On Sun, 2005-12-04 at 16:29 -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
"Daniel" == Daniel Feenberg <feenberg(_at_)nber(_dot_)org> writes:
Daniel> Is there a proper place to discuss
Daniel>
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-church-dnsbl-harmful-o1.txt
Daniel> ?
You can talk to the author of that draft and try and convince him that
the draft should become more balanced. That may work.
Traditional black-hole lists represent a small percentage of sources for
abusive email. The IP addresses reported as belonging to accounts that
should not be sending email represents a substantial portion of sources
sending spam and viruses. Much of these addresses are obtained by way
of cooperation with various providers, and may not represent a dynamic
address.
In the past, these lists may have been described as Dial-Up Lists (DUL).
These accounts may have static IP addresses, but operate under contracts
prohibiting operation of an MTA. There may be disagreements regarding
an address included on these lists. When the customer of an ISP
complains, they are often required to have the request forwarded on
their behalf by their provider, when in conflict with information
offered by the provider.
Often, resolution of such listings requires a different class of account
be obtained from the provider, such as business versus residential. The
listing service will trust information offered by the provider and not
override this information based solely upon complaints by their
customers, regardless of the nature of the IP address being either
static or dynamic.
There are newer strategies being used beyond the traditional black-hole
Today, many of t listing, in addition to the DUL. Unlike filtering,
these lists often provide the sender an error message that indicates the
list causing refusal of their message. Without substantial reductions
in overhead afforded by black-hole lists, more exacting efforts aimed at
thwarting other types of email attacks would not be possible.
Perhaps once EHLO or signature authentication based upon the customer
becomes more widely available, name based listings would avoid some
collateral blocking that occurs when the MTA is being shared.
Authorization mechanisms will result in unfair name blocking by holding
the email-address domain owner accountable, even though they are likely
unable to monitor or respond to any abuse. What better scheme is there?
-Doug
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf