Subject: RE: [Asrg] A New Plan for No Spam / DNSBLS

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2003 18:19:00 -0700

It is very odd that each time someone posts a message like this defending
blacklists the message itself comes back to demonstrate the points being
raised.

> Vernon and others have pointed out other errors/problems that I agree

Vernon has made himself irrelevant to this discussion. 

> First, you inaccurately use inflammatory words to describe DNSBLs.
> For example, instead of using the term "vigilante" to mean "taking the
> law into your own hands", you define "vigilante" as being
> "unaccountable". 

No, I use the term to mean taking the enforcement of rules, whether
legislative or not into their own hands. The vigilantes from the
US racist south were not taking the 'law' into their own hands when
they lynched blacks, they were imposing their own rules on society
through force.

> You claim that DNSBLs are being coercive ("*forcing* to act or
> think in a certain way"), and as a censor ("some sort of
> official/authority that defines objectionable material").

The description of collateral damage given by all the blacklist
sites is a description of a program for coertion.

The reason given for the verisignlabs listing was specifically to
attempt to force us to cause the ISP to change their policy
wrt another customer. 
 
> DNSBLs can not force anyone to do anything and any authority given to
> them is by consensual users of the DNSBL.

The ISP can consent, but what about the users of the ISP? In most
cases the users have no knowledge of the fact that a blacklist is
even in use.

> Their widespread use indicates that many receivers of
> email have confidence in at least some DNSBLs.  

Very few end users know that blacklists are in use.

> You claim that "Unfortunately the majority of blacklist operators
> appear to consider themselves beyond accountability."  DNSBL operators
> do not *NEED* to be accountable to anyone other than people who use
> them, and those people can freely choose to stop using a DNSBL if they
> want.

Ah as we see, cannot quite keep up the pretence. So there is no
need for accountability then and sysops at ISPs are the ultimate
arbiters not the actual end users.

> You claim that "In one recent incident one of the blacklists listed
> the entire nation of China. Another blacklist listed UUNET, one of the
> largest ISPs in the US including all its customers in an attempt to
> force UUNET to shut down a Website run by a UUNET customer."  You have
> made these claims before, but you have never documented them in any
> way.  There are certainly DNSBLs that block all of china (and many
> other regions of the world, for that matter), but the only ones I know
> are very explicit about what they are doing. 

Ah so racism and bigotry are alright if we are up front about it?

If you go through Vernon's web site you will find a page where he 
suggests that people block all mail from ISPs that provide free 
Internet email hosting. I don't think we need to take Vernon's other
statements in this respect at all seriously, he is clearly not
a credible person on this subject.

> Thirdly, in the "BEST PRACTICES" section, you talk about creating some
> sort of "common agreement on best practices for blacklists setting out
> criteria for issues such as notice to the listed parties, appeals
> processes and the acceptability of `collateral damage'."  This is both
> unnecessary and undesirable.
> 
> It is unnecessarey because DNSBLs can not force anyone to do anything,
> their only authority comes from others who freely choose to use them.

Again, this is a very sysop centric view of the world. I do not believe
that system or network operators are the ultimate arbiters of the 
Internet.

The 'right' that appears to be being defended here is the right of
sysops to make decisions on behalf of their users with no 
accountability.

> Finally, you include DNSBLs as part of your overall spam solution.
> You say that it is better to use them as one factor in the filtering,
> rather than a straight accept/deny system, and I can agree with that.
> However, that choice is really up to the organization receiving email
> to decide.  I find it very strange that you would spread so much FUD
> about DNSBLs and then turn around and say that they are part of the
> solution.

I do not beleive that the attempt to coerce others into forcing their
ISPs to behave in certain ways is an acceptable solution.

Blacklists may be able to play a part in the solution but I have yet 
to see one run in a responsible way for very long. Other agendas 
seem to have their way of making their way in.

I don't see much encouragement when anyone who raises valid complaints
against blacklists gets the sort of treatment that Fox News reserves
for the token liberals that appear, "You have made statements critical
of blacklists, why do you hate America and when will you stop giving
support to Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein?

		Phill

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

---

From: J C Lawrence <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2003 18:54:37 -0700

On Sat, 26 Apr 2003 18:19:00 -0700

> Vernon has made himself irrelevant to this discussion.

You've not done much better, and your attempted signal level, as
exemplified by the post I'm replying to, has suffered more than
Vernon's.

> Ah so racism and bigotry are alright if we are up front about it?

Its a fairly long blond leap from, "blocking China" or "block free 'net
access providers" to "racism and bigotry".  Impressive.

> Again, this is a very sysop centric view of the world. I do not
> believe that system or network operators are the ultimate arbiters of
> the Internet.

Certainly not.  They are, like the rest of the world, service providers.
People either buy their service, or they don't.  Some will prosper, some
will die, and cultural views and expectations on how and what service is
the be rendered and in what manner, will evolve, just as they have for
every other service industry.

> sysops to make decisions on behalf of their users with no

Certainly, its called "market forces".  Currently the market has not
clearly shown that either accountability or transparency are required
market characteristics.  I'm not about to try and define a culturally
suspect social good to be enforced on all Internet users.

> support to Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein?

Aiieee.  You are capable of better logic and analysis than this.

--
J C Lawrence
---------(*)                Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas.
[email-masked]               He lived as a devil, eh?
http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/  Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg

---

From: Steven F Siirila <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2003 21:11:34 -0500

> cases the users have no knowledge of the fact that a blacklist is

That depends on the ISP.  We provide our users with the ability to control
how or if their mail is blocked/filtered.

> Very few end users know that blacklists are in use.

Again, that depends on the ISP.  DNSbls can be a very effective tool,
especially when users are aware of their availability and have control
over their use.

> that system or network operators are the ultimate arbiters of the 

ISPs can and should decide how best to run their own mail servers with
the customer's best interest in mind.  If that includes use of DNSbls,
then so be it.

> sysops to make decisions on behalf of their users with no 

Nobody said anything about "no accountability."  I sense here nothing more
than a strong hatred of DNSbls, likely due to a bad experience with them.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg

---

From: Larry Marks <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2003 19:45:32 -0700

>how or if their mail is blocked/filtered.
Do you also explain to them that they may miss important mail because 
the process of blocking/filtering mail is imperfect? Do you explain that 
blocking and filtering is based on the opinions and prejudices of those 
that construct them? In other words, is the ability to control 
blocking/filtering really based on your users' informed consent?

>the customer's best interest in mind.  If that includes use of DNSbls,
There you go again. You claim that your users have the ability to 
control their own mailin one sentence, and then in the next you turn 
around and tell me that you, as big daddy in the sky, have to do things 
to them that are "in their best interests."

