From rucus-bounces@ietf.org Sat Mar 1 09:26:15 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8349728C218; Sat, 1 Mar 2008 09:26:15 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.629 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.629 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.192, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4oh5vUEIIuZS; Sat, 1 Mar 2008 09:26:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D4E328C3EC; Sat, 1 Mar 2008 09:25:55 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38D4728C396 for ; Sat, 1 Mar 2008 09:25:54 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oEZG0r6xlU55 for ; Sat, 1 Mar 2008 09:25:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.gmx.net (mail.gmx.net [213.165.64.20]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 85AE228C6D7 for ; Sat, 1 Mar 2008 09:24:51 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 01 Mar 2008 17:24:42 -0000 Received: from a91-154-103-163.elisa-laajakaista.fi (EHLO [192.168.255.4]) [91.154.103.163] by mail.gmx.net (mp021) with SMTP; 01 Mar 2008 18:24:42 +0100 X-Authenticated: #29516787 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX184sIcLgQQ4aFZxcCYyXQEhVAElK0U1xtR2bHJElp LDDyNxggAihHe3 Message-ID: <47C9915B.6060103@gmx.net> Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2008 19:24:43 +0200 From: Hannes Tschofenig User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (Windows/20080213) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Saverio Niccolini References: <47C40782.6090907@gmx.net> <5F6519BF2DE0404D99B7C75607FF76FF53DDF2@mx1.office> In-Reply-To: <5F6519BF2DE0404D99B7C75607FF76FF53DDF2@mx1.office> X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Cc: rucus BoF Subject: Re: [Rucus] RUCUS AGENDA (Proposal) X-BeenThere: rucus@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: rucus-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rucus-bounces@ietf.org Hi Saverio, Saverio Niccolini wrote: > Hannes, > > >> Here is the agenda proposal: >> http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/08mar/agenda/rucus.txt >> >> Feedback welcome >> > > -- I would not use the term SPIT near XMPP, SPIT acronym normally > stands for SPam over Internet Telephony and XMPP is not traditionally > associated with IP Telephony I would say... > It is true that XMPP is primarily known to be used for instant messaging. However, recent work in the XMPP/Jabber community also offer voice support. > >> (I am still thinking about Juergens' idea to move the RFC5111 >> presentation to the beginning). >> > > -- I would really like to see this at the beginning, RFC 5111 is so new > that people needs to know what we are talking about before going > to the core of the discussion (we had this discussion already over the > mailing list) > I moved it to the beginning and hope Bernard is going to give a short presentaiton. I don't want us to spend the BoF discussing only RFC 5111. Ciao Hannes > Saverio > > ============================================================ > Dr. Saverio Niccolini > Senior Researcher > NEC Laboratories Europe, Network Research Division > Kurfuerstenanlage 36, D-69115 Heidelberg > Tel. +49 (0)6221 4342-118 > Fax: +49 (0)6221 4342-155 > e-mail: saverio.niccolini@nw.neclab.eu <-- !!! NEW ADDRESS !!! > ============================================================ > NEC Europe Limited Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria > Road, London W3 6BL Registered in England 2832014 > _______________________________________________ > Rucus mailing list > Rucus@ietf.org > http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus > _______________________________________________ Rucus mailing list Rucus@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus From rucus-bounces@ietf.org Wed Mar 5 02:12:14 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED8BE28C0E0; Wed, 5 Mar 2008 02:12:14 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.707 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.707 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.270, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4YgDDMU0-e+d; Wed, 5 Mar 2008 02:12:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2934928C6B2; Wed, 5 Mar 2008 02:12:14 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 123BE28C6D4 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2008 02:12:13 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dEDiJv7wy9s3 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2008 02:12:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.gmx.net (mail.gmx.net [213.165.64.20]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 86D3428C6B2 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2008 02:12:11 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 11317 invoked by uid 0); 5 Mar 2008 10:12:00 -0000 Received: from 192.100.124.218 by www145.gmx.net with HTTP; Wed, 05 Mar 2008 11:12:00 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2008 11:12:00 +0100 From: "Hannes Tschofenig" Message-ID: <20080305101200.160460@gmx.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 To: rucus@ietf.org X-Authenticated: #29516787 X-Flags: 0001 X-Mailer: WWW-Mail 6100 (Global Message Exchange) X-Priority: 3 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/WzdcTj/bWqdJtvI6A9fojLfj5mYNrInd4Dr5SIw 4u6qBAQdrgd07zlfgpO7+9ab5ADfeCPGp0Ig== X-GMX-UID: xEP8dJ8JPTR+LMRQ8zMwpME5c2tpZMsd Subject: [Rucus] Privacy & Regulatory Aspects X-BeenThere: rucus@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Reducing Unwanted Communication Using SIP \(RUCUS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: rucus-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rucus-bounces@ietf.org Here is an update on the agenda. John Morris agreed to join the meeting and to give a short presentation on privacy aspects relevant for dealing with unwanted traffic. Marit Hansen provided me with some pointers on this subject, see: http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/fsj/privacy/docs/wpdocs/2006/wp118_en.pdf https://www.datenschutzzentrum.de/vortraege/20070320-hansen-voip-cebit-heise.pdf Ciao Hannes _______________________________________________ Rucus mailing list Rucus@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus From rucus-bounces@ietf.org Wed Mar 5 03:25:50 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96C603A6C4F; Wed, 5 Mar 2008 03:25:50 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.394 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.394 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.043, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eE-sXjs1dsAv; Wed, 5 Mar 2008 03:25:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C831C3A6E3B; Wed, 5 Mar 2008 03:25:46 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFE8E3A6E3B for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2008 03:25:45 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TbNogO9TtLqf for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2008 03:25:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp0.neclab.eu (smtp0.neclab.eu [195.37.70.41]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 381B53A6C63 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2008 03:25:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost.office [127.0.0.1]) by smtp0.neclab.eu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CE6B2C00C336; Wed, 5 Mar 2008 12:25:34 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: Amavisd on Debian GNU/Linux (atlas2.office) Received: from smtp0.neclab.eu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (atlas2.office [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id imbHcgPo8lEc; Wed, 5 Mar 2008 12:25:34 +0100 (CET) Received: from mx1.office (mx1.office [10.1.1.23]) by smtp0.neclab.eu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 295442C000357; Wed, 5 Mar 2008 12:25:24 +0100 (CET) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 12:25:23 +0100 Message-ID: <5F6519BF2DE0404D99B7C75607FF76FF53E4AF@mx1.office> In-Reply-To: <20080305101200.160460@gmx.net> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Rucus] Privacy & Regulatory Aspects Thread-Index: Ach+qXAkPBcyq+srSPCBJU5tVeFMVgACfNAg References: <20080305101200.160460@gmx.net> From: "Saverio Niccolini" To: "Hannes Tschofenig" , Subject: Re: [Rucus] Privacy & Regulatory Aspects X-BeenThere: rucus@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Reducing Unwanted Communication Using SIP \(RUCUS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: rucus-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rucus-bounces@ietf.org Hannes, can you please post the agenda and the updated charter proposal? It would help in preparing the BoF... Is there also a final reading list? Cheers, Saverio ============================================================ Dr. Saverio Niccolini Senior Researcher NEC Laboratories Europe, Network Research Division Kurfuerstenanlage 36, D-69115 Heidelberg Tel. +49 (0)6221 4342-118 Fax: +49 (0)6221 4342-155 e-mail: saverio.niccolini@nw.neclab.eu <-- !!! NEW ADDRESS !!! ============================================================ NEC Europe Limited Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road, London W3 6BL Registered in England 2832014 > -----Original Message----- > From: rucus-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rucus-bounces@ietf.org] > On Behalf Of Hannes Tschofenig > Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 11:12 AM > To: rucus@ietf.org > Subject: [Rucus] Privacy & Regulatory Aspects > > Here is an update on the agenda. John Morris agreed to join > the meeting and to give a short presentation on privacy > aspects relevant for dealing with unwanted traffic. > > Marit Hansen provided me with some pointers on this subject, see: > > http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/fsj/privacy/docs/wpdocs/2006/ > wp118_en.pdf > https://www.datenschutzzentrum.de/vortraege/20070320-hansen-vo > ip-cebit-heise.pdf > > Ciao > Hannes > _______________________________________________ > Rucus mailing list > Rucus@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus > _______________________________________________ Rucus mailing list Rucus@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus From rucus-bounces@ietf.org Wed Mar 5 04:51:45 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F117C3A6E3E; Wed, 5 Mar 2008 04:51:45 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.672 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.672 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.235, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1KJq0uabVyD0; Wed, 5 Mar 2008 04:51:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27B1B28C39E; Wed, 5 Mar 2008 04:51:45 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D41928C112 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2008 04:51:43 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ii9p0zdNylVD for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2008 04:51:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.gmx.net (mail.gmx.net [213.165.64.20]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 85DDC3A6EAE for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2008 04:51:41 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 17664 invoked by uid 0); 5 Mar 2008 12:51:30 -0000 Received: from 192.100.124.218 by www166.gmx.net with HTTP; Wed, 05 Mar 2008 13:51:30 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2008 13:51:30 +0100 From: "Hannes Tschofenig" In-Reply-To: <5F6519BF2DE0404D99B7C75607FF76FF53E4AF@mx1.office> Message-ID: <20080305125130.14450@gmx.