Subject: RE: Disposing of spam

From: Eastlake III Donald-LDE008 <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 13:56:47 -0500

To the first approximation, as long as there is a different public
key per list and the private key is under the control of the list
manager, it doesn't make that much different. The signatures will
at least tie together all the mail from that list and the processing
of signatures by recipients will be exercised.

Donald

-----Original Message-----
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2004 11:52 AM
To: Eastlake III Donald-LDE008
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: Disposing of spam

--On 6. februar 2004 11:43 -0500 Eastlake III Donald-LDE008 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

...

> While trying to go to all authenticated email is, as Paul Hoffman
> says, impractical at this time, it seems to me we could take some
> steps that way like signing outgoing messages on IETF managed lists
> and encouraging other WG lists to do the same.

with what key?

> Donald

---

From: Eastlake III Donald-LDE008 <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2004 00:23:41 -0500

Kireeti,

I usually put my phone numbers and work postal address in my email.
That sort of information is also in all my IDs and RFCs (although
out of date in older RFCs). This seems to result in my getting
around 2 telephone calls and less than 1 letter a year.

This doesn't seem like the place for another spam discussion so
I won't respond in detail to your absurd implication that there
is much similarity between these radically different media which
are governed by radically different laws, have radically different
cost structures, etc., etc.

Being a working group chair requires some level of receptivity to
communications. In my opinion, someone who was unwilling to
provide at least a postal address that could be publicised has
absoltely no business being a Working Group Chair.

Donald

PS: The last time I sent email to every WG chair listed on the
WG charter pages (I had a legitimate reason to do so, being chair
of the nomcom at the time), several bounced because they were bad
addresses.
===========================================================
 Donald E. Eastlake III       [email-masked]
 Motorola Laboratories               1-508-786-7554 (work)
 111 Locke Drive                     1-508-634-2066 (home)
 Marlboro, MA 01752 USA

-----Original Message-----
From: Kireeti Kompella [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2004 5:56 PM
To: Eastlake III Donald-LDE008
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [SPAM] Re: Disposing of spam

On Fri, 6 Feb 2004, Eastlake III Donald-LDE008 wrote:

> And, unless the trend can be reversed, as the global email system
> gradually disolves in a rising tide of acidic diarrhea, we should
> consider a few backup things, like adding the postal address and
> work telephone number of WG chairs to WG charter pages.

So we can be hit by two other categories of spam?  No thanks!

Kireeti.
-------

---

From: "Tony Li" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2004 14:18:35 -0800

|  I take it, then, that you don't run any large mailing lists 
|  yourself. 
|  As someone who does, I can assure you that those of us who do won't 
|  want to run the lists we do if we are required to hand-register 
|  thousands of signatures.

FWIW, I moderate the IS-IS mailing list.  The number of mailing list 
joins that make it through the mailman confirmation process is 
acceptably low.  Certainly, if the spammers wanted, yes they could
attack
this, but so far have not.  Using the techniques that I mentioned (see
previous reply), we could further ensure that the odds of an automated
join would be acceptably low.

Note that this shifts the complaints from message sending to mailing
list
joining, which I consider to be a good thing.  It's clearly less 
vulnerable to cries of censorship.

|  >   Only signed
|  >messages would be forwarded.
|  
|  Signed with which of the two IETF standards for this? And what about 
|  the people who use the other standard? Or are you saying that the 
|  signature-checking mechanism will have to run both protocols?

I would suggest that we use gpg.

|  >The
|  >maintenance of such public keys could be automated along with
|  >mailing list membership.
|  
|  With which protocols? For that matter, which mailing list software 
|  does this? Or are you proposing that the folks who run the mailing 
|  lists also are responsible for adding this feature as well?

No protocols are necessary.  This is implemented only in the mailing 
list software.  Since many (most?) mailing lists are now hosted at
ietf.org, this leaves us with one implementation at one point that
must be modified to begin to put this into practice.  While I do
realize that it's an implementation effort, I have never felt that
the lack of running code implied that one should not implement.

Regards,
Tony