>than a strong hatred of DNSbls, likely due to a bad experience with them.
Well, let's see. My mail got blocked. I spoke to the blocklist, who told 
me that they only publish the list and they are not responsible for its 
use. I spoke to the ISP, who told me that they only use the blocklists 
and are not responsible for their content. Hey, lots of accountability 
here...

  -LM

---

From: J C Lawrence <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2003 21:06:17 -0700

On Sat, 26 Apr 2003 19:45:32 -0700 

> Well, let's see. My mail got blocked. I spoke to the blocklist, who
> told me that they only publish the list and they are not responsible
> for its use. I spoke to the ISP, who told me that they only use the
> blocklists and are not responsible for their content. Hey, lots of
> accountability here...

Yup, the accountability is precisely where it should be: all yours.  You
chose that ISP, you choose to remain with that ISP, and you thereby
elect to accept the service they provide, however defined.

---

From: Steven F Siirila <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2003 23:08:08 -0500

The positives of our system have proven to far outweigh the negatives.
No system is perfect.  I do know that before we put this system into
place that we were under great pressures to address the spam problem.
Afterwards, we've received a vast amount of positive feedback, with
very little negative feedback.  Nothing like real-life experience!

---

From: Andrzej Filip <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 06:06:57 +0200

>how or if their mail is blocked/filtered.
Do you (or any significant ISP)  provide reports what have been blocked 
and why for the users ?
[e.g.: sending host  IP address, MAIL FROM:, RCPT TO:, reject reason]
It requires making MTA reject as little as possible before "RCPT TO:".
IMHO it should be recommended for any ISP

>especially when users are aware of their availability and have control
"Fair" use of DNSbl requires providing name of the DNSbl  in the error 
message generated for sender.
Any would be recomendation of RBL use must contain requirement for 
providing such info (IMHO).

>the customer's best interest in mind.  If that includes use of DNSbls,
Law is less logical (at least in some places) and the world is big.
I remember one posting in which (non US?) postmaster reported that 
lawyers ordered turning off anti-spam features unless ISP customer 
explicitly requested them.

>than a strong hatred of DNSbls, likely due to a bad experience with them.
You do not suggest that accountability may exist without making available to users/customers detailed records of what has been rejected and why, do you ?
1) I do not suggest accepting bodies of spam messages
2) Some senders of a "courtesy copy" do NOTHING about the bounce

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

---

From: J C Lawrence <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2003 21:23:37 -0700

On Sat, 26 Apr 2003 23:08:08 -0500 

> very little negative feedback.  Nothing like real-life experience!

In that line I've most admired Rahul Dhesi's setup for his customers.
He provides a per-user multi-level configuration, wherein the user may
elect what level of protection they want, from very aggressive on down
through several levels to utterly open.  Checking with various of his
users I've seen personal selections of every value from that scale
depending on their individual wishes.  Its a sweet setup and well done.

---

From: Steven F Siirila <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2003 23:33:20 -0500

> IMHO it should be recommended for any ISP

Yes.  We currently provide that information for users via a web page.

> providing such info (IMHO).

I agree.  The sender must have the information necessary to either resolve
the problem themselves (preferred) or to forward to their mail administrator.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg

---

From: Larry Marks <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2003 22:56:52 -0700

>elect to accept the service they provide, however defined.
JC,

I love your answer! It makes my point so clearly. I certainly didn't 
choose the recipient's ISP, so you must be talking about my (the 
sender's) ISP. My ISP's server got blocked, so they are doing something 
to piss someone off somewhere.

Let's suppose I have chosen one of the largest ISPs in the US so that I 
can be safe from this kind of crap. I just want to do business and send 
Aunt Effie the occasional foto of little Orville. Well, bad choice on my 
part. No safety from the cycops in numbers. I gotta do my homework better.

Well, let's further suppose that my ISP has never done anything wrong 
wrt my account, so I haven't left them. Bad choice. It's not about me. 
It's not what they are doing to my account, but what they are letting 
others do. I should have been watching them.

Let's further assume that I haven't seen anything negative about them in 
WSJ and my local business section. Bad choice. I have been looking in 
the wrong place. I should have been reading the info the blocklists 
publish on their Web sites.

At this point, we have left the realm of the ordinary home or business 
users, but let's keep going.

Let's assume that I do regularly read the little lists of six million or 
so blocklist providers and I still came up with no derogs on my ISP. Bad 
choice. I should have been watching more carefully. I should spend all 
my time watching the blocklist providers rather than try to do any 
business at all.

Well, finally, we've reached the bottom line:

If you have anything important to do, don't do it on the Internet.

That's what you wanted, isn't it?

  -LM

---

From: "Chris Lewis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 03:11:25 -0400

> they lynched blacks, they were imposing their own rules on society

Oh stuff and bosh.  As a user of third party blacklists, _I_ am the 
vigilante imposing my will and my rules on who can send email to my 
users. I am the censor.  The blacklist is not the censor nor the 
vigilante.  Just a provider of some of the information I use.

I get to be the censor because the employer of my users, who is also the 
owner of the the mail infrastructure, says so.

And yes, the employee agreement says so too.

---

From: J C Lawrence <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 00:42:48 -0700

On Sat, 26 Apr 2003 22:56:52 -0700 

>> Yup, the accountability is precisely where it should be: all yours.
>> You chose that ISP, you choose to remain with that ISP, and you
>> thereby elect to accept the service they provide, however defined.

> sender's) ISP. My ISP's server got blocked, so they are doing
> something to piss someone off somewhere.

Nope, you've got the direction reversed.

Its parallel to the free speech issue:  You have the freedom to talk,
but nobody is obliged to listen  

> Let's suppose I have chosen one of the largest ISPs in the US so that
> I can be safe from this kind of crap. I just want to do business and
> send Aunt Effie the occasional foto of little Orville. Well, bad
> choice on my part. No safety from the cycops in numbers. I gotta do my
> homework better.

No, its up to your dear Aunt Effie as to how she arranges to receive, if
at all, the mail you send.  Perhaps you might like to advise her in that
regard.  

  You're free to blabber all you want.  She's free to crochet your
  packets into a nice wooly jumper if she can figure out how.

Much more simply we're talking about service definitions and guarantees.
To date, the market hasn't shown much evidence of demanding squat in the
way of either definitions or guarantees at the individual user level
(asides from "less spam"), and so those in the business of offering and
selling those services really haven't spent much time on the area.  It
may be, thru the efforts of good people like yourself, that this will
change.  Heck, I'll help out -- I'd love to see some reliable
non-pessimal assumptions in this space

> That's what you wanted, isn't it?

Hardly.  Its the old deal: You get what you pay for.  If you want
end-to-end guarantees you have to do and contract it yourself.  If you
want some variety of largely undefined best-effort you'll trust to the
cooperation of other uninvolved parties.  You get to pick.