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20080305101200.160460@gmx.net> <5F6519BF2DE0404D99B7C75607FF76FF53E4AF@mx1.office> To: "Saverio Niccolini" , rucus@ietf.org X-Authenticated: #29516787 X-Flags: 0001 X-Mailer: WWW-Mail 6100 (Global Message Exchange) X-Priority: 3 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX18/DtIH2Vw/Bm2bfbxGlVuOYHK4RY4Cirje/lrAMO pbPQLyUnrDe4zCq3pb4APR1DWiSt5ulmJyGQ== X-GMX-UID: ZqX5cMx8bGInT4oVr2Vn4I9vcmZ1Zlyl Subject: Re: [Rucus] Privacy & Regulatory Aspects X-BeenThere: rucus@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Reducing Unwanted Communication Using SIP \(RUCUS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: rucus-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rucus-bounces@ietf.org Hi Saverio, The agenda for the BOF can be found here: http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/08mar/agenda/rucus.txt The current charter text was posted to the list: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rucus/current/msg00142.html Reading list: Dan proposed a more detailed reading list. We could certainly add more items to the Wiki at: http://www3.tools.ietf.org/bof/trac/wiki I am realistic, I believe that people may read: [draft-tschofenig-sipping-framework-spit-reduction] H. Tschofenig, H. Schulzrinne, D. Wing, J. Rosenberg and D. Schwartz: "A Framework to tackle Spam and Unwanted Communication for Internet Telephony", draft-tschofenig-sipping-framework-spit-reduction-03.txt (work in progress), Feb. 2007. [draft-niccolini-sipping-spitstop] S. Niccolini, J. Quittek: "Signaling TO Prevent SPIT (SPITSTOP) Reference Scenario", draft-niccolini-sipping-spitstop-01.txt, (work in progress), Feb. 2008. Ciao Hannes -------- Original-Nachricht -------- > Datum: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 12:25:23 +0100 > Von: "Saverio Niccolini" > An: "Hannes Tschofenig" , rucus@ietf.org > Betreff: RE: [Rucus] Privacy & Regulatory Aspects > Hannes, > > can you please post the agenda and the updated charter proposal? > It would help in preparing the BoF... > Is there also a final reading list? > > Cheers, > Saverio > > ============================================================ > Dr. Saverio Niccolini > Senior Researcher > NEC Laboratories Europe, Network Research Division > Kurfuerstenanlage 36, D-69115 Heidelberg > Tel. +49 (0)6221 4342-118 > Fax: +49 (0)6221 4342-155 > e-mail: saverio.niccolini@nw.neclab.eu <-- !!! NEW ADDRESS !!! > ============================================================ > NEC Europe Limited Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria > Road, London W3 6BL Registered in England 2832014 > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: rucus-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rucus-bounces@ietf.org] > > On Behalf Of Hannes Tschofenig > > Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 11:12 AM > > To: rucus@ietf.org > > Subject: [Rucus] Privacy & Regulatory Aspects > > > > Here is an update on the agenda. John Morris agreed to join > > the meeting and to give a short presentation on privacy > > aspects relevant for dealing with unwanted traffic. > > > > Marit Hansen provided me with some pointers on this subject, see: > > > > http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/fsj/privacy/docs/wpdocs/2006/ > > wp118_en.pdf > > https://www.datenschutzzentrum.de/vortraege/20070320-hansen-vo > > ip-cebit-heise.pdf > > > > Ciao > > Hannes > > _______________________________________________ > > Rucus mailing list > > Rucus@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus > > _______________________________________________ Rucus mailing list Rucus@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus From rucus-bounces@ietf.org Wed Mar 5 05:20:54 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14CD73A6C4C; Wed, 5 Mar 2008 05:20:54 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.182 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.182 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.281, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, HTML_MESSAGE=1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oc1O5P6P4iZ2; Wed, 5 Mar 2008 05:20:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E42D28C2A5; Wed, 5 Mar 2008 05:20:48 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EB423A6C4C for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2008 05:20:47 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id w5j7mFYpgGiL for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2008 05:20:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from voxeo.com (mmail.voxeo.com [66.193.54.208]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 164ED3A6A6B for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2008 05:20:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from [75.68.245.43] (account dyork HELO [172.20.12.144]) by voxeo.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.14) with ESMTPSA id 28542873; Wed, 05 Mar 2008 13:20:35 +0000 In-Reply-To: <20080305125130.14450@gmx.net> References: <20080305101200.160460@gmx.net> <5F6519BF2DE0404D99B7C75607FF76FF53E4AF@mx1.office> <20080305125130.14450@gmx.