersing the load intelligently. I can
> Why use 2
> protocols when you can use one?
Oh I don't know. Maybe because the infrastructure for it is already in
place in the form of hundreds of thousands of existing mail servers that
already require authentication if the message being transmitted isn't
destined for a local user?
> There wo
On Wednesday 02 August 2006 23:18, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> if a provider's smarthost
> gets blacklisted, users will have a problem. This has happened before
Hundreds of times, to major ISPs. And blacklist sites are not too
cooperative in removing bogus blacklistings.
Since all mail from a
Hi Mark,
sorry to put this on the list: your mailserver seems to be rejecting mails from
millions of
potential senders
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
SMTP error from remote mailer after end of data:
host mx.junkemailfilter.com [69.50.231.5]: 550 REJECTED - honeypot -
194.25.134.19 is blacklisted
>>
>>
>> jdow wrote:
>> > From: "Marc Perkel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >>
>> >> Magnus Holmgren wrote:
>> >>> On Wednesday 02 August 2006 14:37, Marc Perkel took the opportunity
>> >>> to say:
>> >>>
>> Why not just eliminate the SMTP protocol for end users and keep
>> SMTP as
>>
Kenneth Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Interesting idea. It's my understanding that dynamic addresses are
> used due to the IPv4 shortage, so if we can push for more IPv6
> deployment, we get the technical means to get rid of dynamic
> addresses.
I do not think so, at least in the case of
On Wednesday 02 August 2006 20:55, Sanford Whiteman wrote:
> Because of that experience, I find myself
> agreeing with the overall reaction of, in essence: "Kill me now, if
> his proposal is going to be disseminated by any entity who doesn't
> have enough techies on staff to shoot it down.
On Wednesday 02 August 2006 11:24, Magnus Holmgren wrote:
> Otherwise, zombies can still try
> to connect directly, and you'll have to rely on DUL and other blacklists to
> figure out which IP addresses belong to end users.
The reason zombies are detected is that they cause performance problems.
From: "Marc Perkel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
jdow wrote:
From: "Marc Perkel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Magnus Holmgren wrote:
On Wednesday 02 August 2006 14:37, Marc Perkel took the opportunity
to say:
Why not just eliminate the SMTP protocol for end users and keep
SMTP as
a server to server protoc
jdow wrote:
From: "John Rudd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Aug 2, 2006, at 1:26 PM, Marc Perkel wrote:
If SMTP becomes a server to server protocol then it will wipe out
consumer virus infected spam zombies. It's not going to get rid of
all spam - just most of it.
It will wipe out the _existing_
jdow wrote:
From: "Marc Perkel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Magnus Holmgren wrote:
On Wednesday 02 August 2006 14:37, Marc Perkel took the opportunity
to say:
Why not just eliminate the SMTP protocol for end users and keep
SMTP as
a server to server protocol and have users send theit email to th
On Wed, 2 Aug 2006, Ken A wrote:
> I don't think it's anything that dark.. See previous threads started by
> Marc Perkel on this list. He appears to be gaining an education -
> perhaps accidentally with his overzealous approach. See subjects: "The
> Future of Email is SQL", "The best way to use
On Wed, 2 Aug 2006, jdow wrote:
> Of course, then if you have the spammer friendly ISPs and
> registrars in the picture it's all null and void.
Don't give up yet!
ISPs are assigned specific netblocks. Spammer-friendly ISPs' netblocks
can be listed in a DNSBL.
It's fairly easy to determine which
On Wed, 2 Aug 2006, jdow wrote:
> >> Being that I am a domain registrar (small but still) how will I
> >> know if they have a working postmaster or abuse alias?
> >
> > Easy. Send them an email and see if they respond. Make it clear in the
> > service agreement that they (hopefully) read before r
On Aug 2, 2006, at 3:40 PM, jdow wrote:
From: "John Rudd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Aug 2, 2006, at 1:26 PM, Marc Perkel wrote:
If SMTP becomes a server to server protocol then it will wipe out
consumer virus infected spam zombies. It's not going to get rid of
all spam - just most of it.
It wil
On Wed, 2 Aug 2006, Marc Perkel wrote:
> The zombies wouldn't be able to connect because the zombies wouldn't
> have the IMAP password.