---

From: wayne <[email-masked]>
Date: 27 Apr 2003 12:05:04 -0500

In <[email-masked]> Larry Marks <[email-masked]> writes:

> [sad tale of how hard it would be to pick an ISP that will never be
> blacklisted deleted ... ]
> 

Yes, this sux.  There is no way to guarantee that your email will get
through.  A few things to remember though:

1) It is spammers who have brought us to this situation. 

2) If no one had done anything to try and stop spammers, our inboxes
   would be totally swamped with spam by now and email would be
   useless instead of "merely" unreliable.

3) Just about everything you can do to reduce spam also has negative
   consequences.  Your tale of woe about how hard you would have to
   work to make sure your email goes through because of blacklists can
   easily be rephrased into a tale of woe about how hard it is to make
   sure you have the right e-stamp, how you better not mention your
   wife's breast cancer if you don't want some filters to /dev/null
   your post, etc.

In the case you outlined with DNSBLs, I would suggest getting a backup
email address so that if your ISP is blocked by ISP you are trying to
send to, you can still get through.  Then, both you and the person you
are trying to email can complain to the ISPs about the blocking.  It
may not do any good, but ISPs are much more willing to listen to their
customers than to other people.

If you find that your primary ISP's email is not reliable enough,
either due to flaky hardware/software, or being blocked by DNSBLs, you
can then move to your backup email address.

-wayne

---

From: J C Lawrence <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 10:30:53 -0700

On 27 Apr 2003 12:05:04 -0500 

> through.  A few things to remember though:

...is that there never has been a guarantee that your email will get
thru.  Even paper mail doesn't have an absolute guarantee, just a best
effort promise.

---

From: Larry Marks <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 05:12:19 -0700

Before replying further in this thread, I would like to make one thing 
clear. I am not opposed to the use of DNSbls. In fact, I belive they 
will have an important role to play in the ongoing battle against spam. 
What I am opposed to is the haphazard, unprofessional, inconsistent, 
irresponsible and sometimes just plain unethical way in which they are 
created and used today.

I believe that it is and has been within the power of ISPs to provide a 
safe haven from spam without introducing instability into the system. 
They would need to form or affiliate with an NCRPA-compliant body and 
agree on some consistent and enforceable ways of applying DNSbls and 
other anti-spam mechanisms. This could start now with existing 
mechanisms and later add new mechanisms as appropriate.

>but nobody is obliged to listen
Preventing people from hearing what I have to say is also a free speech 
issue, but free speech is neither an appropriate simile nor germaine to 
the issue. The handling of e-mail is the only issue I have been discussing.

>>If you have anything important to do, don't do it on the Internet. That's what you wanted, isn't it?
>>    
>>
>
Your comment is preposterous. A network already exists. I don't need to 
go build another one. And mail is an end-to-end service and always has 
been. In fact, it's a commercial service offered to the public.

When I send a message via my ISP to someone on another ISP, it is highly 
unlikely that it will traverse any systems that are not there to make 
money for their owners by carrying my traffic. For that reason, I have 
every right to expect that great care will be taken from one end to the 
other. Even the term commonly used to describe Internet mail transport, 
"best effort", creates the expectation of reliable service. That's 
because "best" means best, not second best or half-assed.

I can't see how it could work any other way. If the Internet is 
perceived as unreliable, then it will not be used to its potential. 
That's bad for users and lost profits for ISPs. To some degree, this has 
already happened. I certainly don't use it for delivery of important 
business documents and neither do most other people I know. That's 
regrettable because e-mail should be inherently more reliable than many 
other forms of communications.

Finally, you said, "you get to pick". Actually, you don't. That's 
because there is insufficient data for most people to make an informed 
decision. Buyers deserve to know what the rules and agreements between 
ISPs for Internet e-mail are and what service providers are fully 
compliant with them. Then they really can make a choice.

  -LM

---

From: "Jon Kyme" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 14:08:11 +0100

> because "best" means best, not second best or half-assed.

No. You have no "right" to expect anything not provided for in the contract
you've made (with *your* ISP) for mail service.

"Best effort" implies no more than it says. A best effort may well fail.
"Best effort" is categorically not the same as "reliable".
And of course, "Best" will mean "the best that can be done in the
circumstances".

Along with "Best effort", you'll also come across the term "Common
Consent".

---

From: Larry Marks <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 10:31:24 -0700

>you've made (with *your* ISP) for mail service.
My ISP does not control all the other ISPs. Without multilateral
agreements in place, there is no contractual right that my ISP can
provide me that will ensure my mail will not be blocked by the
recipient's ISP. That means that e-mail will forever be unreliable and
unusable for any purpose other than spam, where you don't care whether
or not the message gets through.

ISPs will either work out multilateral agreements like all the other
public service networks or they will be worked out for them and jammed
down their throats.

>And of course, "Best" will mean "the best that can be done in the
Best still means best.

>Along with "Best effort", you'll also come across the term "Common
If you don't want to consent to handle e-mail traffic, then don't. If
you do, then handle it properly and deliver legitimate mail. "Common
consent" does not extend the right to say you will handle mail and then
to refuse. That's just fraud.

  -LM

---

From: "Alan DeKok" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 13:50:35 -0400

Larry Marks <[email-masked]> wrote:
> you do, then handle it properly and deliver legitimate mail.

  Define "handle it properly"

  Define "legitimate email"

> "Common consent" does not extend the right to say you will handle
> mail and then to refuse. That's just fraud.

  Nonsense.

  Fraud is generally misrepresentation or misuse of contractual
agreements.  If a third-part ISP never contracted to accept mail from
you, then refusing to do so is entirely within their legal rights.

  Your kind of thinking encourages spammers to sue ISPs who block
their garbage, for "intefering with business practices."  If the ISP
never contracted to accept the spammers mail, then the judge *should*
toss the suit.  (Modulo whatever legal twisting lawyers do)

  Alan DeKok.

---

From: J C Lawrence <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 10:35:05 -0700

On Mon, 28 Apr 2003 05:12:19 -0700 

> I believe that it is and has been within the power of ISPs to provide
> a safe haven from spam without introducing instability into the
> system. They would need to form or affiliate with an NCRPA-compliant
> body and agree on some consistent and enforceable ways of applying
> DNSbls and other anti-spam mechanisms. This could start now with
> existing mechanisms and later add new mechanisms as appropriate.

The more ISPs do such a thing, the less value and interest for the
remaining ISPs to do so.  As soon as it becomes legally required its not
a code of conduct, its a state tax and mandate which is to be fought and
lowest-bidder only-the-letter-of-the-law penny-saved wherever possible.
Incredibly shrinking margins and mass market economic forces dictate
that clearly. Across the international scene, naive national
self-interest would encourage foreign systems to Do Their Own Different
Thing.

>> end-to-end guarantees you have to do and contract it yourself.  If
>> you want some variety of largely undefined best-effort you'll trust
>> to the cooperation of other uninvolved parties.  You get to pick.