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753) X-Priority: 3 Message-Id: <98793AD7-E863-4240-BAC5-5D89D9BA69A3@voxeo.com> From: Dan York Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 08:20:22 -0500 To: Hannes Tschofenig X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.753) Cc: rucus@ietf.org, Saverio Niccolini Subject: Re: [Rucus] Privacy & Regulatory Aspects X-BeenThere: rucus@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Reducing Unwanted Communication Using SIP \(RUCUS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0117924591==" Sender: rucus-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rucus-bounces@ietf.org --===============0117924591== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-435-930239731 --Apple-Mail-435-930239731 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed On Mar 5, 2008, at 7:51 AM, Hannes Tschofenig wrote: > Reading list: Dan proposed a more detailed reading list. Actually, it was Martin Stiemerling who came up with the reading list: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rucus/current/msg00027.html I just attempted to summarize it after the draft deadline and added URLs: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rucus/current/msg00071.html > We could certainly add more items to the Wiki at: > http://www3.tools.ietf.org/bof/trac/wiki I'm glad to help with that but how does one go about getting the ability to edit on that wiki? Regards, Dan -- Dan York, CISSP, Director of Emerging Communication Technology Office of the CTO Voxeo Corporation dyork@voxeo.com Phone: +1-407-455-5859 Skype: danyork http://www.voxeo.com Blogs: http://blogs.voxeo.com http://www.disruptivetelephony.com Bring your web applications to the phone. Find out how at http://evolution.voxeo.com --Apple-Mail-435-930239731 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Mar 5, 2008, at 7:51 AM, Hannes Tschofenig = wrote:

Reading list: Dan proposed a = more detailed reading = list.=A0

Actually, it was = Martin Stiemerling who came up with the reading list:=A0= http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rucus/current/msg00027.html
=

I just attempted = to summarize it after the draft deadline and added URLs:
=A0=A0<= a = href=3D"http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rucus/current/msg00071.html">= http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rucus/current/msg00071.html
=

We could certainly add more = items to the Wiki at:

I'm glad to help with that = but how does one go about getting the ability to edit on that = wiki?

Regards,
Dan
=

--=A0
Dan York, = CISSP, Director of Emerging Communication Technology
Office of the CTO=A0 =A0=A0Voxeo Corporation=A0=A0 =A0=A0dyork@voxeo.com
Phone: +1-407-455-5859=A0=A0Skype: danyork=A0=A0http://www.voxeo.com

Bring your web applications to the phone.




= --Apple-Mail-435-930239731-- --===============0117924591== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Rucus mailing list Rucus@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus --===============0117924591==-- From rucus-bounces@ietf.org Wed Mar 5 05:23:31 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E470D28C765; Wed, 5 Mar 2008 05:23:31 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.401 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.401 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.036, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HDmBpJSOCjwk; Wed, 5 Mar 2008 05:23:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6ADCB28C742; Wed, 5 Mar 2008 05:23:30 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69C9328C609 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2008 05:23:29 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id roIRC2xb85iJ for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2008 05:23:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp0.neclab.eu (smtp0.neclab.eu [195.37.70.41]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB2CD28C760 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2008 05:22:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost.office [127.0.0.1]) by smtp0.neclab.eu (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8C412C009E8F; Wed, 5 Mar 2008 14:22:47 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: Amavisd on Debian GNU/Linux (atlas2.office) Received: from smtp0.neclab.eu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (atlas2.office [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uAkl+ceUfYdR; Wed, 5 Mar 2008 14:22:47 +0100 (CET) Received: from mx1.office (mx1.office [10.1.1.23]) by smtp0.neclab.eu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 918A02C000357; Wed, 5 Mar 2008 14:22:37 +0100 (CET) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 14:22:36 +0100 Message-ID: <5F6519BF2DE0404D99B7C75607FF76FF53E4D4@mx1.office> In-Reply-To: <20080305125130.14450@gmx.net> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: RE: [Rucus] Privacy & Regulatory Aspects Thread-Index: Ach+v6jXt5q/BX2NSoGjycR65kLt9gABCunw References: <20080305101200.160460@gmx.net> <5F6519BF2DE0404D99B7C75607FF76FF53E4AF@mx1.office> <20080305125130.14450@gmx.net> From: "Saverio Niccolini" To: "Hannes Tschofenig" , Subject: Re: [Rucus] Privacy & Regulatory Aspects X-BeenThere: rucus@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Reducing Unwanted Communication Using SIP \(RUCUS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: rucus-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rucus-bounces@ietf.org Hi Hannes, > The agenda for the BOF can be found here: > http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/08mar/agenda/rucus.txt > > The current charter text was posted to the list: > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rucus/current/msg00142.html Thanks, this is what I meant, an email sumarizing all this.. > Reading list: Dan proposed a more detailed reading list. We > could certainly add more items to the Wiki at: > http://www3.tools.ietf.org/bof/trac/wiki > > I am realistic, I believe that people may read: > > [draft-tschofenig-sipping-framework-spit-reduction] H. > Tschofenig, H. Schulzrinne, D. Wing, J. Rosenberg and D. > Schwartz: "A Framework to tackle Spam and Unwanted > Communication for Internet Telephony", > draft-tschofenig-sipping-framework-spit-reduction-03.txt > (work in progress), Feb. 2007. > > [draft-niccolini-sipping-spitstop] S. Niccolini, J. Quittek: > "Signaling TO Prevent SPIT (SPITSTOP) Reference Scenario", > draft-niccolini-sipping-spitstop-01.txt, (work in progress), > Feb. 2008. I agree with you. Cheers, Saverio _______________________________________________ Rucus mailing list Rucus@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus From rucus-bounces@ietf.org Wed Mar 5 05:41:37 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1E3128C7D8; Wed, 5 Mar 2008 05:41:37 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.661 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.661 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.224, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6iIF8gmd6LXB; Wed, 5 Mar 2008 05:41:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BCEB28C794; Wed, 5 Mar 2008 05:41:25 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD3D528C7A0 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2008 05:41:22 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CAiOYi2F1j0E for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2008 05:41:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.gmx.net (mail.gmx.net [213.165.64.20]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 8203728C7BC for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2008 05:38:36 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 18244 invoked by uid 0); 5 Mar 2008 13:38:26 -0000 Received: from 192.100.124.218 by www101.gmx.net with HTTP; Wed, 05 Mar 2008 14:38:25 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2008 14:38:26 +0100 From: "Hannes Tschofenig" In-Reply-To: <5F6519BF2DE0404D99B7C75607FF76FF53E4D4@mx1.office> Message-ID: <20080305133826.246700@gmx.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20080305101200.160460@gmx.net> <5F6519BF2DE0404D99B7C75607FF76FF53E4AF@mx1.office> <20080305125130.14450@gmx.net> <5F6519BF2DE0404D99B7C75607FF76FF53E4D4@mx1.office> To: "Saverio Niccolini" , rucus@ietf.org X-Authenticated: #29516787 X-Flags: 0001 X-Mailer: WWW-Mail 6100 (Global Message Exchange) X-Priority: 3 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/dDFpBJGfd7CfF1ZwUm+68rrIssAdmwhSBJfpPrd jvowyHbvdTPjoXEtK0xV73AvOBlONexq9JZQ== X-GMX-UID: HdevIzcBa0A7UZIMtzAzzDg/Njh6dE7b Subject: Re: [Rucus] Privacy & Regulatory Aspects X-BeenThere: rucus@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Reducing Unwanted Communication Using SIP \(RUCUS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: rucus-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rucus-bounces@ietf.org Hi Saverio, we have had only a few charter and agenda discussions. Feedback has been incorporated. Ciao Hannes -------- Original-Nachricht -------- > Datum: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 14:22:36 +0100 > Von: "Saverio Niccolini" > An: "Hannes Tschofenig" , rucus@ietf.org > Betreff: RE: RE: [Rucus] Privacy & Regulatory Aspects > Hi Hannes, > > > The agenda for the BOF can be found here: > > http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/08mar/agenda/rucus.txt > > > > The current charter text was posted to the list: > > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rucus/current/msg00142.html > > Thanks, this is what I meant, an email sumarizing all this.. > > > Reading list: Dan proposed a more detailed reading list. We > > could certainly add more items to the Wiki at: > > http://www3.tools.ietf.org/bof/trac/wiki > > > > I am realistic, I believe that people may read: > > > > [draft-tschofenig-sipping-framework-spit-reduction] H. > > Tschofenig, H. Schulzrinne, D. Wing, J. Rosenberg and D. > > Schwartz: "A Framework to tackle Spam and Unwanted > > Communication for Internet Telephony", > > draft-tschofenig-sipping-framework-spit-reduction-03.txt > > (work in progress), Feb. 2007. > > > > [draft-niccolini-sipping-spitstop] S. Niccolini, J. Quittek: > > "Signaling TO Prevent SPIT (SPITSTOP) Reference Scenario", > > draft-niccolini-sipping-spitstop-01.txt, (work in progress), > > Feb. 2008. > > I agree with you. > > Cheers, > Saverio _______________________________________________ Rucus mailing list Rucus@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus From rucus-bounces@ietf.org Wed Mar 5 05:45:35 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E18128C7A8; Wed, 5 Mar 2008 05:45:35 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.666 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.666 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.229, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PuT3CUECXbMa; Wed, 5 Mar 2008 05:45:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 963F828C7A0; Wed, 5 Mar 2008 05:45:32 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C64A728C797 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2008 05:45:31 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SLwiQlPZRdsd for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2008 05:45:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.gmx.net (mail.gmx.net [213.165.64.20]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 58DFE3A6E3E for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2008 05:45:30 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 31507 invoked by uid 0); 5 Mar 2008 13:45:20 -0000 Received: from 192.100.124.218 by www183.gmx.net with HTTP; Wed, 05 Mar 2008 14:45:19 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2008 14:45:19 +0100 From: "Hannes Tschofenig" In-Reply-To: <20080305133826.246700@gmx.net> Message-ID: <20080305134519.14420@gmx.