Hmmm...
Well, I don't have a clue why your Spam filter would jump on my smtp
mail server for this - it never did before. Yes, I recently upgraded
from IMail version 4.02 to version 4.04, but I *choose* IMail because it
has an SMTP anti-mail-forwarding filter built in (so no one can steal
use of our mail server for Spam.) Funny you'd think *we* are spamming
with it. <grin>
IMail is an NT-based email server (smtp, pop3, ldap, whois, etc)
commercially available from IPSwitch (www.ipswitch.com). Paul
Mockapetris is their CTO, BTW.
So maybe someone could explain to me (offline) what the problem is with
its X-UIDL setup? And cc Paul Mockapetris?
Also, in the interest of getting some info on the list about the IFWP
meeting in Reston, can you post a clean version of my message to the pab
list? Or should I resend it?
Thanks!
Bill Semich
bsemich@users.org
In reply to 6 Jul message from Paul Lindner <lindner@ties.itu.ch>:
>Ah, I see. I've never heard of '<IMail v4.04>', have you?
>Perhaps the author of that message can clue us in.. Then I think
>we should browbeat the author of IMail to generate valid
>headers...
>On Mon, Jul 06, 1998 at 08:19:09AM -0700, Jack Bailey wrote:
>> It's not a spam, but it looks like one due to the bogus X-UIDL line
>> in it.
>>
>> >
>> > Are you sure this is the right message?
>> >
>> > It looks legit to me...
>> >
>> > On Sat, Jul 04, 1998 at 09:49:17AM -0700, abuse@zNET.com wrote:
>> > > Below is a SPAM received by a customer of zNET Internet Services.
>> > > It originated from your site, used an address referencing your
>> > > site, used your company for connectivity, or in some way involved
>> > > you. Please deal with this person according to any AUP's you
>> > > have.
>> > >
>> > > Thanks for your time and attention to this problem.
>> > >
>> > > If the spammer's return address is a forgery and your domain was
>> > > used, please consider this just an advisory message.
>> > >
>> > > If a user's forwarded mail caused you to receive this message,
>> > > please accept our apologies; you look like a relay from here.
>> > > We'll fix it if you let us know.
>> > >
>> > > SPAM prevention resources:
>> > >
>> > > http://spam.abuse.net/tools/mailblock.html/
>> > > http://www.junkemail.org/scamspam/
>> > > http://www.sendmail.org/
>> > > http://maps.vix.com/tsi/
>> > >
>> > > "There is no constitutional requirement that the incremental
>> > > cost of sending massive quantities of unsolicited advertisements
>> > > must be borne by the recipients."
>> > >
>> > > Judge Graham, Compuserve vs. Cyber Promotions
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Network Information:
>> > >
>> > > NET-LITTLEGARDEN
>> > > 140.174.0.0 luis.rodrigues@itu.ch
>> > >
>> > > NETBLK-NET-DNAI
>> > > 140.174.162.0 140.174.163.255 domain@dnai.com
>> > >
>> > > NET-ITU-GVA-1
>> > > 156.106.0.0 luis.rodrigues@itu.ch
>> > >
>> > > NETBLK-TERRANET
>> > > 199.103.128.0 199.103.255.0 dnsmaster@terra.net
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > SPAM Follows:
>> > >
>> > > From root@sj.znet.com Sat Jul 4 09:48:47 1998
>> > > Received: from sj.znet.com (sj.znet.com [207.167.80.19])
>> > > by sd04.znet.com (8.9.1/8.9.1/jjb-sd04) with ESMTP id JAA18977
>> > > for <spam@sd04.znet.com>; Sat, 4 Jul 1998 09:48:47 -0700 (PDT)
>> > > Received: (from root@localhost)
>> > > by sj.znet.com (8.9.1/8.9.1/jjb-sj) id JAA26248
>> > > for spam; Sat, 4 Jul 1998 09:48:48 -0700 (PDT)
>> > > Received: from mx1.znet.com (mx.znet.com [207.167.64.1])
>> > > by sj.znet.com (8.9.0/8.9.1/jjb-sj) with ESMTP id JAA26241
>> > > for <silvertn@sj.znet.com>; Sat, 4 Jul 1998 09:48:33 -0700
(PDT)
>> > > Received: from meer.meer.net (meer.meer.net [140.174.164.2])
>> > > by mx1.znet.com (8.9.1/8.9.1/jjb-mx1) with ESMTP id JAA03367
>> > > for <silvertn@znet.com>; Sat, 4 Jul 1998 09:48:19 -0700 (PDT)
>> > > Received: from ties.itu.ch (majordomo@ties.itu.ch
[156.106.192.33])
>> > > by meer.meer.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA23716
>> > > for <silverton@edcom.org>; Sat, 4 Jul 1998 09:48:18 -0700 (PDT)
>> > > Received: (from majordomo@localhost)
>> > > by ties.itu.ch (8.9.0/8.9.0) id SAA23970
>> > > for pab-outgoing; Sat, 4 Jul 1998 18:41:03 +0200 (MET DST)
>> > > Received: from mail.nic.nu ([199.103.194.129])
>> > > by ties.itu.ch (8.9.0/8.9.0) with SMTP id SAA22062
>> > > for <pab@gtld-mou.org>; Sat, 4 Jul 1998 18:40:56 +0200 (MET
DST)
>> > > Date: Sat, 4 Jul 98 12:32:28 EDT
>> > > Message-Id: <9807041232.AA26935592@mail.nu>
>> > > Mime-Version: 1.0
>> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>> > > From: "bsemich" <bsemich@users.org>
>> > > Reply-To: <bsemich@users.org>
>> > > X-Sender: <bsemich@mail.nu>
>> > > To: kent@songbird.com
>> > > Subject: Re: PAB Should we speak?
