ietf-asrg
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: [Asrg] A lot of additional comments

2003-07-07 13:55:38
This is not the best way. We should allow free reading of discussion on 
mailing list. The best is confirmation by moderator of a first post from 
any new subscriber - i.e. default for new users should be to have their 
posts moderated rather then not but not to actually prevent new subscriptions.
And for large list such as ASRG, I think it'll also be less work for 
moderator to check first post rather then all subscription requests.

On Mon, 7 Jul 2003, Paul Judge wrote:

Even though it is fairly obvious, I've confirmed that this email also comes
from Marc McCarron. 

I've taken a few measures to prevent this type of interruption in the
future. One of which is that new subscriptions now require administrator
approval in addition to email confirmation.

Hopefully, Marc will focus on setting up a mailing list to discuss the
details of his system for interested parties rather than spend his time
creating aliases and making obviously false accusations.

-----Original Message-----
From: angelofd7(_at_)icqmail(_dot_)com 
[mailto:angelofd7(_at_)icqmail(_dot_)com] 
Sent: Monday, July 07, 2003 4:16 PM
To: asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: [Asrg] A lot of additional comments


I would like to refer everyone to this link

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/giza.necropolis/disgrace/index.html


I read this and thought Mr McCarron was exaggerating
the problem.  I have reviewed the accusations made and
I must agree with him.  Paul Judge is unfit to be the
chair of Anti-Spam research group due to his personal
interest in promoting the 'IronMail' product.  As an
engineer myself, I also agree with Mr McCarron's point
about this group 'running in circles' to avoid a
solution from being developed.

Since Mr McCarron is not given the opportunity to
defend himself.  I will assist in the matter.  If you
have a problem with this, well, I am sure I can have 60 
engineers posting here everyday on the subject.  I am quite 
sure between us we could average 180 posts a day on 'GIEIS'.

For those interested 'GIEIS' has moved to version 0.006.


Brian.





From: Vern Paxson <vern(_at_)icir(_dot_)org>
To: "Mark McCarron" <markmccarron_itt(_at_)hotmail(_dot_)com>
CC: paul(_dot_)judge(_at_)ciphertrust(_dot_)com, asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Solutions - Replacing SMTP -
GIEIS Analysis
Date: Sun, 06 Jul 2003 22:48:49 -0700

As I explained to you off-list also, I am both free
to post as often and
reply to whom ever I want.

No in fact you are not.  I have urged Paul to deny you
posting privileges
to the ASRG list unless/until you are able to exhibit
civil mailing list
behavior, which includes being responsive to
constructive dialog regarding
your posts, heeding requests to take discussions to
separate fora, refraining
from advertising your scheme in each of your posts,
and staying within the
scope of the research group's mailing list.

          Vern   (IRTF chair)



This is disgraceful to say the least.  This is supposed
to be an open forum.  Mr McCarron was doing no more
than replying to posts that were made about him or the
'GIEIS' architecture.  Mr McCarron made it extremely
clear that he was not here to debate the system nor
obtain any form of approval.  Mr McCarron was seeking
people to draft the guidelines.






_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg


From: Yakov Shafranovich <research(_at_)solidmatrix(_dot_)com>
To: "Brian Hamilton" <bhamilton20030201(_at_)hotmail(_dot_)com>
CC: Paul Judge <paul(_dot_)judge(_at_)ciphertrust(_dot_)com>,Vern
Paxson <vern(_at_)icir(_dot_)org>
Subject: [off-list] Re: [Asrg] Some important comments
Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2003 02:13:44 -0400

[off-list]

I am replying to you off-list in order to keep the
GIEIS discussion 
to a minimum.



Mr McCarron was right then in regards to his proposals
being suppressed.  Disgraceful.




There is an old joke
(http://www.aviationhumour.co.uk/general/computer/micro.htm):
---snip---
"A helicopter was flying around above Seattle when an
electrical 
malfunction disabled all of the aircraft's electronic
navigation and 
communications equipment. Due to the clouds and haze,
the pilot 
could not determine the helicopter's position and
course to steer to 
the airport. The pilot saw a tall building, flew
toward it, circled, 
drew a handwritten sign, and held it in the
helicopter's window.

The pilot's sign said "WHERE AM I?" in large letters.
People in the 
tall building quickly responded to the aircraft, drew
a large sign, 
and held it in a building window. Their sign said "YOU
ARE IN A 
HELICOPTER." The pilot smiled, waved, looked at his
map, determined 
the course to steer to SEATAC airport, and landed
safely. After they 
were on the ground, the copilot asked the pilot how
the "YOU ARE IN 
A HELICOPTER" sign helped determine their position.
The pilot 
responded "I knew that had to be the MICROSOFT
building because they 
gave me a technically correct, but completely useless
answer."
---snip---

The same applies here, Mark's solution may be
technically correct 
but at its current stage its totally useless since the
technical 
details are closely coupled with the marketing
materials and other 
BS. What we would like to see is a short concise
technical summary 
like an  Internet draft (see www.rfc-editor.org). At
this point his 
behavior is simply erratic and makes it very hard to
evaluate 
anything in his proposal.



To coin a phrase of Mr McCarron, nonsense.  My company
was able to extract all the details without any real
problems.  I also think you are missing Mr McCarron's
point in regards to Internet drafts and RFCs.  Mr
McCarron was pointing out that the Internet is not a
'public system' no longer, it is a business
marketplace.  As such, it is no longer acceptable for
Internet standards being dictated by some form of open 
organisation.  My company alone would save $100 Million every 
year from implementing 'GIEIS'.




I think everyone on this list should carefully
consider what Mr 
McCarron is proposing.  I understand the point about
Mr McCarron 
being annoying and posting frequently on the matter.
On the other 
hand, 'GIEIS' is only what I can describe as being a
perfect 
architecture.  It is funny the contrast between the
creator and the 
architecture.

The creation of almost 2 million jobs is a major
selling point 
behind 'GIEIS'.  I will admit it is marketing but Mr
McCarron's 
figures do match up.  The ISP I work for is seriously
considering 
investing in the implementation program of 'GIEIS'.
Not only does 
it make excellent business sense to do so, but it
also generates an 
unbelievable PR opportunity.  Since the release of
version 0.003 of 
the 'GIEIS' proposal, high level meetings have
occured to discuss 
the system.  When a new version appears, anyone would
be lead to 
believe that the CEO has arrived there are that many
managers 
present.

'GIEIS' is the simply one of the best proposals we
have ever 
encountered.

Do not fall into the trap of implementing proprietary
technology. 
The GIEIS system at the moment is not anywhere near
being even 
considered to be an Internet standard, partly due to
the failure of 
its creator to communicate properly on the list.
Additionally there 
are various problems with his proposal which is
refusing to address. 
Some of the products of the group are documents
addressing the 
requirements for any potential anti-spam proposals.
One of them can 
be found at
(http://www.irtf.org/asrg/draft-asrg-anti-spam-requirements.txt), 
some of the items listed are:



Proprietary technology is the future of the Internet. 
The open nature allows for to much abuse.  Investing in
this form of technology would save billions across the
world.  This is all that concerns us.






2.must not affect delivery(latency, integrity, cost,
reliability) of 
wanted messages to a point that would effect the
normal use of email
4.must be easy to deploy, incrementally
a.must provide incentives to deploy for those doing
the deployment
5.must not depend on universal deployment to be
effective
6.must not reduce privacy
7.must have minimal administration and implementation
overhead



The only point that Mr McCarron's proposal misses out
on is number 5.  In terms of the financial savings
generated annually, the universal adoption would be
more than appropriate.




All of these items do not apply to the GIEIS proposal:
2. Since a centralized system is used the delivery of
email is 
affected since all messages must pass through a
central point. If 
the central system is down, then the messages are
delayed.
4 and 5. this system is not incremental, one of its
main advantages 
is that its a closed system - no one outside the
system can use it.
6 and 7. every messages needs to be tracked,
decreasing privacy and 
increasing overhead.



I do not think you understand Mr McCarron's proposal. 
Emails are not delivered from a central point, they are
authenticated from it.  In addition, with the amount of
money Mr McCarron's proposal would generate their would
be quite a number of 'cental points' in the 'GIEIS'
infrastructure.





