A Zero Spam Mail System [Feedback Request]
Hello Everyone, My name is Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan. I'm the guy who proposed SMTP over TLS on Port 26 <https://web.archive.org/web/20190218001439/https://lists.gt.net/nanog/users/202185> last month. I'm also the guy who attacked (???) John Levine. Today I have something to show you. Long story short.... I solved the email spam problem. Well... Actually I solved it long time back. I'm just ready to disclose it today. Again... Yeah.. Yeah.. Yeah... If only I had a dime for every time people insult me for saying "I solved the spam problem" They usually start with the insult like "You think you are the inventor of FUSSP?" These guys always are the know-it-all assholes. They don't listen. They don't want to listen. They are like barking dogs. If one started to bark, everyone else gets the courage to do the same thing. I'm tired of fighting these assholes in every mailing list. I'm on your side morons. So how about you all knock it off? Six months back, it was John Levine who humiliated me in the DMARC list. Apparently, for him 50 words are enough to attack me. Töma Gavrichenkov and Suresh Ramasubramanian even started to defend this man saying 50 words are enough to judge a 50,000 words paper. [We are gonna figure it out today] ---------------------------------- @Töma Gavrichenkov In theory, I can easily recall a few cases in my life when going
through just 50 words was quite enough for a judgment.
How can you be so sure that you didn't fuck up none of the lives of these "few cases"? Or in more technical terms, How can you be absolutely sure that there is no "False Positives"? ---------------------------------- @Suresh Ramasubramanian Yes, 50 words are more than enough to decide a bad idea is bad. You don't
have to like that, or like any of us, but facts are facts
Merely appending the text "facts are facts" not gonna convert a bullshit statement into a fact. You know what's the meaning of the word "fact"? It's a statement that can be proved TRUE. Let's do a little experiment. 100 researchers presents their lifetime work to us. Each of their research paper contain 50,000 words. We are gonna judge them. You are gonna judge them based on only the first 50 words. And I'm gonna judge them by tossing a coin. Can you guess who is gonna fuck up less number of researcher lives? I'm claiming that I solved the email spam problem. If that's true, then you should know, common sense is one of the very basic requirement for that. I designed my email system. Every inch of it. I wrote my research paper. Every word of it. I made my prototype video. Every second of it. So I'm the captain of my ship. Not you. But you all think you know my system better than me? That too, with only 50 words? My research paper has around 50,000 words. And you think 50 words are enough to judge my work? Let me make sure I get this right. You are all saying, you know what's in the rest of the 49,950 words based on only the first 50 words? That's stupid on so many levels. If you are gonna do a half-assed job and relay that misinformation to thousands of people, why volunteer in the first place? And by the way, by saying you are all doing half-assed job, I'm actually insulting the people who are REALLY doing the half-assed job. ---------------------------------- John Levine vs. me One month back, some of you may have noticed a thread created by John Levine <https://web.archive.org/web/20190218001726/https://lists.gt.net/nanog/users/202213> where he goes like "He's Forum Shopping". The whole gist of that message was "We already have DANE and MTA-STS. We don't a third solution". And then I used some harsh words to defend myself. But that was the Season 2 of his "Shitshow". The Season 1 was aired 6 months back. You all missed that show. This is what happened in Season 1. 1. Six months back, I posted on three mailing list saying "I solved the email spam problem" and asked them to provide feedback on my invention. Those three mailing lists were SPF, DKIM and DMARC. That's because my solution relied on them and those three were the only email related mailing lists I knew at that time. 2. In DMARC community, John Levine started to insult me after reading only the first 50 words. 3. Dave Crocker joined the cast and did a flawless job on abusing me. He asked me to kill my project. I told him he is being rude. And this is what he replied for that <https://www.dombox.org/nanog/dave.png>. He is one of the most radical and ignorant person I have seen in tech. He didn't even stop for a moment and think "Am I attacking an Innocent person?". He even went to other mailing lists to attack me. He abused all his power and kept on attacking me just to have some "dopamine orgasm". Something tells me he slept peacefully on that day. 4. And then bunch of other guys joined. So the whole thread gone crazy. This is because John Levine successfully distributed wrong version of the story to thousands of people with only 50 words. 5. Both Dave Crocker and John Levine are the bigshots there. So I knew no matter how much I cry for help, no one is gonna help me. 6. John seemed like a "decent-asshole" while compared to Dave Crocker. So I sent a private mail to John saying "John, I'm not really sure whether I can afford you since I have not raised any money yet. But let me give it a shot. Could you tell me how much you would charge to go through my presentation, demo video and give me a detailed feedback about my system?" [The reason I was ready to pay him is because he made it very clear in the DMARC thread by saying "Sorry, but I don't provide consulting for free". I thought if I make him read my document, he would go back and correct his mistake] 7. And this is what he replied for that. "Really, even if you had money, it wouldn't be worth your money or my time". [For the record, he come to this conclusion without even knowing what's inside in my document] 8. I said only "ok, thankyou" and then unsubscribed from the DMARC mailing list. [What more can you argue with a bunch of know-it-all morons who thinks they are all right?] 9. Six month later (last month), John started his shitshow again attacking my IETF proposal. He tried to make me look like an idiot again. And that's when I started to defend myself by using harsh words. 10. You all know the rest. ---------------------------------- One person told me on that thread to take John Levine's words as criticism. You see I have no problems with criticism. I usually thank people when they criticize my work. The best criticism usually follows this format. "I went through your paper (#1), your work is full of shit (#2), Here are the reasons (#3)" #1 says, the critic really knows what the author is talking about. #2 says, the critic is speaking his mind without any bullshit. #3 says, the critic has valid points for his criticism. However, I can't consider someone as critic who straightly go for #2. Especially when the whole argument was all about killing my work just because he is one of the inventor of MTA-STS. If I start to listen his words, then next time he will create a new thread to attack me for creating <this thread> saying "He's forum shopping. I already told him it's not worth his money and my time". What you want me to do in this case? Take that as criticism and move on? It's my 5 fucking years of research. I can't just let it go just because someone doesn't like my work. ---------------------------------- @Valdis Kletnieks You missed the part where the RFC says you *MUST* fall back to A if there's
no MX.
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself; Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man" - George Bernard Shaw ---------------------------------- @John Levine I was trying to contribute to IETF the other day. One of the guy from DMARC list uses your words as a reason to attack me <https://www.dombox.org/nanog/utaattack.png> and asking me to turn down the proposal. You were watching that. If I really solved the email spam problem, that puts me in the "best problem solvers in the world" category. So how about you go back to the DMARC list and write a decent apology for posting misinformation to everyone? [Of course only if I solved the spam problem. That was my claim from the beginning right?] ---------------------------------- @Everyone Here is what you all should know. It's my 5 years of research. So it's worth more than 50 words. I started my work back in 2013 and I used to call my work "XMail" at that time. It's now called "Dombox" My prototype codebase has around 200,000 lines of code. [To be exact: 466,965 ++ 254,169 --] Sequoia Capital is one of the well known venture firm in the world. They have invested in over 250 companies since 1972, including Apple, Google, Oracle, PayPal, Stripe, YouTube, Instagram, Yahoo! and WhatsApp. Bill Coughran <https://www.sequoiacap.com/people/bill-coughran/> is a senior investor in Sequoia Capital. According to his linkedin profile, he started as a Programmer in the late 60s and held many engineering related positions over the years. Worked in Bell Laboratories for 20 years. Worked as SVP of Engineering in Google for 8.5 years. To quote his words "I have some level of expertise about the current email systems, which is why I was did some investigating". So this man is one of the toughest person to impress. But he is one of the nicest investor I have met. When I asked him whether he can take a look, he didn't insult me with words like "You think you are the inventor of FUSSP?" He just told me "Sure, I'd be happy to." He went through my entire paper and then sent me this mail <https://www.dombox.org/nanog/billcoughran.png>. He later turned me down because it's hard for a startup to distribute a new solution. Maybe he is right. Or maybe I'll overcome that too. [Today's discussion is about whether I solved the spam problem. Not about how I'm gonna distribute the solution] Yesterday I published my work on a medium blog post and linked my white paper. An engineer read my white paper and sent me this mail <https://www.dombox.org/nanog/riccardo.png>. These guys see value in my white paper because they completed my ~300 pages white paper. To the "50 words are enough" band members, let me tell you something. I'm the author of my work. It's my job to decide "what to show you" and "when to show you". I have posted my system summary in a medium blog post. When you reach 75% of the article, you will see a title called "Hot Gates Strategy". Everything you see above is pointless without the remaining 25% of the content. Put it this way, I have designed 75% of that system, only to have remaining 25% of the system. So yeah, even if you had 75% of the content, you still can't judge my work. Whether you all believe it or not, I'm the goddamn inventor of FUSSP. I can proudly say that because my system doesn't have the "spam" folder. So how about you all appreciate the guy who spent 5 years in chasing for a solution like a madman and succeeded in solving a challenging problem rather than spending your time in attacking me? [For the record, my single white paper plenty of problems. Email Spam is one of them] Looking forward to hear your feedback. People who complete my white paper, please post whether my claims are true or I'm just wasting everyone's time. [I'm going to bed now. So I may not be online for the next 8 hours. I'll respond to your queries after that] Thanks ---------------------------------- Materials: System Overview - https://medium.com/@Viruthagiri/dombox-the-zero-spam-mail-system-2b08ff7432c... White Paper - https://www.dombox.org/dombox.pdf Flowcharts - https://www.dombox.org/flowcharts.pdf Prototype - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VK2eSfCurx4 [This is the video I uploaded before posting to DMARC list. So the interface is little outdated] -- Best Regards, Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan Dombox, Inc.
I'd be a lot more inclined to read your paper if you weren't so self-righteous about it. Rehashing all the times people disagreed with ("attacked") you is a poor way to encourage others to earnestly engage with your ideas. On Sun, Feb 17, 2019, 9:06 PM Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan <giri@dombox.org wrote:
Hello Everyone,
My name is Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan. I'm the guy who proposed SMTP over TLS on Port 26 <https://web.archive.org/web/20190218001439/https://lists.gt.net/nanog/users/202185> last month. I'm also the guy who attacked (???) John Levine.
Today I have something to show you.
Long story short.... I solved the email spam problem. Well... Actually I solved it long time back. I'm just ready to disclose it today. Again...
Yeah.. Yeah.. Yeah... If only I had a dime for every time people insult me for saying "I solved the spam problem"
They usually start with the insult like "You think you are the inventor of FUSSP?"
These guys always are the know-it-all assholes. They don't listen. They don't want to listen. They are like barking dogs. If one started to bark, everyone else gets the courage to do the same thing.
I'm tired of fighting these assholes in every mailing list. I'm on your side morons. So how about you all knock it off?
Six months back, it was John Levine who humiliated me in the DMARC list. Apparently, for him 50 words are enough to attack me.
Töma Gavrichenkov and Suresh Ramasubramanian even started to defend this man saying 50 words are enough to judge a 50,000 words paper. [We are gonna figure it out today]
----------------------------------
@Töma Gavrichenkov
In theory, I can easily recall a few cases in my life when going
through just 50 words was quite enough for a judgment.
How can you be so sure that you didn't fuck up none of the lives of these "few cases"? Or in more technical terms, How can you be absolutely sure that there is no "False Positives"?
----------------------------------
@Suresh Ramasubramanian
Yes, 50 words are more than enough to decide a bad idea is bad. You don't
have to like that, or like any of us, but facts are facts
Merely appending the text "facts are facts" not gonna convert a bullshit statement into a fact.
You know what's the meaning of the word "fact"? It's a statement that can be proved TRUE.
Let's do a little experiment. 100 researchers presents their lifetime work to us. Each of their research paper contain 50,000 words. We are gonna judge them.
You are gonna judge them based on only the first 50 words. And I'm gonna judge them by tossing a coin. Can you guess who is gonna fuck up less number of researcher lives?
I'm claiming that I solved the email spam problem. If that's true, then you should know, common sense is one of the very basic requirement for that.
I designed my email system. Every inch of it. I wrote my research paper. Every word of it. I made my prototype video. Every second of it. So I'm the captain of my ship. Not you. But you all think you know my system better than me? That too, with only 50 words?
My research paper has around 50,000 words. And you think 50 words are enough to judge my work? Let me make sure I get this right. You are all saying, you know what's in the rest of the 49,950 words based on only the first 50 words? That's stupid on so many levels.
If you are gonna do a half-assed job and relay that misinformation to thousands of people, why volunteer in the first place? And by the way, by saying you are all doing half-assed job, I'm actually insulting the people who are REALLY doing the half-assed job.
----------------------------------
John Levine vs. me
One month back, some of you may have noticed a thread created by John Levine <https://web.archive.org/web/20190218001726/https://lists.gt.net/nanog/users/202213> where he goes like "He's Forum Shopping". The whole gist of that message was "We already have DANE and MTA-STS. We don't a third solution". And then I used some harsh words to defend myself. But that was the Season 2 of his "Shitshow". The Season 1 was aired 6 months back. You all missed that show. This is what happened in Season 1.
1. Six months back, I posted on three mailing list saying "I solved the email spam problem" and asked them to provide feedback on my invention. Those three mailing lists were SPF, DKIM and DMARC. That's because my solution relied on them and those three were the only email related mailing lists I knew at that time. 2. In DMARC community, John Levine started to insult me after reading only the first 50 words. 3. Dave Crocker joined the cast and did a flawless job on abusing me. He asked me to kill my project. I told him he is being rude. And this is what he replied for that <https://www.dombox.org/nanog/dave.png>. He is one of the most radical and ignorant person I have seen in tech. He didn't even stop for a moment and think "Am I attacking an Innocent person?". He even went to other mailing lists to attack me. He abused all his power and kept on attacking me just to have some "dopamine orgasm". Something tells me he slept peacefully on that day. 4. And then bunch of other guys joined. So the whole thread gone crazy. This is because John Levine successfully distributed wrong version of the story to thousands of people with only 50 words. 5. Both Dave Crocker and John Levine are the bigshots there. So I knew no matter how much I cry for help, no one is gonna help me. 6. John seemed like a "decent-asshole" while compared to Dave Crocker. So I sent a private mail to John saying "John, I'm not really sure whether I can afford you since I have not raised any money yet. But let me give it a shot. Could you tell me how much you would charge to go through my presentation, demo video and give me a detailed feedback about my system?" [The reason I was ready to pay him is because he made it very clear in the DMARC thread by saying "Sorry, but I don't provide consulting for free". I thought if I make him read my document, he would go back and correct his mistake] 7. And this is what he replied for that. "Really, even if you had money, it wouldn't be worth your money or my time". [For the record, he come to this conclusion without even knowing what's inside in my document] 8. I said only "ok, thankyou" and then unsubscribed from the DMARC mailing list. [What more can you argue with a bunch of know-it-all morons who thinks they are all right?] 9. Six month later (last month), John started his shitshow again attacking my IETF proposal. He tried to make me look like an idiot again. And that's when I started to defend myself by using harsh words. 10. You all know the rest.
----------------------------------
One person told me on that thread to take John Levine's words as criticism.
You see I have no problems with criticism. I usually thank people when they criticize my work. The best criticism usually follows this format.
"I went through your paper (#1), your work is full of shit (#2), Here are the reasons (#3)"
#1 says, the critic really knows what the author is talking about. #2 says, the critic is speaking his mind without any bullshit. #3 says, the critic has valid points for his criticism.
However, I can't consider someone as critic who straightly go for #2. Especially when the whole argument was all about killing my work just because he is one of the inventor of MTA-STS.
If I start to listen his words, then next time he will create a new thread to attack me for creating <this thread> saying "He's forum shopping. I already told him it's not worth his money and my time". What you want me to do in this case? Take that as criticism and move on? It's my 5 fucking years of research. I can't just let it go just because someone doesn't like my work.
