RE: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - CRI Draft - 4.1 Loop Avoidance

["Eric Dean" <eric@purespeed.com>]

You have an excellent point...was that a self-nomination?   8-)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Peter
> Kay
> Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 2:54 PM
> To: Eric Dean; Yakov Shafranovich
> Cc: Kee Hinckley; asrg@ietf.org; Brad Knowles
> Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - CRI Draft - 4.1 Loop Avoidance
> 
> This may just be an issue of semantics. Perhaps what I'm suggesting is
> more of a BCP than an adjustment to CRI. So maybe the right approach
is
> to solidfy the BCP for CR and then make sure your CRI examples respect
> the BCP.
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Eric Dean [mailto:eric@purespeed.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 7:43 AM
> > To: 'Yakov Shafranovich'; Peter Kay
> > Cc: 'Kee Hinckley'; asrg@ietf.org; 'Brad Knowles'
> > Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - CRI Draft - 4.1 Loop Avoidance
> >
> >
> > I wouldn't call it a basis...it's certainly good experience
> > from someone who understands CR systems.
> >
> > Again, let's not confuse CR with CRI which simply handles
> > automation and loop avoidance.
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org] On Behalf
Of
> > Yakov
> > > Shafranovich
> > > Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 12:49 PM
> > > To: Peter Kay
> > > Cc: Kee Hinckley; Eric Dean; asrg@ietf.org; Brad Knowles
> > > Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - CRI Draft - 4.1 Loop Avoidance
> > >
> > > FYI, Brad Templenton has a BCP for C/R which we can use as
> > a basis for
> > > our BCP:
> > >
> > > http://www.templetons.com/brad/spam/challengeresponse.html
> > >
> > > Peter Kay wrote:
> > > > This is interesting as it may pave the way to a BCP as well.
> > > >
> > > > Kee, I'm curious, did your support system autorespond
> > with the same
> > > > RCPT-TO address as the one the customer sent it to?
> > > >
> > > > Meaning, if the customer sent an email to
> > "support@domain.com", did
> > your
> > > > autoresponder reply with a RCPT-TO of
> > "support@domain.com" or was it
> > > > "techsupportreply@domain.com".
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>-----Original Message-----
> > > >>From: Kee Hinckley [mailto:nazgul@somewhere.com]
> > > >>Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 4:46 PM
> > > >>To: Eric Dean
> > > >>Cc: Peter Kay; asrg@ietf.org
> > > >>Subject: RE: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - CRI Draft - 4.1 Loop
Avoidance
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>At 8:30 PM -0400 10/1/03, Eric Dean wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>>If we start adding various messaging such as with DSNs...I
> > > >>
> > > >>don't think
> > > >>
> > > >>>that we should be hijacking a sender's email address to
> > > >>
> > > >>carry various
> > > >>
> > > >>>protocol information.
> > > >>
> > > >>Perhaps.  Just keep in mind that you need to interoperate
> > with more
> > > >>than just other CR systems.
> > > >>
> > > >>As an example, a user of a CR system sent mail to our support
> > system.
> > > >>Our spam filters validated the sending email address by
> > doing a MAIL
> > > >>FROM/RCPT TO.  Then we generated an auto-reply.  His CR system
> > > >>rejected the our auto-reply and we got a bounce report from our
> > > >>server.  Then the CR system sent us two challenges.  One
> > went to the
> > > >>support system, but it didn't use the same subject, so it didn't
> > have
> > > >>the ticket number, so it generated a new ticket, to which we
> > > >>responded (fortunately the CR system didn't challenge
> > that as well).
> > > >>The other challenge was generated by the CR mail server, which
> > > >>generates challenges when it gets a RCPT TO, rather than when it
> > gets
> > > >>a message (and they aren't the only ones who use that
> > stunt).  That
> > > >>reply went to a trap address that we use for the MAIL FROM--so
no
> > > >>damage there, just annoyance.
> > > >>
> > > >>So here's the count of messages sent.
> > > >>
> > > >>User - 1
> > > >>Support System - 2
> > > >>CR System - 2
> > > >>
> > > >>And of course we have a bogus support ticket to clear
> > out. And the
> > > >>user doesn't get any feedback that we've gotten their
> > support
> > > >>request until it moves through the queue to a human.  At
> > which point
> > > >>our support folks have to go to the web site and answer the
> > challenge.
> > > >>
> > > >>--
> > > >>Kee Hinckley
> > > >>http://www.messagefire.com/         Next Generation Spam Defense
> > > >>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
> > > > Asrg@ietf.org
> > > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Asrg mailing list
> > > Asrg@ietf.org
> > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Asrg mailing list
> Asrg@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg



_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg