Subject: RE: [Asrg] Re: draft-danisch-dns-rr-smtp-01.txt

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 15:11:48 -0700

Perhaps you have evidence to support these wild guesses?

Or is it ok for you to promote conclusions based on guesswork while you
refuse to accept firsthand reports of statements at public meetings?

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Vernon Schryver
Sent:	Sun Apr 27 13:13:53 2003
To:	[email-masked]
Subject:	RE: [Asrg] Re: draft-danisch-dns-rr-smtp-01.txt

> From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>

> > > I doubt it. They suffer hugely from bogus addresses in their domain
> > > space ...
> > 
> > What evidence is there for that assertion?  Logic and all of the
> > evidence I've seen contradicts it.
>
> The public statements of the parties involved is evidence for
> the assertion. Or do we automatically consider any statement
> made by or on behalf of a corporation to be automatically 
> suspect?

Where can I read or hear te public statements of relevant parties
instead of reports of those statements? 

I've no doubt that Hotmail and Yahoo would like spam to stop, that
they suffer from the use and as well as the forgery of Hotmail and
Yahoo addresses in spam, and that they said words to that effect. 
My doubt is not that they suffer, but concerns how much spam carrying
free provider addresses is forged.  My guess is that no more than 10%
of the spam with Hotmail or other free provider addresses is forged.
If I am right, than the remaining 90% is not forged and accurately
implicates free provider users and would be validated or authenticated
as good by any plausible protocol.

> Of course that may not count as evidence to you, I think it does
> for most of the members of the group who want to do something 
> constructive here.
>
> I fail to see how disputing every statement that is made in
> absolute terms and demanding proof of the blatantly obvious
> is constructive. 
>
> I fail to see how the implicit ad-hominem attacks against
> yahoo, hotmail and such are constructive. I see absolutely
> no reason to doubt the statements they have made that they
> want to facilitate a solution to this problem.

I intend no insult to Yahoo and Hotmail for providing free mailboxes.
However, Hotmail and even more Yahoo have been frequently be caught
in intentionally misleading statements.  (Check the Yahoo!Stores sagas,
such as with Jason Vale.)  For example, Hotmail at one time announced
lists of accounts that had been *terminated* for being *forged* into
spam.  A moment's thought shows that was obvious misleading nonsense,
since you don't terminate accounts for forgery by third parties.

> I would take this to private email, only since you refuse to
> accept private email from me any statement has to be made in
> public.

I see no reason why your statement should have been private.  It was
not useful to me personally.

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