>> > > X-Mailer: <IMail v4.04>
>> > > X-UIDL: 899569968
>> > > Sender: owner-pab@gtld-mou.org
>> > > Precedence: bulk
>> > >
>> > > Hello;
>> > >
>> > > Sorry I have not had a chance to report on the IFWP meetings
which I
>> > > attended last week - I am still in "catch up" mode in "real
life" as it
>> > > were.
>> > >
>> > > FYI, though, and especially in reference to comments about CORE
and POC
>> > > participation, both Ken Stubbs, chairman of the CORE executive
committee
>> > > and Roberto Gaetano, CORE designee to POC, participated in the
IFWP
>> > > sessions last week along with myself and Antony Van Couvering,
both PAB
>> > > members. So we already have *some* participation (albeit in
Antony's and
>> > > my case, not officially representing PAB), for what it's worth.
>> > >
>> > > As far as I understand it, Roberto and Ken will also be
attending the
>> > > sessions in Geneva (as will Antony and I, representing our
respective
>> > > businesses). There was also a person representing Jon
Postel/IANA at the
>> > > meeting about the possible make up and structure of the new
board and
>> > > councils (names council, address/IP council, and standards
council).
>> > >
>> > > As an aside, one of the issues I pushed for and which was
eventually
>> > > agreed upon during the "unaninmous equals consensus" final
session on
>> > > the structure of the organization was to be sure it would become
a
>> > > "membership" organization who's members appoint/elect/whatever
the
>> > > board. From my perspective, having an open membership procedure
may cure
>> > > a lot of potential ills - and create others, I'm sure. <smile>
>> > >
>> > > I don't for a minute claim to know if the IFWP process or it's
>> > > recomendations will eventually become the final mechanism that
will
>> > > create the entity described in the White paper.
>> > >
>> > > But I beleive if certain basic tenants are put forward in all
the forums
>> > > - open participation, minimal barriers to entry, maximum
competition, a
>> > > governing structure more along the lines of the IETF than along
that of
>> > > the US Postal Service - combined with a commitment to continuity
and
>> > > stability for the current systems in place - we will be in a
pretty good
>> > > place down the road.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Regards,
>> > >
>> > > Bill Semich
>> > > bsemich@users.org
>> > > www.users.org
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > In reply to 4 Jul message from Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>:
>> > >
>> > > >Folks, I have forwarded some messages to the PAB list
expressing
>> > > >concerns about the "IFWP process". Those are my personal
>> > > >expressions, of course, and are not meant to express the
sentiment
>> > > >of PAB.
>> > >
>> > > >But I am curious to know what the sentiment of PAB is. The
Green
>> > > >Paper and the White Paper have effectively blocked the MoU from
>> > > >progressing, and, as has been expressed several times, we are
>> > > >thrown back in time a year and a half. Probably within the
next
>> > > >six months a new IANA will be formed, and then a "names
council"
>> > > >(Jon Postel's term), and then at some point some new TLDs will
be
>> > > >added. This new structure will almost certainly incorporate
>> > > >elements of the the MoU, since the MoU basically covered a lot
of
>> > > >the ground pretty well.
>> > >
>> > > >PAB is the body that most directly represents the 200 odd
>> > > >signatories of the MoU -- POC and CORE cannot make that claim
-- >> > > >and an official PAB position potentially carries significant >> > > >weight. >> > > >> > > >The question: is there an interest in PAB in forming a position >> > > >on the matter of the "new IANA"? A collective PAB position could >> > > >be very influential: the list of MoU signatories is an impressive >> > > >list. >> > > >> > > >I honestly have no particular ax to grind in this matter -- I >> > > >will, as always, express my personal opinions in various places. >> > > >But I think the collective voice of those who have supported the >> > > >MoU should have an opportunity to be heard, if it wishes to speak. >> > > >> > > >Comments, please. >> > > >> > > >-- >> > > >Kent Crispin, PAB Chair "No reason to get excited", >> > > >kent@songbird.com the thief he kindly spoke... >> > > >PGP fingerprint: B1 8B 72 ED 55 21 5E 44 61 F4 58 0F 72 10 65 >> > > >55 http://songbird.com/kent/pgp_key.html >> > > >> > > Bill Semich >> > > President and General Manager >> > > The .NU Domain Ltd >> > > bsemich@mail.nu >> > > http://www.nunames.nu >> > > ".NU - The un.com(mon) domain" >> > > >> > >> > -- >> > Paul Lindner >> > International Telecommunication Union paul.lindner@itu.int >> > Tel: +41 22 730-5587 Fax: +41 22 730 5337 >> > >>>-- >Paul Lindner >International Telecommunication Union paul.lindner@itu.int Tel: >+41 22 730-5587 Fax: +41 22 730 5337 Bill Semich President and General Manager The .NU Domain Ltd bsemich@mail.nu http://www.nunames.nu ".NU - The un.com(mon) domain"