Subject: [dnsext] please do not feed the trolls

From: Paul Vixie <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2010 17:18:22 +0000

the behaviour witnessed below is prima facie re-evidence of the reasons
why mr. anderson was banned from the namedroppers@ mailing list.  mr.
anderson has added most of us to his namedroppers-honest@ mailing list,
thus allowing him to work around the ban.  i would appreciate it very
much if nick and others would resist the temptation to argue back.

re:

 4046+ 03/04 [Nicholas Weaver]  Re: (in)Security Analysis and Catastrophically 
 4058  03/04   <Nicholas Weaver>  Re: [Namedroppers-honest] (in)Security Analys
 4078  03/04     [Nicholas Weaver]  Re: (in)Security Analysis and Catastrophica

---

From: Brian Dickson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 14:34:26 -0400

One issue appears to be a deliberately exploited loophole, more social
engineering than technical:

Email is being sent directly to individuals, from a banned individual,
which includes cc: namedroppers@

This may trick the individuals into believing the post came from the
list, and further trips folks up when anyone receiving such email does
"reply-all".

Perhaps a cease-and-desist needs to be sent, instructing banned
individuals not to do this spoofery?

Does continuing to CC: after banning, fall within such things as can-spam?

Brian

---

From: Jim Reid <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 19:07:12 +0000

> individuals not to do this spoofery?

Can I suggest we avoid jumping into this rat-hole by discussing what  
could or couldn't be done? It's off-topic for this list. IMO, we can  
leave the implementation decision about what preventive measures are  
suitable to our esteemed WG chairs. And until the problem is resolved,  
we should take care to avoid feeding trolls.

---

From: Brian <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 15:05:08 -0500

I don't mean to be naive... but who is this Mr Anderson guy? I've seen
him have some very elaborate rants on another mailing list where he
makes some very wild accusations. Perhaps I'm not "in the know" on
this one, but he appears to really have it out for ISC.

-brian

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 16:02:43 -0500

Dear colleagues,

> I don't mean to be naive... but who is this Mr Anderson guy? I've seen

I believe Dean Anderson is a person who professes interest in the DNS
Extensions Working Group at the IETF, and whose posting privileges on
namedroppers are suspended.  (Note that I have no direct evidence that
Mr Anderson is in fact a person: I've never laid eyes on him.)  In the
interests of full disclosure, I'll note that Mr Anderson claims that
his suspension is illegitimate.  In case you want to, you can probably
read Mr Anderson's views about this situation somewhere on the
Internet.

I would like for us to avoid spending a lot of WG resources debating
the contributions of various individuals to the WG.  I'm prepared for
the possibility that Mr Anderson will reply to this message, copying
me, a large number of other people, the IETF general counsel, and the
namedroppers-honest list; I'd ask people to consider the likely value
of following up on such mail, replying to it, or commenting on it in
public or in private.

The Chairs have asked in the past that people avoid cross-posting to
the namedroppers list and other lists with substantially similar
charters, but different posting rules.  I reiterate that request now.
We have attempted to hold for moderation any posts that are
cross-posted to namedroppers and the namedroppers-honest list (which
is operated by Mr Anderson).  We also ask that people avoid lengthy
cc: lists and that we each of us ask ourselves whether additional
correspondence in a thread will lead to greater understanding of the
DNS protocols.  If you think it might not be, perhaps you ought not to
send the mail.

Thanks and best regards,

Andrew (as moderator).

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]
Shinkuro, Inc.

---

From: Dave CROCKER <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 06 Mar 2010 13:37:16 +0800

> list, and further trips folks up when anyone receiving such email does

Would it help to have all IETF (or whatever) related mailing lists use a DKIM 
signature, so that filters can distinguish IETF-related sources vs. others?

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net