Re: [testlist] Rules for Rejecting Mail (was Re: Undelivered Mail Returned to Sender)

[Marshall Eubanks <tme at multicasttech.com>]

On May 16, 2008, at 7:51 AM, Tom.Petch wrote:

> Glen
>
> You asked about reaching consensus and I think that that is an  
> important part of
> the culture of the IETF; it is a very flat organisation, although a  
> few humps
> and bumps have appeared over the years.
>
> One of the more recent of these is the Administrative Director; it  
> was he who
> informed us of the changeover of provider, who kept us abreast of  
> developments,
> so it is he I see as your customer via whom requests such as those  
> relating to
> anti-spam measures should come.

The IAD acts on the behalf of the IAOC.

I agree, however, that consensus on this matter should be obtained on  
the IETF mailing list.
Consensus of working group chairs is not the same as IETF consensus.

Regards
Marshall

> I would expect him to consult, and the customary way to do so is via  
> the IETF
> main mailing list. However, e-mail is a topic where the list has  
> many experts,
> whose opinion may be divided, especially where spam is concerned, so  
> I think
> that achieving rough consensus there may be difficult.
>
> There is also a dedicated anti-spam mailing list but that has even  
> more experts
> and I suspect that consensus will be even harder to reach there.
>
> Nonetheless, I think that the process to follow is clear (and as I  
> write this, I
> am aware that achieving consensus on IETF process is even more  
> fraught than
> achieving consensus on e-mail:-(
>
> Whatever the outcome, I believe that the Administrative Director  
> should announce
> it on the IETF and announce lists so that participants can adjust  
> their DNS
> entries etc accordingly.
>
> Tom Petch
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Glen" <glen at amsl.com>
> To: "Eric Rescorla" <ekr at rtfm.com>
> Cc: "Working Group Chairs" <wgchairs at ietf.org>; <testlist at mail.ietf.org 
> >; "David
> Oran" <oran at cisco.com>; <iab at iab.org>; "Danny McPherson" <danny at tcb.net 
> >
> Sent: Friday, May 16, 2008 5:44 AM
> Subject: Re: [testlist] Rules for Rejecting Mail (was Re:  
> Undelivered Mail
> Returned to Sender)
>
>
> > Eric Rescorla wrote:
> > > Accordingly, here we have a situation where we have a rule that
> > > is:
> > > (1) easy for any spammer to bypass
> > > (2) can be shown to have blocked legitimate mail in at least two  
> > > cases
> > >     [Note, you say "defer", but since the issue here is hosts  
> > > without
> > >     records, not DNS failures, defer is just a particularly  
> > > inconvenient
> > >     form of block.]
> > > I think that presents a convincing argument for *at minimum*  
> > > replacing
> > > the defer with a check in SpamAssassin and, arguably, removing the
> > > check entirely.
> >
> > I read, and agree with this completely.
> >
> > > That's good, but I don't think it changes the fact that we need a  
> > > backup
> relay
> > > -Ekr
> >
> > Agreed also.  Addressed in my other outage message, which crossed  
> > with
> > this one.
> >
> > Other comments from anyone regarding rules?
> >
> > Thanks, Eric!
> >
> > Glen
> > _______________________________________________
> > Testlist mailing list
> > Testlist at mail.ietf.org
> > https://mail.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/testlist
>
> _______________________________________________
> Testlist mailing list
> Testlist at mail.ietf.org
> https://mail.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/testlist