> Your comment is preposterous. 

Sorry.  Reality is often preposterous.  It also happens to be true.
You, and even I may prefer it otherwise, but at the end of the day that
is the way current networks operator and what happens.

> A network already exists. I don't need to go build another one. And
> mail is an end-to-end service and always has been. In fact, it's a
> commercial service offered to the public.

Absolutely.  Its a commercial service stated as:

  We guarantee to use industry best practices to deliver your email to
  its destination.  We make no guarantees as to whether the recipient or
  their proxy (in the form of the remove ISP) will accept or handle your
  email.

> When I send a message via my ISP to someone on another ISP, it is
> highly unlikely that it will traverse any systems that are not there
> to make money for their owners by carrying my traffic. For that
> reason, I have every right to expect that great care will be taken
> from one end to the other. 

This is generally true, and, in the general case, email works very well
in supporting these expectations.

> Even the term commonly used to describe Internet mail transport, "best
> effort", creates the expectation of reliable service. That's because
> "best" means best, not second best or half-assed.

Yup!

> perceived as unreliable, then it will not be used to its

Late breaking news: The Internet is not being used to its full potential
and never will be.  This is guaranteed.  Usenet is a poster child for
this tautology.  ___NO___ human system is ever used 100% efficiently.
The size of the delta varies widely and tends to scale exponentially
with the opportunity for self-interested-abuse (cf tragedy of the
commons), but is always present.

> That's bad for users and lost profits for ISPs. To some degree, this
> has already happened. 

Absolutely.  Currently the market pressures have visibly built, but not
enough to cause real change, and haven't yet defined themselves with
sufficient accuracy or direction to do much effective.  This will
change, but it will probably take a few more years.  

> I certainly don't use it for delivery of important business documents
> and neither do most other people I know. 

Ahh, I do.  A simple double ack system is quite effective in catching
transmission problems, and FedEx is always right around the corner as a
backup transport.

> That's regrettable because e-mail should be inherently more reliable
> than many other forms of communications.

"Should" is a wonderful word.  It covers so many socially conscious
opportunities which have insufficient direct-economic or personal
benefit justifications to ever actually happen.

> Finally, you said, "you get to pick". Actually, you don't. 

Nope.  You do, its just that the cost of making that choice is high.  In
fact, people make that choice daily.  As a trite example: Car dealers
that want to work with Freightliner must install a private T1 from their
dealer to Freightliner (required by Freightliner) before they can do
electronic business with Freightliner.  

> That's because there is insufficient data for most people to make an
> informed decision. 

As the market has clearly stated, most people are not interested in that
decision.

> Buyers deserve to know what the rules and agreements between ISPs for
> Internet e-mail are and what service providers are fully compliant
> with them. 

You do realise that this approaches an infinitely complex problem
description?  The very very simple case of Above.net's use of the their
own RBL BGP feed to define null routes should show this clearly.  

  My ISP had no contract, transit or peer, with Above.Net, and neither
  did my recipient's ISP.  In fact, in both our cases you had to go two
  full ISP hops away from either of us before Above.Net became involved.
  Yet, quite strangely, we couldn't exchange packets, of any form.  The
  route between us was dead.

Attempting to enforce contract agreement end-to-end in the abstract and
general case is infeasible in the general case (tho very possible as a
custom point-to-point paid-for service).  Attempting to establish full
consent for any change in operational characteristics before making
changes is ludicrous -- How many other ISPs across the planet would I
have to get to sign off?

> Then they really can make a choice.

They already can.  Some, as you, make the choice to not use the 'net.
Others, as me, make the choice to use it via controlled error-detecting
protocols.

I refer you to Richard Gabriel's "Worse is Better" and Mike Meyer's
"Good Enough Is Best":

  http://www.ai.mit.edu/docs/articles/good-news/subsection3.2.1.html
  http://mired.org:8080/home/mwm/good-enough.html

They apply to more than just software systems.

---

From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 13:56:52 -0400

Alan asked "define handle it properly"; "it"=="legitimate mail".

RFC1123
Sec. 5.3.3 (must not loose for frivolous reasons, failure notification ).
Sec. 5.2.6 and 5.2.16, (forwarding, rewriting)

He also asked for a definition of "legitimate mail". Pass.

Eric

---

From: Larry Marks <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 11:34:11 -0700

J C Lawrence wrote:

>remaining ISPs to do so.
Huh? Why?

>As soon as it becomes legally required its not a code of conduct, its a state tax and mandate which is to be fought and lowest-bidder only-the-letter-of-the-law penny-saved wherever possible. Incredibly shrinking margins and mass market economic forces dictate that clearly. Across the international scene, naive national self-interest would encourage foreign systems to Do Their Own Different Thing.
>
I really didn's say anything about legal requirement in the post to 
which you are responding. But even so, what you're saying is total 
nonsense. It works for the PSTN.

>is the way current networks operator and what happens.
Yes. It is the way they operate and it's incredibly stupid and I'm not 
going to take it anymore.

>  their proxy (in the form of the remove ISP) will accept or handle your
Nonsense. If you have not made efforts to establish bilateral agreements 
with other ISPs, then you haven't used best practices for the 
telecommunications industry.

>in supporting these expectations.
 Does that mean that I should be able to sue if someone doesn't take 
great care?

>electronic business with Freightliner.
Excessive cost is a barrier for most users. This does not constitute a 
choice.

>changes is ludicrous -- How many other ISPs across the planet would I
Well then, I guess the bumblebee can't fly and the PSTN can't possibly 
operate.

  -LM

---

From: J C Lawrence <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 11:38:15 -0700

On Mon, 28 Apr 2003 13:56:52 -0400 
Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <[email-masked]> wrote:

> RFC1123 Sec. 5.3.3 (must not loose for frivolous reasons, failure
> notification ).  Sec. 5.2.6 and 5.2.16, (forwarding, rewriting)

I note that DNSRBL-based bounces fit both these requirements.

> He also asked for a definition of "legitimate mail". Pass.

Ha!  Yeah that one is a doozie of a landmine.

---

From: Larry Marks <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 11:41:58 -0700

>toss the suit.  (Modulo whatever legal twisting lawyers do)
You raised the spectre of a lawsuit, not me. I am only encouraging ISPs 
to act like they are carriers responsible to the public. The law will 
protect those who have acted in accordance with best practices.

  -LM

---

From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 14:39:56 -0400

> I note that DNSRBL-based bounces fit both these requirements.

Agreed.

---

From: "Alan DeKok" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 15:07:13 -0400

Larry Marks <[email-masked]> wrote:
> You raised the spectre of a lawsuit, not me. 

  <sigh> I tried to explain that your position *encourages* lawsuits.
If you want to ignore that reality, that's your choice.

> I am only encouraging ISPs to act like they are carriers responsible
> to the public.

