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

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 10:03:09 -0700

> > 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?

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

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

---

From: Vernon Schryver <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 14:11:36 -0600 (MDT)

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

> made by or on behalf of a corporation to be automatically 

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.

> 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.

> accept private email from me any statement has to be made in

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

---

From: Andrzej Filip <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 23:04:17 +0200

Vernon Schryver wrote:

>[...]
You do not do such things, Hotmail can do it even if it should not do it.

Their statements translated to "common people english" may mean:
We suspect that our user send spam with our account address as sender 
using another mail server but we can not prove it so our lawyers 
suggested another "official" explanation.

BTW If account is used as faked sender address for MASS spam it makes it 
unusable unless you use very sophisticated anti-spam protection.

> [...]
-- 
Andrzej [pl>en: Andrew] Adam Filip http://www.polbox.com/a/anfi/