----------------------------------
@Valdis Kletnieks
You missed the part where the RFC says you *MUST* fall back to A if there's
no MX.
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself; Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man" - George Bernard Shaw
---------------------------------- @John Levine
I was trying to contribute to IETF the other day. One of the guy from DMARC list uses your words as a reason to attack me <https://www.dombox.org/nanog/utaattack.png> and asking me to turn down the proposal. You were watching that.
If I really solved the email spam problem, that puts me in the "best problem solvers in the world" category. So how about you go back to the DMARC list and write a decent apology for posting misinformation to everyone? [Of course only if I solved the spam problem. That was my claim from the beginning right?]
----------------------------------
@Everyone
Here is what you all should know.
It's my 5 years of research. So it's worth more than 50 words. I started my work back in 2013 and I used to call my work "XMail" at that time. It's now called "Dombox"
My prototype codebase has around 200,000 lines of code. [To be exact: 466,965 ++ 254,169 --]
Sequoia Capital is one of the well known venture firm in the world. They have invested in over 250 companies since 1972, including Apple, Google, Oracle, PayPal, Stripe, YouTube, Instagram, Yahoo! and WhatsApp. Bill Coughran <https://www.sequoiacap.com/people/bill-coughran/> is a senior investor in Sequoia Capital. According to his linkedin profile, he started as a Programmer in the late 60s and held many engineering related positions over the years. Worked in Bell Laboratories for 20 years. Worked as SVP of Engineering in Google for 8.5 years. To quote his words "I have some level of expertise about the current email systems, which is why I was did some investigating". So this man is one of the toughest person to impress. But he is one of the nicest investor I have met. When I asked him whether he can take a look, he didn't insult me with words like "You think you are the inventor of FUSSP?" He just told me "Sure, I'd be happy to." He went through my entire paper and then sent me this mail <https://www.dombox.org/nanog/billcoughran.png>. He later turned me down because it's hard for a startup to distribute a new solution. Maybe he is right. Or maybe I'll overcome that too. [Today's discussion is about whether I solved the spam problem. Not about how I'm gonna distribute the solution]
Yesterday I published my work on a medium blog post and linked my white paper. An engineer read my white paper and sent me this mail <https://www.dombox.org/nanog/riccardo.png>.
These guys see value in my white paper because they completed my ~300 pages white paper.
To the "50 words are enough" band members, let me tell you something. I'm the author of my work. It's my job to decide "what to show you" and "when to show you". I have posted my system summary in a medium blog post. When you reach 75% of the article, you will see a title called "Hot Gates Strategy". Everything you see above is pointless without the remaining 25% of the content. Put it this way, I have designed 75% of that system, only to have remaining 25% of the system. So yeah, even if you had 75% of the content, you still can't judge my work.
Whether you all believe it or not, I'm the goddamn inventor of FUSSP. I can proudly say that because my system doesn't have the "spam" folder. So how about you all appreciate the guy who spent 5 years in chasing for a solution like a madman and succeeded in solving a challenging problem rather than spending your time in attacking me? [For the record, my single white paper plenty of problems. Email Spam is one of them]
Looking forward to hear your feedback. People who complete my white paper, please post whether my claims are true or I'm just wasting everyone's time.
[I'm going to bed now. So I may not be online for the next 8 hours. I'll respond to your queries after that]
Thanks
----------------------------------
Materials:
System Overview - https://medium.com/@Viruthagiri/dombox-the-zero-spam-mail-system-2b08ff7432c...
White Paper - https://www.dombox.org/dombox.pdf
Flowcharts - https://www.dombox.org/flowcharts.pdf
Prototype - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VK2eSfCurx4 [This is the video I uploaded before posting to DMARC list. So the interface is little outdated]
-- Best Regards,
Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan Dombox, Inc.
On Feb 17, 2019, at 7:14 PM, Ross Tajvar <ross@tajvar.io> wrote:
I'd be a lot more inclined to read your paper if you weren't so self-righteous about it. Rehashing all the times people disagreed with ("attacked") you is a poor way to encourage others to earnestly engage with your ideas.
Especially when they are well-respected members of both NANOG and the greater email community. Seriously?? Attacking John and Suresh?? Anne *Typed with 1.5 eyes as I'm recuperating from a torn retina, so apologies for any typos. Anne P. Mitchell, Attorney at Law GDPR, CCPA (CA) & CCDPA (CO) Compliance Consultant Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal anti-spam law) Legislative Consultant CEO/President, Institute for Social Internet Public Policy Board of Directors, Denver Internet Exchange Board of Directors, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop Legal Counsel: The CyberGreen Institute Legal Counsel: The Earth Law Center California Bar Association Cal. Bar Cyberspace Law Committee Colorado Cyber Committee Ret. Professor of Law, Lincoln Law School of San Jose Ret. Chair, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop
On February 18, 2019 at 12:29 amitchell@isipp.com (Anne P. Mitchell, Esq.) wrote:
On Feb 17, 2019, at 7:14 PM, Ross Tajvar <ross@tajvar.io> wrote:
I'd be a lot more inclined to read your paper if you weren't so self-righteous about it. Rehashing all the times people disagreed with ("attacked") you is a poor way to encourage others to earnestly engage with your ideas.
Especially when they are well-respected members of both NANOG and the greater email community. Seriously?? Attacking John and Suresh??
Uh-oh, this leads to "Why didn't he attack me? Don't I rate as well-respected?" I suppose in the proximal case because I didn't attack him :-) -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo*
You literally lost my interest in reading your solution when I realized that 99.99999999999% of this post is just you railing against people. People are right, if you can’t get my attention in 50 words, then either your solution isn’t a solution but a marketing ploy, or you need someone who actually knows how to present things to people in this field. Im a former DNSbl maintainer - I get excited over new anti spam solutions and love to throw resources at new solutions. So yeah, this is a non starter. Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 17, 2019, at 7:03 PM, Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan <giri@dombox.org> wrote:
Hello Everyone,
My name is Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan. I'm the guy who proposed SMTP over TLS on Port 26 last month. I'm also the guy who attacked (???) John Levine.
Today I have something to show you.
Long story short.... I solved the email spam problem. Well... Actually I solved it long time back. I'm just ready to disclose it today. Again...
Yeah.. Yeah.. Yeah... If only I had a dime for every time people insult me for saying "I solved the spam problem"
They usually start with the insult like "You think you are the inventor of FUSSP?"
These guys always are the know-it-all assholes. They don't listen. They don't want to listen. They are like barking dogs. If one started to bark, everyone else gets the courage to do the same thing.
I'm tired of fighting these assholes in every mailing list. I'm on your side morons. So how about you all knock it off?
Six months back, it was John Levine who humiliated me in the DMARC list. Apparently, for him 50 words are enough to attack me.
Töma Gavrichenkov and Suresh Ramasubramanian even started to defend this man saying 50 words are enough to judge a 50,000 words paper. [We are gonna figure it out today]
----------------------------------
@Töma Gavrichenkov
In theory, I can easily recall a few cases in my life when going through just 50 words was quite enough for a judgment.
How can you be so sure that you didn't fuck up none of the lives of these "few cases"? Or in more technical terms, How can you be absolutely sure that there is no "False Positives"?
----------------------------------
@Suresh Ramasubramanian
Yes, 50 words are more than enough to decide a bad idea is bad. You don't have to like that, or like any of us, but facts are facts
Merely appending the text "facts are facts" not gonna convert a bullshit statement into a fact.
You know what's the meaning of the word "fact"? It's a statement that can be proved TRUE.
Let's do a little experiment. 100 researchers presents their lifetime work to us. Each of their research paper contain 50,000 words. We are gonna judge them.
You are gonna judge them based on only the first 50 words. And I'm gonna judge them by tossing a coin. Can you guess who is gonna fuck up less number of researcher lives?
I'm claiming that I solved the email spam problem. If that's true, then you should know, common sense is one of the very basic requirement for that.
I designed my email system. Every inch of it. I wrote my research paper. Every word of it. I made my prototype video. Every second of it. So I'm the captain of my ship. Not you. But you all think you know my system better than me? That too, with only 50 words?
My research paper has around 50,000 words. And you think 50 words are enough to judge my work? Let me make sure I get this right. You are all saying, you know what's in the rest of the 49,950 words based on only the first 50 words? That's stupid on so many levels.
If you are gonna do a half-assed job and relay that misinformation to thousands of people, why volunteer in the first place? And by the way, by saying you are all doing half-assed job, I'm actually insulting the people who are REALLY doing the half-assed job.
----------------------------------
John Levine vs. me
One month back, some of you may have noticed a thread created by John Levine where he goes like "He's Forum Shopping". The whole gist of that message was "We already have DANE and MTA-STS. We don't a third solution". And then I used some harsh words to defend myself. But that was the Season 2 of his "Shitshow". The Season 1 was aired 6 months back. You all missed that show. This is what happened in Season 1.
Six months back, I posted on three mailing list saying "I solved the email spam problem" and asked them to provide feedback on my invention. Those three mailing lists were SPF, DKIM and DMARC. That's because my solution relied on them and those three were the only email related mailing lists I knew at that time. In DMARC community, John Levine started to insult me after reading only the first 50 words. Dave Crocker joined the cast and did a flawless job on abusing me. He asked me to kill my project. I told him he is being rude. And this is what he replied for that. He is one of the most radical and ignorant person I have seen in tech. He didn't even stop for a moment and think "Am I attacking an Innocent person?". He even went to other mailing lists to attack me. He abused all his power and kept on attacking me just to have some "dopamine orgasm". Something tells me he slept peacefully on that day. And then bunch of other guys joined. So the whole thread gone crazy. This is because John Levine successfully distributed wrong version of the story to thousands of people with only 50 words. Both Dave Crocker and John Levine are the bigshots there. So I knew no matter how much I cry for help, no one is gonna help me. John seemed like a "decent-asshole" while compared to Dave Crocker. So I sent a private mail to John saying "John, I'm not really sure whether I can afford you since I have not raised any money yet. But let me give it a shot. Could you tell me how much you would charge to go through my presentation, demo video and give me a detailed feedback about my system?" [The reason I was ready to pay him is because he made it very clear in the DMARC thread by saying "Sorry, but I don't provide consulting for free". I thought if I make him read my document, he would go back and correct his mistake] And this is what he replied for that. "Really, even if you had money, it wouldn't be worth your money or my time". [For the record, he come to this conclusion without even knowing what's inside in my document] I said only "ok, thankyou" and then unsubscribed from the DMARC mailing list. [What more can you argue with a bunch of know-it-all morons who thinks they are all right?] Six month later (last month), John started his shitshow again attacking my IETF proposal. He tried to make me look like an idiot again. And that's when I started to defend myself by using harsh words. You all know the rest.
----------------------------------
One person told me on that thread to take John Levine's words as criticism.
You see I have no problems with criticism. I usually thank people when they criticize my work. The best criticism usually follows this format.
"I went through your paper (#1), your work is full of shit (#2), Here are the reasons (#3)"
#1 says, the critic really knows what the author is talking about. #2 says, the critic is speaking his mind without any bullshit. #3 says, the critic has valid points for his criticism.
However, I can't consider someone as critic who straightly go for #2. Especially when the whole argument was all about killing my work just because he is one of the inventor of MTA-STS.
If I start to listen his words, then next time he will create a new thread to attack me for creating <this thread> saying "He's forum shopping. I already told him it's not worth his money and my time". What you want me to do in this case? Take that as criticism and move on? It's my 5 fucking years of research. I can't just let it go just because someone doesn't like my work.
----------------------------------
@Valdis Kletnieks
You missed the part where the RFC says you *MUST* fall back to A if there's no MX.
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself; Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man" - George Bernard Shaw
---------------------------------- @John Levine
I was trying to contribute to IETF the other day. One of the guy from DMARC list uses your words as a reason to attack me and asking me to turn down the proposal. You were watching that.
If I really solved the email spam problem, that puts me in the "best problem solvers in the world" category. So how about you go back to the DMARC list and write a decent apology for posting misinformation to everyone? [Of course only if I solved the spam problem. That was my claim from the beginning right?]
----------------------------------
@Everyone
Here is what you all should know.
It's my 5 years of research. So it's worth more than 50 words. I started my work back in 2013 and I used to call my work "XMail" at that time. It's now called "Dombox"
My prototype codebase has around 200,000 lines of code. [To be exact: 466,965 ++ 254,169 --]
Sequoia Capital is one of the well known venture firm in the world. They have invested in over 250 companies since 1972, including Apple, Google, Oracle, PayPal, Stripe, YouTube, Instagram, Yahoo! and WhatsApp. Bill Coughran is a senior investor in Sequoia Capital. According to his linkedin profile, he started as a Programmer in the late 60s and held many engineering related positions over the years. Worked in Bell Laboratories for 20 years. Worked as SVP of Engineering in Google for 8.5 years. To quote his words "I have some level of expertise about the current email systems, which is why I was did some investigating". So this man is one of the toughest person to impress. But he is one of the nicest investor I have met. When I asked him whether he can take a look, he didn't insult me with words like "You think you are the inventor of FUSSP?" He just told me "Sure, I'd be happy to." He went through my entire paper and then sent me this mail. He later turned me down because it's hard for a startup to distribute a new solution. Maybe he is right. Or maybe I'll overcome that too. [Today's discussion is about whether I solved the spam problem. Not about how I'm gonna distribute the solution]
Yesterday I published my work on a medium blog post and linked my white paper. An engineer read my white paper and sent me this mail.
These guys see value in my white paper because they completed my ~300 pages white paper.
To the "50 words are enough" band members, let me tell you something. I'm the author of my work. It's my job to decide "what to show you" and "when to show you". I have posted my system summary in a medium blog post. When you reach 75% of the article, you will see a title called "Hot Gates Strategy". Everything you see above is pointless without the remaining 25% of the content. Put it this way, I have designed 75% of that system, only to have remaining 25% of the system. So yeah, even if you had 75% of the content, you still can't judge my work.
Whether you all believe it or not, I'm the goddamn inventor of FUSSP. I can proudly say that because my system doesn't have the "spam" folder. So how about you all appreciate the guy who spent 5 years in chasing for a solution like a madman and succeeded in solving a challenging problem rather than spending your time in attacking me? [For the record, my single white paper plenty of problems. Email Spam is one of them]
Looking forward to hear your feedback. People who complete my white paper, please post whether my claims are true or I'm just wasting everyone's time.
[I'm going to bed now. So I may not be online for the next 8 hours. I'll respond to your queries after that]
Thanks
----------------------------------
Materials:
System Overview - https://medium.com/@Viruthagiri/dombox-the-zero-spam-mail-system-2b08ff7432c...
White Paper - https://www.dombox.org/dombox.pdf
Flowcharts - https://www.dombox.org/flowcharts.pdf
Prototype - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VK2eSfCurx4 [This is the video I uploaded before posting to DMARC list. So the interface is little outdated]
-- Best Regards,
Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan Dombox, Inc.
There's this small percentage of cranks that are brilliant Doc Emmett Brown level inventors who come up with truly brilliant products and solutions. And then there's the much larger percentage of cranks that have a bad idea that they're prepared to defend to the last. Very well then .. On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 7:51 AM Brielle <bruns@2mbit.com> wrote:
You literally lost my interest in reading your solution when I realized that 99.99999999999% of this post is just you railing against people.
People are right, if you can’t get my attention in 50 words, then either your solution isn’t a solution but a marketing ploy, or you need someone who actually knows how to present things to people in this field.
Im a former DNSbl maintainer - I get excited over new anti spam solutions and love to throw resources at new solutions.
So yeah, this is a non starter.
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 17, 2019, at 7:03 PM, Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan <giri@dombox.org> wrote:
Hello Everyone,
My name is Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan. I'm the guy who proposed SMTP over TLS on Port 26 last month. I'm also the guy who attacked (???) John Levine.
Today I have something to show you.