  Nonsense.  ISP's are responsible only to their customers and
business partners.

  Alan DeKok.

---

From: J C Lawrence <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 12:14:12 -0700

On Mon, 28 Apr 2003 11:34:11 -0700 
Larry Marks <[email-masked]> wrote:
> J C Lawrence wrote:
>> On Mon, 28 Apr 2003 05:12:19 -0700 Larry Marks
>> <[email-masked]> wrote:

>>> I believe that it is and has been within the power of ISPs to
>>> provide a safe haven from spam without introducing instability into
>>> the system. They would need to form or affiliate with an
>>> NCRPA-compliant body and agree on some consistent and enforceable
>>> ways of applying DNSbls and other anti-spam mechanisms. This could
>>> start now with existing mechanisms and later add new mechanisms as
>>> appropriate.

> Huh? Why?

You have thought about this haven't you? The greater the percentage of
ISPs in such a confederation, the less value there is for any remaining
ISP to join, as they get all the values created by the group without any
of the costs.

>> As soon as it becomes legally required its not a code of conduct, its
>> a state tax and mandate which is to be fought and lowest-bidder
>> only-the-letter-of-the-law penny-saved wherever possible. Incredibly
>> shrinking margins and mass market economic forces dictate that
>> clearly. Across the international scene, naive national self-interest
>> would encourage foreign systems to Do Their Own Different Thing.
 
> nonsense. It works for the PSTN.

Actually it doesn't.  It may work for the PSTN within the bounds of the
USA -- which is effectively one organisational entity, but it doesn't
necessarily work for the PSTN as soon as you cross International borders
and start dealing with the other, remote, largely uncontracted and
uninvolved services.  Been there, done that.  

To a large extent each ISP and each MTA operator (in the organisational
sense) is analagous to a an independent liassez faire PSTN, and just to
make things richer than they are for the PSTN world, there are millions
of MTA operators instead of the small order hundreds of PSTN
organisations.

>> You, and even I may prefer it otherwise, but at the end of the day
>> that is the way current networks operator and what happens.
 
> going to take it anymore.

Congratulations, and that is what we are here for.  I would suggest
however that your current choice of target is a windmill.

> Nonsense. If you have not made efforts to establish bilateral
> agreements with other ISPs, then you haven't used best practices for
> the telecommunications industry.

You might notice that ISPs are not a telecommunications service
industry.  Even in the PSTN world those things are frequently not
present and rarely to never guaranteed.  Try calling the third world
some time, or even large chunks or rural Europe.

>>> from one end to the other.

Actually, you don't have every expectation of great care.  You have a
reasonable expectation that just enough care will be taken as is
justified by the revenue opportunity you represent and not a single iota
more.  In fact, you can safely assume than slightly less effort will be
expended than the revenue opportunity you represent as service providers
know the "Good Enough Is Best" trade-offs very well.  If the revenue
opportunity you represent is small, well, your mail will be treated
quite lackadaisically.

Hang on, you seem to think it is.  There's those market forces again.

>> This is generally true, and, in the general case, email works very
>> well in supporting these expectations.

>  Does that mean that I should be able to sue if someone doesn't take

Sure!  Do you have a violated contract?

>> Nope.  You do, its just that the cost of making that choice is high.
>> In fact, people make that choice daily.  As a trite example: Car
>> dealers that want to work with Freightliner must install a private T1
>> from their dealer to Freightliner (required by Freightliner) before
>> they can do electronic business with Freightliner.

> Excessive cost is a barrier for most users. This does not constitute a

Absolute;y it is a choice, its just a more expensive choice than they
are willing to pay.  It remains a choice however.  I make the same
choice every day in not buying a Ferrari, and not driving at 150mph on
the road outside my house.

>> Attempting to enforce contract agreement end-to-end in the abstract
>> and general case is infeasible in the general case (tho very possible
>> as a custom point-to-point paid-for service).  Attempting to
>> establish full consent for any change in operational characteristics
>> before making changes is ludicrous -- How many other ISPs across the
>> planet would I have to get to sign off?
 
> Well then, I guess the bumblebee can't fly and the PSTN can't possibly

The PSTN is a poor analogy for Internet mail systems.  A better pick for
an analogy is probably postal services, and relatively, the utter lack
of delivery guarantees they provide.  Of course value added services
like FedEx, DHL, etc exist which provide end-to-end guarantees as well
as tracking oversight, but those are value added services which charge a
significant premium.

There may be a lesson to be learned there.

---

From: Larry Marks <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 13:18:51 -0700

>ISP to join, as they get all the values created by the group without any
Uh, yes, I have actually thought this through. You don't get the cert 
unless you join and pay. No cert, no value. Use the cert without 
joining, you get sued blind. That's not regulation either. It's tort law.

>uninvolved services.  Been there, done that.
Well, actually it does work across most borders, and has for years. Been 
there, done that.

>of MTA operators instead of the small order hundreds of PSTN
But I don't want a laissez faire PSTN. I want one with rules and order 
so I can get my mail through.

>however that your current choice of target is a windmill.
You call it tilting at windmills. I call it getting in the face of the 
ISPs so that they will do their jobs.

>some time, or even large chunks or rural Europe.
It is sophistry to argue that ISPs are not providing a 
telecommunications service. They are.

There is a difference between things being in bad repair and things not 
working because someone is standing in the way making them not work. 
There are no guarantees in life. Even the old term, "guarenteed 
delivery" only means best effort requiring notification in case of 
failure. I thought 821/2821 already provide for that.

>opportunity you represent is small, well, your mail will be treated
Just because you are just in it for the money does not release you from 
your responsibility to treat my message with great care.  No one made 
you agree to handle mail traffic. You elected to be in that business. 
You have to provide the service. What you have described is just unethical.

>Sure!  Do you have a violated contract?
Yup. It's called an implied contract and it's enforceable.

>the road outside my house.
Give me your money or I'll take it from you. Is that a choice?

>as tracking oversight, but those are value added services which charge a
You continue, without any justification to deny what is obvious to any 
man on the street. Internet mail is a telecommunications service. ISP 
stocks are listed in the telecommunications sector. It is not like the 
postal service. It's not like FedEx and DHL. These are all end-to-end 
services. There are no switches and only a single bilateral handoffs in 
the international case. By contrast, PSTN's infrastructure is totally 
analagous to that of the ISP.

I don't want end-to-end guarantees. I don't want special handling. But I 
don't want people to interfere with my mail either, as long as it 
doesn't violate the law and isn't spam. If it can't be delivered because 
of some circumstance beyond control, then fine...

  -LM

---

From: Vernon Schryver <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 14:59:32 -0600 (MDT)

> to refuse. That's just fraud.

