Subject: [Asrg] Update on Querying IADB

From: "Anne P. Mitchell, Esq." <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 01:48:27 -0800

For those interested in seeing how this has evolved, and what exactly 
this particular accreditation database provides, our query pages have 
been expanded, and include a link to the full suggested DNSL data 
response codes.

The codes we use at present include:

127.0.0.1 		 Listed in IADB
127.0.1.255 		 Vouched listing
127.2.255.1 		 Publishes SPF record
127.2.255.2 		 Publishes Microsoft "Caller I.D. for Email" record
127.2.255.101	 Participates in Habeas program
127.2.255.102	 Participates in Ironport's Bonded Sender program
127.3.100.0		 Has absolutely no mailing controls in place
127.3.100.1		 Scrapes addresses, pure opt-out only
127.3.100.2		 Accepts unverified sign-ups such as through web page
127.3.100.3		 Accepts unverified sign-ups, gives chance to opt out
127.3.100.4		 Reserved
127.3.100.5		 Has opt-in confirmation mechanism
127.3.100.6		 Has and uses opt-in confirmation mechanism
127.3.100.7		 Reserved
127.3.100.8		 Reserved
127.3.100.9		 Reserved
127.3.100.10		 All mailing list mail is confirmed opt-in

The general information is at http://www.isipp.com/iadb.php
Query information specifically is at http://www.isipp.com/iadbquery.php

It is, of course, free to query IADB, as well as to be listed as an 
individual.

Anne

_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg

---

From: "Anne P. Mitchell, Esq." <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 23:57:06 -0800

Yakov,

> All of these codes bring to mind an interesting question. The current 
> systems of this kind, both blacklist and whitelist, do not have a 
> standard set of codes outside the 127.0.0.1 - present. Wouldn't a 
> standard set help? Or perhaps a whole new trust protocol for 
> negotiating trust among two entities and quering third parties?

Actually the codes we use are a subset of the proposed standardized 
codeset we developed with Craig Hughes (SpamAssassin) (Craig actually 
did the initial development, with after-input from us, and tweaking a 
bit for the needs of ISPs, from whom we also had input).  We worked 
very closely with Craig as well as the ISP community because we wanted 
to be sure to provide a product which was completely useful, 
functional, and practical for both spam filters and ISPs (which is also 
why we offer it in two flavors - one with each individual data response 
returned per query, and one with an aggregate score, the latter being 
requested by some of the ISPs).

The current codeset can be seen at http://www.isipp.com/codelist.php

Anne

---

From: Yakov Shafranovich <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 03:08:35 -0500

Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. wrote:
> bit for the needs of ISPs, from whom we also had input).  We worked very 
> closely with Craig as well as the ISP community because we wanted to be 
> sure to provide a product which was completely useful, functional, and 
> practical for both spam filters and ISPs (which is also why we offer it 
> in two flavors - one with each individual data response returned per 
> query, and one with an aggregate score, the latter being requested by 
> some of the ISPs).
> 

What concerns me about this is that you are overloading an existing 
protocol (DNSBLs) of an existing protocol (DNS A records) to do this. My 
original question is really focused on whether we should consider a 
protocol and format for exchanging information about senders that would 
be more extensive that what is currently found.

For example, the SMTP VERIFY subgroup is discussing among other things, 
standardizing Senderbase-like counters via SNMP.

Yakov

---

From: Yakov Shafranovich <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 02:49:57 -0500

All of these codes bring to mind an interesting question. The current 
systems of this kind, both blacklist and whitelist, do not have a 
standard set of codes outside the 127.0.0.1 - present. Wouldn't a 
standard set help? Or perhaps a whole new trust protocol for negotiating 
trust among two entities and quering third parties?

Yakov

---

From: "Mark E. Mallett" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 10:50:41 -0500

> to be sure to provide a product which was completely useful, 

Curious: which ISPs, and what community?  We're listed in the EDDB and
I would have welcomed the opportunity to at least comment; I'm also on
a lot of ISP-related lists and did not notice any requests for input.
That's not all that much of a complaint as much as it is a question
(because I predict you did indeed have a reasonable set of sources):
but I really would like to know what ISP sources you turned to and how
you identified this community.

BTW I just browsed the "query signup" form and it suffers from one
of the things I have remarked to you about before.  There's a
single choice of classification:  "I am representing: " [pick one].
I suspect there are a lot of organizations who (like us) fall into
multiple categories.  My brain freezes when trying to pick one.

-mm-