Subject: Re: [Asrg] Getting group consensus on draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists

From: Michael Thomas <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2011 16:20:58 -0800

and speaking of bad blacklist operators, you get petty assholes
who think that their SMTP is an AI capable of educing meaning
from messages.  I wonder who runs this one? Oh, the working
group chair. Charming.

Mike

-------- Original Message --------
Return-Path: 	<[email-masked]>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: 	SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on 
takifugu.mtcc.com
X-Spam-Level: 	
X-Spam-Status: 	No, Score=-1.1/4.5, BAYES_00=-1.9,DKIM_ADSP_ALL=0.8, 
NO_RELAYS=-0.001,T_TVD_MIME_NO_HEADERS=0.01,autolearn=no
X-Spam-Bayes-Summ: 	summary=Tokens: new, 41; hammy, 117; neutral, 63; 
spammy, 2.
X-Spam-RBL: 	<dns:mtcc.com?type=MX> [0 mtcc.com.] <dns:mtcc.com> 
[50.0.18.224]
X-Spam-Bayes-Spam: 	0.987-1--Big, 0.987-1--560
X-Spam-Bayes-Ham: 	0.000-+--ISPs, 0.000-+--dnsbl, 0.000-+--DNSBL, 
0.001-+--disagree, 0.001-+--isps
X-Spam-UnTrusted: 	
Received: 	from localhost (localhost) by mtcc.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) id 
p220EupJ006967; Tue, 1 Mar 2011 16:14:56 -0800
Date: 	Tue, 1 Mar 2011 16:14:56 -0800
From: 	Mail Delivery Subsystem <[email-masked]>
Message-Id: 	<[email-masked]>
To: 	<[email-masked]>
MIME-Version: 	1.0
Content-Type: 	multipart/report; report-type=delivery-status; 
boundary="p220EupJ006967.1299024896/mtcc.com"
Subject: 	Returned mail: see transcript for details
Auto-Submitted: 	auto-generated (failure)

The original message was received at Tue, 1 Mar 2011 16:14:53 -0800
from takifugu.mtcc.com [50.0.18.224]

    ----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----
<[email-masked]>
     (reason: 553 Incoherent message (5.1.1))

    ----- Transcript of session follows -----
... while talking to smtp.abuse.net.:
>>>  MAIL From:<[email-masked]>  SIZE=3247
<<<  553 Incoherent message (5.1.1)
501 5.6.0 Data format error

Subject: Re: [Asrg] Getting group consensus on draft-irtf-asrg-bcp-blacklists
From: Michael Thomas <[email-masked]>
To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <[email-masked]>
Cc: Neil Schwartzman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2011 16:14:53 -0800

On 03/01/2011 04:01 PM, Neil Schwartzman wrote:
>
> 2. I disagree with you. Negative reputation is something no-one wants, nor should you be able to buy your way out of it. Conversely, a positive bump to differentiate you from the competition is valuable (but no, no-one who is a crappy sender could bribe their way onto the list, not while I was there, and not since I left), and something those that benefit from the service should pay for, just as ISPs should pay for the use of a DNSBL.
>    

Er, well that works well when you're dealing with saint.com and
sinner.com, but real world entities are often a blend of each. This
is going to be particularly true of domain based reputation dealing
with $megacorp. In that case, trying to get off blacklists and onto
whitelists with money or threats or combinations of both is going
to produce real life conflicts of interest. For both operators. How
well did the Usenet Death Penalty work against the invading aol, etc
hordes? Not very as I recall, and that was before the Big Bux were
involved that invariably grease the wheels.

Mike

---

From: John Levine <[email-masked]>
Date: 2 Mar 2011 01:54:09 -0000

The IETF has a long standing policy against personal attacks on its
mailing lists.  We are all presumed to be adults here, and part of
that is having the ability to control your own conduct.  For more
information, you might want to read or reread RFC 3934, on Management
of IETF Mailing Lists.

I hope people have the ability to behave themselves, so there's no
need to suspend anyone, but I will if they don't.

R's,
John

---

From: Michael Thomas <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2011 17:57:38 -0800

Everyone including John Levine:

Diagnostic-Code: SMTP; 553 Incoherent message (5.1.1)

Is a personal attack, and a petty one at that.

Mike

On 03/01/2011 05:54 PM, John Levine wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> Asrg mailing list
> [email-masked]
> http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg
>

---

From: Seth <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2011 22:28:42 -0500 (EST)

> Is a personal attack, and a petty one at that.

It's an attack against whatever software produced the headers that the
receiving software is unable to parse.  I don't consider that
personal.

Seth

---

From: Michael Thomas <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2011 19:31:39 -0800

> receiving software is unable to parse.  I don't consider that

No, this is John's mail server blacklisting me in his own petty way.
There is nothing wrong with my message headers. Look for yourself,
and if there's a problem blame sendmail.

Mike

---

From: John Levine <[email-masked]>
Date: 2 Mar 2011 04:14:43 -0000

>Is a personal attack, and a petty one at that.

Sigh.  Mike is complaining about an SMTP return code that is produced
by my own personal mail server, which has no relation to this or any
other IETF mailing list, and is not returned in response to any IETF
mailing list mail.  I cannot imagine why he thinks it is relevant to
the ASRG, and I don't want to know.

In any event, personal attacks on IETF lists are inappropriate and
disruptive.  If they continue, I'll invoke the usual 3934 30-day
suspension.

R's,
John