August 2002 - NANOG - lists.nanog.org

RE: IETF SMTP Working Group Proposal at smtpng.org
by Robert Blayzor 22 Aug '02

22 Aug '02

> I'm not a company, I'm Joe Blow private citizen - do you expect me to > pay $100 just to sign up with AOL? If you are Joe Blow private citizen, why would you need to run a mail server? Would you not use your ISP's, at least as a smart relay? If running a mail server is that important to you, just like registering a domain, you'll pay it. -- Robert Blayzor, BOFH INOC, LLC rblayzor(a)inoc.net Profanity is the one language all programmers know best.

3 2

RE: Eat this RIAA (or, the war has begun?) - Why not all ISPs?
by Benjamin J. Carrasco 22 Aug '02

22 Aug '02

> Blackholing the RIAA and hating them is pointless, that is what they are > there for. Blackholing them accomplishes nothing. > If you want to cause change you need to go after the labels. The labels > are > the member organizations which fund the RIAA. It's the labels who need to > be stopped, the RIAA is just their puppet and shield. However, blackholing is effective in regards to anti-piracy bots that rove the Internet like web spiders attempting to discover copyright violations by verifying P2P data that has been collected elsewhere. Since March of 2001, we have used complaints originating from anti-piracy organizations hired by various labels, most notable Sony, to maintain our own BGP blacklists. Since we have a significant xDSL customer base, we frequently received copyright infringement complaints from these organizations. This policy has eliminated those complaints. We were able to reduce legal exposure and reclaim some of the protection once afforded by open carriage by preventing these intrusive verification tests from even occurring. However, we do act on all complaints that we receive. Ben

1 0

Re: Eat this RIAA (or, the war has begun?) - Why not all ISPs?
by Scott Gifford 22 Aug '02

22 Aug '02

Avleen Vig <lists-nanog(a)silverwraith.com> writes: > On Wed, 21 Aug 2002, Richard A Steenbergen wrote: > > > Ok, start listing IPs... > > If you have them (and can confirm them of course :P), I'm certain a dozen > > people on this list would put up a bgp feed before you can say > > "blackhole". Heck I'm certain people would have something to do if you > > even knew the provider that was planning on giving them service for such > > activities. > > Start here: > avleen@apple:avleen : host -t MX riaa.org > riaa.org mail is handled (pri=50) by mail3.riaa.com > riaa.org mail is handled (pri=10) by list.sparklist.com > riaa.org mail is handled (pri=10) by mail.riaa.com > riaa.org mail is handled (pri=25) by mail2.riaa.com And continue to here: [sgifford@sghome sgifford]$ whois RECORDIN50-191(a)whois.arin.net [whois.arin.net] RECORDING INDUSTRY ASSOC OF AMERICA (NETBLK-RECORDIN50-191) 1330 CONNECTICUT AVENUE NW SUITE 300 WASHINGTON, DC 20036 US Netname: RECORDIN50-191 Netblock: 12.150.191.0 - 12.150.191.255 Coordinator: EGAS, JACK (JE332-ARIN) jegas(a)riaa.com (2027750101) - Record last updated on 11-Aug-2001. Database last updated on 21-Aug-2002 20:01:34 EDT. The ARIN Registration Services Host contains ONLY Internet Network Information: Networks, ASN's, and related POC's. Please use the whois server at rs.internic.net for DOMAIN related Information and whois.nic.mil for NIPRNET Information. -----ScottG.

1 0

[Fwd: Re: IETF SMTP Working Group Proposal at smtpng.org]
by don＠westermann.org 22 Aug '02

22 Aug '02

I agree with getting personal mail servers registered, as far as paying $100 for a mail server registration (as mentioned in previous messages)...that's no good. As a user with a personal mail server, it is bad enough to have pay for connectivity and a domain name. Having to pay for the privilege of running a mail server is too much. Robert Blayzor wrote: >>What about individuals that run their own mail servers? (E.G. me).? >> >> > >Get your mail server registered just like everyone else I suppose. If >your address space is not registered to you directly, your ISP would >have to do this for you. You're ISP would then handle any complaints >(if any) from the registrar and coordinate it with you directly. I >honestly like that idea because as a network operator, I like to know >what customers are running mail servers on our network, where they are, >and who owns them. > >-- >Robert Blayzor, BOFH >INOC, LLC >rblayzor(a)inoc.net > >YOUR PC's broken and I'VE got a problem? > -- The BOFH Slogan > >