Long story short.... I solved the email spam problem. Well... Actually I solved it long time back. I'm just ready to disclose it today. Again...
Yeah.. Yeah.. Yeah... If only I had a dime for every time people insult me for saying "I solved the spam problem"
They usually start with the insult like "You think you are the inventor of FUSSP?"
These guys always are the know-it-all assholes. They don't listen. They don't want to listen. They are like barking dogs. If one started to bark, everyone else gets the courage to do the same thing.
I'm tired of fighting these assholes in every mailing list. I'm on your side morons. So how about you all knock it off?
Six months back, it was John Levine who humiliated me in the DMARC list. Apparently, for him 50 words are enough to attack me.
Töma Gavrichenkov and Suresh Ramasubramanian even started to defend this man saying 50 words are enough to judge a 50,000 words paper. [We are gonna figure it out today]
----------------------------------
@Töma Gavrichenkov
In theory, I can easily recall a few cases in my life when going through just 50 words was quite enough for a judgment.
How can you be so sure that you didn't fuck up none of the lives of these "few cases"? Or in more technical terms, How can you be absolutely sure that there is no "False Positives"?
----------------------------------
@Suresh Ramasubramanian
Yes, 50 words are more than enough to decide a bad idea is bad. You don't have to like that, or like any of us, but facts are facts
Merely appending the text "facts are facts" not gonna convert a bullshit statement into a fact.
You know what's the meaning of the word "fact"? It's a statement that can be proved TRUE.
Let's do a little experiment. 100 researchers presents their lifetime work to us. Each of their research paper contain 50,000 words. We are gonna judge them.
You are gonna judge them based on only the first 50 words. And I'm gonna judge them by tossing a coin. Can you guess who is gonna fuck up less number of researcher lives?
I'm claiming that I solved the email spam problem. If that's true, then you should know, common sense is one of the very basic requirement for that.
I designed my email system. Every inch of it. I wrote my research paper. Every word of it. I made my prototype video. Every second of it. So I'm the captain of my ship. Not you. But you all think you know my system better than me? That too, with only 50 words?
My research paper has around 50,000 words. And you think 50 words are enough to judge my work? Let me make sure I get this right. You are all saying, you know what's in the rest of the 49,950 words based on only the first 50 words? That's stupid on so many levels.
If you are gonna do a half-assed job and relay that misinformation to thousands of people, why volunteer in the first place? And by the way, by saying you are all doing half-assed job, I'm actually insulting the people who are REALLY doing the half-assed job.
----------------------------------
John Levine vs. me
One month back, some of you may have noticed a thread created by John Levine where he goes like "He's Forum Shopping". The whole gist of that message was "We already have DANE and MTA-STS. We don't a third solution". And then I used some harsh words to defend myself. But that was the Season 2 of his "Shitshow". The Season 1 was aired 6 months back. You all missed that show. This is what happened in Season 1.
Six months back, I posted on three mailing list saying "I solved the email spam problem" and asked them to provide feedback on my invention. Those three mailing lists were SPF, DKIM and DMARC. That's because my solution relied on them and those three were the only email related mailing lists I knew at that time. In DMARC community, John Levine started to insult me after reading only the first 50 words. Dave Crocker joined the cast and did a flawless job on abusing me. He asked me to kill my project. I told him he is being rude. And this is what he replied for that. He is one of the most radical and ignorant person I have seen in tech. He didn't even stop for a moment and think "Am I attacking an Innocent person?". He even went to other mailing lists to attack me. He abused all his power and kept on attacking me just to have some "dopamine orgasm". Something tells me he slept peacefully on that day. And then bunch of other guys joined. So the whole thread gone crazy. This is because John Levine successfully distributed wrong version of the story to thousands of people with only 50 words. Both Dave Crocker and John Levine are the bigshots there. So I knew no matter how much I cry for help, no one is gonna help me. John seemed like a "decent-asshole" while compared to Dave Crocker. So I sent a private mail to John saying "John, I'm not really sure whether I can afford you since I have not raised any money yet. But let me give it a shot. Could you tell me how much you would charge to go through my presentation, demo video and give me a detailed feedback about my system?" [The reason I was ready to pay him is because he made it very clear in the DMARC thread by saying "Sorry, but I don't provide consulting for free". I thought if I make him read my document, he would go back and correct his mistake] And this is what he replied for that. "Really, even if you had money, it wouldn't be worth your money or my time". [For the record, he come to this conclusion without even knowing what's inside in my document] I said only "ok, thankyou" and then unsubscribed from the DMARC mailing list. [What more can you argue with a bunch of know-it-all morons who thinks they are all right?] Six month later (last month), John started his shitshow again attacking my IETF proposal. He tried to make me look like an idiot again. And that's when I started to defend myself by using harsh words. You all know the rest.
----------------------------------
One person told me on that thread to take John Levine's words as criticism.
You see I have no problems with criticism. I usually thank people when they criticize my work. The best criticism usually follows this format.
"I went through your paper (#1), your work is full of shit (#2), Here are the reasons (#3)"
#1 says, the critic really knows what the author is talking about. #2 says, the critic is speaking his mind without any bullshit. #3 says, the critic has valid points for his criticism.
However, I can't consider someone as critic who straightly go for #2. Especially when the whole argument was all about killing my work just because he is one of the inventor of MTA-STS.
If I start to listen his words, then next time he will create a new thread to attack me for creating <this thread> saying "He's forum shopping. I already told him it's not worth his money and my time". What you want me to do in this case? Take that as criticism and move on? It's my 5 fucking years of research. I can't just let it go just because someone doesn't like my work.
----------------------------------
@Valdis Kletnieks
You missed the part where the RFC says you *MUST* fall back to A if there's no MX.
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself; Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man" - George Bernard Shaw
---------------------------------- @John Levine
I was trying to contribute to IETF the other day. One of the guy from DMARC list uses your words as a reason to attack me and asking me to turn down the proposal. You were watching that.
If I really solved the email spam problem, that puts me in the "best problem solvers in the world" category. So how about you go back to the DMARC list and write a decent apology for posting misinformation to everyone? [Of course only if I solved the spam problem. That was my claim from the beginning right?]
----------------------------------
@Everyone
Here is what you all should know.
It's my 5 years of research. So it's worth more than 50 words. I started my work back in 2013 and I used to call my work "XMail" at that time. It's now called "Dombox"
My prototype codebase has around 200,000 lines of code. [To be exact: 466,965 ++ 254,169 --]
Sequoia Capital is one of the well known venture firm in the world. They have invested in over 250 companies since 1972, including Apple, Google, Oracle, PayPal, Stripe, YouTube, Instagram, Yahoo! and WhatsApp. Bill Coughran is a senior investor in Sequoia Capital. According to his linkedin profile, he started as a Programmer in the late 60s and held many engineering related positions over the years. Worked in Bell Laboratories for 20 years. Worked as SVP of Engineering in Google for 8.5 years. To quote his words "I have some level of expertise about the current email systems, which is why I was did some investigating". So this man is one of the toughest person to impress. But he is one of the nicest investor I have met. When I asked him whether he can take a look, he didn't insult me with words like "You think you are the inventor of FUSSP?" He just told me "Sure, I'd be happy to." He went through my entire paper and then sent me this mail. He later turned me down because it's hard for a startup to distribute a new solution. Maybe he is right. Or maybe I'll overcome that too. [Today's discussion is about whether I solved the spam problem. Not about how I'm gonna distribute the solution]
Yesterday I published my work on a medium blog post and linked my white paper. An engineer read my white paper and sent me this mail.
These guys see value in my white paper because they completed my ~300 pages white paper.
To the "50 words are enough" band members, let me tell you something. I'm the author of my work. It's my job to decide "what to show you" and "when to show you". I have posted my system summary in a medium blog post. When you reach 75% of the article, you will see a title called "Hot Gates Strategy". Everything you see above is pointless without the remaining 25% of the content. Put it this way, I have designed 75% of that system, only to have remaining 25% of the system. So yeah, even if you had 75% of the content, you still can't judge my work.
Whether you all believe it or not, I'm the goddamn inventor of FUSSP. I can proudly say that because my system doesn't have the "spam" folder. So how about you all appreciate the guy who spent 5 years in chasing for a solution like a madman and succeeded in solving a challenging problem rather than spending your time in attacking me? [For the record, my single white paper plenty of problems. Email Spam is one of them]
Looking forward to hear your feedback. People who complete my white paper, please post whether my claims are true or I'm just wasting everyone's time.
[I'm going to bed now. So I may not be online for the next 8 hours. I'll respond to your queries after that]
Thanks
----------------------------------
Materials:
System Overview - https://medium.com/@Viruthagiri/dombox-the-zero-spam-mail-system-2b08ff7432c...
White Paper - https://www.dombox.org/dombox.pdf
Flowcharts - https://www.dombox.org/flowcharts.pdf
Prototype - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VK2eSfCurx4 [This is the video I uploaded before posting to DMARC list. So the interface is little outdated]
-- Best Regards,
Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan Dombox, Inc.
-- Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.lists@gmail.com)
This is truly awful and off topic for network engineering. Please stop and try to listen to the people who are offering you feedback. On other lists. Not here. Thanks! T On Sun, Feb 17, 2019, 21:05 Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan <giri@dombox.org wrote:
Hello Everyone,
My name is Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan. I'm the guy who proposed SMTP over TLS on Port 26 <https://web.archive.org/web/20190218001439/https://lists.gt.net/nanog/users/202185> last month. I'm also the guy who attacked (???) John Levine.
Today I have something to show you.
Long story short.... I solved the email spam problem. Well... Actually I solved it long time back. I'm just ready to disclose it today. Again...
Yeah.. Yeah.. Yeah... If only I had a dime for every time people insult me for saying "I solved the spam problem"
They usually start with the insult like "You think you are the inventor of FUSSP?"
These guys always are the know-it-all assholes. They don't listen. They don't want to listen. They are like barking dogs. If one started to bark, everyone else gets the courage to do the same thing.
I'm tired of fighting these assholes in every mailing list. I'm on your side morons. So how about you all knock it off?
Six months back, it was John Levine who humiliated me in the DMARC list. Apparently, for him 50 words are enough to attack me.
Töma Gavrichenkov and Suresh Ramasubramanian even started to defend this man saying 50 words are enough to judge a 50,000 words paper. [We are gonna figure it out today]
----------------------------------
@Töma Gavrichenkov
In theory, I can easily recall a few cases in my life when going
through just 50 words was quite enough for a judgment.
How can you be so sure that you didn't fuck up none of the lives of these "few cases"? Or in more technical terms, How can you be absolutely sure that there is no "False Positives"?
----------------------------------
@Suresh Ramasubramanian
Yes, 50 words are more than enough to decide a bad idea is bad. You don't
have to like that, or like any of us, but facts are facts
Merely appending the text "facts are facts" not gonna convert a bullshit statement into a fact.
You know what's the meaning of the word "fact"? It's a statement that can be proved TRUE.
Let's do a little experiment. 100 researchers presents their lifetime work to us. Each of their research paper contain 50,000 words. We are gonna judge them.
You are gonna judge them based on only the first 50 words. And I'm gonna judge them by tossing a coin. Can you guess who is gonna fuck up less number of researcher lives?
I'm claiming that I solved the email spam problem. If that's true, then you should know, common sense is one of the very basic requirement for that.
I designed my email system. Every inch of it. I wrote my research paper. Every word of it. I made my prototype video. Every second of it. So I'm the captain of my ship. Not you. But you all think you know my system better than me? That too, with only 50 words?
My research paper has around 50,000 words. And you think 50 words are enough to judge my work? Let me make sure I get this right. You are all saying, you know what's in the rest of the 49,950 words based on only the first 50 words? That's stupid on so many levels.
If you are gonna do a half-assed job and relay that misinformation to thousands of people, why volunteer in the first place? And by the way, by saying you are all doing half-assed job, I'm actually insulting the people who are REALLY doing the half-assed job.
----------------------------------
John Levine vs. me
One month back, some of you may have noticed a thread created by John Levine <https://web.archive.org/web/20190218001726/https://lists.gt.net/nanog/users/202213> where he goes like "He's Forum Shopping". The whole gist of that message was "We already have DANE and MTA-STS. We don't a third solution". And then I used some harsh words to defend myself. But that was the Season 2 of his "Shitshow". The Season 1 was aired 6 months back. You all missed that show. This is what happened in Season 1.
1. Six months back, I posted on three mailing list saying "I solved the email spam problem" and asked them to provide feedback on my invention. Those three mailing lists were SPF, DKIM and DMARC. That's because my solution relied on them and those three were the only email related mailing lists I knew at that time. 2. In DMARC community, John Levine started to insult me after reading only the first 50 words. 3. Dave Crocker joined the cast and did a flawless job on abusing me. He asked me to kill my project. I told him he is being rude. And this is what he replied for that <https://www.dombox.org/nanog/dave.png>. He is one of the most radical and ignorant person I have seen in tech. He didn't even stop for a moment and think "Am I attacking an Innocent person?". He even went to other mailing lists to attack me. He abused all his power and kept on attacking me just to have some "dopamine orgasm". Something tells me he slept peacefully on that day. 4. And then bunch of other guys joined. So the whole thread gone crazy. This is because John Levine successfully distributed wrong version of the story to thousands of people with only 50 words. 5. Both Dave Crocker and John Levine are the bigshots there. So I knew no matter how much I cry for help, no one is gonna help me. 6. John seemed like a "decent-asshole" while compared to Dave Crocker. So I sent a private mail to John saying "John, I'm not really sure whether I can afford you since I have not raised any money yet. But let me give it a shot. Could you tell me how much you would charge to go through my presentation, demo video and give me a detailed feedback about my system?" [The reason I was ready to pay him is because he made it very clear in the DMARC thread by saying "Sorry, but I don't provide consulting for free". I thought if I make him read my document, he would go back and correct his mistake] 7. And this is what he replied for that. "Really, even if you had money, it wouldn't be worth your money or my time". [For the record, he come to this conclusion without even knowing what's inside in my document] 8. I said only "ok, thankyou" and then unsubscribed from the DMARC mailing list. [What more can you argue with a bunch of know-it-all morons who thinks they are all right?] 9. Six month later (last month), John started his shitshow again attacking my IETF proposal. He tried to make me look like an idiot again. And that's when I started to defend myself by using harsh words. 10. You all know the rest.
----------------------------------
One person told me on that thread to take John Levine's words as criticism.
You see I have no problems with criticism. I usually thank people when they criticize my work. The best criticism usually follows this format.
"I went through your paper (#1), your work is full of shit (#2), Here are the reasons (#3)"
#1 says, the critic really knows what the author is talking about. #2 says, the critic is speaking his mind without any bullshit. #3 says, the critic has valid points for his criticism.
However, I can't consider someone as critic who straightly go for #2. Especially when the whole argument was all about killing my work just because he is one of the inventor of MTA-STS.
If I start to listen his words, then next time he will create a new thread to attack me for creating <this thread> saying "He's forum shopping. I already told him it's not worth his money and my time". What you want me to do in this case? Take that as criticism and move on? It's my 5 fucking years of research. I can't just let it go just because someone doesn't like my work.
----------------------------------
@Valdis Kletnieks
You missed the part where the RFC says you *MUST* fall back to A if there's
no MX.
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself; Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man" - George Bernard Shaw
---------------------------------- @John Levine
I was trying to contribute to IETF the other day. One of the guy from DMARC list uses your words as a reason to attack me <https://www.dombox.org/nanog/utaattack.png> and asking me to turn down the proposal. You were watching that.
If I really solved the email spam problem, that puts me in the "best problem solvers in the world" category. So how about you go back to the DMARC list and write a decent apology for posting misinformation to everyone? [Of course only if I solved the spam problem. That was my claim from the beginning right?]
----------------------------------
@Everyone
Here is what you all should know.