I think you're too optimistic about that. "remember my password" is a
feature of most every email client, and the encryption key (assuming
the password is even
On Wed, 2 Aug 2006, jdow wrote:
If this is real and not make believe for a class somewhere in school
then Marc is a VERY dangerous person with an agenda.
I don't agree about the agenda, but I do agree about the danger.
If it is the case, it's simply depressing that the UN would
take input about
How about treating this as a network issue instead of a mail issue? There's
quite a body of work already available, including the idea (packet
authentication) being investigated by the team at the link below.
http://www.ece.cmu.edu/~adrian/projects/tesla-cryptobytes/paper/node1.html
Just trying
jdow wrote:
From: "Ken A" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
That's crazier than I thought you were. If you expect the average
user to go along with that you're not connected with reality very
well. Your idealism is getting in the way.
He's engaged in marc-eting ? sorry... but yeah. end this o.t. please..
He's not advocating switching to an IMAP-only system ...
He's asking the U.N. to start "...funding projects that fight spam and provide
internet security and educational resources to the public." The rest of the
paper is background and suggestions taken from this thread (and a couple he
came in
On Thursday 03 August 2006 00:40, jdow took the opportunity to say:
> In the mean time it moves MOST people email storage into a position
> for REALLY EASY government examination for "bad thoughts". It's ideal
> for thought police. IMAP stores email on the server rather than my
> private machine wh
From: "Ken A" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
That's crazier than I thought you were. If you expect the average
user to go along with that you're not connected with reality very
well. Your idealism is getting in the way.
He's engaged in marc-eting ? sorry... but yeah. end this o.t. please...
Ken
This is
From: "John Rudd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Aug 2, 2006, at 1:26 PM, Marc Perkel wrote:
If SMTP becomes a server to server protocol then it will wipe out
consumer virus infected spam zombies. It's not going to get rid of all
spam - just most of it.
It will wipe out the _existing_ spam zombies.
From: "Marc Perkel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Logan Shaw wrote:
On Wed, 2 Aug 2006, Marc Perkel wrote:
SMTP passwords go away because SMTP goes away.
The idea is that outgoing IMAP would replace SMTP and there would be
no SMTP between clients and servers. SMTP would be a server to server
protoco
jdow wrote:
From: "Marc Perkel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Magnus Holmgren wrote:
On Wednesday 02 August 2006 21:29, Marc Perkel took the opportunity
to say:
The zombies wouldn't be able to connect because the zombies wouldn't
have the IMAP password.
In that case, neither the SMTP passwor
From: "Marc Perkel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Magnus Holmgren wrote:
On Wednesday 02 August 2006 21:29, Marc Perkel took the opportunity to say:
The zombies wouldn't be able to connect because the zombies wouldn't
have the IMAP password.
In that case, neither the SMTP password, which we ha
From: "JamesDR" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mail storage for ISP? Say 100MB. (ISP's don't allocate this my the
number of users, they know that they won't be storing that much mail for
that long.) Help desk calls because of over limit? Very few.
IMAP/IMAP SEND
Mail storage for ISP? Say 100MB. (ISP WIL
From: "Marc Perkel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Magnus Holmgren wrote:
On Wednesday 02 August 2006 14:37, Marc Perkel took the opportunity to say:
Why not just eliminate the SMTP protocol for end users and keep SMTP as
a server to server protocol and have users send theit email to the
server by ext
From: "Marc Perkel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Kenneth Porter wrote:
--On Wednesday, August 02, 2006 5:37 AM -0700 Marc Perkel
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Why not just eliminate the SMTP protocol for end users and keep SMTP
as a
server to server protocol and have users send theit email to the serve
From: "MennovB" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
John D. Hardin wrote:
On Tue, 1 Aug 2006, John Rudd wrote:
Reducing volume of spam *sent* probably requires fundamental redesign
of the protocols, or some other major change in the cost/benefit
analysis.