That and related statements are quite familiar and representative
of the views of bulk mail advertisers whose efforts to deliver
unsolicited advertising have been affected by various sorts of
filtering.  Those statements all assume that what matters is the
transmission of mail and not the wishes of mail recipients to not
receive spam.  All contracts are only between ISPs and mail senders.
All obligations are to the sender of the mail.  The statements
ignore the contrary fact that the contracts and obligations that
matter most and that can be enforced are between ISPs and recipients.
They also consistently ignore or deny the fact that contrary to
the lies of spammers, essentially all spam filtering is performed
on behalf of and generally at the clear request of mail recipients,
albeit often without recipients' technical understanding.

In other forums, someone would have raised the obvious question,
particularly after the appearance of the representative of other
senders of unsolicited bulk email such as Roving.com. 

Vernon Schryver    [email-masked]

P.S. I recently wrote that it had been 8 days since the most recent
  attempt by Roving.com to send me spam.  Since then they fixed that lapse.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg

---

From: Vernon Schryver <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 15:37:58 -0600 (MDT)

> From: Larry Marks <[email-masked]>

> ...

You demand merely that your wish that your mail be delivered override
the wishes of targets of your mail.  The targets of your mail have
contracts with their ISPs.  Your targets' ISPs are rejecting or accepting
your mail based on your targets' preferences.  If your targets choose
ISPs unwisely, they may not receive mail from you that they really
want, but that is not our problem.  It is a problem between your targets
and their ISPs.   You have no standing to interfere in their contract.

Note that saying you only want your mail delivered if it is not spam
is meaningless.  Human nature is such that only a very few spammers
admit that what they send is spam.  Everyone else, both spammer and
otherwise, prefers to define spam as that which we do not do.

For example, Ms. Olson of Roving.com does not believe that any of
the messages that her organization sends are spam.  She wants for her
mail exactly what you want for your mail.  The only people who can
reliably distinguish spam from other sorts of mail are mail targets
and their agents, including their ISPs.

---

From: J C Lawrence <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 15:04:47 -0700

On Mon, 28 Apr 2003 13:18:51 -0700
Larry Marks <[email-masked]> wrote:
> J C Lawrence wrote:
>> On Mon, 28 Apr 2003 11:34:11 -0700 Larry Marks

>> You have thought about this haven't you? The greater the percentage
>> of ISPs in such a confederation, the less value there is for any
>> remaining ISP to join, as they get all the values created by the
>> group without any of the costs.

> joining, you get sued blind. That's not regulation either. It's tort

Uhh, yeah, sure.

>> Actually it doesn't.  It may work for the PSTN within the bounds of
>> the USA -- which is effectively one organisational entity, but it
>> doesn't necessarily work for the PSTN as soon as you cross
>> International borders and start dealing with the other, remote,
>> largely uncontracted and uninvolved services.  Been there, done that.

> Well, actually it does work across most borders, and has for
> years. Been there, done that.

Call back woods China.  Call outback Australia.  Call much of Africa.
Try calling Iraq.  Call most of the Pacific islands.  Even better, try
placing a collect call (which is essentially what email is).  Its not
reliable.  You're (somewhat) saved in the PSTN case in that the protocol
requires a fully synchronous connection and email is entirely
asynchronous, but you appear willing to ignore that.

> so I can get my mail through.

Then buy or build one.

>>> Yes. It is the way they operate and it's incredibly stupid and I'm
>>> not going to take it anymore.

> ISPs so that they will do their jobs.

I would note that they don't consider that their job, don't want that
job, and see damned little profit in that job.  Their job is being
profitable, not being a common carrier or public service.

> There is a difference between things being in bad repair and things
> not working because someone is standing in the way making them not
> work. There are no guarantees in life. Even the old term, "guarenteed

They do, very explicitly.  DNSRBLs are generally used to bounce/refuse
mail, resulting in the sender receiving a bounce message.  Even the use
of RBLs as a BGP feed for null route configuration, at the mail level,
results in a bounce (tho usually after 4 days).

You are asking for guaranteed delivery.  Almost nobody involved in the
business actually wants guaranteed delivery, not when they are the
people being delivered to.  Even spammers don't want guaranteed delivery
when they are the recipients as recent cases and legal suits have amply
demonstrated.

>> justified by the revenue opportunity you represent and not a single
>> iota more.  In fact, you can safely assume than slightly less effort
>> will be expended than the revenue opportunity you represent as
>> service providers know the "Good Enough Is Best" trade-offs very
>> well.  If the revenue opportunity you represent is small, well, your
>> mail will be treated quite lackadaisically.

> Just because you are just in it for the money does not release you
> from your responsibility to treat my message with great care.

Codswhallop.  I have no contract with you.  I have no interest in your
mail.  I have no particular benefit or value from servicing your mail in
particular.  In fact I have no contractual ties with you at all, or even
with your ISP.

  BTW: You should really try that line with AOL some time.  I expect I'd
  be able to hear the laughing from here.  (In case you were unaware,
  AOL are one of the more famous silent discarders of mail around -- its
  nice to be the 800lb gorilla)

Email is but one of the services I offer my users, and in the ROI
structures surrounding those services, I get paid far more readily and
better for getting less mail delivered (spam reduction) than I do in
making absolutely certain that every single possibly "legit" mail is
delivered to my users.  Ergo, I spend more time and attention there.  If
my customers don't like my allocation of time and attention they will
choose another ISP who does better per their value-set.

Happens every day.

You are assuming a level of social contract and supporting legal
jurisprudence which doesn't exist.

> No one made you agree to handle mail traffic. You elected to be in
> that business.

Umm, as a point of honesty, I actually run mail systems because it
amuses me to.  Its not a big part of what I do -- I don't handle much
more than a few million messages a day and I make no money out of that
end of the game.

> You have to provide the service.

Nope.  I have to provide the service I promised my users, not remote
senders.  I've no contract at all with remote senders outside of RFC
2821, 2822 and similar.

> What you have described is just unethical.

Forgive me if I disagree.  You assume a level of privilege for mail
across system, organisational, and national borders that I see as, very
literally, so unsupportable and internally inconsistent that it is
ludicrous.

> Yup. It's called an implied contract and it's enforceable.

I await your first suit.

>> choice every day in not buying a Ferrari, and not driving at 150mph
>> on the road outside my house.

> Give me your money or I'll take it from you. Is that a choice?

Absolutely.  The ability to send or receive email is not a natural
entitlement.

> I don't want end-to-end guarantees. I don't want special handling. But
> I don't want people to interfere with my mail either, as long as it
> doesn't violate the law and isn't spam. If it can't be delivered
> because of some circumstance beyond control, then fine...

Who sets the law on my network, my systems, in my country?

---

From: Larry Marks <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 18:59:56 -0700

Vernon Schryver wrote:

>the wishes of targets of your mail.
>
No! That's not what I said and it's not what I want. RTFM.