It's my 5 years of research. So it's worth more than 50 words. I started my work back in 2013 and I used to call my work "XMail" at that time. It's now called "Dombox"
My prototype codebase has around 200,000 lines of code. [To be exact: 466,965 ++ 254,169 --]
Sequoia Capital is one of the well known venture firm in the world. They have invested in over 250 companies since 1972, including Apple, Google, Oracle, PayPal, Stripe, YouTube, Instagram, Yahoo! and WhatsApp. Bill Coughran <https://www.sequoiacap.com/people/bill-coughran/> is a senior investor in Sequoia Capital. According to his linkedin profile, he started as a Programmer in the late 60s and held many engineering related positions over the years. Worked in Bell Laboratories for 20 years. Worked as SVP of Engineering in Google for 8.5 years. To quote his words "I have some level of expertise about the current email systems, which is why I was did some investigating". So this man is one of the toughest person to impress. But he is one of the nicest investor I have met. When I asked him whether he can take a look, he didn't insult me with words like "You think you are the inventor of FUSSP?" He just told me "Sure, I'd be happy to." He went through my entire paper and then sent me this mail <https://www.dombox.org/nanog/billcoughran.png>. He later turned me down because it's hard for a startup to distribute a new solution. Maybe he is right. Or maybe I'll overcome that too. [Today's discussion is about whether I solved the spam problem. Not about how I'm gonna distribute the solution]
Yesterday I published my work on a medium blog post and linked my white paper. An engineer read my white paper and sent me this mail <https://www.dombox.org/nanog/riccardo.png>.
These guys see value in my white paper because they completed my ~300 pages white paper.
To the "50 words are enough" band members, let me tell you something. I'm the author of my work. It's my job to decide "what to show you" and "when to show you". I have posted my system summary in a medium blog post. When you reach 75% of the article, you will see a title called "Hot Gates Strategy". Everything you see above is pointless without the remaining 25% of the content. Put it this way, I have designed 75% of that system, only to have remaining 25% of the system. So yeah, even if you had 75% of the content, you still can't judge my work.
Whether you all believe it or not, I'm the goddamn inventor of FUSSP. I can proudly say that because my system doesn't have the "spam" folder. So how about you all appreciate the guy who spent 5 years in chasing for a solution like a madman and succeeded in solving a challenging problem rather than spending your time in attacking me? [For the record, my single white paper plenty of problems. Email Spam is one of them]
Looking forward to hear your feedback. People who complete my white paper, please post whether my claims are true or I'm just wasting everyone's time.
[I'm going to bed now. So I may not be online for the next 8 hours. I'll respond to your queries after that]
Thanks
----------------------------------
Materials:
System Overview - https://medium.com/@Viruthagiri/dombox-the-zero-spam-mail-system-2b08ff7432c...
White Paper - https://www.dombox.org/dombox.pdf
Flowcharts - https://www.dombox.org/flowcharts.pdf
Prototype - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VK2eSfCurx4 [This is the video I uploaded before posting to DMARC list. So the interface is little outdated]
-- Best Regards,
Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan Dombox, Inc.
Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan wrote : I solved the email spam problem.
Oh, this is wonderful news. There are plenty of other problems that need your brilliance. In no specific order : - Global warming. - Nuclear proliferation. - Peace in the middle east. - World hunger. - IPv6 multihoming. We will be looking for your next improvement. TSI Disclaimer: This message and any files or text attached to it are intended only for the recipients named above and contain information that may be confidential or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not forward, copy, use or otherwise disclose this communication or the information contained herein. In the event you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by replying to this message, and then delete all copies of it from your system. Thank you!...
I can't get past all the blabbering to bother reviewing stuff. But why does this guy remind me of Shiva Ayyadurai - you know, the "inventor of email." Seriously - isn't the general rule to start with a demonstration, not a polemic? (Shiva actually built an email system. And people actually used it.) On 2/17/19 9:52 PM, Michel Py wrote:
Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan wrote : I solved the email spam problem. Oh, this is wonderful news. There are plenty of other problems that need your brilliance. In no specific order :
- Global warming. - Nuclear proliferation. - Peace in the middle east. - World hunger. - IPv6 multihoming.
We will be looking for your next improvement.
TSI Disclaimer: This message and any files or text attached to it are intended only for the recipients named above and contain information that may be confidential or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not forward, copy, use or otherwise disclose this communication or the information contained herein. In the event you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by replying to this message, and then delete all copies of it from your system. Thank you!...
-- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra
... and of all those, once you solve v6 multihoming (possibly with ipv9) do come back to nanog where I'm sure it will be operational. On 18/02/19, 8:23 AM, "NANOG on behalf of Michel Py" <nanog-bounces@nanog.org on behalf of michel.py@tsisemi.com> wrote: > Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan wrote : > I solved the email spam problem. Oh, this is wonderful news. There are plenty of other problems that need your brilliance. In no specific order : - Global warming. - Nuclear proliferation. - Peace in the middle east. - World hunger. - IPv6 multihoming. We will be looking for your next improvement. TSI Disclaimer: This message and any files or text attached to it are intended only for the recipients named above and contain information that may be confidential or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not forward, copy, use or otherwise disclose this communication or the information contained herein. In the event you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by replying to this message, and then delete all copies of it from your system. Thank you!...
Not to derail this highly relevant thread, and forgive my ignorance, but what's the issue with IPv6 multihoming? On Sun, Feb 17, 2019, 10:01 PM Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists@gmail.com wrote:
... and of all those, once you solve v6 multihoming (possibly with ipv9) do come back to nanog where I'm sure it will be operational.
On 18/02/19, 8:23 AM, "NANOG on behalf of Michel Py" < nanog-bounces@nanog.org on behalf of michel.py@tsisemi.com> wrote:
> Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan wrote : > I solved the email spam problem.
Oh, this is wonderful news. There are plenty of other problems that need your brilliance. In no specific order :
- Global warming. - Nuclear proliferation. - Peace in the middle east. - World hunger. - IPv6 multihoming.
We will be looking for your next improvement.
TSI Disclaimer: This message and any files or text attached to it are intended only for the recipients named above and contain information that may be confidential or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not forward, copy, use or otherwise disclose this communication or the information contained herein. In the event you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by replying to this message, and then delete all copies of it from your system. Thank you!...
Ross Tajvar wrote : Not to derail this highly relevant thread, and forgive my ignorance, but what's the issue with IPv6 multihoming?
In the original spec of IPv6, there were no PI addresses, only PA; one of the unfulfilled promises of IPv6 was that the IPv6 DFZ would remain very small. This made IPv6 multihoming very difficult, and lots of people wasted a lot of time trying to accommodate the "no PI" thing. What happenned is that the RIRs, against the IETF, started to issue IPv6 PI addresses, which solved the multihoming problem by doing it the IPv4 way : a prefix in the DFZ. Michel. TSI Disclaimer: This message and any files or text attached to it are intended only for the recipients named above and contain information that may be confidential or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not forward, copy, use or otherwise disclose this communication or the information contained herein. In the event you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by replying to this message, and then delete all copies of it from your system. Thank you!...
Anyone else having flashbacks to Jim Fleming telling us about how IPv8 was the final ultimate solution to IPv4 runout? On Mon, 18 Feb 2019, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
... and of all those, once you solve v6 multihoming (possibly with ipv9) do come back to nanog where I'm sure it will be operational.
On 18/02/19, 8:23 AM, "NANOG on behalf of Michel Py" <nanog-bounces@nanog.org on behalf of michel.py@tsisemi.com> wrote:
Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan wrote : I solved the email spam problem.
Oh, this is wonderful news. There are plenty of other problems that need your brilliance. In no specific order :
- Global warming. - Nuclear proliferation. - Peace in the middle east. - World hunger. - IPv6 multihoming.
We will be looking for your next improvement.
TSI Disclaimer: This message and any files or text attached to it are intended only for the recipients named above and contain information that may be confidential or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not forward, copy, use or otherwise disclose this communication or the information contained herein. In the event you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by replying to this message, and then delete all copies of it from your system. Thank you!...
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Lewis, MCP :) | I route | therefore you are _________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________
On Sun, 17 Feb 2019 22:16:50 -0500, Jon Lewis said:
Anyone else having flashbacks to Jim Fleming telling us about how IPv8 was the final ultimate solution to IPv4 runout?
I was thinking more of the guy who was convinced that each octet in an IPV4 address could store 0 through 256.
On Mon, 18 Feb 2019, Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan wrote:
Hello Everyone,
My name is Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan. I'm the guy who proposed SMTP over TLS on Port 26 last month. I'm also the guy who attacked (???) John Levine.
Today I have something to show you.
Long story short.... I solved the email spam problem. Well... Actually I solved it long time back. I'm just ready to disclose it today. Again...
Spam and email really aren't "on-topic" for NANOG. That said, I was intrigued, so I did get a several dozen pages into your white paper. 1) If you wrote that, you need to stop and hire/con someone else to do your tech writing. To say your writing is atrocious does not do it justice. 2) The ideas look like they may have some merit, except that the average Internet/email user is neither capable of nor willing to manage domboxes for every entity from which they expect to receive transactional email. I didn't get much further into the paper than this, because, as mentioned, your writing style SUCKS and I'm not strapped into my poetry appreciation chair, so you can't make me endure any more of it. So, in summary, too complicated for my mom to use, and such a crappy delivery of the idea that I can't imagine anyone will get through the entire pitch (to tell you what the other flaws are). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Lewis, MCP :) | I route | therefore you are _________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________
I made it a few dozen pages into the white paper, it's 200+ pages long and TBH just rambles on about what spam bots are and other basic definitions. No one who doesn't know all that will even attempt to read your paper I don't think. THAT SAID, I got to the point where it required CAPTCHAs of senders and thought well, that's theoretically possible, but quite a threshold to expect of others who may not much care if you read their email, but you the recipient may care a lot and oh well you never get the mail. It doesn't add much, really, and spammers figured out how to bust things like CAPTCHAs decades ago*. I accept there's probably more to your idea, put it on one or two pages. * Take the CAPTCHA image, flash it up on another site which offers access to free porn for solving the CAPTCHA, forward answer to original site. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo*
On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 07:33:32 +0530, Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan said:
My name is Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan. I'm the guy who proposed SMTP over TLS on Port 26
Unfortunately, your attempt there didn't demonstrate an in-depth knowledge of the email ecology of the sort needed to *actually* solve the spam problem.
Today I have something to show you.
Long story short.... I solved the email spam problem. Well... Actually I solved it long time back. I'm just ready to disclose it today. Again...
So actually *disclose* it already, rather than whining about how you've been treated. And there's this telling statement:
[Today's discussion is about whether I solved the spam problem. Not about how I'm gonna distribute the solution]
You apparently don't understand that how the solution gets distributed is a very important part of whether the solution will work. Bottom line: You hit most of the points in Vernon Schryver's FUSSP list, plus an amazing number of points in John Baez's crackpot index. Not a good way to start. So because I'm needing some entertainment, I went to go check the Medium post.
"Spammers have no idea what's going on INSIDE the email system. i.e. They have no idea whether their mail gets marked as spam or not."
Oh, you poor, poor uneducated person. Spammers have a *very good* idea of whether it was marked as spam.
"Now, what if your first mail get rejected with an error message like "Unauthorized Sender"? Would you still write your follow-up mail? No, right?"
At which point you totally miss the point - for a spammer, the reasonable thing to do is *send another mail with a different From: value*, in hopes of hitting one that's an "authorized sender".
"So when mails get rejected with an error message, spammers gonna remove your email address from their email list. That's because your email address is a dead end for them."
OK, I'm done here. We obviously have a total lack of understanding of the problem space, and it's very unlikely that an actually correct solution will arise from that. Also, I'll offer you a totally free piece of technical advice: Those SAD entries in the DNS that you're hoping to use to tie domains together are trivially forgeable. To save everybody else the effort: As far as I can tell, he's re-invented plus addressing, and says that if everybody creates mailboxes john.smith@example.com for personal mail, and a john.smith+nanog@example.com for nanog mail, and john.smith+my-bank@example.com for his bank emails, spam will apparently give up in defeat There's a whole bunch more, including assuming that Joe Sixpack *will* create a separate address for each "transactional" piece of mail, that spammers won't send mail that looks like personal mail, that spammers won't create bogus DNS entries, and a few other whoppers...
On Sun, Feb 17, 2019 at 9:23 PM <valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu> wrote:
[Today's discussion is about whether I solved the spam problem. Not about how I'm gonna distribute the solution]
You apparently don't understand that how the solution gets distributed is a very important part of whether the solution will work.
If only everyone would change everything about how they do everything overnight, pay me/my company, and trust me/my company as a central authority... well, we'd have no problems, *I guarantee it!* I tried whole-assedly skimming the first two dozen pages of his pdf doc and switched to half-assedly for the latter several hundred pages. My take-away is that he has a company called dombox/teleport, and if we pay him to authorize us as not being spammers, then we're not spammers. But instead of simply that, also every system and the way everyone uses email, including trusting him as a primary point of authority, has to change before it works. Page 121 states that every website on the entire internet will need to implement his buttons. There's also some rather onerous sounding stuff around page 115 where he states that users won't be able to delete their email accounts, or the contents thereof. So I'm pretty sure this system is entirely in violation of European law.
"Now, what if your first mail get rejected with an error message like "Unauthorized Sender"? Would you still write your follow-up mail? No, right?"
At which point you totally miss the point - for a spammer, the reasonable thing to do is *send another mail with a different From: value*, in hopes of hitting one that's an "authorized sender".
Further, most recipients can't be burdened with having to authorize every potential sender. Systems implementing that logic have been implemented in various and sundry places, and never for very long. To save everybody else the effort: As far as I can tell, he's re-invented
plus addressing, and says that if everybody creates mailboxes john.smith@example.com for personal mail, and a john.smith+nanog@example.com for nanog mail, and john.smith+my-bank@example.com for his bank emails, spam will apparently give up in defeat
I'm pretty sure there was something in there about paying him to act as a central authority too, you've gotta half-assedly skim another hundred pages to get to it, though. Take care, Matt
Agreed. I’ve never seen someone so excited to have reinvented TMDA from the 1990’s. Please, tell us more how the Internet will readdress itself to meet your fascinating solution. Can we go back to talking about network engineering now? Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 17, 2019, at 19:21, valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 07:33:32 +0530, Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan said:
My name is Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan. I'm the guy who proposed SMTP over TLS on Port 26
Unfortunately, your attempt there didn't demonstrate an in-depth knowledge of the email ecology of the sort needed to *actually* solve the spam problem.
Today I have something to show you.
Long story short.... I solved the email spam problem. Well... Actually I solved it long time back. I'm just ready to disclose it today. Again...
So actually *disclose* it already, rather than whining about how you've been treated.
And there's this telling statement:
[Today's discussion is about whether I solved the spam problem. Not about how I'm gonna distribute the solution]
You apparently don't understand that how the solution gets distributed is a very important part of whether the solution will work.
Bottom line: You hit most of the points in Vernon Schryver's FUSSP list, plus an amazing number of points in John Baez's crackpot index. Not a good way to start.
So because I'm needing some entertainment, I went to go check the Medium post.
"Spammers have no idea what's going on INSIDE the email system. i.e. They have no idea whether their mail gets marked as spam or not."
Oh, you poor, poor uneducated person. Spammers have a *very good* idea of whether it was marked as spam.
"Now, what if your first mail get rejected with an error message like "Unauthorized Sender"? Would you still write your follow-up mail? No, right?"
At which point you totally miss the point - for a spammer, the reasonable thing to do is *send another mail with a different From: value*, in hopes of hitting one that's an "authorized sender".
"So when mails get rejected with an error message, spammers gonna remove your email address from their email list. That's because your email address is a dead end for them."
OK, I'm done here. We obviously have a total lack of understanding of the problem space, and it's very unlikely that an actually correct solution will arise from that.
Also, I'll offer you a totally free piece of technical advice: Those SAD entries in the DNS that you're hoping to use to tie domains together are trivially forgeable.
To save everybody else the effort: As far as I can tell, he's re-invented plus addressing, and says that if everybody creates mailboxes john.smith@example.com for personal mail, and a john.smith+nanog@example.com for nanog mail, and john.smith+my-bank@example.com for his bank emails, spam will apparently give up in defeat
There's a whole bunch more, including assuming that Joe Sixpack *will* create a separate address for each "transactional" piece of mail, that spammers won't send mail that looks like personal mail, that spammers won't create bogus DNS entries, and a few other whoppers...
Just gone through all your replies. Literally everyone attacking me here. Could you tell me why? Because I have been rude to John Levine, right? So you all think you have the right to give me "mob justice". But as an innocent man I have to suffer all John Levine attacks because he is a most valued member of NANOG. Is that what you are all saying? There is only one regret I have in this situation. I shouldn't have been rude with Töma Gavrichenkov and Suresh Ramasubramanian. That's because they didn't know what happened between John and me 6 months back. Most probably they would never have behaved with me in the way John behaved. I wasn't paying attention to that part. When I noticed the word "50 words", I thought they are mocking me too. --------- @Töma Gavrichenkov and Suresh Ramasubramanian I don't think I can go back and correct my mistakes. But trust me. I do regret for my words. I'm really sorry for being rude with you two. Take this as my sincerest apology. You two deserve that. --------- @Everyone It sucks when you sit on the "humiliation" chair when the mistake is not yours. I'm a farmer's son from a third world country, yet trying to contribute to this world in the way I can. Asking for feedback is not a mistake. But I have been attacked in multiple lists for that. This is the only thread I was rude and cocky. What you all think I spend my time only in attacking others? Have you ever noticed my other threads <https://lists.gt.net/nanog/users/202185>? I usually give respect to everyone. But I can't give respect to people who don't care about others feelings. What you all think, I'm a heartless man? One guy was attacking me for my poor english skills. Excuse me for not being poetic in my paper. I studied in my local language. English was an alien language to me. I started to learn "English" only in my early twenties. I just turned 30. This is what I picked in the past 10 years. Just because the ball is in your court doesn't mean, you all can throw at me in the way you can. I explained what happened between John Levine and me in my original post. That's because I don't want this man to go and create another thread to attack me or meddle in my efforts. I'm a guy who spend day and night in working on things I believe. I'm definitely not gonna turn into a Mark Zuckerberg. But I'm gonna make a difference to this world one way or another. None of never completed my paper. Most probably you have no idea what's in it. But you all think you have the right to attack me, because I was rude with John? This is an engineering community. Don't convert it into a "Prison Brotherhood" where the new guy always has to bend over.
You are so missing the point. This isn't about your interaction with John Levine. You came her asking for feedback (after an extensive and very unprofessional rant) and you got it. Just because you don't like the feedback doesn't mean people are "attacking" you. This is so irrelevant to NANOG. Please stop. On Mon, Feb 18, 2019, 2:00 AM Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan <giri@dombox.org wrote:
Just gone through all your replies.
Literally everyone attacking me here. Could you tell me why? Because I have been rude to John Levine, right? So you all think you have the right to give me "mob justice". But as an innocent man I have to suffer all John Levine attacks because he is a most valued member of NANOG. Is that what you are all saying?
There is only one regret I have in this situation. I shouldn't have been rude with Töma Gavrichenkov and Suresh Ramasubramanian. That's because they didn't know what happened between John and me 6 months back. Most probably they would never have behaved with me in the way John behaved. I wasn't paying attention to that part. When I noticed the word "50 words", I thought they are mocking me too.
--------- @Töma Gavrichenkov and Suresh Ramasubramanian
I don't think I can go back and correct my mistakes. But trust me. I do regret for my words. I'm really sorry for being rude with you two. Take this as my sincerest apology. You two deserve that. ---------
@Everyone
It sucks when you sit on the "humiliation" chair when the mistake is not yours. I'm a farmer's son from a third world country, yet trying to contribute to this world in the way I can.
Asking for feedback is not a mistake. But I have been attacked in multiple lists for that. This is the only thread I was rude and cocky.
What you all think I spend my time only in attacking others? Have you ever noticed my other threads <https://lists.gt.net/nanog/users/202185>? I usually give respect to everyone. But I can't give respect to people who don't care about others feelings. What you all think, I'm a heartless man?
One guy was attacking me for my poor english skills. Excuse me for not being poetic in my paper. I studied in my local language. English was an alien language to me. I started to learn "English" only in my early twenties. I just turned 30. This is what I picked in the past 10 years.
Just because the ball is in your court doesn't mean, you all can throw at me in the way you can. I explained what happened between John Levine and me in my original post. That's because I don't want this man to go and create another thread to attack me or meddle in my efforts.
I'm a guy who spend day and night in working on things I believe. I'm definitely not gonna turn into a Mark Zuckerberg. But I'm gonna make a difference to this world one way or another.
None of never completed my paper. Most probably you have no idea what's in it. But you all think you have the right to attack me, because I was rude with John? This is an engineering community. Don't convert it into a "Prison Brotherhood" where the new guy always has to bend over.
On 18/Feb/19 08:58, Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan wrote:
It sucks when you sit on the "humiliation" chair when the mistake is not yours. I'm a farmer's son from a third world country, yet trying to contribute to this world in the way I can.
Asking for feedback is not a mistake. But I have been attacked in multiple lists for that. This is the only thread I was rude and cocky.
My simple advice, take 2 weeks and think about how this thread has gone, cool down, and then decide how you want to proceed next. While nobody can take your work away from you, it does not mean that they have to accept it either. Your circumstances are your circumstances, as are everybody else's. Most people can smell a guilt trip, and often times, they don't like it. As I used to tell my friends who had trouble dating girls, "You don't get what you deserve, you get what you negotiate". Part of the gig is endearing yourself to people so that they can consider what you have to say. I do not know of any law that obliges anyone to give you attention. There is no shortage of brilliant minds that have never had their ideas realized - or even heard - simply because they could not deal with the social side of the gig. Please don't fall into that trap. Everybody wakes up everyday with their own set of problems. They have no obligation to be a part of yours, so make it easier for folk to listen to you. Whether you are right or wrong, bickering about the past deafens your core message, and simply turns people away so they don't have to add your problems on to theirs. Mark.
On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 12:28:21PM +0530, Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan <giri@dombox.org> wrote a message of 111 lines which said:
Just gone through all your replies.
And apparently you did not read them and did not take any lesson in it.
Literally everyone attacking me here.
In the current thread, NOT ONE reply was an attack. All the replies were kind and considerate (franly, much more than what you deserved) and explained why you are wrong. Read them again. Really. It would help you. This is probably your last chance before everyone definitely classify you as "useless crank".
One guy was attacking me for my poor english skills. Excuse me for not being poetic in my paper. I studied in my local language. English was an alien language to me.
English is not my mother tongue either and I make many mistakes. But I try to fix them, and do not complain when people who speak better english correct me. Frankly, as someone who has trouble understanding people speaking at the IETF meetings, I do not think that english is your main problem.
None of never completed my paper.
Nobody is forced to. There are more interesting papers to read that anyone have time to do so. We have to decide what to read and what to ignore. Why should we drop promising papers and read yours, when the external appearance is that of a guy who does not listen, does not know what he is talking about, and just complains endlessly how the world is unfair?
On 18 February 2019 06:58:21 GMT, Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan <giri@dombox.org> wrote:
Just gone through all your replies.
Literally everyone attacking me here. Could you tell me why? Because I have been rude to John Levine, right? So you all think you have the right to give me "mob justice". But as an innocent man I have to suffer all John Levine attacks because he is a most valued member of NANOG. Is that what you are all saying?
There is only one regret I have in this situation. I shouldn't have been rude with Töma Gavrichenkov and Suresh Ramasubramanian. That's because they didn't know what happened between John and me 6 months back. Most probably they would never have behaved with me in the way John behaved. I wasn't paying attention to that part. When I noticed the word "50 words", I thought they are mocking me too.
--------- @Töma Gavrichenkov and Suresh Ramasubramanian
I don't think I can go back and correct my mistakes. But trust me. I do regret for my words. I'm really sorry for being rude with you two. Take this as my sincerest apology. You two deserve that. ---------
@Everyone
It sucks when you sit on the "humiliation" chair when the mistake is not yours. I'm a farmer's son from a third world country, yet trying to contribute to this world in the way I can.
Asking for feedback is not a mistake. But I have been attacked in multiple lists for that. This is the only thread I was rude and cocky.
What you all think I spend my time only in attacking others? Have you ever noticed my other threads <https://lists.gt.net/nanog/users/202185>? I usually give respect to everyone. But I can't give respect to people who don't care about others feelings. What you all think, I'm a heartless man?
One guy was attacking me for my poor english skills. Excuse me for not being poetic in my paper. I studied in my local language. English was an alien language to me. I started to learn "English" only in my early twenties. I just turned 30. This is what I picked in the past 10 years.
Just because the ball is in your court doesn't mean, you all can throw at me in the way you can. I explained what happened between John Levine and me in my original post. That's because I don't want this man to go and create another thread to attack me or meddle in my efforts.
I'm a guy who spend day and night in working on things I believe. I'm definitely not gonna turn into a Mark Zuckerberg. But I'm gonna make a difference to this world one way or another.
None of never completed my paper. Most probably you have no idea what's in it. But you all think you have the right to attack me, because I was rude with John? This is an engineering community. Don't convert it into a "Prison Brotherhood" where the new guy always has to bend over.
I have no idea who you are, or who John is, or what sort if disagreement you guys had. I also don't care. I'm a user of this list, I read the threads that look interesting when I can (when I have time) and sometimes post responses. You haven't offended me and I don't owe you anything, so here is my impartial response; Your white paper is 300 pages long. That is literally 10x the length of what a white paper should be. White papers are not instruction manuals on exactly how something works and how to set it up, they're short succinct documents that give the highlights of the product, who can benefit from it, how, why etc. Who is your target audience for your writing? I read somewhere up to about half of your medium blog post. You start by explaining what different kinds of email are (spam vs phishing, transactional vs promotional) etc. This is an introduction for what email is. That's too basic for sending to a technical audience. Skip right to the main course, people have short attention spans, I hate having to skim through pages of stuff I know to find what I'm looking for. I didn't finish the blog post. I read that I'd have to create a mailbox (Dombox) for each domain I want to receive mail form and I switched off. I read further to see the examples but this killed my interest. Its too much effort for the average person. I'm emailing you now from throw-away Gmail account, which is free with world class spam filtering, I get like 1 spam email in my inbox per month. 1! And the reason I have this Gmail account is so that I can be reckless with handing out this this email address and it has no negative consequences for me. It's signed up to about 50 mailing lists right now, I get hundreds of emails. If I had to create an entry for each domain I wanted to received mail from I'd pull my eyes out with frustration. Also, this already exists. I could just run my own mail server and deny a mail except from domains or addresses which I have explicitly white listed in my server config, so how is your solution bettering that? I can even use a two step system: free email with Gmail to use their excellent spam filtering which my server then pulls via IMAP and drops anything not in my whitelist. Sorry, I just don't see the benefit (or at least, I couldn't see it in the few 2 thousand words of your blog, if its not clear by this point, why would I read on, I'm too busy to have to read more than a couple of thousands words and still not get to a clear description of the benefits you're offering). Cheers, James.
Thanks James for the feedback. I created that medium post for non-technical audience. But yes your feedback is quite valid. I just removed plenty of content from the blog post. You don't need a throw-away email account in my system. If I had to create an entry for each domain I wanted to received mail from
I'd pull my eyes out with frustration.
You would do this only for the unique domains just like you do in "Password Manager". For example, you would create a box for nanog. We deal with "spammers" only in the "injection" phase. If you have not read until the part where it says "Hot Gates Strategy", then it's really hard to connect the dots. Thanks On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 2:21 PM James Bensley <jwbensley@gmail.com> wrote:
On 18 February 2019 06:58:21 GMT, Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan < giri@dombox.org> wrote:
Just gone through all your replies.
Literally everyone attacking me here. Could you tell me why? Because I have been rude to John Levine, right? So you all think you have the right to give me "mob justice". But as an innocent man I have to suffer all John Levine attacks because he is a most valued member of NANOG. Is that what you are all saying?
There is only one regret I have in this situation. I shouldn't have been rude with Töma Gavrichenkov and Suresh Ramasubramanian. That's because they didn't know what happened between John and me 6 months back. Most probably they would never have behaved with me in the way John behaved. I wasn't paying attention to that part. When I noticed the word "50 words", I thought they are mocking me too.
--------- @Töma Gavrichenkov and Suresh Ramasubramanian
I don't think I can go back and correct my mistakes. But trust me. I do regret for my words. I'm really sorry for being rude with you two. Take this as my sincerest apology. You two deserve that. ---------
@Everyone
It sucks when you sit on the "humiliation" chair when the mistake is not yours. I'm a farmer's son from a third world country, yet trying to contribute to this world in the way I can.
Asking for feedback is not a mistake. But I have been attacked in multiple lists for that. This is the only thread I was rude and cocky.
What you all think I spend my time only in attacking others? Have you ever noticed my other threads <https://lists.gt.net/nanog/users/202185>? I usually give respect to everyone. But I can't give respect to people who don't care about others feelings. What you all think, I'm a heartless man?
One guy was attacking me for my poor english skills. Excuse me for not being poetic in my paper. I studied in my local language. English was an alien language to me. I started to learn "English" only in my early twenties. I just turned 30. This is what I picked in the past 10 years.
Just because the ball is in your court doesn't mean, you all can throw at me in the way you can. I explained what happened between John Levine and me in my original post. That's because I don't want this man to go and create another thread to attack me or meddle in my efforts.
I'm a guy who spend day and night in working on things I believe. I'm definitely not gonna turn into a Mark Zuckerberg. But I'm gonna make a difference to this world one way or another.
None of never completed my paper. Most probably you have no idea what's in it. But you all think you have the right to attack me, because I was rude with John? This is an engineering community. Don't convert it into a "Prison Brotherhood" where the new guy always has to bend over.
I have no idea who you are, or who John is, or what sort if disagreement you guys had. I also don't care. I'm a user of this list, I read the threads that look interesting when I can (when I have time) and sometimes post responses. You haven't offended me and I don't owe you anything, so here is my impartial response;
Your white paper is 300 pages long. That is literally 10x the length of what a white paper should be. White papers are not instruction manuals on exactly how something works and how to set it up, they're short succinct documents that give the highlights of the product, who can benefit from it, how, why etc.
Who is your target audience for your writing? I read somewhere up to about half of your medium blog post. You start by explaining what different kinds of email are (spam vs phishing, transactional vs promotional) etc. This is an introduction for what email is. That's too basic for sending to a technical audience. Skip right to the main course, people have short attention spans, I hate having to skim through pages of stuff I know to find what I'm looking for.
I didn't finish the blog post. I read that I'd have to create a mailbox (Dombox) for each domain I want to receive mail form and I switched off. I read further to see the examples but this killed my interest. Its too much effort for the average person. I'm emailing you now from throw-away Gmail account, which is free with world class spam filtering, I get like 1 spam email in my inbox per month. 1! And the reason I have this Gmail account is so that I can be reckless with handing out this this email address and it has no negative consequences for me. It's signed up to about 50 mailing lists right now, I get hundreds of emails. If I had to create an entry for each domain I wanted to received mail from I'd pull my eyes out with frustration.
Also, this already exists. I could just run my own mail server and deny a mail except from domains or addresses which I have explicitly white listed in my server config, so how is your solution bettering that? I can even use a two step system: free email with Gmail to use their excellent spam filtering which my server then pulls via IMAP and drops anything not in my whitelist.
