Re: [Asrg] Getting group consensus on draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists

and speaking of bad blacklist operators, you get petty assholes
who think that their SMTP is an AI capable of educing meaning
from messages.  I wonder who runs this one? Oh, the working
group chair. Charming.

Mike

-------- Original Message --------
Return-Path:    <MAILER-DAEMON(_at_)mtcc(_dot_)com>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: 	SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on 
takifugu.mtcc.com
X-Spam-Level:   
X-Spam-Status: 	No, Score=-1.1/4.5, BAYES_00=-1.9,DKIM_ADSP_ALL=0.8, 
NO_RELAYS=-0.001,T_TVD_MIME_NO_HEADERS=0.01,autolearn=no
X-Spam-Bayes-Summ: 	summary=Tokens: new, 41; hammy, 117; neutral, 63; 
spammy, 2.
X-Spam-RBL: 	<dns:mtcc.com?type=MX> [0 mtcc.com.] <dns:mtcc.com> 
[50.0.18.224]
X-Spam-Bayes-Spam:      0.987-1--Big, 0.987-1--560
X-Spam-Bayes-Ham: 	0.000-+--ISPs, 0.000-+--dnsbl, 0.000-+--DNSBL, 
0.001-+--disagree, 0.001-+--isps
X-Spam-UnTrusted:       
Received: 	from localhost (localhost) by mtcc.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) id 
p220EupJ006967; Tue, 1 Mar 2011 16:14:56 -0800
Date:   Tue, 1 Mar 2011 16:14:56 -0800
From:   Mail Delivery Subsystem <MAILER-DAEMON(_at_)mtcc(_dot_)com>
Message-Id:     <201103020014(_dot_)p220EupJ006967(_at_)mtcc(_dot_)com>
To:     <mike(_at_)mtcc(_dot_)com>
MIME-Version:   1.0
Content-Type: 	multipart/report; report-type=delivery-status; 
boundary="p220EupJ006967.1299024896/mtcc.com"
Subject:        Returned mail: see transcript for details
Auto-Submitted:         auto-generated (failure)



The original message was received at Tue, 1 Mar 2011 16:14:53 -0800
from takifugu.mtcc.com [50.0.18.224]

   ----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----
<neil(_at_)cauce(_dot_)org>
    (reason: 553 Incoherent message (5.1.1))

   ----- Transcript of session follows -----
... while talking to smtp.abuse.net.:
> > >  MAIL From:<mike(_at_)mtcc(_dot_)com>  SIZE=3247
<<<  553 Incoherent message (5.1.1)
501 5.6.0 Data format error

Attached Message Part
Description: message/delivery-status

> --- Begin Message ---
> On 03/01/2011 04:01 PM, Neil Schwartzman wrote:
> > 2. I disagree with you. Negative reputation is something no-one wants, nor 
> > should you be able to buy your way out of it. Conversely, a positive bump to 
> > differentiate you from the competition is valuable (but no, no-one who is a 
> > crappy sender could bribe their way onto the list, not while I was there, and 
> > not since I left), and something those that benefit from the service should pay 
> > for, just as ISPs should pay for the use of a DNSBL.
> >    
> Er, well that works well when you're dealing with saint.com and
> sinner.com, but real world entities are often a blend of each. This
> is going to be particularly true of domain based reputation dealing
> with $megacorp. In that case, trying to get off blacklists and onto
> whitelists with money or threats or combinations of both is going
> to produce real life conflicts of interest. For both operators. How
> well did the Usenet Death Penalty work against the invading aol, etc
> hordes? Not very as I recall, and that was before the Big Bux were
> involved that invariably grease the wheels.
>
> Mike
>
>
> --- End Message ---
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)irtf(_dot_)org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg