RE: How I deal with (false positive) IP-address blacklists...

[ned+ietf at mauve.mrochek.com]

(While Dave's response to this is exactly correct - notihng in my original
note had anything to do with sacrificing small scale setups - our failure
to discuss these matters sensibly has some very important implications for
small operators that deserve further comment.)

> ned+ietf at mauve.mrochek.com wrote:
> > ...
> > Maybe it's just me, but I'll take the evidence presented by  someone
> > who has access to the operational statistics for a mail system
> > that services 10s of millions of end users and handles thousands of
> > outsourced email setups over someone like myself who runs
> > a tiny little setup any day.

> While large scale is important, small scale setups must not be sacrificed
> along the way.

Of course not. But that's precisely the effect our current approach - or
rather, non-approach, is having.

> We must not create a system where a small cartel of players
> hold the keys to 'interoperability' at the deployment level.

We're not creating much of anything - we seem to prefer endless religious
arguments and discussions of irrelevanyt anecdotes to actually getting stuff
done. And one of the results of this is that the big players, who would very
much like to see the development of standards for accessing reputation systems,
standards for so-called feedback loops, and so on and so forth, geFrom ietf-bounces at ietf.org  Wed Dec 10 07:57:23 2008
Return-Path: <ietf-bounces at ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietf-archive at megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ietf-archive at core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19B7A3A6BAE;
	Wed, 10 Dec 2008 07:57:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: ietf at core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf at core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 183F73A6929
	for <ietf at core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Dec 2008 07:57:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.41
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.41 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.126, 
	BAYES_00=-2.599, SARE_MILLIONSOF=0.315]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
	by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id zQ0s4U6cicFi for <ietf at core3.amsl.com>;
	Wed, 10 Dec 2008 07:57:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (mauve.mrochek.com [66.59.230.40])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46FE93A68D4
	for <ietf at ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Dec 2008 07:57:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dkim-sign.mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com
	(PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01N2X5BO92WG00NRKA at mauve.mrochek.com> for
	ietf at ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2008 07:57:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243)
	id <01N2RLAAA64000007A at mauve.mrochek.com>
	(original mail from NED at mauve.mrochek.com) for ietf at ietf.org; Wed,
	10 Dec 2008 07:57:08 -0800 (PST)
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 07:42:22 -0800 (PST)
From: ned+ietf at mauve.mrochek.com
Subject: RE: How I deal with (false positive) IP-address blacklists...
In-reply-to: "Your message dated Tue, 09 Dec 2008 15:00:50 -0800"
	<080001c95a51$fb11ac20$f1350460$ at net>
To: Tony Hain <alh-ietf at tndh.net>
Message-id: <01N2X5BMK77K00007A at mauve.mrochek.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
References: <01N2VWXW3J4M00007A at mauve.mrochek.com>
	<C0F2465B4F386241A58321C884AC7ECC09EB3C5F at E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net>
	<01N2VZWB0O8800007A at mauve.mrochek.com>
	<080001c95a51$fb11ac20$f1350460$ at net>
Cc: ned+ietf at mauve.mrochek.com, ietf at ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf at ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>,
	<mailto:ietf-request at ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf at ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request at ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>,
	<mailto:ietf-request at ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: ietf-bounces at ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces at ietf.org

(While Dave's response to this is exactly correct - notihng in my original
note had anything to do with sacrificing small scale setups - our failure
to discuss these matters sensibly has some very important implications for
small operators that deserve further comment.)

> ned+ietf at mauve.mrochek.com wrote:
> > ...
> > Maybe it's just me, but I'll take the evidence presented by  someone
> > who has access to the operational statistics for a mail system
> > that services 10s of millions of end users and handles thousands of
> > outsourced email setups over someone like myself who runs
> > a tiny little setup any day.

> While large scale is important, small scale setups must not be sacrificed
> along the way.

Of course not. But that's precisely the effect our current approach - or
rather, non-approach, is having.

> We must not create a system where a small cartel of players
> hold the keys to 'interoperability' at the deployment level.

We're not creating much of anything - we seem to prefer endless religious
arguments and discussions of irrelevanyt anecdotes to actually getting stuff
done. And one of the results of this is that the big players, who would very
much like to see the development of standards for accessing reputation systems,
standards for so-called feedback loops, and so on and so forth, get tired t tired of
waiting and simply roll their own. And when that happens the little guys have
no place at the table.

> Current
> filtering practice creates way too many false positives already because the
> large organizations can't afford to bother with identifying the source. My
> lowly server just handles my wife, myself, and my daughter's business, and
> way too often I hear complaints about bounces because largeispmailer.com is
> refusing to accept mail from an insignificant non-member-of-the-club server.

Exactly. You and I are not able to play because the standards for the
reputation systems and other antispam measure these guys are using are designed
in private with no consideration given to open access.

The way you change that is by, you know, codifying ways to do these things in
openly available standards. But we don't seem to be able to do that.

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


of
waiting and simply roll their own. And when that happens the little guys have
no place at the table.

> Current
> filtering practice creates way too many false positives already because the
> large organizations can't afford to bother with identifying the source. My
> lowly server just handles my wife, myself, and my daughter's business, and
> way too often I hear complaints about bounces because largeispmailer.com is
> refusing to accept mail from an insignificant non-member-of-the-club server.

Exactly. You and I are not able to play because the standards for the
reputation systems and other antispam measure these guys are using are designed
in private with no consideration given to open access.

The way you change that is by, you know, codifying ways to do these things in
openly available standards. But we don't seem to be able to do that.

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