Sorry, I just don't see the benefit (or at least, I couldn't see it in the few 2 thousand words of your blog, if its not clear by this point, why would I read on, I'm too busy to have to read more than a couple of thousands words and still not get to a clear description of the benefits you're offering).
Cheers, James.
-- Best Regards, Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan Dombox, Inc.
On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 12:28:21 +0530, Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan said:
Literally everyone attacking me here. Could you tell me why? Because I have been rude to John Levine, right?
No, it's because (a) every aspect we could understand from your writing has already been tried and failed, and (b) you've repeatedly proven that you're totally unaware of the state of the art on both the spammer side and the anti-spammer side. Oh, and (c) you appear to be totally unaware of just how little you know.
On Sun, Feb 17, 2019 at 10:58 PM Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan <giri@dombox.org> wrote:
Literally everyone attacking me here. Could you tell me why?
Because we disapprove of argumentum ad hominem and assume that if your reasoning leads with that fallacy right out of the gate it will contain the other errors as well. https://thebestschools.org/magazine/15-logical-fallacies-know/ Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
@Everyone I'm not gonna justify my behaviour. Yes my post was rude. I made a mistake. I was way over in my head. When I typed the original message I was obsessed with the man John Levine. He was responsible for the attacks on me in 4 mailing lists. DMARC, DKIM, IETF and this one (the old thread). I didn't want to face the same thing again. So I was rude. I'm not gonna make him responsible for this thread. This one is my mistake. I could have been more professional in my original post. But I screwed up. My apologies to everyone here for making you witness my rant. I'm leaving this mailing list too. But if anyone complete my white paper in the future, I would love to hear your feedback. I won't be receiving any mails from nanog. So contact me off-list in that case. Thanks for the guys who helped in my other threads. Good luck to you all.
Every single person on this list has either sent an email they later regret , or will do so eventually. Full credit to you for acknowledging and owning this. Best of luck to you. On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 09:08 Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan <giri@dombox.org> wrote:
@Everyone
I'm not gonna justify my behaviour. Yes my post was rude. I made a mistake. I was way over in my head. When I typed the original message I was obsessed with the man John Levine. He was responsible for the attacks on me in 4 mailing lists. DMARC, DKIM, IETF and this one (the old thread).
I didn't want to face the same thing again. So I was rude. I'm not gonna make him responsible for this thread. This one is my mistake. I could have been more professional in my original post. But I screwed up.
My apologies to everyone here for making you witness my rant. I'm leaving this mailing list too. But if anyone complete my white paper in the future, I would love to hear your feedback. I won't be receiving any mails from nanog. So contact me off-list in that case.
Thanks for the guys who helped in my other threads.
Good luck to you all.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-nRlbTO3RH1s/Uo-X_PX6WBI/AAAAAAAAJLU/mirPbTYFa6U/s1... -- J. Hellenthal The fact that there's a highway to Hell but only a stairway to Heaven says a lot about anticipated traffic volume.
On Feb 18, 2019, at 16:57, Tom Beecher <beecher@beecher.cc> wrote:
Every single person on this list has either sent an email they later regret , or will do so eventually.
Full credit to you for acknowledging and owning this.
Best of luck to you.
On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 09:08 Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan <giri@dombox.org> wrote: @Everyone
I'm not gonna justify my behaviour. Yes my post was rude. I made a mistake. I was way over in my head. When I typed the original message I was obsessed with the man John Levine. He was responsible for the attacks on me in 4 mailing lists. DMARC, DKIM, IETF and this one (the old thread).
I didn't want to face the same thing again. So I was rude. I'm not gonna make him responsible for this thread. This one is my mistake. I could have been more professional in my original post. But I screwed up.
My apologies to everyone here for making you witness my rant. I'm leaving this mailing list too. But if anyone complete my white paper in the future, I would love to hear your feedback. I won't be receiving any mails from nanog. So contact me off-list in that case.
Thanks for the guys who helped in my other threads.
Good luck to you all.
On 2/17/2019 11:58 PM, Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan wrote:
Just gone through all your replies.
Literally everyone attacking me here. Could you tell me why?
Technical people like what you'd find on this list tend to want to get right to the point on things. If you want them to hear you out, you can't hand them a 300 page 'white paper' and demand that they read it. When presenting to technical, esp sysadmin and networking types, use the RFCs as a template for how you should be presenting your idea to them. It also helps to target your audience well - while most people here do consider spam a serious problem, many of them are not in a position to professionally do anything about it, or have the time to do anything about it. Your proper audience is Mailops and people like me (ie: former DNSbl maintainers, postmasters, abuse desks). Just going to come right out and say this too - your 'solution', no matter how good you may think it is, depends on people paying you as a service. That means I have zero interest in it. I have enough subscriptions and payments I have to make for things which are much more important as it is. Dare I bring up Spamhaus's .mail proposal and the shitshow that was? -- Brielle Bruns The Summit Open Source Development Group http://www.sosdg.org / http://www.ahbl.org
On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 07:33:32AM +0530, Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan <giri@dombox.org> wrote a message of 515 lines which said:
My name is Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan. I'm the guy who proposed SMTP over TLS on Port 26
Besides all the excellent remarks that were made here (and I seriously urge you to read them; really), I want to add:
It's my 5 years of research. So it's worth more than 50 words.
You have a very strange way of measuring the importance of something. A lot of people spent 30 years or more on useless and stupid things. The time past is *not* a good indicator of value.
My prototype codebase has around 200,000 lines of code. [To be exact: 466,965 ++ 254,169 --]
Same thing for source code. Boasting of the number of lines, as if it measured value of the program, won't make people interested. Really, this metric was abandoned or at east downplayed more than thirty years ago.
Sequoia Capital is one of the well known venture firm in the world. They have invested in over 250 companies since 1972, including Apple, Google, Oracle, PayPal, Stripe, YouTube, Instagram, Yahoo! and WhatsApp.
Come on, most people on this list have a lot of experience with the wonderful world of Silicon Valley startups. We have seen a lot of dollars invested in really stupid projects. "One VC gave me money" proves nothing, except that some people have too much money and too little sense.
On Mon, Feb 18, 2019, 9:56 AM Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr wrote:
Sequoia Capital is one of the well known venture firm in the world. They have invested in over 250 companies since 1972, including Apple, Google, Oracle, PayPal, Stripe, YouTube, Instagram, Yahoo! and WhatsApp.
Come on, most people on this list have a lot of experience with the wonderful world of Silicon Valley startups. We have seen a lot of dollars invested in really stupid projects. "One VC gave me money" proves nothing, except that some people have too much money and too little sense.
Well, if I read it correctly, that VC hasn't in fact ever given the OP a cent. *Sometimes*, VCs might make obvious mistakes, that's right, but their balance sheets prove it doesn't happen quite often. -- Töma
On Mon, Feb 18, 2019, 5:05 AM Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan <giri@dombox.org> wrote:
@Töma Gavrichenkov
In theory, I can easily recall a few cases in my life when going
through just 50 words was quite enough for a judgment.
How can you be so sure that you didn't fuck up none of the lives of these "few cases"? Or in more technical terms, How can you be absolutely sure that there is no "False Positives"?
Easily. I shouldn't have been rude with Töma Gavrichenkov
Oh, feel free to, I don't really care. -- Töma
On Sun, Feb 17, 2019 at 8:05 PM Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan <giri@dombox.org> wrote:
These guys always are the know-it-all assholes. They don't listen. They don't want to listen.
I would simply like to remind everyone that NANOG is a Mailing list that has some rules. They could be found here: https://www.nanog.org/list I would like to request for the Communications Committee to look at this thread, except the list of NANOG Committee members seems to be secret - https://nanog.org/governance/cc The message I reply to seems to be a long string of major deviations from AUP, specifically: : 4. Postings that are defamatory, abusive, profane, threatening, or include foul language, : character assassination, and lack of respect for other participants are prohibited. We get really tired about people bringing up disputes and personal issues -- this is not the right place.
Long story short.... I solved the email spam problem. Well... Actually I solved it long time back. I'm just ready to disclose it today. Again...
While you have some technical solution and some ideas that appear to have merit such as "Isolated mailboxes" (Isolated Mailboxes are not really a new idea -- but there is currently no agreed protocol/standard to make such function convenient enough for people to use); Prompting e-mail senders to answer "CAPTCHA" sounds too burdensome to use; This is also not Spam-Free, as spammers will find ways to answer CAPTCHAs. The overall claims to have "zero" spam or completely "solved" the spam problem technically are way too bold and are close to "Product Marketing" in my view, since some Dombox dot com service is being advertised. Most Network Operators like those that subscribe to NANOG usually have little to say about technical details involved in developing standards regarding e-mail protocols; please see IETF for on-topic discussion groups. -- -JH
SIGH. I am far more inclined to listen to John Levine or Suresh Ramasubramanian, both who have been around for decades and have earned their chops with DMARC and Sendmail. Both with a proven track record, rather than someone lacking credentials. Since spam is a subjective term, I’d personally like to know how someone can design a solution that works for billions of people. Heck, you need to improve over existing technology that provides a false negative rate p < 0.01 and false positive p < 0.005. Someone who thinks Gmail is e-mail 1.0 fails to grasp history. Have you ever created a sendmail.cf without using M4? [This message represents views of the author and not any employer (present or former).] From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2019 6:04 PM To: nanog list Subject: A Zero Spam Mail System [Feedback Request] Hello Everyone, My name is Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan. I'm the guy who proposed SMTP over TLS on Port 26<https://web.archive.org/web/20190218001439/https:/lists.gt.net/nanog/users/202185> last month. I'm also the guy who attacked (???) John Levine. Today I have something to show you. Long story short.... I solved the email spam problem. Well... Actually I solved it long time back. I'm just ready to disclose it today. Again... Yeah.. Yeah.. Yeah... If only I had a dime for every time people insult me for saying "I solved the spam problem" They usually start with the insult like "You think you are the inventor of FUSSP?" These guys always are the know-it-all assholes. They don't listen. They don't want to listen. They are like barking dogs. If one started to bark, everyone else gets the courage to do the same thing. I'm tired of fighting these assholes in every mailing list. I'm on your side morons. So how about you all knock it off? Six months back, it was John Levine who humiliated me in the DMARC list. Apparently, for him 50 words are enough to attack me. Töma Gavrichenkov and Suresh Ramasubramanian even started to defend this man saying 50 words are enough to judge a 50,000 words paper. [We are gonna figure it out today] ---------------------------------- @Töma Gavrichenkov In theory, I can easily recall a few cases in my life when going through just 50 words was quite enough for a judgment. How can you be so sure that you didn't fuck up none of the lives of these "few cases"? Or in more technical terms, How can you be absolutely sure that there is no "False Positives"? ---------------------------------- @Suresh Ramasubramanian Yes, 50 words are more than enough to decide a bad idea is bad. You don't have to like that, or like any of us, but facts are facts Merely appending the text "facts are facts" not gonna convert a bullshit statement into a fact. You know what's the meaning of the word "fact"? It's a statement that can be proved TRUE. Let's do a little experiment. 100 researchers presents their lifetime work to us. Each of their research paper contain 50,000 words. We are gonna judge them. You are gonna judge them based on only the first 50 words. And I'm gonna judge them by tossing a coin. Can you guess who is gonna fuck up less number of researcher lives? I'm claiming that I solved the email spam problem. If that's true, then you should know, common sense is one of the very basic requirement for that. I designed my email system. Every inch of it. I wrote my research paper. Every word of it. I made my prototype video. Every second of it. So I'm the captain of my ship. Not you. But you all think you know my system better than me? That too, with only 50 words? My research paper has around 50,000 words. And you think 50 words are enough to judge my work? Let me make sure I get this right. You are all saying, you know what's in the rest of the 49,950 words based on only the first 50 words? That's stupid on so many levels. If you are gonna do a half-assed job and relay that misinformation to thousands of people, why volunteer in the first place? And by the way, by saying you are all doing half-assed job, I'm actually insulting the people who are REALLY doing the half-assed job. ---------------------------------- John Levine vs. me One month back, some of you may have noticed a thread created by John Levine<https://web.archive.org/web/20190218001726/https:/lists.gt.net/nanog/users/202213> where he goes like "He's Forum Shopping". The whole gist of that message was "We already have DANE and MTA-STS. We don't a third solution". And then I used some harsh words to defend myself. But that was the Season 2 of his "Shitshow". The Season 1 was aired 6 months back. You all missed that show. This is what happened in Season 1. 1. Six months back, I posted on three mailing list saying "I solved the email spam problem" and asked them to provide feedback on my invention. Those three mailing lists were SPF, DKIM and DMARC. That's because my solution relied on them and those three were the only email related mailing lists I knew at that time. 2. In DMARC community, John Levine started to insult me after reading only the first 50 words. 3. Dave Crocker joined the cast and did a flawless job on abusing me. He asked me to kill my project. I told him he is being rude. And this is what he replied for that<https://www.dombox.org/nanog/dave.png>. He is one of the most radical and ignorant person I have seen in tech. He didn't even stop for a moment and think "Am I attacking an Innocent person?". He even went to other mailing lists to attack me. He abused all his power and kept on attacking me just to have some "dopamine orgasm". Something tells me he slept peacefully on that day. 4. And then bunch of other guys joined. So the whole thread gone crazy. This is because John Levine successfully distributed wrong version of the story to thousands of people with only 50 words. 5. Both Dave Crocker and John Levine are the bigshots there. So I knew no matter how much I cry for help, no one is gonna help me. 6. John seemed like a "decent-asshole" while compared to Dave Crocker. So I sent a private mail to John saying "John, I'm not really sure whether I can afford you since I have not raised any money yet. But let me give it a shot. Could you tell me how much you would charge to go through my presentation, demo video and give me a detailed feedback about my system?" [The reason I was ready to pay him is because he made it very clear in the DMARC thread by saying "Sorry, but I don't provide consulting for free". I thought if I make him read my document, he would go back and correct his mistake] 7. And this is what he replied for that. "Really, even if you had money, it wouldn't be worth your money or my time". [For the record, he come to this conclusion without even knowing what's inside in my document] 8. I said only "ok, thankyou" and then unsubscribed from the DMARC mailing list. [What more can you argue with a bunch of know-it-all morons who thinks they are all right?] 9. Six month later (last month), John started his shitshow again attacking my IETF proposal. He tried to make me look like an idiot again. And that's when I started to defend myself by using harsh words. 10. You all know the rest. ---------------------------------- One person told me on that thread to take John Levine's words as criticism. You see I have no problems with criticism. I usually thank people when they criticize my work. The best criticism usually follows this format. "I went through your paper (#1), your work is full of shit (#2), Here are the reasons (#3)" #1 says, the critic really knows what the author is talking about. #2 says, the critic is speaking his mind without any bullshit. #3 says, the critic has valid points for his criticism. However, I can't consider someone as critic who straightly go for #2. Especially when the whole argument was all about killing my work just because he is one of the inventor of MTA-STS. If I start to listen his words, then next time he will create a new thread to attack me for creating <this thread> saying "He's forum shopping. I already told him it's not worth his money and my time". What you want me to do in this case? Take that as criticism and move on? It's my 5 fucking years of research. I can't just let it go just because someone doesn't like my work. ---------------------------------- @Valdis Kletnieks You missed the part where the RFC says you *MUST* fall back to A if there's no MX. "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself; Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man" - George Bernard Shaw ---------------------------------- @John Levine I was trying to contribute to IETF the other day. One of the guy from DMARC list uses your words as a reason to attack me<https://www.dombox.org/nanog/utaattack.png> and asking me to turn down the proposal. You were watching that. If I really solved the email spam problem, that puts me in the "best problem solvers in the world" category. So how about you go back to the DMARC list and write a decent apology for posting misinformation to everyone? [Of course only if I solved the spam problem. That was my claim from the beginning right?] ---------------------------------- @Everyone Here is what you all should know. It's my 5 years of research. So it's worth more than 50 words. I started my work back in 2013 and I used to call my work "XMail" at that time. It's now called "Dombox" My prototype codebase has around 200,000 lines of code. [To be exact: 466,965 ++ 254,169 --] Sequoia Capital is one of the well known venture firm in the world. They have invested in over 250 companies since 1972, including Apple, Google, Oracle, PayPal, Stripe, YouTube, Instagram, Yahoo! and WhatsApp. Bill Coughran<https://www.sequoiacap.com/people/bill-coughran/> is a senior investor in Sequoia Capital. According to his linkedin profile, he started as a Programmer in the late 60s and held many engineering related positions over the years. Worked in Bell Laboratories for 20 years. Worked as SVP of Engineering in Google for 8.5 years. To quote his words "I have some level of expertise about the current email systems, which is why I was did some investigating". So this man is one of the toughest person to impress. But he is one of the nicest investor I have met. When I asked him whether he can take a look, he didn't insult me with words like "You think you are the inventor of FUSSP?" He just told me "Sure, I'd be happy to." He went through my entire paper and then sent me this mail<https://www.dombox.org/nanog/billcoughran.png>. He later turned me down because it's hard for a startup to distribute a new solution. Maybe he is right. Or maybe I'll overcome that too. [Today's discussion is about whether I solved the spam problem. Not about how I'm gonna distribute the solution] Yesterday I published my work on a medium blog post and linked my white paper. An engineer read my white paper and sent me this mail<https://www.dombox.org/nanog/riccardo.png>. These guys see value in my white paper because they completed my ~300 pages white paper. To the "50 words are enough" band members, let me tell you something. I'm the author of my work. It's my job to decide "what to show you" and "when to show you". I have posted my system summary in a medium blog post. When you reach 75% of the article, you will see a title called "Hot Gates Strategy". Everything you see above is pointless without the remaining 25% of the content. Put it this way, I have designed 75% of that system, only to have remaining 25% of the system. So yeah, even if you had 75% of the content, you still can't judge my work. Whether you all believe it or not, I'm the goddamn inventor of FUSSP. I can proudly say that because my system doesn't have the "spam" folder. So how about you all appreciate the guy who spent 5 years in chasing for a solution like a madman and succeeded in solving a challenging problem rather than spending your time in attacking me? [For the record, my single white paper plenty of problems. Email Spam is one of them] Looking forward to hear your feedback. People who complete my white paper, please post whether my claims are true or I'm just wasting everyone's time. [I'm going to bed now. So I may not be online for the next 8 hours. I'll respond to your queries after that] Thanks ---------------------------------- Materials: System Overview - https://medium.com/@Viruthagiri/dombox-the-zero-spam-mail-system-2b08ff7432c... White Paper - https://www.dombox.org/dombox.pdf Flowcharts - https://www.dombox.org/flowcharts.pdf Prototype - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VK2eSfCurx4 [This is the video I uploaded before posting to DMARC list. So the interface is little outdated] -- Best Regards, Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan Dombox, Inc.
