Re: Spammers answering TMDA Queries

["Tom.Petch" <sisyphus at dial.pipex.com>]

---- Original Message -----
From: "Clint Chaplin" <clint.chaplin at gmail.com>
To: <ietf at ietf.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2007 1:01 AM
Subject: Re: Spammers answering TMDA Queries


> I believe the term is "tmda", not "tdma".
>

Never mind how it is spelt, what is it? Something to do with e-mail, something
associated with
spam, something that may or may not affect my ability to participate with the
'IETF' now or in future.

But what is it?

An explanation for one not familiar with MX and mail list administration would
be appreciated.

Tom Petch

PS no need to explain SPF, DKIM etc, those have been hammered enough on this
list.






> TDMA is a type of cell phone technology.
>
> On 10/3/07, Hallam-Baker, Phillip <pbaker at verisign.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > I don't see a problem if we eat our own dog food.
> >
> >  The use of tdma type tech for mailing list subscriptions has been
> > considered best practice for over a decade. Personal use is nasty, brutish
> > and hopefully short.
> >
> >  Allowing unsubscribed persons to post after a tdma authentication is a
> > courtesy, there is no obligation to extend it in the first place.
> >
> >  Pooling the tdma responses across multiple ietf mailing lists is a further
> > courtesy.
> >
> >
> >  There is more we can do here but no more that we should feel obliged to do
> > - ecept for the fact that we are a standards organization and should eat the
> > dog food.
> >
> >  In particular, sign the messages with dkim and deploy spf.
> >
> >
> >
> >  Sent from my GoodLink Wireless Handheld (www.good.com)
> >
> >   -----Original Message-----
> >  From:   Michael Thomas [mailto:mat at cisco.com]
> >  Sent:   Wednesday, October 03, 2007 08:23 AM Pacific Standard Time
> >  To:     Brian E Carpenter
> >  Cc:     ietf at ietf.org
> >  Subject:        Re: Spammers answering TMDA Queries
> >
> >  Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> >  > Speaking personally, I think annual reconfirmation is quite reasonable.
> >  > The message sent to the user should make it clear that it is an
> >  > annual process.
> >
> >  Except... the annual confirmation is probably going to get accidentally
> >  deleted by a lot of people because they think it's the monthly notice.
> >
> >  If this is a real problem, wouldn't it be better to take it up with the
> >  mailman
> >  folks since I'd expect that it's not just ietf? I've been working with
> >  them on
> >  dkim related stuff and they are quite reasonable folks. Maybe they have
> > some
> >  ideas on this front.
> >
> >         Mike
> >
> >  _______________________________________________
> >  Ietf mailing list
> >  Ietf at ietf.org
> >  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ietf mailing list
> > Ietf at ietf.org
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Clint (JOATMON) Chaplin
> Principal Engineer
> Corporate Standardization (US)
> SISA
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf at ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf