A Zero Spam Mail System [Feedback Request]

Ross Tajvar ross at tajvar.io
Mon Feb 18 02:14:17 UTC 2019

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 at dombox.org

> 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
> 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-2b08ff7432cd
> 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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20190217/949ec81e/attachment.html>

More information about the NANOG mailing list