Don't think that's needed, if ISP's only allow out
From: "Kenneth Porter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--On Wednesday, August 02, 2006 3:03 PM +0100 Graham Murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Personally I would solve the problem by going the other way. Get rid
of dynamic IP addresses
Interesting idea. It's my understanding that dynamic addresses are u
From: "Kenneth Porter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--On Wednesday, August 02, 2006 11:09 AM -0400 Rob McEwen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Honestly, I haven't been following this thread much... but I do want to
add that the UN is full of thugs who are power hungry and would like very
much to control the
From: "Logan Shaw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Wed, 2 Aug 2006, Marc Perkel wrote:
I think what you are doing is a step in the right direction. But imagine if
the users IMAP connection could be used to send mail back up the link then
you wouldn't need to do SMTP to the users at all. All you would h
On Wednesday 02 August 2006 22:26, Marc Perkel took the opportunity to say:
> Logan Shaw wrote:
> > On Wed, 2 Aug 2006, Marc Perkel wrote:
> >> SMTP passwords go away because SMTP goes away.
> >>
> >> The idea is that outgoing IMAP would replace SMTP and there would be
> >> no SMTP between clients
From: "John D. Hardin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Wed, 2 Aug 2006, Tom Ray wrote:
> have registered that does not have working (i.e. read-by-a-human)
> postmaster@ and abuse@ aliases?
Being that I am a domain registrar (small but still) how will I
know if they have a working postmaster or abuse
Rob, PLEASE uninject politics from this list. It's counter productive.
That is what I meant about the original attempt to inject politics.
{o.o}
- Original Message -
From: "Rob McEwen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Honestly, I haven't been following this thread much... but I do want to add
that
From: "Marc Perkel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Nigel Frankcom wrote:
On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 05:37:32 -0700, Marc Perkel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Why not just eliminate the SMTP protocol for end users and keep SMTP as
a server to server protocol and have users send theit email to the
server by ext
Marc Perkel wrote:
The zombies wouldn't be able to connect because the zombies wouldn't
have the IMAP password.
Given 'em time. With sufficient motivation, the people who write the
zombie programs will go to the effort to check the default mailer's
config and extract the password. Or link i
On Wednesday 02 August 2006 21:51, Marc Perkel took the opportunity to say:
> JamesDR wrote:
> > And this differs from SMTP AUTH in what way?
>
> With SMTP AUTH te authentication for the outbound email isn't
> necessarilly the same as the incoming email.
But that would be both stupid and unnecess
On 8/2/06, Marc Perkel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
doesn't require a separate connection on a separate port. Why use 2
protocols when you can use one?
Indeed, why don't we just close all ports except 80 and layer
everything atop HTTP?
For heavens sake, Marc. This debate about using IMAP/POP f
Marc Perkel wrote:
With SMTP AUTH te authentication for the outbound email isn't
necessarilly the same as the incoming email. If you use IMAP to send
email then the user has to know the IMAP password to send email. It also
doesn't require a separate connection on a separate port. Why use 2
pro
On Aug 2, 2006, at 1:26 PM, Marc Perkel wrote:
If SMTP becomes a server to server protocol then it will wipe out
consumer virus infected spam zombies. It's not going to get rid of all
spam - just most of it.
It will wipe out the _existing_ spam zombies. Then the zombies will
adapt to using
Marc Perkel wrote:
Logan Shaw wrote:
On Wed, 2 Aug 2006, Marc Perkel wrote:
SMTP passwords go away because SMTP goes away.
The idea is that outgoing IMAP would replace SMTP and there would be
no SMTP between clients and servers. SMTP would be a server to
server protocol.
That's all we
Logan Shaw wrote:
On Wed, 2 Aug 2006, Marc Perkel wrote:
SMTP passwords go away because SMTP goes away.
The idea is that outgoing IMAP would replace SMTP and there would be
no SMTP between clients and servers. SMTP would be a server to server
protocol.
That's all well and good saying SMT
Marc Perkel wrote:
Magnus Holmgren wrote:
>
SMTP passwords go away because SMTP goes away.
If the user doesn't store the password then they would type it in when
say Thunderbird first starts. At that point obly thunderbird, not the
virus program would have access to the IMAP port. If the vi
On Wed, 2 Aug 2006, Marc Perkel wrote:
SMTP passwords go away because SMTP goes away.
The idea is that outgoing IMAP would replace SMTP and there would be no SMTP
between clients and servers. SMTP would be a server to server protocol.
That's all well and good saying SMTP is server to server
Magnus Holmgren wrote:
On Wednesday 02 August 2006 21:29, Marc Perkel took the opportunity to say:
The zombies wouldn't be able to connect because the zombies wouldn't
have the IMAP password.