What I want is for my mail to get through to people who want and expect 
it. I don't engage in mass mailings. My mailings are almost never to 
more than five or six people, all of whom I know and am doing business 
with. There are lots of people in the same position as me who just want 
e-mail to be reliable and usable.

I do not appreciate half-assed spam suppression methods that make the 
system as a whole unreliable, particularly when better solutions are 
immediately possible.

I select my provider carefully, but that doesn't seem to help. There is 
no guarantee that any ISP I pick can get my mail through. Not even when 
only the big guys are involved. So I don't trust any of the ISPs and I 
don't trust e-mail. That is currently the only prudent way to go. I 
advise all my clients to do the same.

That is a sad picture for the ISP industry.

  -LM

---

From: Larry Marks <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 19:01:41 -0700

>results in a bounce (tho usually after 4 days).
Well, actually, lots of them don't.

>You are asking for guaranteed delivery.
>
Did you read my message before replying? Please take time to read the
definition I posted in the message as to what I mean by the term
"guaranteed delivery". I'm sorry if it is confusing to you. It's an old
term that I and many colleagues have used since 1980. If it needs to be
updated, then, as I said above, you can call it "best effort" which by
the definition above is equivalent. Nobody can guarantee delivery.

  -LM

---

From: Larry Marks <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 19:19:01 -0700

Vernon Schryver wrote:

>filtering.
You are aguing by character assasination. Shame on you. I have nothing 
to do with bulk mailing industry, either as a participant or as a 
consultant.

My main professional concerns are with corporate e-mail system and 
frankly,  little of what is being discussed on this list will have any 
impact on how my corporate clients fight spam.

The views I am expressing here are those of a small business person 
trying to use the Internet. There are a lot of us out there. We are not 
being well served. Of course, I could go out and form my own ISP, but 
then some aj would just put it on a blacklist.

>  Those statements all assume that what matters is the
>receive spam.
How about that? Imagine someone actually wanting the mail to go through. 
How rash of me.

As I said earlier in this thread, this is not an either/or situation. It 
is possible to make the system work and stop spam. I have even suggested 
one non-invasive approach on which no one has commented. I do not 
understand how you can believe that making e-mail unreliable represents 
some kind of victory over spam.

  -LM

---

From: Vernon Schryver <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 20:59:08 -0600 (MDT)

> with. 

That's what all of us say except a few peculiar spammers who follow
Spamford's lead and brag about spam.  The rest of us, whether spammers
or not, all define spam first and foremost as that which we don't do.

>       There are lots of people in the same position as me who just want 

Your complaint is not with spam suppression methods, but with the targets
of your mail who have choosen those spam suppression methods or chosen
ISPs using those methods and so chosen to not receive your mail.

If the targets of your mail want it, they need to inform their ISPs
or change ISPs.  However, they may choose to do neither for reasons
ranging from ignorance to prudence.  Without knowing the IP address
from which you send your mail, I can't guess why your mail is being
blocked.  It may be with cause, such as a spammer in your neighborhood.

If you are sending from 66.124.148.98, then according to
http://openrbl.org:8080/ip/66/124/148/98.htm
you may be blocked because you are running from a dynamically assigned
IP address.  (I do not agree with that blocking tactic.)

> That is a sad picture for the ISP industry.

Your vehimence about your problems continues to make me wonder if
you define "mass mailings" the way I do.  The rest of us who are
not associated with organizations with well earned reputations for 
sending spam such as Verisign don't seem to have such problems.
I've certainly never had problems such as you seem to be having.

---

From: Vernon Schryver <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 21:21:04 -0600 (MDT)

> to do with bulk mailing industry, either as a participant or as a 

I tried to not attack your character by not attributing your words
to you.  Regardless of your sterling character, your words are
exactly what the professional bulk mailers say when they've been
caught spamming.

> then some aj would just put it on a blacklist.

If you had been following the spam wars, you'd have often heard that
paragraph from bazillions of business people caught sending spam.
Please note that I'm not saying you have ever sent any spam.  I have
personally heard those words on the phone and in email from people
who have sent me unsolicited bulk email and then stumbled on the web
pages that expose my personal blacklist.  Usually those words are
preceded or followed by a heated denial that the junk mail I received
was spam or an insistent claim that I'm lying and that I went to a
trade show and dropped my business card into a fishbowl.

> How about that? Imagine someone actually wanting the mail to go through. 

Again, you are elevating your desire to get your mail through to your
targets' mailboxes above your targets' right to not receive it,
including by delegating filtering to their ISPs.  That is wrong for
all mail including non-spam.  You have no standing to complain about
your targets' mail filtering.  You and your ISP have no business
complaining to your targets' ISPs.  Your targets are free to reject
mail (or faxes or telephone calls) on any random or capricious criteria
such from people whose last names contain 'r' and 's'.

> some kind of victory over spam.

I have only vague recollections that you suggested something too
familiar with authentication, and that it was shot down as usual. 
If my recollections are wrong, what is the gist of your idea?

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 00:43:16 -0400

On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 11:34:11AM -0700, Larry Marks wrote

> Does that mean that I should be able to sue if someone doesn't take 

  *IF* you and your recipient *BOTH*
  - are on the same ISP
  - and have business accounts with SLA (Service Level Agreement)
then the SLA contract would specify penalties that the ISP owes to you

  Of course, Joe Customer may not feel like shelling out $200/month for
the combination business phone line plus business ISP account with SLA.
He's more likely to have a residential line plus a $10/month dialup ISP
account.  Anyone who expects reliability when the other end is an
el-cheapo residential ISP account is dreaming.

-- 
Walter Dnes <[email-masked]>
Email users are divided into two classes;
1) Those who have effective spam-blocking
2) Those who wish they did
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 01:49:17 -0400

On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 01:18:51PM -0700, Larry Marks wrote

> so I can get my mail through.

  A few questions...
  1) Do I have the right to order you to use an el-cheapo laissez-faire
     ISP ?

  2) Do you have the right to order me to use a high-cost "guaranteed"
     business ISP so your email can get through to me?

  3) a) Is your answer to 1) above identical to your answer to 2)?
     b) If not, why not?

> You continue, without any justification to deny what is obvious
> to any man on the street. Internet mail is a telecommunications
> service. ISP stocks are listed in the telecommunications sector. It
> is not like the postal service. It's not like FedEx and DHL. These
> are all end-to-end services. There are no switches and only a single
> bilateral handoffs in the international case. By contrast, PSTN's
> infrastructure is totally analagous to that of the ISP.

  What's next ?  Do you also want to nationalise AOL Instant Messanger ?
Businesses use that too.

> I don't want people to interfere with my mail either, as long as
> it doesn't violate the law and isn't spam. If it can't be delivered

  If you want the reliability of a registered letter, send a registered
letter.