On 2/20/2019 12:22 PM, Matthew Black wrote:
SIGH. I am far more inclined to listen to John Levine or Suresh Ramasubramanian, both who have been around for decades and have earned their chops with DMARC and Sendmail. Both with a proven track record, rather than someone lacking credentials. Since spam is a subjective term, I’d personally like to know how someone can design a solution that works for billions of people.
Listen to them, by all means, but I'll suggest something simpler: This is already a long thread and has been both unproductive and unpleasant. Most folk who experience such a pattern in a mailing list do not ever see it change until the actors or the topic changes, and usually it takes both... d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
Just to put my unwelcome, OT 2 cents in... Spammers, individual spamming operations, send on the order of one billion emails per day, per each. Their business model depends on doing that. That's why we all see the same sort of spams over and over to the point one can make a joke about them (YOU JUST WON THE EUROLOTTERY!) and everyone knows what you're referring to, everyone. Anything which slows that down to a trickle -- what honest source needs to send a billion emails per day? -- would likely make the worst of the spamming business not worthwhile in general. (yeah yeah don't explain bots or snowshoeing to me, thanks.) The problem is that most proposals along those lines, somehow volume limiting or charging for email (say beyond 100K/day might do it, even 1M/day might do it) are met with instant hostility usually in the form of vague straw men about how something like that would have to work and rejection of that straw man. Which mostly just amounts to "I don't like volume limiting or charging schemes for email so here's a really dumb way it would have to work and why it's dumb". (please don't reply with your straw men interpretations of how it would have to work which you just thought up.) Or the vague "acceptance" argument, that could take 10 YEARS they've been saying for the past 20+ years. Or "spam is no longer a problem". Whatever. I didn't mean to start a discussion on the specifics. Just that in very broad terms those two, somehow rate-limiting or charging or both, probably are the only which might make sense in the abstract because they actually address the vast volume of email spammers need to send to stay in business. Spam has accomplished one thing while many fiddled uncomfortable with the most likely mitigations: It's raised the cost of managing public email services to the point that only someone like google/gmail can afford it w/o some subsidizing income stream, and even for google it's probably a cross-subsidized loss leader tho I really don't know. P.S. If you PERSONALLY don't ever want to see a spam message again in your inbox that's really easy: Hire A Secretary or Personal Assistant! -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo*
On 2/20/2019 1:22 PM, Matthew Black wrote:
Have you ever created a sendmail.cf without using M4?
Well, that brought back memories I did not want to revisit. You are going to make me want to take up drinking. -- Brielle Bruns The Summit Open Source Development Group http://www.sosdg.org / http://www.ahbl.org
I've tried never to hand write a sendmail.cf, to be honest - I doubt even the sendmail authors recommended being that brave :). And I haven't done all that much with dmarc beyond using it. --srs ________________________________ From: NANOG <nanog-bounces@nanog.org> on behalf of Brielle Bruns <bruns@2mbit.com> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2019 4:01 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: A Zero Spam Mail System [Feedback Request] On 2/20/2019 1:22 PM, Matthew Black wrote:
Have you ever created a sendmail.cf without using M4?
Well, that brought back memories I did not want to revisit. You are going to make me want to take up drinking. -- Brielle Bruns The Summit Open Source Development Group http://www.sosdg.org / http://www.ahbl.org
On 2/20/2019 4:25 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
I've tried never to hand write a sendmail.cf, to be honest - I doubt even the sendmail authors recommended being that brave :). And I haven't done all that much with dmarc beyond using it.
I was 16 when I wrote my first sendmail.cf. Got a rather large check and my first employment ever due to that config file. My brain hurts thinking about that. Can you believe its been _36_ years since the first version of sendmail? *holds up a glass of maker's mark* To the people who made the internet possible. Cheers! -- Brielle Bruns The Summit Open Source Development Group http://www.sosdg.org / http://www.ahbl.org
I'm still running it on my private email server in my basement, on FreeBSD. Some things just work. -- Joe Hamelin, W7COM, Tulalip, WA, +1 (360) 474-7474 On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 10:08 PM Brielle Bruns <bruns@2mbit.com> wrote:
On 2/20/2019 4:25 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
I've tried never to hand write a sendmail.cf, to be honest - I doubt even the sendmail authors recommended being that brave :). And I haven't done all that much with dmarc beyond using it.
I was 16 when I wrote my first sendmail.cf. Got a rather large check and my first employment ever due to that config file.
My brain hurts thinking about that.
Can you believe its been _36_ years since the first version of sendmail?
*holds up a glass of maker's mark*
To the people who made the internet possible. Cheers!
-- Brielle Bruns The Summit Open Source Development Group http://www.sosdg.org / http://www.ahbl.org
On 2/21/19 1:07 AM, Brielle Bruns wrote:
Can you believe its been _36_ years since the first version of sendmail?
*holds up a glass of maker's mark*
To the people who made the internet possible. Cheers!
To those that are bringing back memories, Cheers! ALAN AT NCSUVM, ...!mcnc!gateway!abc, abc@dg-rtp.dg.com
The predecessor to sendmail was delivermail, 1979, also written by Eric Allman. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delivermail On February 20, 2019 at 23:07 bruns@2mbit.com (Brielle Bruns) wrote:
On 2/20/2019 4:25 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
I've tried never to hand write a sendmail.cf, to be honest - I doubt even the sendmail authors recommended being that brave :). And I haven't done all that much with dmarc beyond using it.
I was 16 when I wrote my first sendmail.cf. Got a rather large check and my first employment ever due to that config file.
My brain hurts thinking about that.
Can you believe its been _36_ years since the first version of sendmail?
*holds up a glass of maker's mark*
To the people who made the internet possible. Cheers!
-- Brielle Bruns The Summit Open Source Development Group http://www.sosdg.org / http://www.ahbl.org
-- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo*
bzs@theworld.com writes:
The predecessor to sendmail was delivermail, 1979, also written by Eric Allman.
Damn. Now you made me read RFC801 and wonder why we didn't have an updated version for the IPv6 transition. Or: Where would the Internet have been today without that very explicit "complete switch over" goal? Bjørn
On February 22, 2019 at 10:50 bjorn@mork.no (Bjørn Mork) wrote:
bzs@theworld.com writes:
The predecessor to sendmail was delivermail, 1979, also written by Eric Allman.
Damn. Now you made me read RFC801 and wonder why we didn't have an updated version for the IPv6 transition. Or: Where would the Internet have been today without that very explicit "complete switch over" goal?
Not sure what you mean but reasonably late-model sendmail works with IPv6, it's a compile option which is on by default. Or do you mean the NCP->TCP transition? The internet was a lot smaller and one could actually get all the ducks in a line back then. And almost everyone (if not everyone) was connected via IMPs rather than CPE routers and the IMPs were more or less centrally managed or if you managed one you accepted responsibility to work in concert with the others. I don't know the high-water mark for the number of IMPs or more specifically how many existed on the NCP->TCP flag day but I'm pretty sure the theoretical maximum was 256 tho no doubt someone had a way to extend that. But, w/o extensive changes, 256, probably 254, not sure 0 or 255 could be an IMP number, whatever! Largely because your IMP was identified by the last octet of an IP address (I think that's right) so Boston University was 10.4.0.44 which meant port 4 on IMP 44 (which sat at MIT on the 9th floor of 545 tech square.) Of course to speak to the net via your IMP connection your computer(s) also had to switch over to TCP. But, again, these were usually just one or a few big machines per site likely all in the same room or same administration group anyhow. Life was much simpler back then. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo*
On 2/22/19 11:27 AM, bzs@theworld.com wrote:
I don't know the high-water mark for the number of IMPs or more specifically how many existed on the NCP->TCP flag day but I'm pretty sure the theoretical maximum was 256 tho no doubt someone had a way to extend that. But, w/o extensive changes, 256, probably 254, not sure 0 or 255 could be an IMP number, whatever!
There was no node 0 or 255. So the number of nodes was capped at 254. For each node, there were subnodes so that multiple computers at each location could be addressed. It wasn't a full 8-bit field.
On February 20, 2019 at 15:29 bruns@2mbit.com (Brielle Bruns) wrote:
On 2/20/2019 1:22 PM, Matthew Black wrote:
Have you ever created a sendmail.cf without using M4?
I've certainly maintained them, one usually started with whatever came with the source distr or maybe you'd get someone to share something with you to bang on. One reason sendmail.cf's seem so complicated is because sendmail was designed to gateway and route between very different email systems. For example UUCP where email addresses looked like uunet!bu!bzs and berknet (UCB) where it looked like host:user (Berknet was largly written by Eric Schmidt, as in the former Google CEO), and chaosnet (MIT), DECNET, IBM/SNA, BITNET, etc. The "internet" really meant to many that we were going to tie all those together at least somewhat and it was fairly successful for email. I know I regularly used and admin'd decnet, bitnet, uucp, as well as the usual ARPA stuff. P.S. ISTR that someone wrote an adventure ("Collosal Cave") type game as a sendmail config, it may have even produced a paper but I can't find it (Usenix?) -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo*
On Feb 20, 2019, at 7:16 PM, bzs@theworld.com wrote:
(Berknet was largly written by Eric Schmidt, as in the former Google CEO)
I'm pretty sure that was Eric Allman, though I had the privilege of being a lowly Masters student at Berkeley while both Erics, along with Bill Joy and a host of other Internet pioneers, were there. Steve
On February 21, 2019 at 18:23 feldman@twincreeks.net (Steve Feldman) wrote:
On Feb 20, 2019, at 7:16 PM, bzs@theworld.com wrote:
(Berknet was largly written by Eric Schmidt, as in the former Google CEO)
I'm pretty sure that was Eric Allman, though I had the privilege of being a lowly Masters student at Berkeley while both Erics, along with Bill Joy and a host of other Internet pioneers, were there.
I don't have personal knowledge about this but the wikipedia page on berknet credits Eric Schmidt: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berknet and links to Eric Schmidt's master thesis on Berknet (postscript): http://web.mit.edu/daveg/Info/Links/doc/unix.manual.misc/berknet/berknet.PS Eric Schmidt and Mike Lesk also wrote "lex", the unix lexical analyzer program used primarily for compiler contruction, rewritten as 'flex' (fast lex) on more modern systems. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo*
On 20 Feb 2019, at 9:16 PM, bzs@theworld.com wrote:
On February 20, 2019 at 15:29 bruns@2mbit.com (Brielle Bruns) wrote:
On 2/20/2019 1:22 PM, Matthew Black wrote:
Have you ever created a sendmail.cf without using M4?
I've certainly maintained them, one usually started with whatever came with the source distr or maybe you'd get someone to share something with you to bang on.
One reason sendmail.cf's seem so complicated is because sendmail was designed to gateway and route between very different email systems. ...
<chuckle> sendmail.cf was fun, but MMDF channels were so much more amusing – and rather necessary in order to deal with gatewaying BITNET, phonenet, DECNET, X25NET, uunp, and ondemand dialup-ip ppp and cslip domains in a semi-reliable manner on the relay.cs.net <http://relay.cs.net/> and relay2.cs.net <http://relay2.cs.net/> servers. It didn’t help that many sendmail.cf files in those days shipped relay.cs.net <http://relay.cs.net/> preset as their default smtp relay host… always made for large queues and careful editing. /John
Boston Univ Computing Center Director: Barry, is it true that all our BITNET email to/from the academic mainframe goes to our TCP/IP sites (mostly computer science) via a gateway at the University Wisconsin? Me: Yes that is correct, I set that up, they're ok with that. BUCCD: So every email is traveling about 3,000 miles to get 150 feet down the hall??? Me: That sounds about right. BUCCD: *ARE YOU NUTS?!* Me: Never, ever, feel sorry for the wires. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo*
On Wed, 20 Feb 2019 20:22:51 +0000, Matthew Black said:
Have you ever created a sendmail.cf without using M4?
Sendmail 5.6mumble or so, for a machine that was on UUCP, Arpa/Milnet, and Bitnet and gatewayed between them. Bitnet was particularly ugly because (a) EBCDIC and (b) no way to represent a null line in NJE. Bonus points for the bisync interface card that claimed to do DLE stuffing for SDLC but didn't... And of course, approaching any address that had all 3 of %, ! and @ in them was loads of fun because the semantics depended on which interface they came in on...
Been there, done that (I wrote my own driver for the bisync card, so I didn’t have the latter problem, just had to tame a barely documented Motorola chip “helping” with the already weird DLE handling). I’d still prefer doing that again over today’s spam problem. (There actually is a teachable lesson here, which is about getting rid of gateways. But that’s for another day…) Grüße, Carsten
On Feb 21, 2019, at 00:59, valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
On Wed, 20 Feb 2019 20:22:51 +0000, Matthew Black said:
Have you ever created a sendmail.cf without using M4?
Sendmail 5.6mumble or so, for a machine that was on UUCP, Arpa/Milnet, and Bitnet and gatewayed between them. Bitnet was particularly ugly because (a) EBCDIC and (b) no way to represent a null line in NJE. Bonus points for the bisync interface card that claimed to do DLE stuffing for SDLC but didn't...