Additionally, take a look at 
(http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-crocker-spam-techc
onsider-02.txt) 
which deals with technical considerations of anti-spam
solutions, 
especially section 4, in particular (emphasis added):

"A key construct to examination of adoption and
benefit is 
"core-vs-edge".  Generally, adoption at the edge of a
system is 
easier and quicker than adoption in the core. If a
mechanism affects 
the core (infrastructure) then it usually must be
adopted by most or 
all of the     infrastructure before it provides
meaningful utility. 
IN SOMETHING THE SCALE OF THE INTERNET, IT CAN TAKE
DECADES TO REACH 
THAT LEVEL OF ADOPTION, IF IT EVER DOES.



This a not true.  'GIEIS' is a software update.  We
have calculated that it would take us less than four
weeks to be 'GIEIS compliant'.  It is not difficult to
patch several hundred servers.





Remember that the Internet comprises a massive number
of independent 
administrations, each with their own politics and
funding. What is 
important and feasible to one might be neither to
another. If the 
latter administration is in the handling path for a
message, then it 
will not have implemented the necessary control
mechanism. Worse, it 
well might not be possible to change this.  For
example a proposal 
that requires a brand new mail service is not likely
to gain much 
traction."




This proposal has gained traction.  You are completely
missing the point.  That is simply money and Mr
McCarron can generate lots of it.




There are numerous other issues as well.

All I would suggest is that you do not attempt to
judge the system 
based upon its creator.

Allow me to quote from a message by the chair of the
RIPE WG on spam 
where Mark's plan was first presented:
"A pity, because in his overstated plan there was
probably one idea 
that with a little more humility could have been made
into 
something."

Unfortunately, unless Mark starts to behave himself,
he may find 
himself evicted from the group.

Yakov




I do not think Mr McCarron has done anything wrong.  I
think 'GIEIS' is being victimized by those with
financial interests.  This much is quite clear.








From: Yakov Shafranovich <research(_at_)solidmatrix(_dot_)com>
To: "Brian Hamilton" <bhamilton20030201(_at_)hotmail(_dot_)com>
Subject: Fwd: [off-list] Re: [Asrg] Some important
comments
Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2003 02:30:30 -0400

On an additional note, take a look at the list
archives at the 
proposal put forth by Walter Dnes. He suggested
creating a separate 
"business email" system akin to Fedex and UPS
interoperable with the 
regular email system.

Yakov




This will not have any affect on spam.  The problem is
both the current architecture and protocol as Mr
McCarron has stated numerous times.




From: Scott Nelson <scott(_at_)spamwolf(_dot_)com>
To: "Brian Hamilton" <bhamilton20030201(_at_)hotmail(_dot_)com>
Subject: Re: [Asrg] Some important comments
Date: Sun, 06 Jul 2003 23:38:07 -0700

At 05:46 AM 7/7/03 +0000, you wrote:
As a network engineer for one of Britian's larger
Internet services, I view
'GIEIS' as being an acceptable solution.  I have
examined the site almost 20
times and even put the architecture to the test
using paper and pen.  I am
sorry to say that I could not find any point of
weakness.  I would have
enjoyed proving Mr McCarron wrong.

I think everyone on this list should carefully
consider what Mr McCarron is
proposing.  I understand the point about Mr McCarron
being annoying and
posting frequently on the matter.  On the other
hand, 'GIEIS' is only what I
can describe as being a perfect architecture.  It is
funny the contrast
between the creator and the architecture.

The creation of almost 2 million jobs is a major
selling point behind
'GIEIS'.  I will admit it is marketing but Mr
McCarron's figures do match
up.  The ISP I work for is seriously considering
investing in the
implementation program of 'GIEIS'.  Not only does it
make excellent business
sense to do so, but it also generates an
unbelievable PR opportunity.  Since
the release of version 0.003 of the 'GIEIS'
proposal, high level meetings
have occured to discuss the system.  When a new
version appears, anyone
would be lead to believe that the CEO has arrived
there are that many
managers present.

'GIEIS' is the simply one of the best proposals we
have ever encountered.

All I would suggest is that you do not attempt to
judge the system based
upon its creator.



Interesting.
I'm curious, if you don't mind me asking;
Approximately how many peers does your network have,
and how do you think they will feel about your
decision to invest,
should you actually do so?

Scott Nelson <scott(_at_)spamwolf(_dot_)com>





We have a substantial amount of peers.  The decision to
invest would unaffect them.  For the businesses we
support early reports indicate they would be more than
delighted with 'GIEIS'.  I also see you have a business
interest in the spam issue.







