Subject: Re: Off-topic postings

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

> From: Andy Bierman <[email-masked]>

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

> ...
> >         Domains can be filled with spammers.
>
> 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: Bob Allisat <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 14:13:27 -0400 (EDT)

My suggestion is to do as I do:
 just don't read anything from
 folks you don't like. Makes
 life so much easier. You all
 do have "delete" buttons don't
 you? Also seems to be a tad
 off-topic if you ask me...

 Bob Allisat

 Free Community Network _ [email-masked] . http://fcn.net
 http://fcn.net/allisat

---

From: Bob Allisat <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 14:13:27 -0400 (EDT)

Bob Allisat

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 12:15:18 -0700

At 02:13 PM 10/22/98 -0400, Bob Allisat wrote:
> folks you don't like.

That is the direction we have recommended for years. I will tell you,
though, that folks all over the IETF have been writing to advise me that a
consensus is developing that they have had enough - the discussion on
Monday was the last straw.

If you want to be involved in the discussion of what will be done about it,
that is happening on the poisson/poised list.

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 12:15:18 -0700

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 12:29:13 -0700

>about laws, the last I heard, there are no such laws in the U.S. about

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

>whatever.

(ahem) such points have been made in the presence of folks who write laws.
You might be interested in Paul Hoffman's proposal, which you will find at
http://www.imc.org/imc-spam/; personally, I prefer an approach which is
based on a certifiable identity, although that has issues as well.

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 12:29:13 -0700

---

From: Bob Allisat <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 17:30:27 -0400 (EDT)

Fred Baker replied:
>> That is the direction we have recommended for years. I will tell 
>> you, though, that folks all over the IETF have been writing to 
>> advise me that a consensus is developing that they have had 
>> enough - the discussion on Monday was the last straw.
>> 
>> If you want to be involved in the discussion of what will be
>> done about it, that is happening on the poisson/poised list.

 The consensus is cut me or anyone
 who doesn't agree with the sub-
 sultural norms of the IETF off.
 Quit phucking us around Fred and
 just do it. Pull the plug. Come
 out from behind all your nonsense
 and act directly and honestly for
 a bloody change.

 Postel is dead. Now you're all
 confused and gradually falling to
 pieces. To be expected. Damn your
 poisson/poised list. You cut off
 general commentary from this list
 and you've cut off the IETF from
 any dissent. Do it and understand
 that. I could care less one way
 or the other. The word will get
 out with or without the IETF.

 QUESTION: what role does this
 silly organization have once the
 reformed IANA is founded

 ANSWER: None. 

 Bob Allisat

---

From: Bob Allisat <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 17:30:27 -0400 (EDT)

ANSWER: None. 

 Bob Allisat

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 14:56:50 -0700

At 05:30 PM 10/22/98 -0400, Bob Allisat wrote:
> Quit <snip>ing us around Fred and just do it.

As you wish. Or rather, as the consensus of the IETF wishes. Something you
need to understand is that I have no desire - zero - to go that route, but
am forced to by the signal to noise ratio, and the consensus of those I
serve. Basically, you and Karl and a very few others are forcing me where I
have no desire to go.

> You cut off general commentary from this list
> and you've cut off the IETF from any dissent.

Exactly what are you dissenting against? Which product of which working
group are you making comments on? Which operational policy are you
recommending a change to? Which procedure are you offering a better
proposal to change?

I have no problem, and the IETF has no problem, with dissent on the
subjects it concerns itself with. There are a fair set of working groups
for which I'd love to have you read the archives and tell me with a
straight face that we're limiting dissent in any way.

What we're limiting is extraneous corrosive commentary that has no bearing
on our topics; the topics of this list being the engineering of the
Internet and the policies, procedures, and activities of the IETF.

> QUESTION: what role does this silly organization have once the
>           reformed IANA is founded
>
> ANSWER: 

Same as it has ever had. IETF designs the protocols used in the Internet,
IANA assigns the protocols relevant numbers.

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 14:56:50 -0700

---

From: Bob Allisat <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 18:05:33 -0400 (EDT)

Fred wrote:
> Same as it has ever had. IETF designs the protocols used in the
> Internet, IANA assigns the protocols relevant numbers.

 IANA *assigned* the protocols
 relevant numbers. IETF *designed*
 the protocols. Everything has
 changes. Don't you realize that
 NEWCO or ICANN or IANA-2 or ORSC
 or whatever the hell it's going
 to be called is about to move
 this whole process into new
 patterns? That democratization
 and accountability if set to
 sweep legacy modes and their
 patronage networks asunder.

 Get with the flow, Joe.

 Bob Allisat

---

From: Bob Allisat <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 18:05:33 -0400 (EDT)

Get with the flow, Joe.

 Bob Allisat