---

From: Andrzej Filip <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 08:56:08 +0200

Larry Marks wrote:

> [...]
> What I want is for my mail to get through to people who want and 
> expect it. I don't engage in mass mailings. My mailings are almost 
> never to more than five or six people, all of whom I know and am doing 
> business with. There are lots of people in the same position as me who 
> just want e-mail to be reliable and usable.
>
> I select my provider carefully, but that doesn't seem to help. There 
> is no guarantee that any ISP I pick can get my mail through. Not even 
> when only the big guys are involved. So I don't trust any of the ISPs 
> and I don't trust e-mail. That is currently the only prudent way to 
> go. I advise all my clients to do the same.
>

IMHO "good" practice" requires generating bounce message whenever you 
reject a message.
You can make your MTA reject message in way which makes MTA sending you 
message responsible for generating the bounce message (e.g. rejecting 
the message in reply to "the final dot" after applying spamassassin) - 
it has been already implemented.

I have heard that some ISP are capable to send message to /dev/null with 
no notification to sender.  Such practices make email unreliable.

Whenever you send a email message you should always get message 
delivered or info why it can not be delivered or info why some server 
refused to deliver your message.

BTW I would be thankful for good explanation which RFC recommendation 
are broken by redirecting "suspected spam" to /dev/null for quoting in 
messages to postmaster of such sites.
[ May be there is a time to create new category on www.rfc-ignorant.org ]

---

From: "Jon Kyme" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 09:57:06 +0100

=> 
> [ May be there is a time to create new category on www.rfc-ignorant.org ]

And I'd like a good explanation of how you'd detect that behavior.

---

From: Andrzej Filip <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 13:27:33 +0200

>And I'd like a good explanation of how you'd detect that behavior.
* In one case I detected it by non email communication  (phone: Why have 
not you replied to my email ?)
* In another case the recipient have not received the message itself but 
received replies ("reply to all") to the message sent by other 
recipients of the original message.

In both cases I checked the MTA logs and it was clear that another MTA 
"took over" FULL responsibility for delivering the messages.

---

From: "Jon Kyme" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 13:32:52 +0100

> "took over" FULL responsibility for delivering the messages.

But what if the "recipient" was (gasp) lying?

---

From: Jim Youll <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 09:02:29 -0400

>But what if the "recipient" was (gasp) lying?

Oh come on.
Are you really just trying to pester this guy?

I've got accounts all over the place and i've seen my own test 
messages absolutely evaporate from time to time, and I've got the 
logs at the sending-side to prove it, and I'm the intended recipient 
at the destination account so there's no lying. AOL has definitely 
done this, and so has T-mobile when handling messages redirected 
toward my cell phone by my own servers.

Please! What is your point in this taunting and how does it further anything?
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg

---

From: Larry Marks <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 09:06:35 -0700

>exactly what the professional bulk mailers say when they've been
You really don't get it. End of conversation.

  -LM

---

From: Larry Marks <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 08:59:28 -0700

>  3) a) Is your answer to 1) above identical to your answer to 2)?
I have no idea where these questions come from. Certainly, they are not 
based on anything I said. You are just spilling bile.

>  What's next ?  Do you also want to nationalise AOL Instant Messanger ?
Non-responsive. This is your idea, tossed in where it has no 
relationship to any of the comments I have made.

>  If you want the reliability of a registered letter, send a registered
Non-responsive. Not related to anything I said.

In this entire response, you have not responded to anything I said. Why 
did you bother?

  -LM

---

From: wayne <[email-masked]>
Date: 29 Apr 2003 11:42:50 -0500

> And I'd like a good explanation of how you'd detect that behavior.

Early on in the ASRG mailing list, I think it was Matt Sergent who
suggested that there should be a simple, standardized email that all
spam filters should agree to handle as spam.  Apparently, the
anti-virus community as a test virus and this would be similar.

If such a test-spam was created and standardized by an RFC, you could
detect bogus behavior.

If the test-spam gets through to the recipient unflagged, then the
spam filter is broken.

If the test-spam gets bounced back or gets marked as spam, then the
spam filter is working (for at least this one thing).

If the test-spam just disappears, then the spam filter is broken.

-wayne

---

From: "Alan DeKok" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 13:05:56 -0400

> anti-virus community as a test virus and this would be similar.

  I propose:

  http://www.oneill.net/spam/make_penis_fast.html

  <g>

  Alan DeKok.

---

From: Kee Hinckley <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 15:34:17 -0400

>exactly what the professional bulk mailers say when they've been

Of course.  They are trying to act innocent.  But assuming that 
everyone who claims to be innocent is in fact a spammer is a bit far 
fetched.

It's nice that you've never had your email blocked.  I can assure you 
that I've not had the same wonderful experience.
-- 
Kee Hinckley
http://www.messagefire.com/          Junk-Free Email Filtering
http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/   Writings on Technology and Society

I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept
responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate
everyone else's.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg

---

From: Vernon Schryver <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 16:41:47 -0600 (MDT)

> From: Kee Hinckley <[email-masked]>

> everyone who claims to be innocent is in fact a spammer is a bit far 

So let's assume he's not a spammer.  He's using the local equivalent
of hate speech to make his point.  Someone needs to convey to him that
his choice of words is unfortunate and contrary to his interests.

> that I've not had the same wonderful experience.

Your situation is special, because you were very creative in your
choice of domain name.  Before I had occassion to deal with somewhere.com,
on more than one occassion I seriously considered adding somewhere.com
to my blacklist because of its use in spam.  When I consulted your
web pages, my suspicions that you were in league with them were not
answered.  My suspicions never quite crossed the fuzzy threshold for
winning an entry in my lists.

My best current guess is that the other person's business involves
more marketing than mine, and so fewer of his correspondents care if
they miss his mail.  More important, it appears that his "big name"
ISP is PacBell.  For those who've been following the spam wars, that
would be enough said, except that it seems he is using PacBell's ADSL
service.  I don't agree with blocking IP addresses merely because they
are somewhat dynamic, but many people report that blocking swamps of
open proxies is a very effective spam filter.  He should seek a refund
of whatever he paid for the advice to rely on PacBell's ADLS service
for unlikely to be blocked outgoing email.  Somehow I suspect he paid
no more than that advice was worth.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 21:27:58 -0400

On Tue, Apr 29, 2003 at 03:34:17PM -0400, Kee Hinckley wrote
> that I've not had the same wonderful experience.

  Adults are allowed to take risks.  They're allowed to put their life's
savings into the stock market or a business, and risk losing much or all
of it.  Adults should also be allowed to make those same tradeoffs (risk
of legitimate email loss in return for reward of a spam-free inbox) with
their choice of ISP or spam-blocking method.  People who barge in and
yell and scream that their email *MUST* go through face an uphill
struggle for credibility.  Don't blame the people who view your demands
with suspicion, blame the spammers who have been making the same demands
for the past few years.