Slashdot: Providers Ignoring DNS TTL?

Dean Anderson dean at av8.com
Sat Apr 30 04:57:46 UTC 2005


On Tue, 26 Apr 2005, Edward B. Dreger wrote:

> DA> Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2005 16:13:22 -0400 (EDT)
> DA> From: Dean Anderson
> 
> DA> And it violates RFC 1546, as previously explained.
> 
> Who cares?  You've railed against SMTP+AUTH because it's not a
> "standard".  Why do you give a rat's rump about 1546?

Actually, objections to standards in both cases is a consistent position 
to have.

But for the record, you misrepresent my SMTP AUTH claims:

I've noted about SMTP AUTH 
	that it isn't required (as wrongly claimed), 
	that it isn't supported in most mail clients (as wrongly claimed), 
	that the MS version isn't draft compliant (as wrongly claimed),
	that it isn't scalable (as wrongly claimed),
	that it doesn't stop spam (as wrongly claimed),
	that it costs more money to operate,
	that it isn't wanted by paying customers. 

There's probably more. But this discussion isn't about SMTP AUTH.  
Speaking of vindication, do you remember when people (you among them, I
think) told us that if we just did POP-before-SMTP there would be no more
spam?  And isn't it strange that open relay abuse dropped to nothing in
2003 just after the open relay blacklists mostly shut? And then only
started back up (lamely) about mid-March of this year as SORBS started
scanning again?  And that only open relay blacklists scanned for open
relays? And that only "scanned-by-open-relay-blacklist" relays were
abused?  And how many people today would refuse an offer from spammers to
label their spam with an X-spam header (or whatever the IEMCC header was)?  
And weren't you among the people who said that the ECPA didn't apply to
email?  That anti-trust didn't apply to the internet? That blacklists
weren't subject to laws or courts? That certain blacklists didn't help
spammers? Nevermind, this isn't the discussion for that.

> DA> Well, PPLB isn't the end of the world. But PPLB is coming, and the smart
> DA> people will be prepared for it.  They dumb people, well, they're dumb.
> 
> As for anycast, there's a fair chance people building anycast clusters
> will work around PPLB.  Maybe they'll build topologies to avoid
> problems.  Maybe they'll have behind-the-scenes unicast intelligence to
> deal with TCP session transfer.

You really haven't been paying attention: There's no chance of that at
all:  It isn't possible to build "vixie-cast" clusters that work around
PPLB. There are no topologies which include diverse paths that avoid
problems.

> DA> What can be expected from dumb people?
>
> Frequent NANOG posting.

There are other symptoms. Like being wrong alot, or being completely
unable to correctly state someone else's position.

		--Dean

-- 
Av8 Internet   Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net         faster, more reliable, better service
617 344 9000   





More information about the NANOG mailing list