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20080305101200.160460@gmx.net> <5F6519BF2DE0404D99B7C75607FF76FF53E4AF@mx1.office> <20080305125130.14450@gmx.net> <5F6519BF2DE0404D99B7C75607FF76FF53E4D4@mx1.office> <20080305133826.246700@gmx.net> To: "Hannes Tschofenig" , rucus@ietf.org, Saverio.Niccolini@nw.neclab.eu X-Authenticated: #29516787 X-Flags: 0001 X-Mailer: WWW-Mail 6100 (Global Message Exchange) X-Priority: 3 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1805IUs2pM0uOJD3dFvfwtIsO+DXgaiTV1YAVVzy0 Ls9/l5ou3nytvbYPiE4VpjoFXbl8IhqbOIyA== X-GMX-UID: 15H9c8hMX1V6BccOrmBymyZ/SDc4NIxT Subject: Re: [Rucus] Privacy & Regulatory Aspects X-BeenThere: rucus@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Reducing Unwanted Communication Using SIP \(RUCUS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: rucus-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rucus-bounces@ietf.org A summary of the changes: AGENDA: * I put the RFC 5111 presentation to the beginning. CHARTER: * I incorporated the feedback from Juergen. Did I miss something? Ciao Hannes -------- Original-Nachricht -------- > Datum: Wed, 05 Mar 2008 14:38:26 +0100 > Von: "Hannes Tschofenig" > An: "Saverio Niccolini" , rucus@ietf.org > Betreff: Re: [Rucus] Privacy & Regulatory Aspects > Hi Saverio, > > we have had only a few charter and agenda discussions. Feedback has been > incorporated. > > Ciao > Hannes > > -------- Original-Nachricht -------- > > Datum: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 14:22:36 +0100 > > Von: "Saverio Niccolini" > > An: "Hannes Tschofenig" , rucus@ietf.org > > Betreff: RE: RE: [Rucus] Privacy & Regulatory Aspects > > > Hi Hannes, > > > > > The agenda for the BOF can be found here: > > > http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/08mar/agenda/rucus.txt > > > > > > The current charter text was posted to the list: > > > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rucus/current/msg00142.html > > > > Thanks, this is what I meant, an email sumarizing all this.. > > > > > Reading list: Dan proposed a more detailed reading list. We > > > could certainly add more items to the Wiki at: > > > http://www3.tools.ietf.org/bof/trac/wiki > > > > > > I am realistic, I believe that people may read: > > > > > > [draft-tschofenig-sipping-framework-spit-reduction] H. > > > Tschofenig, H. Schulzrinne, D. Wing, J. Rosenberg and D. > > > Schwartz: "A Framework to tackle Spam and Unwanted > > > Communication for Internet Telephony", > > > draft-tschofenig-sipping-framework-spit-reduction-03.txt > > > (work in progress), Feb. 2007. > > > > > > [draft-niccolini-sipping-spitstop] S. Niccolini, J. Quittek: > > > "Signaling TO Prevent SPIT (SPITSTOP) Reference Scenario", > > > draft-niccolini-sipping-spitstop-01.txt, (work in progress), > > > Feb. 2008. > > > > I agree with you. > > > > Cheers, > > Saverio > _______________________________________________ > Rucus mailing list > Rucus@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus _______________________________________________ Rucus mailing list Rucus@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus From rucus-bounces@ietf.org Wed Mar 5 09:26:26 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 554E228C786; Wed, 5 Mar 2008 09:26:26 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.518 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.518 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.081, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id d42-OkONMqTX; Wed, 5 Mar 2008 09:26:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FDA728C75E; Wed, 5 Mar 2008 09:26:25 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 461E028C76F for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2008 09:26:25 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JuqsD603W6EG for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2008 09:26:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from balder-227.proper.com (cl-240.ewr-01.us.sixxs.net [IPv6:2001:4830:1200:ef::2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AB5828C60F for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2008 09:26:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.20.30.162] (dsl-63-249-108-169.cruzio.com [63.249.108.169]) (authenticated bits=0) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m25HQB8m002301 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2008 10:26:12 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@domain-assurance.org) Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 09:26:06 -0800 To: rucus@ietf.org From: Paul Hoffman Subject: [Rucus] Can I get 10 minutes on the agenda for the RUCUS BoF? X-BeenThere: rucus@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Reducing Unwanted Communication Using SIP \(RUCUS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: rucus-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rucus-bounces@ietf.org Greetings. Wearing my Domain Assurance Council hat, I would like to do a very brief presentation about DAC's two independent submission drafts that directly relate to RUCUS. The first, draft-hoffman-dac-vbr-03.txt, is a way for reputation providers to whitelist particular types of content from a domain. It is meant for email, but could easily be extended to SIP if there is interest. The second, draft-hoffman-dac-domainrepdata-01.txt, is a more generic way for a reputation provider to send reputation that can be used by a recipient to determine whether or not to accept { mail | calls }. You don't currently have much in the agenda on whitelisting, and these are getting a fair amount of interest in the email reputation market. --Paul Hoffman, Director --Domain Assurance Council _______________________________________________ Rucus mailing list Rucus@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus From rucus-bounces@ietf.org Wed Mar 5 10:24:53 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DD4228C74E; Wed, 5 Mar 2008 10:24:53 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.655 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.655 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.218, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nxBcbQCUSybQ; Wed, 5 Mar 2008 10:24:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 451953A6BED; Wed, 5 Mar 2008 10:24:52 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12A353A6915 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2008 10:24:51 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id u2On6j1fbmDL for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2008 10:24:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.gmx.net (mail.gmx.net [213.165.64.20]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 97EF23A6F08 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2008 10:24:49 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 05 Mar 2008 18:24:37 -0000 Received: from a91-154-103-163.elisa-laajakaista.fi (EHLO [192.168.255.4]) [91.154.103.163] by mail.gmx.net (mp013) with SMTP; 05 Mar 2008 19:24:37 +0100 X-Authenticated: #29516787 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX18Tg6ZhSIQT3+bqk8S2PO2OdzutDZHZvAEpU3cE5V mCq1TLt+x5rIu8 Message-ID: <47CEE563.9070109@gmx.net> Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2008 20:24:35 +0200 From: Hannes Tschofenig User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (Windows/20080213) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: rucus BoF X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Subject: [Rucus] RUCUS Agenda Update X-BeenThere: rucus@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Reducing Unwanted Communication Using SIP \(RUCUS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: rucus-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rucus-bounces@ietf.org I just noticed that I forgot to put Jim Fenton on the latest version of the uploaded agenda. I had spoken to him already about the subject and also the RAI ADs thought that this would be a good idea. A mistake from my side. Sorry So, here is the complete agenda: ---------------- * Introduction and Agenda Bashing Chairs * RFC 5111 Overview "Experiment in Exploratory Group Formation within the IETF" Bernard Aboba * RFC 5039 Overview "The Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) and Spam" Jonathan Rosenberg * An Architectural Journey (including an investigation of the XMPP way of dealing with SPIT) Henning Schulzrinne * Lessons learned from the IETF Email Spam Work Jim Fenton * Privacy and Regulatory Aspects John Morris * Discussion All ---------------- http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/08mar/agenda/rucus.txt _______________________________________________ Rucus mailing list Rucus@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus From rucus-bounces@ietf.org Wed Mar 5 10:39:06 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F27F23A6FAA; Wed, 5 Mar 2008 10:39:05 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.655 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.655 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.218, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RleMuFOnvvdd; Wed, 5 Mar 2008 10:39:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 682AB3A6FA0; Wed, 5 Mar 2008 10:38:41 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DB193A6FA0 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2008 10:38:40 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CO2GDlv50Kgv for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2008 10:38:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.gmx.net (mail.gmx.net [213.165.64.20]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id A9B073A6F81 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2008 10:38:33 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 05 Mar 2008 18:38:22 -0000 Received: from a91-154-103-163.elisa-laajakaista.fi (EHLO [192.168.255.4]) [91.154.103.163] by mail.gmx.net (mp041) with SMTP; 05 Mar 2008 19:38:22 +0100 X-Authenticated: #29516787 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX19IkN5iladI9HRZRe/ftQER1ryrl2MIzL3g3rP2CX JMvwBvgwO87aGm Message-ID: <47CEE89C.5080007@gmx.net> Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2008 20:38:20 +0200 From: Hannes Tschofenig User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (Windows/20080213) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Paul Hoffman References: In-Reply-To: X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Cc: rucus@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Rucus] Can I get 10 minutes on the agenda for the RUCUS BoF? X-BeenThere: rucus@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Reducing Unwanted Communication Using SIP \(RUCUS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: rucus-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rucus-bounces@ietf.org Hi Paul, thank you for pointing us to your documents. Your work indeed seems to be relevant and similar ideas have been discussed in the context of SIP. There is only one problem: Based on the history of the work we said that we would not give presentation on individual solution attempts. We are trying to focus on architectural issues instead. This was a pre-requisity to get the BOF accepted. If we accept your request then other folks will rightfully argue that they should also be allowed to give their presentation. Ciao Hannes Paul Hoffman wrote: > Greetings. Wearing my Domain Assurance Council hat, I would like to > do a very brief presentation about DAC's two independent submission > drafts that directly relate to RUCUS. The first, > draft-hoffman-dac-vbr-03.txt, is a way for reputation providers to > whitelist particular types of content from a domain. It is meant for > email, but could easily be extended to SIP if there is interest. The > second, draft-hoffman-dac-domainrepdata-01.txt, is a more generic way > for a reputation provider to send reputation that can be used by a > recipient to determine whether or not to accept { mail | calls }. > > You don't currently have much in the agenda on whitelisting, and > these are getting a fair amount of interest in the email reputation > market. > > --Paul Hoffman, Director > --Domain Assurance Council > _______________________________________________ > Rucus mailing list > Rucus@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus > _______________________________________________ Rucus mailing list Rucus@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus From rucus-bounces@ietf.org Wed Mar 5 10:48:30 