And of course, approaching any address that had all 3 of %, ! and @ in them was loads of fun because the semantics depended on which interface they came in on...
On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 1:24 PM Matthew Black <Matthew.Black@csulb.edu> wrote:
Have you ever created a sendmail.cf without using M4?
I still believe that sendmail is Alien technology. How else can one explain sendmail.cf? And although I can't say for sure that I created a sendmail.cf from scratch without using the M4 macros, I can say for sure that I've definitely edited/modified/hacked an existing sendmail.cf file which wasn't working as one would expect. I'm also not 100% certain that m4 was even an option for the first sendmail install I did... my first sendmail setup was probably 25 years ago at this point. I guess I can add my $0.02 to this thread since it resurrected: There have been lots and lots of solutions proposed over the years which would have 'solved' spam in one way or another. Micropayments, authentication, encryption, etc. Each had their strengths and weaknesses. But at this point, pretty much every 'new' solution seems to just be a rehash of an old idea, quite possibly because the person proposing the new solution isn't aware of the past history. I do wonder if some of the old suggested solutions might be more viable today, just because of the increase of computing power available. For example, some of the cryptographic signature-based systems might pay to be revisited since cryptography has become relatively inexpensive CPU-wise.
On Feb 21, 2019, at 20:21, Brett Watson <brett@the-watsons.org> wrote:
On Feb 20, 2019, at 19:01, Forrest Christian (List Account) <lists@packetflux.com> wrote:
I still believe that sendmail is Alien technology. How else can one explain sendmail.cf?
Eric Altman and scotch, lots of scotch (as I remember it from Usenix).
Right, *Allman* of course I meant.
On Wed, 20 Feb 2019 19:01:40 -0700, "Forrest Christian (List Account)" <lists@packetflux.com> may have written:
On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 1:24 PM Matthew Black <Matthew.Black@csulb.edu> wrote:
Have you ever created a sendmail.cf without using M4?
I still believe that sendmail is Alien technology. How else can one explain sendmail.cf? And although I can't say for sure that I
I always thought of sendmail.cf as a language for writing MTAs in. I did do *bits* in sendmail.cf but switched to Exim before I got too damaged.
sendmail.cf file which wasn't working as one would expect. I'm also not 100% certain that m4 was even an option for the first sendmail
It wasn't a Sendmail 8 introduction perhaps? -- Mike Meredith, University of Portsmouth Chief Systems Engineer, Hostmaster, Security, and Timelord!
On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 12:23 PM Matthew Black <Matthew.Black@csulb.edu> wrote:
Have you ever created a sendmail.cf without using M4?
3,0 bill@herrin.us 3 input: bill @ herrin . us 6 input: bill < @ herrin . us > 6 returns: bill < @ herrin . us > 3 returns: bill < @ herrin . us > 0 input: bill < @ herrin . us > 47 input: bill < @ herrin . us > 46 input: bill @ herrin . us . < O > . bill @ herrin . us . < > . 46 input: bill @ herrin . us . < O > . herrin @ dirtside . com . < > . 46 input: bill @ herrin . us . < O > . herrin @ magic .
I started using sendmail before sendmail started using M4. I'm still using the hand-hacked sendmail.cf I built up over time. I had to muck with the sendmail package on my Linux distro which really strongly wanted to generate sendmail.cf's from the M4 instead of using mine. I only wish postfix had as good diagnostic tools for analyzing address transform and delivery selection. [magic:root:/etc/mail:1202] sendmail -bt ADDRESS TEST MODE (ruleset 3 NOT automatically invoked) Enter <ruleset> <address> dirtside . com . < > . 46 returns: bill @ herrin . us . < O > . herrin @ magic . dirtside . com . < unchd > . < > . 46 returns: bill @ herrin . us . < O > . herrin @ magic . dirtside . com . < unchd > . < > . 46 returns: bill @ herrin . us . < O > . herrin @ magic . dirtside . com . < unchd > . < > . 47 returns: herrin < @ magic . LOCAL > 30 input: herrin 3 input: herrin 3 returns: herrin 0 input: herrin 9 input: herrin 9 returns: herrin 0 returns: $# local $: herrin 30 returns: $# local $: herrin 0 returns: $# local $: herrin Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
On 2/20/19 8:44 PM, William Herrin wrote:
I only wish postfix had as good diagnostic tools for analyzing address transform and delivery selection.
~chuckle~ It's been a while since I've seen someone say they wished Postfix had something that Sendmail has. I agree that Sendmail's rule test mode is quite powerful. -- Grant. . . . unix || die
On 17 Feb 2019, at 8:03 PM, Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan <giri@dombox.org> wrote:
... White Paper - https://www.dombox.org/dombox.pdf <https://www.dombox.org/dombox.pdf> Viruthagiri -
It does not appear that you require anything from this community, as it appears from reading your white paper that your proposed solution relies upon existing Internet protocols and extensions (e.g. SMTP, SPF, DNS, DNS TXT RR types, etc.) One of the nice things about the Internet is that folks can generally innovate without seeking permission from anyone – the protocols are mostly agnostic about the things running over them, so you can implement and promote your solution today – nothing prevents you from moving ahead, and if you have created something that is truly valuable, then you should have no trouble finding investors, customers, and partners for your proposed solution. If your proposed solution doesn’t prove to have a useful return on investment, then that instead shall become apparent. Either way, until such time your solution is deployed widely enough to significantly impact network operations, it’s unlikely to be a particularly relevant topic for discussion here. /John
On 2/22/19 12:03 AM, John Curran wrote:
Either way, until such time your solution is deployed widely enough to significantly impact network operations, it’s unlikely to be a particularly relevant topic for discussion here.
Notable exception: DMARC. Broke email lists everywhere - including those that folks use to solve problems on the net. Heck, it broke the ietf email list. There might be a warning in there - when someone big "innovates" - say Google turning on DMARC rejection, for gmail - that can have rather huge operational impacts. Still gives me nightmares on occasion (I run a bunch of small lists). Sigh... Miles Fidelman -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra
On 22 Feb 2019, at 7:08 AM, Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> wrote:
On 2/22/19 12:03 AM, John Curran wrote:
Either way, until such time your solution is deployed widely enough to significantly impact network operations, it’s unlikely to be a particularly relevant topic for discussion here.
Notable exception: DMARC. Broke email lists everywhere - including those that folks use to solve problems on the net. Heck, it broke the ietf email list.
Indeed - while a self-inflicted injury on its customers, the network effects of massive operating scale effectively transition the problem space from private actor to public… hence not an notable exception, but an actual example of "deployed widely enough” /John
On 2/22/19 10:07 AM, John Curran wrote:
On 22 Feb 2019, at 7:08 AM, Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> wrote:
On 2/22/19 12:03 AM, John Curran wrote:
Either way, until such time your solution is deployed widely enough to significantly impact network operations, it’s unlikely to be a particularly relevant topic for discussion here.
Notable exception: DMARC. Broke email lists everywhere - including those that folks use to solve problems on the net. Heck, it broke the ietf email list. Indeed - while a self-inflicted injury on its customers, the network effects of massive operating scale effectively transition the problem space from private actor to public…
hence not an notable exception, but an actual example of "deployed widely enough”
Hmmm.... But wasn't the initial impact of DMARC that so few senders of email had implemented it? Also, the impact wasn't just on customers, but on trading partners & communities - communications being a two way street and all. Miles Fidelman -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra
On 22 Feb 2019, at 9:58 AM, Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> wrote:
On 2/22/19 10:07 AM, John Curran wrote:
On 22 Feb 2019, at 7:08 AM, Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> wrote:
On 2/22/19 12:03 AM, John Curran wrote:
Either way, until such time your solution is deployed widely enough to significantly impact network operations, it’s unlikely to be a particularly relevant topic for discussion here.
Notable exception: DMARC. Broke email lists everywhere - including those that folks use to solve problems on the net. Heck, it broke the ietf email list. Indeed - while a self-inflicted injury on its customers, the network effects of massive operating scale effectively transition the problem space from private actor to public…
hence not an notable exception, but an actual example of "deployed widely enough”
Hmmm.... But wasn't the initial impact of DMARC that so few senders of email had implemented it?
If you (or your email service provider) deploy an optional solution (e.g. DMARC p=reject) that prevents you from receiving email from mailing lists sending in conformance with existing standards, then that’s your choice. Expecting that others will automatically change their behavior (such as wrapping email from mailing lists) isn’t reasonable - you’ve effectively decided (or let your provider decide) that you don’t want existing communications to work for some categories of standard-compliant email. The alternative is ‘Internet Coordination’, but that requires actually coordination before making major changes that will break things.
Also, the impact wasn't just on customers, but on trading partners & communities - communications being a two way street and all.
One doesn’t communicate with folks who chose (or let their service provider chose) not to receive email accordingly existing standards. In any case, irrelevant to the dombox situation, unless/until someone actually deploys at a scale large enough to require consideration. /John
On 2/22/19 11:28 AM, John Curran wrote:
On 22 Feb 2019, at 9:58 AM, Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> wrote:
On 2/22/19 10:07 AM, John Curran wrote:
On 22 Feb 2019, at 7:08 AM, Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> wrote:
On 2/22/19 12:03 AM, John Curran wrote:
Either way, until such time your solution is deployed widely enough to significantly impact network operations, it’s unlikely to be a particularly relevant topic for discussion here.
Notable exception: DMARC. Broke email lists everywhere - including those that folks use to solve problems on the net. Heck, it broke the ietf email list. Indeed - while a self-inflicted injury on its customers, the network effects of massive operating scale effectively transition the problem space from private actor to public…
hence not an notable exception, but an actual example of "deployed widely enough” Hmmm.... But wasn't the initial impact of DMARC that so few senders of email had implemented it? If you (or your email service provider) deploy an optional solution (e.g. DMARC p=reject) that prevents you from receiving email from mailing lists sending in conformance with existing standards, then that’s your choice.
Expecting that others will automatically change their behavior (such as wrapping email from mailing lists) isn’t reasonable - you’ve effectively decided (or let your provider decide) that you don’t want existing communications to work for some categories of standard-compliant email. The alternative is ‘Internet Coordination’, but that requires actually coordination before making major changes that will break things.
Also, the impact wasn't just on customers, but on trading partners & communities - communications being a two way street and all. One doesn’t communicate with folks who chose (or let their service provider chose) not to receive email accordingly existing standards. In any case, irrelevant to the dombox situation, unless/until someone actually deploys at a scale large enough to require consideration.
Not relevant to the dombox approach - though, in fairness, haven't waded into it deep enough to conclude that. But re. "one doesn't communicate with folks .. etc." --- when one has ongoing communication with a large group of people (e.g., an email list) --- and a large provider shuts a door, the impact is on more than just the customers of that provider Miles -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra
On Friday, 22 February, 2019 09:36, Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net>:
But re. "one doesn't communicate with folks .. etc." --- when one has ongoing communication with a large group of people (e.g., an email list) --- and a large provider shuts a door, the impact is on more than just the customers of that provider
It affects the self-selected group of folks who chose to invest an inherently untrustworthy "provider" with trusted status. In other words they chose their petard willingly and with full knowledge and were hoisted by it. Their swinging and choking is merely the logical outcome of their own choices. You could be a good nanny and not allow folks to do stupid things -- but where would that get you? As a responsible adult it is far better to allow children to make their own foolish mistakes and suffer the consequences thereof in the hopes that they will not be so foolish the next time around. Some, however, never learn and the attempts to remedy ignorance with a clue-by-four are fruitless. When being chased by bears and wolves it is clearly advantageous to permit the feeble and slow to jolly-along so they may preferentially satiate the bears and wolves. --- The fact that there's a Highway to Hell but only a Stairway to Heaven says a lot about anticipated traffic volume.
On 02/22/2019 09:28 AM, John Curran wrote:
If you (or your email service provider) deploy an optional solution (e.g. DMARC p=reject) that prevents you from receiving email from mailing lists sending in conformance with existing standards, then that’s your choice.
From the perspective of inbound email (as that sounds like the focus of your statement) I would want my email server / service to use all current standards. If the current standards are to employ DMARC filtering, then I would expect my email server / service provider to do so. In some ways, I view DMARC as the latest in the line evolving standards; DKIM, SPF, reverse DNS. Each of which have been controversial on their own. I also believe in actually honoring what domain owners publish. I believe that actually rejecting with SPF's "-all" and DMARC's "p=reject". I say this because I want to provide — hopefully gentle — push back against / feedback to the publisher for them to fix their problems. Even if you don't reject despite domain owner's indication of the preference, I think you should use that signal in the rest of your hygiene filters. I also believe that mailing lists need to evolve with the times to support the current standards. IMHO they don't get a pass because they are mailing lists and have always worked that way.
One doesn’t communicate with folks who chose (or let their service provider chose) not to receive email accordingly existing standards.
Industry standards change, and senders need to keep up with the times. What those standards are and how appropriate they are is independent. -- Grant. . . . unix || die
I don't think there's anything wrong with sounding out some ideas if they arose from careful thought and sufficient experience and subject knowledge. Just saying call us when you've got a unicorn in hand is a brush-off. But one has to find the right venue for such brainstorming which I think is the real problem here. And of course being willing to be shot down and just go back to the drawing board if one ever really got so far as a "drawing board". I'll admit this dombox thing has gotten that far even if some were dissatisfied with the "drawings", clearly a lot of work has gone into the idea. But venue might be everything. A very large list oriented towards operational issues is probably not the right venue unless one really believes most everyone will see the brilliance of a solution after reading a short paragraph and perhaps even want to help or at least become motivated to read further. And if you don't get that then, well, time for some introspection. Quite a few of us, myself included, did go and read at least enough of the long whitepaper to respond with a lot more in specifics than "call us when you have your unicorn". -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo*
I'm sure some will react to this viscerally but I'd argue that a large chunk of the spam issue is an operational issue due to factors like: 1. Volume, bandwidth 2. Spammers' address block hijacking and other misuse of resources 3. Revenge (typically DDoS) attacks by spammers 4. General operational, related to #1, but for example how spam stresses capex. No doubt some others. But when someone says to me spam isn't much of a problem because it's mostly blocked by local filtering (i.e., they don't see much spam in their inbox), usually in an attempt to shut down any discussion entirely, I know I'm hearing from someone who hasn't a clue what problems it causes operationally. That's not to argue for opening the floodgates on spam mitigation on nanog. Only that it's not necessarily off-topic depending on the aspect raised. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo*
On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 11:42 AM <bzs@theworld.com> wrote:
But when someone says to me spam isn't much of a problem because it's mostly blocked by local filtering (i.e., they don't see much spam in their inbox), usually in an attempt to shut down any discussion entirely, I know I'm hearing from someone who hasn't a clue what problems it causes operationally.
Hear hear. 99% of the email reaching my server is spam. That means I need 100 times the server capacity to process mail than I would need without spam. 100 times. Two orders of magnitude. I defy anyone to tell me that's not an operational issue. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
participants (39)
-
Alan Clegg -
Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. -
Bjørn Mork -
Brett Watson -
Brielle -
Brielle Bruns
-
bzs＠theworld.com -
Carsten Bormann -
Dave Crocker -
Forrest Christian (List Account) -
Grant Taylor -
James Bensley -
James Downs -
Jason Hellenthal -
Jimmy Hess -
Joe Hamelin -
John Adams -
John Curran -
John Sage -
John Von Essen -
Jon Lewis -
Keith Medcalf -
Mark Tinka -
Matt Harris -
Matthew Black -
Michel Py -
Mike Meredith -
Miles Fidelman -
Ross Tajvar -
Stephane Bortzmeyer -
Stephen Satchell -
Steve Feldman -
Suresh Ramasubramanian -
Todd Underwood -
Tom Beecher -
Töma Gavrichenkov -
valdis.kletnieks＠vt.edu -
Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan -
William Herrin