3 2

RE: IETF SMTP Working Group Proposal at smtpng.org
by Dave Israel 22 Aug '02

22 Aug '02

Wow. I turned my back on this thread to move to my new office, and it got interesting. The answer to your quesiton is, the cert itself can do this, if it includes a unique/semi-unique identifier, such as an SSN, a name and address, etc. Many governments give their people some unique identifier. You sign up for my service and say you wanna send mail, I say, "Sure! Lemmie just check your ID against the revocation list..." -Dave On 8/21/2002 at 15:11:59 -0400, Mark Segal said: > > > It's almost to the point to where mail servers need their own > > "registrar", sort of the way domains are tracked now, track > > mail servers. Give mail server admins the option to accept > > mail from registered mail servers only or from any mail > > server. Of course there would need to be a ramp up period, > > like six months to a year, to make sure all of your mail > > servers are registered. And of course one should only be > > able to register mail servers if the IP space is actually > > SWIP to them. If the IP space is NOT SWIP, it would need to > > be registered by the customer ISP or via owners rwhois > > server. Just my $.02; for what it's worth.... > > Really good idea (no sarcasm, I actually like it).. But what stops spammers > from registering their mail server?..Ie.. > 1) Get a dsl account > 2) Ips get swipped to you > 3) Register the server > 4) SPAM > 5) Apologize, get a second chance > 6) get booted off > 7) Call the next ISP with a zero install > 8) Rinse and repeat. > > > Regards, > Mark > > -- > Mark Segal > Director, Data Services > Futureway Communications Inc. > Tel: (905)326-1570 -- Dave Israel Senior Manager, DNE SE

2 1

DNS entries for infrastructure equipment
by Dan Lockwood 22 Aug '02

22 Aug '02

Does anyone have a resource that has recommendations about how to name interfaces in a DNS name space? Is there a standard that is used? TIA Dan Lockwood

4 3

RE: IETF SMTP Working Group Proposal at smtpng.org
by Dave Israel 22 Aug '02

22 Aug '02

Gary, Not sure what you have against this thread, since it is not an anti-spammer rant, but an operational discussion about proposed methods of controlling a major network application. If this kind of plan is acted on, it will affect every major internet-connected network, and therefore seems to be precisely in the charter of NANOG. Besides, if you have a good mailer, one keystroke will make it all go away. -Dave On 8/21/2002 at 17:01:35 -0700, Gary E. Miller said: > I hearby proclaim all spammers to be like nazi propagandists and invoke > godwins law to terminate this thread. > > RGDS > GARY > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Gary E. Miller Rellim 20340 Empire Blvd, Suite E-3, Bend, OR 97701 > gem(a)rellim.com Tel:+1(541)382-8588 Fax: +1(541)382-8676 > > -- Dave Israel Senior Manager, DNE SE

1 0

Re: IETF SMTP Working Group Proposal at smtpng.org
by Dave Israel 21 Aug '02

21 Aug '02

On 8/21/2002 at 10:53:19 -0400, Ron da Silva said: > > On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 10:00:02AM -0400, sjj(a)pobox.com wrote: > > > > > what are the more basic problems you're trying to fix? > > > > I'd like to be able to publish DNS records announcing my domain's *outbound* > > mail servers, with nice abbreviated forms to say "they're the same as my > > inbound (MX) records" or "any IP in x.y.z/24". Then cooperative ISPs (like say > > America Online) could refuse any email from my domain that originated from some > > random cable modem, instead of accepting it and then flooding me with 20000 > > bounce messages. > > What about this email from you which came to me from Merit and not your > mail server? Would break mailing lists and listserves unless the from > field is overwritten. A user/server certification system would be nice, as long as the certificate issuers held the right balance between ease of getting a cert and security in proving the identity of the cert holder. That would take away the anonymous nature of SPAM, and make enforcement possible. If an authority consistently fails to respond to complaints, you don't accept mail certified from them. And a certificate train will get you mail from small folks (I trust ALGX's CA, ALGX trusts AOL's, therefore AOL will accept my mail until I screw up, and ALGX revokes my server cert and/or turns me in to the FBI, or fails to and AOL revokes their trust of ALGX.) The only down side is the politics involved. -Dave