From: Paul Judge <paul(_dot_)judge(_at_)ciphertrust(_dot_)com>
To: "'Mark McCarron'" <markmccarron_itt(_at_)hotmail(_dot_)com>, 
      "'asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org'" <asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
CC: "'Vern Paxson'" <vern(_at_)icir(_dot_)org>, Paul Judge
<paul(_dot_)judge(_at_)ciphertrust(_dot_)com>
Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6. Solutions - Replacing SMTP -
GIEIS Analysis
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 06:22:31 -0400

Mark,

Your posting privileges have been revoked due to your
posting behavior. You
have continued to ignore the scope of the ASRG's
mailing list, ignore
suggestions to move the detailed discussion of your
system to an appropriate
mailing list, and constantly advertise your system
without any regard for
constructive feedback or other proposals.

If you assure me that you'll stay on-topic for ASRG
and stop flogging GIEIS,
I'll conditionally allow you posting privileges back
on the mailing list
(moderated until you prove that you really can be a
well-behaving list
member).

Paul



GIEIS is an on-topic issue for the ASRG.  Every post
that Mr McCarron is going to reply to will be on the
topic of GIEIS.  You can hardly describe that as
'flogging it'.  His behavior has not been
inappropriate, he has done nothing more than to respond
to every point or accusation made against him.  Paul,
your alternate motives in this matter are crystal clear.




-----Original Message-----
From: Mark McCarron
[mailto:markmccarron_itt(_at_)hotmail(_dot_)com]
Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2003 2:45 PM
To: paul(_dot_)judge(_at_)ciphertrust(_dot_)com; 
asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6. Solutions - Replacing SMTP -
GIEIS Analysis


As I explained to you off-list also, I am both free
to post
as often and
reply to whom ever I want.  The current 'work
issues' have
been nothing more
than revised nonsense relating to matters that have
already
been extensivly
'defined'.

Mark McCarron.




I will agree to this.  I have not been able to locate a
single technical post that even approaches resolving
the issue of spam.  The posts do tend to go round in
circles.






From: william(_at_)elan(_dot_)net
To: asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [Asrg] Some important comments
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 01:23:39 -0700 (PDT)

X-Originating-IP: [62.252.128.5] <----- See below
X-Originating-Email: [bhamilton20030201(_at_)hotmail(_dot_)com]
From: "Brian Hamilton" <bhamilton20030201(_at_)hotmail(_dot_)com>
To: asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: [Asrg] Some important comments
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Message-ID: <Law14-F19Ww8gRzpPWy0004484e(_at_)hotmail(_dot_)com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Jul 2003 05:46:34.0152 (UTC)
    FILETIME=[1FB24A80:01C3444B]
Sender: asrg-admin(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org

5.128.252.62.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer
inktomi2-ren.server.ntl.com.

[WHOIS.RIPE.NET]
inetnum:      62.252.128.0 - 62.252.159.255
netname:      NTL
descr:        NTL Internet
descr:        Renfrew site
country:      GB
admin-c:      NNMC1-RIPE
tech-c:       NNMC1-RIPE
status:       ASSIGNED PA
mnt-by:       AS5089-MNT
changed:      hostmaster(_at_)ntli(_dot_)net 20010706
changed:      hostmaster(_at_)ntli(_dot_)net 20020815
source:       RIPE

GEIS Webpage is hosted at NTL.com:
 http://homepage.ntlworld.com/giza....

Conclusion: its possible this maybe Mark McCarron
posting from website cgi
      or otherwise redirecting from it




We are both on the same network, with access to the
same rotating proxy hosted by NTL to assist engineers
in bypassing the cache.




From: "C. Wegrzyn" <wegrzyn(_at_)garbagedump(_dot_)com>
CC: "'asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org'" <asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Subject: Re: [Asrg] Some important comments
Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2003 07:55:53 -0400

While GEIS might have some merit I find it funny that
a person that 
is "rearchitecting" the whole eMail infrastructure of
the internet 
doesn't know the simplest things about the current
system!

Chuck Wegrzyn



Are you not the person who suggested using a VPN for
email.  You have some nerve of accusing Mr McCarron of
not understanding email infrastructure.  There is quite
clearly more technical knowledge in his foot than is in
your head.

B Hamilton


-------------------------------------------------------------
Sign up for ICQmail at http://www.icq.com/icqmail/signup.html

_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg


_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg


_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>