Subject: RE: [Asrg] Declaration to the world

From: "Sauer, Damon" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:09:03 -0600

-----Original Message-----
From: Jon Kyme [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 10:09 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: Hadmut Danisch
Subject: Re: [Asrg] Declaration to the world

> On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 02:40:05PM +0000, Jon Kyme wrote:
> 
> 
> > 
> > But, for instance how does the next 'owner' of danisch.de
> > invalidate your declaration? 
> > How do *you* invalidate it when your ISP (or RIPE) change your IP
> > out from under you?
> > 
> 
> 
> In the very same simple way I have changed the MX record for 
> danisch.de and the A record for www.danisch.de when a new
> IP address was assigned about half a year ago: I took a very
> simple text editor, changed the zone file, and that's it.
> 

So your declaration is implicit in and limited to the DNS data
for the domain?

Doesn't this require this to be true for every domain if it is 
to work for yours? (This would be difficult for some systems I'd imagine.)

Or, if you have a separate mechanism for making this kind of declaration,
how is it to be publicised, invalidated etc.

------- I am also an advocate for a DNS based system. I believe that most
people are missing the point. Looking for a "Zero-Tolerance" system is
unnecessary. Spam is ONLY prevalent because it is cheap, easy, and there is
no consequences to spammer that someone received the spam that did not want
it.
 K., obviously very intelligent, has yet to impress me with an original
idea. Someone who criticizes without value is a flamer and it doesn't help.
I believed that when I participated in the discussion, it was full of people
that genuinely wanted to make a difference. Flaming is NOT helping. I have
no problem with people disagreeing with me, just make sure that it is based
on a technical grounds or merit and not "feelings". 

> The statement of the world is not an eternal and irrevocable 
> statement. As any other policy, certificate, DNS entry or 
> whatever, it needs to be updated from time to time. 
> 
> Sorry, but I'm a little bit shocked that this is so difficult 
> to understand. I thought this was abvious. 
> 
It *seems* obvious.

----- I thought is was obvious.

> Don't get me wrong, but I am under the impression that some
> people intentionally misunderstand everything in order to 
> put through their political opinion.

I hope I understand you, I'm genuinely interested in what kind of
mechanism this might require.

> 
> And I am under the impression that this research group was
> intentionally poisoned by spamming advocates.
> 

I hope that's not true. Of course the RG may itself be a time-wasting ruse
set up by spammers to waste anti-spammers time. :-)

------ I will continue to participate, hopefully, intelligent people will
see who the flamers are and who is actually interested in making a
difference.

 Flamers will not participate in the refining of ideas and will contribute
nothing original or constructive.

 I am sure that we can see a few of those by now.
 I for one am VERY serious about this issue. I will agree with you on merit
and disagree with reason.

 I apologize for the disclaimer on my emails- My employer requires it.

Regards,
Damon

I'm an administrator on a webmail system with around 100k accounts.
I hate spam. I hate my users complaining.  I need a way to stop
it hurting 

 Only 100k? ;-)

--
Regards,
Jon Kyme

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Get your free email address at http://www.merseymail.com/
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg

*****
"The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to
which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or
privileged material.  Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use
of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or
entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited.  If you received
this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all
computers."
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg

---

From: "Sauer, Damon" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:48:48 -0500

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 12:46 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Asrg] Declaration to the world

---- I don't see it as a huge problem. If your DNS is broken... fix it. Our
implementation works somewhat this way now. If their DNS is broken or there
is something wrong with the record, we queue the mail and do not deliver it.
We will check for about 24hrs to see if it is eventually fixed, but after
that, an error message is sent and the email is deleted. If there is a
complaint, my response is "Fix your DNS". Designing around an issue is not
the way to go. Design it to the RFC's and make it work accordingly. This
would increase the pressure to fix the issues. Not only that, we are talking
about a minority, not the majority.
 If everyone starts driving at 10mph, fatalities on the freeway will become
almost non-existent and if we cover the earth in feather pillows, nobody
will die in plane crashes. Is that the way that we want to go about
designing this solution? If it doesn't work, fix it- Don't design around it.

 Here is a quote from another thread:

"I am the Principal Scientist of VeriSign, a company that manages DNS and
PKI infrastructure on a very large scale. Hadmut has made a number of well
thought out contributions to the debate. -If DNS is broken we can fix it for
this application."

- Phillip Hallam-Baker

 Can we drop the broken DNS debate?

Regards,
Damon

DNS is specially designed to be tied to IP addresses and so are ip addresses

to DNS (reverse dns which is in fact used by some mailers to establish 
identity). It seems to me we can not rely on just ip address or just domain
but both can be used with possibly additional means of authentication when 
one or the other changes. Big problem is how to provide distributed 
authentication if it must be independent of either ip addresses or domain
names.

On Thu, 6 Mar 2003, Keith Moore wrote:

> subject to relataively few constraints, you own 'danisch.de' for as long
as
> you renew it.  most users do not own their IP addresses.  in order for
routing
> to scale (at least with current routing protocols), it is necessary that
> networks be renumbered from time to time.  so we do not want to encourage
> tight binding of IP addresses to domain names even for those cases where
it might
> work, for now.  also, source addresses can sometimes be forged, so we
don't
> want to rely on them as authentiation tokens.
> 
> Keith

*****