4 5

Re: Shared facilities (was Re: your mail)
by Martin Hannigan 21 Aug '02

21 Aug '02

At 02:03 AM 8/21/2002 -0400, Sean Donelan wrote: >On Wed, 21 Aug 2002, David Lesher wrote: > > Unnamed Administration sources reported that N. Richard Solis said: > > > If you haven't worked in an environment where you had to turn in your > > > cellphone and pager at the front desk, show a badge to a camera > around every > > > corner, and get your office keys from a vending machine you dont know > what > > > real security looks like. > > You missed the places w/ real security. That's where the very > > polite Marine Security Guard with the 870 shotgun asks to see > > your badge again... > >Sigh, and in places with "real security" you rarely find enemies/competitors >sitting in the same room. Exchange points are like the United Nations, >not high security military bases. AMS-IX, Equinix, Linx/Telehouse, PAIX, >etc provide a neutral facility for competitors to exchange network traffic. >The facility operators provide a reasonable level of security, and try to >keep the diplomats from punching each other. Its in all (most?) the >competitors' self-interest to follow the rules. Sean, I have to disagree with you. All the transport I've designed so far works on the age old model that RBOC tech's don't care and they have unescorted access to the cross connect area. The actual colo area is where you have to worry about immature activity. Since Sept 11, my experience probably doesn't cut the mustard, but that's how it has been to this point. >Let's not lose sight of the purpose of colocation/exchange points. >If we start requiring you to be a US citizen and have top secret >clearance in order to enter a colocation facility, we've probably >decreased the usefulness of the exchange points. I think my point above exemplifies this. NO colo is secure from attack. No matter what they do. Regards, -- Martin Hannigan hannigan(a)fugawi.net

8 10

IETF SMTP Working Group Proposal at smtpng.org
by william＠elan.net 21 Aug '02

21 Aug '02

This is copy of the message sent to IETF mail list. As subject said, I'd like to organize IETF working group to define new additions to SMTP. ---------------- As everyone I'm sure have seen on the last "why is spam a problem" and other similar threads on ietf as well as numerous similar threads on other lists and boards, there is a serious need to do something to limit amount of unsolicited email. While the roots maybe social issue I do not see why we can not work on it from technical point of view. In addition to that during last years, I'v seen real need for new features to be added into SMTP, such as ones for callback, delayed transmission, delivery notification,secure communications, etc, etc and there are in fact several drafts available on some issues. As far as anti-spam mechanisms I do not belive we should force some particular method on everyone but rather built several verification features into protocol and allow server operators to themselve choose if they want to use it. Where the features were use the email would be considered more secure and users can use that to sort out mail (as many do already with special filters). I believe its time we start working within IETF on new version of SMTP that would have more features and be more secure. I'v tried to point this out several times before on nanog and ietf hoping that someone would take the initiave but as this did not happen, I'm willing to do it now. At this point I'm proposing creation of IETF working group that would look into ways to extend SMTP. I'v created website and mailing list to discuss charter of the proposed working group at http://www.smtpng.org Those who agree with me, please subscribe to the mailing list and lets work on this futher in a kind-of BOF. I'm also looking for two co-chairs for the working group with at least one preferablly having been chair of ietf group before. I'm planning on sending final draft for working group charter in about two weeks time and right now I'm going to be contacting several people who have expressed interest in working on SMTP protocol as well as contacting IETF area director on proceeding with this. -- William Leibzon william(a)elan.net

10 15