Subject: Off-topic postings

From: Brant Knudson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 04:24:33 +0000

To my Esteemed Colleagues:

There has been a lot of discussion on this mailing list concerning
allowing spammers access to every mailbox.  This topic has been
addressed in other forums, for the reason that it is important to curb
spamming in order to keep the Internet running smoothly and
efficiently.  After a short time spent searching, I ran across this I-D
concerning the topic, put out by the Responsible Use of the Network
(run) WG (07/98).  Here is a quote from "DON'T SPEW : A Set of
Guidelines for Mass Unsolicited Mailings and Postings (spam*)"[1], page
10:
   If you are running a mailing-list, be sure to allow postings by
   subscribers only.  Make sure your charter forbids any off-topic
   posts.  There is another spam-related problem with mailing-lists

Here is a quote from the IETF mailing lists page[2] 
"The IETF discussion list is open, and therefore has a wide range of
topics."

The only off-topic subjects explicitly mentioned (on this page) are
"employment opportunities and advertsing (sic)" and
subscribe/unsubscribe requests.  I haven't found another page limiting
topics on this list any further.

[1] http://www.ietf.org./internet-drafts/draft-ietf-run-spew-06.txt
[2] http://www.ietf.org./maillist.html

Brant Knudson
[email-masked]

An advance transcript of the new TLD BOF:
"AAA?" "yes" "AAB?" "yes" "AAC?" "yes" ... "ZZZ?" "yes"

---

From: Randy Presuhn <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 17:15:35 -0700 (PDT)

Hi - 

> Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 16:14:55 -0700
> From: Andy Bierman <[email-masked]>
> Organization: Cisco Systems, Inc.
> To: "David W. Morris" <[email-masked]>
> CC: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: Off-topic postings
> References: <[email-masked]>
...
> I have someone here working on some SPAM filters for majordomo that will:
>   - verify the "To:" field is really the list address (e.g. [email-masked])
>   - verify the domain portion of the "From" field is really from a domain
>     of a valid subscriber. (e.g. anything from foobar.com)
> This closes some holes with very minimal deployment cost.
...

This would be really nice.  I haven't been able to post the updates to
the application MIB (I'm editor) to the applmib working group's mailing
list due to a similar scenario, compounded by my ever-changing email
address within our domain.  Any plans to publish those filters?

 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
 Randy Presuhn           Email: [email-masked] http://www.bmc.com     
 Voice: +1 408 616-3100  BMC Software, Inc.           965 Stewart Drive
 Fax:   +1 408 616-3101  Sunnyvale, California 94086  USA
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
 In accordance with the BMC Communications Systems Use and Security
 Policy, I explicitly state that although my affiliation with BMC may be
 apparent, implied, or provided, my opinions are not necessarily those
 of BMC Software and that all external representations on behalf of
 BMC must first be cleared with a member of "the top management team."
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Randy Presuhn <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 17:15:35 -0700 (PDT)

Hi - 

...
...

---

From: [email-masked] (Ari Ollikainen)
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 18:05:27 -0700

>I have someone here working on some SPAM filters for majordomo that will:

        Uhhh...beware of these quick fixes!

>  - verify the "To:" field is really the list address (e.g. [email-masked])

        Like this message, many replies might actually contain the list
        address in "Cc:" field.

>    of a valid subscriber. (e.g. anything from foobar.com)

        Uh-oh!

        Like worldnet.net, pacbell.net, earthlink.net, aol.com, usa.net,
        hotmail.com, mci2000.com, uu.net ...?

        Domains can be filled with spammers.

>This closes some holes with very minimal deployment cost.
        Really?

        Requiring posters to be subscribers seems like the most reasonable
        longer term solution for preventing spam infiltration. Including
        the capability for a subscriber to UPDATE or ADD additional
        e-mail addresses used for posting would be useful.

      OLTECO                    Ari Ollikainen
      P.O. BOX 3688             Networking Technology and Architecture
      Stanford, CA              [email-masked]
      94309-3688                415.517.3519

---

From: Vernon Schryver <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 11:58:51 -0600 (MDT)

> Actually I meant To or CC contains the list address. 
> For the lists I'm trying to filter, much of the SPAM doesn't even
> pass this test.

All legitimate traffic in some lists would also fail that test.

> I know this problem isn't addressed. I'm hoping (US) ISPs enforce SPAM laws
> and the "ADV" subject line filter will help.

First, you've been reading too much spam.  While a lot of spam now blabbers
about laws, the last I heard, there are no such laws in the U.S. about
"ADV" in subject lines.

Second, the idea of putting "ADV" in the Subject: line is just as stupid
and idiotic today as it was when Cantor&Segal wanted "ad" or "*" or
whatever.  Never mind the obsenity of making various words unacceptable
as subjects.  It would be grossly incompetant to put content markers into
the SMTP Subject: line instead of any of the several other obvious places.
Even if the Subject: line were the right place and/or the idiots in the
U.S.Congress mandate it, spammers will never follow such requirements,
because people would filter using the marker.  Spammers know they are
offensive, do not care, and want above all to be read.  If you read much
spam, you know that most spam breaks plenty of (generally minor) laws
already.  Spammers are not going to worry about one more law that they'll
convince themselves does not apply to them because they are So Special.

Third, ten months ago I was predicting the end of spam, because the filters
I was watching at the time had peaked above 14,000 rejected spam per day
and continually declined to less than 8,000 rejected/day.  I thought that
as ISP's enforced strong terms of service, spammers would get clues and
return to the backs of trash magazines, newspapers, and real-world bulletin
boards to find their prey.  I was obviously wrong.  While the spam rate
has stayed down, it shows no signs of dropping more.  Those ISP's that
now have strong anti-spam terms of service (e.g. Earthlink) do not have
a spam problem.  Those that evidently do not care (e.g. CompuSpam),
continue to blast away.

The spam problem is here to stay as long as there are ISP's that offer
practically free spam drop-boxes and sending facilities.  Judging from my
logs, I've cut my spam problem in half by rejecting all email (supposedly)
from the "free email" providers such as Hotmail, and from spam-friendly
domains such as CompuSpam.

One of my other predictions is coming to pass, that the net would be
divided into a reputable region with little or no spam or other junk, and
a disreputable portion, and that machines in the first would reject all
email from machines in the second.

Vernon Schryver    [email-masked]

---

From: Vernon Schryver <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 14:27:00 -0600 (MDT)

> From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>

> ...
> There is now such a law in California, I am told. Read all about it at
> http://nic.merit.edu/mail.archives/html/mjts/msg00633.html

I stand corrected.  I thought the Calif. law was a little less lame than
requiring "Subject: ADV".  Oh, well, it's better than some popular
alternatives.

> >whatever.
> (ahem) such points have been made in the presence of folks who write laws.

"Folks" is not among the words I'd choose to describe our esteemed leaders.
I was taught that the purpose of a representative democracy is to avoid
the excesses of the mob.  It's hard imagine how direct democracy would be
worse.  Our resident kooks are handy object lessons to make it easier.

I guess now SMTP needs a new subject header, something like "Real-Subject:",
to distinguish it from the spam marking line...except that of course
most spam will not be marked.

> ...
> http://www.imc.org/imc-spam/; personally, I prefer an approach which is

that's interesting.

http://www.newslinx.com/newstopics/spam.html is a handy reference to
check regularly.

---

From: Vernon Schryver <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 14:27:00 -0600 (MDT)

that's interesting.