In that case, neither the SMTP password, which we have to assume is required.
JamesDR wrote:
And this differs from SMTP AUTH in what way?
With SMTP AUTH te authentication for the outbound email isn't
necessarilly the same as the incoming email. If you use IMAP to send
email then the user has to know the IMAP password to send email. It also
doesn't require a separate
On Wednesday 02 August 2006 21:29, Marc Perkel took the opportunity to say:
> The zombies wouldn't be able to connect because the zombies wouldn't
> have the IMAP password.
In that case, neither the SMTP password, which we have to assume is required.
But in most cases I think the spamware has acce
Marc Perkel wrote:
Magnus Holmgren wrote:
On Wednesday 02 August 2006 14:37, Marc Perkel took the opportunity to say:
Why not just eliminate the SMTP protocol for end users and keep SMTP as
a server to server protocol and have users send theit email to the
server by extending POP/IMAP to s
Magnus Holmgren wrote:
On Wednesday 02 August 2006 14:37, Marc Perkel took the opportunity to say:
Why not just eliminate the SMTP protocol for end users and keep SMTP as
a server to server protocol and have users send theit email to the
server by extending POP/IMAP to send email
On Wednesday 02 August 2006 14:37, Marc Perkel took the opportunity to say:
> Why not just eliminate the SMTP protocol for end users and keep SMTP as
> a server to server protocol and have users send theit email to the
> server by extending POP/IMAP to send email. It created an authenticated
> conn
On Wednesday 02 August 2006 19:24, Kenneth Porter took the opportunity to say:
> --On Wednesday, August 02, 2006 3:03 PM +0100 Graham Murray
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Personally I would solve the problem by going the other way. Get rid
> > of dynamic IP addresses
>
> Interesting idea. It's
On Wed, 2 Aug 2006, Kenneth Porter wrote:
--On Wednesday, August 02, 2006 5:37 AM -0700 Marc Perkel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Why not just eliminate the SMTP protocol for end users and keep SMTP as a
server to server protocol and have users send theit email to the server
by extending POP/IMAP
Kenneth Porter wrote:
>
> Does it really have to be funneled through their SMTP servers? Would it
> not
> be sufficient simply to add a connection-level SYN throttle on that port
> at
> the routers? Perhaps someone here could propose a set of iptables rules
> that would implement this. Or the
--On Wednesday, August 02, 2006 10:38 AM -0700 MennovB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Don't think that's needed, if ISP's only allow outgoing SMTP to the ISP's
SMTP servers and not directly then most (current) bots and most spam will
be dealt with. I wouldn't be surprised to see the amount of spam
Kenneth Porter wrote:
--On Wednesday, August 02, 2006 5:37 AM -0700 Marc Perkel
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Why not just eliminate the SMTP protocol for end users and keep SMTP
as a
server to server protocol and have users send theit email to the server
by extending POP/IMAP to send email.
It occurred to me that it would be nice to have a dynamic IP whitelist,
such that clueful users could connect via secure DNS update and register as
having a clueful MTA on their LAN that sends clean direct-to-MX. If such a
whitelist existed, I would be a lot more comfortable using a DUL blacklis
John D. Hardin wrote:
>
> On Tue, 1 Aug 2006, John Rudd wrote:
> Reducing volume of spam *sent* probably requires fundamental redesign
> of the protocols, or some other major change in the cost/benefit
> analysis.
>
Don't think that's needed, if ISP's only allow outgoing SMTP to the ISP's
SMTP
--On Wednesday, August 02, 2006 5:37 AM -0700 Marc Perkel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Why not just eliminate the SMTP protocol for end users and keep SMTP as a
server to server protocol and have users send theit email to the server
by extending POP/IMAP to send email.
What's your objection to
--On Wednesday, August 02, 2006 3:03 PM +0100 Graham Murray
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Personally I would solve the problem by going the other way. Get rid
of dynamic IP addresses
Interesting idea. It's my understanding that dynamic addresses are used due
to the IPv4 shortage, so if we can p
Rob McEwen wrote:
Honestly, I haven't been following this thread much... but I do want to add
that the UN is full of thugs who are power hungry and would like very much
to control the Internet and implement a world tax and probably a tax on the
Internet as well.
