ietf-asrg
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [Asrg] Seeking volunteers for C/R documents (was: Washington Pos t: Earthlink to Deploy a Challenge-Response System for )

2003-05-10 20:03:33
On Sat, May 10, 2003 at 02:15:38PM -0700, J C Lawrence wrote
On Sat, 10 May 2003 10:05:56 -0400 
Paul Judge <paul(_dot_)judge(_at_)ciphertrust(_dot_)com> wrote:

Additionally, a proposal for a C/R protocol would be useful. This
would permit interaction between different C/R systems and allow
integration into MTAs and MUAs.

Given that the response portion and the transport used for the response
(email, web, phone, IM, XML/RPC, other) are unstandardisable, that only
leaves the challenge side.  

Is there anything required by a challenge that's different from a
vacation bot?

Does anyone have a set of thoughts in either of these two directions
that they would like to put together and move forward?

For *JUST* C/R, the vacation bot spec seems sufficient.  If you're
trying to glue C/R into another system, like a consent token system,
them I've already written a little on that aspect.

  Probably raising my BI on this issue, but here goes...

  1) I am *NOT* a fan of "C/R by default", but I believe that C/R does
have its place.  Specifically, I use a variant of C/R as a safety net in
conjunction with aggressive blocking.  This safety net has given me the
necessary confidence to start using SPEWS.  I divide my email into 4
classes...
     a) whitelist - a small subset of the net is unconditionally accepted
     b) greylist  - the vast majority of the net is accepted if it
                    doesn't flag out via DNSbls or local blocklist rules
     c) blacklist - a small subset of the net is  blocked via DNSbls and
                    other rules.  As part of the 550 reject message, the
                    sender gets a URL on my personal website to a page
                    that lists the current temporary unfiltered email
                    address at which I may be contacted.
     d) blacklist with extreme prejiduce - a small set of CIDRs from
                    which I do not want to hear.  They do not get pointed
                    to my filter bypass page.

     Current C/R systems challenge everybody except whitelisted
addresses.  Given moderately aggressive filtering, I get hardly any spam
from the greylist, so I let it through.

  2) In an effort to bypass spamblocks that check for invalid "From:"
domains, spammers now forge addresses from valid domains.  Occasionally
the forged addresses are real, and an innocent 3rd-party gets deluged
with bounces.  The default C/R method of sending a challenge email would
make this even worse.  That's why I prefer making the challenge part of
an SMTP-stage reject.

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