Re: digital signature request

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 25 Feb 2004 at 9:22, Dave Aronson wrote:

> On Wed February 25 2004 05:50, gnulinux@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> 
>  > i'm
>  > spending way too much of my time culling spam from
>  > my real email even though i'm employing the latest
>  > spam filtering tools.
> 
> Having the latest tools means nothing, unless they are used right.  Are 

i'm using them correctly

>  > mailing lists could use the same recipe, no
>  > messages would be handed over to the listserv
>  > software unless it was signed by a whitelisted
>  > signature.
> 
> Requiring digsigs on a list would help cut down on spammers forging list 
> members' addies to spam "only members can post" lists.  Also, this is 
> one of the few lists where I'd think most people would be clueful 
> enough to do it.
> 
> However, would it be worth the bother?  Unless there's some poor sod 

if it wasn't clear, having list members sign messages 
in order to post isn't my request.  it was just a 
comment about an additional possibility.

> Here's an alternate angle for you to chew on.  Try coming up with some 
> sort of mechanism that could easily be built into all MUAs, MTAs, 
> mailing list managers, anti-spam "solutions", and all other programs 

designing a complex total solution isn't an approach 
that works for me.  in my experience small foolproof 
steps in the direction of my vision have proven to be 
much more fruitful.

>  > apologies
>  > to the folks whose comments i'm replying to for
>  > not referencing their names (i didn't have the
>  > time).
> 
> You ask us to take the time to implement a new mechanism of dubious 
> value.

the value in having the list processor sign all posts 
is simple.  guaranteed identification of the list 
traffic for any recipient who decides to verify 
signatures.  

> Meanwhile, you won't take the time to mention ournames so that
> we can at least go quickly to the part of your email that concerns us, 
> nor break it up into individual pieces so as to at least preserve the 
> subject lines.  Talk about cooperating....

the posts i was replying to were part of lengthy 
threads around the same issue.  my intention was to 
collect various concerns and reply to them to help 
elucidate my perspective.  it was more efficient than 
trying to write commentary from scratch that covered 
all the same points.  i wasn't looking for specific 
dialogue with particular posters.  just wanted to use 
the existing dialogue to create a summary of sorts.

if you look you should notice that i did create three 
sections (for the three different threads i pulled 
posts from):

thread:  ietf - proposal for built-in spam burden
& email privacy protection
-----

thread:  ietf - how not to filter spam
-----

thread:  tidbits - digital signatures in tidbits
-----

the quotes under each section are taken from those 
particular threads.

> As for the lengthy conglomeration of your replies to other messages, 
> forget it, I for one am not slogging through that mess, even though I 
> see you replied to something I wrote.

sorry you found the structure of my post unhelpful.  i 
did attempt to make it easy to peruse.  if it's not 
too much trouble i do request that you browse through 
the rest of my post.  i am very much wanting dialogue 
around the issue of having the list digitally signed 
by the list processor.

peace,

david



[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]