Just to keep things in perspecti
--On Wednesday, August 02, 2006 8:23 AM -0700 "John D. Hardin"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think that a default level of filtering - SMTP and the Microsoft
protocols that were only intended for use on a LAN - should be in
place to deal with the default level of end-user administrative skill
-
"James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To:
>Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2006 21:05
>Subject: Re: What changes would you make to stop spam? - United Nations
>Paper
>
>
>>A little bit sorry for the top-post ... but .. Re: Kofi Annan's quote
>> from the post dated to
--On Tuesday, August 01, 2006 2:06 PM -0700 John Rudd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
1) Require Virus Scanning on all SMTP transactions
Compare to requiring standards-compliance throughout the process, and
particularly in message content. If you're allowed to discard all MIME
content that fails
--On Wednesday, August 02, 2006 11:09 AM -0400 Rob McEwen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Honestly, I haven't been following this thread much... but I do want to
add that the UN is full of thugs who are power hungry and would like very
much to control the Internet and implement a world tax and proba
On 8/2/06, Marc Perkel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Here's what I've written so far. Deadline is today. Still working on it.
http://wiki.ctyme.com/index.php/UN_Spam_Paper
Rather than "extend POP/IMAP to send mail", which quite frankly will
never happen (contact the author of the IMAP protocol, M
On Wed, 2 Aug 2006, Zinski, Steve wrote:
> > A possibly better method is to block SMTP outbound from the ISP.
>
> That's what we do here at the University of Richmond. Our firewall is
> configued to block all outbound SMTP connections (except those of our
> legitimate SMTP servers). This dramatic
On Tue, 1 Aug 2006, John Rudd wrote:
> On Aug 1, 2006, at 10:24 PM, John Andersen wrote:
> >
> > Direct deliver is not evil, and the current fad of blocking DHCP
> > assigned IPs had not cut down on spam one little bit.
>
> It actually blocks a ton of spam in my world.
...which brings up someth
On Wed, 2 Aug 2006, Marc Perkel wrote:
I think what you are doing is a step in the right direction. But imagine if
the users IMAP connection could be used to send mail back up the link then
you wouldn't need to do SMTP to the users at all. All you would have to do is
configure a way for the IMA
On Tue, 1 Aug 2006, John Andersen wrote:
> On Tuesday 01 August 2006 17:49, John D. Hardin wrote:
> > Please don't pollute the IMAP and POP protocols this way. The problem
> > can be easily solved with no changes to existing tools if the ISP
> > blocks all outbound SMTP from their dynamic client r
On Wed, 2 Aug 2006, Tom Ray wrote:
> > have registered that does not have working (i.e. read-by-a-human)
> > postmaster@ and abuse@ aliases?
>
> Being that I am a domain registrar (small but still) how will I
> know if they have a working postmaster or abuse alias?
Easy. Send them an email and
On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 10:43:41 -0400, "Rosenbaum, Larry M."
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> opined:
>
>
> > From: David Cary Hart [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > ...
> > Look for social and societal solutions. Spammers keep pace with
> > every technological method.
> >
> > "Our" greatest failure is that we have
Honestly, I haven't been following this thread much... but I do want to add
that the UN is full of thugs who are power hungry and would like very much
to control the Internet and implement a world tax and probably a tax on the
Internet as well.
They will do this all in the name of "helping" us...
> From: Evan Platt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
...
> Speaking of which, when they give a person the lethal injection, why
> do they wipe the area with a alcohol swab?
To protect the needle?
> From: David Cary Hart [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ...
> Look for social and societal solutions. Spammers keep pace with every
> technological method.
>
> "Our" greatest failure is that we have not promulgated the notion that
> purchasing goods and services from spammers is subsidizing criminal
Marc Perkel wrote:
>
> Here's what I've written so far. Deadline is today. Still working on it.
> http://wiki.ctyme.com/index.php/UN_Spam_Paper
>
I think in this part you're missing one of the main issues:
Marc Perkel wrote:
>
> "Today we have more of a consumer model where consumers run emai
Tom Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I also totally agree with this practice, if they are going to be on
> the hook for something their users did then they need to keep a
> watchful eye on their customers.
But the ISPs should not be 'on the hook' for something their users
did. What is needed is
1 - 100 of 151 matches
Mail list logo