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95EA63A6A64; Wed, 5 Mar 2008 10:48:30 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.746 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.746 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.309, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UjAGFqayXWEg; Wed, 5 Mar 2008 10:48:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE40E28C1C2; Wed, 5 Mar 2008 10:48:29 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F56C3A6B07 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2008 10:48:28 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Frfj0t5oTtvC for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2008 10:48:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from balder-227.proper.com (cl-240.ewr-01.us.sixxs.net [IPv6:2001:4830:1200:ef::2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09C6928C803 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2008 10:48:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.20.30.162] (dsl-63-249-108-169.cruzio.com [63.249.108.169]) (authenticated bits=0) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m25Im76u010916 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 5 Mar 2008 11:48:08 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@domain-assurance.org) Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <47CEE89C.5080007@gmx.net> References: <47CEE89C.5080007@gmx.net> Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 10:48:05 -0800 To: Hannes Tschofenig From: Paul Hoffman Cc: rucus@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Rucus] Can I get 10 minutes on the agenda for the RUCUS BoF? X-BeenThere: rucus@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Reducing Unwanted Communication Using SIP \(RUCUS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: rucus-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rucus-bounces@ietf.org At 8:38 PM +0200 3/5/08, Hannes Tschofenig wrote: >There is only one problem: Based on the history of the work we said >that we would not give presentation on individual solution attempts. >We are trying to focus on architectural issues instead. >This was a pre-requisity to get the BOF accepted. Sorry, I wasn't clear then: we are not proposing that VBR or our reputation format be considered as actual solutions. They are concrete examples of approaches to whitelisting, which I think will help the discussion. I can recast the request as discussing whitelisting formats in the email world, of which these two are examples. >If we accept your request then other folks will rightfully argue >that they should also be allowed to give their presentation. The term in English is "floodgates". :-) Of course. --Paul Hoffman, Director --Domain Assurance Council _______________________________________________ Rucus mailing list Rucus@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus From rucus-bounces@ietf.org Wed Mar 5 11:21:25 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 296433A6F2D; Wed, 5 Mar 2008 11:21:25 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.491 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.491 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.054, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0jbv-Jj+Nnxo; Wed, 5 Mar 2008 11:21:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 598D828C207; Wed, 5 Mar 2008 11:21:24 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B07D3A6F2D for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2008 11:21:23 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id U15xJvvO3JxM for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2008 11:21:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from sj-iport-5.cisco.com (sj-iport-5.cisco.com [171.68.10.87]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 740AA3A6F0E for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2008 11:21:22 -0800 (PST) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.25,451,1199692800"; d="scan'208";a="16202018" Received: from sj-dkim-3.cisco.com ([171.71.179.195]) by sj-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 05 Mar 2008 11:21:12 -0800 Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (sj-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.177.237]) by sj-dkim-3.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m25JLCLX007609; Wed, 5 Mar 2008 11:21:12 -0800 Received: from dwingwxp01 ([10.32.240.196]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id m25JLBn1007337; Wed, 5 Mar 2008 19:21:12 GMT From: "Dan Wing" To: "'Paul Hoffman'" , References: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 11:21:11 -0800 Message-ID: <036301c87ef6$137b6e50$c4f0200a@cisco.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 In-Reply-To: Thread-Index: Ach+5hYxJsSQ7Vu8RfCbQmD9WiJrzwAD8F8Q DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1345; t=1204744872; x=1205608872; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim3002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=dwing@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Dan=20Wing=22=20 |Subject:=20RE=3A=20[Rucus]=20Can=20I=20get=2010=20minutes= 20on=20the=20agenda=20for=20the=20RUCUS=20BoF? |Sender:=20; bh=2rXqZqhAhaqu017Aw++uyCELmOp+zNlVZtwJ6fARKKE=; b=umWkM9I6tyREm5UjrWBtWmDe2szvFUVNBEm7L9sMZdrh2HBYoL7aygKYuz giZ0qlVZk57c2j2eKSjRndTfqFqjJ11TFkLjWeJ2eTLtgoBJG5ke8t5XjKbH NNWwFuYtgD; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-3; header.From=dwing@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim3002 verified; ); Subject: Re: [Rucus] Can I get 10 minutes on the agenda for the RUCUS BoF? X-BeenThere: rucus@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Reducing Unwanted Communication Using SIP \(RUCUS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: rucus-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rucus-bounces@ietf.org > -----Original Message----- > From: rucus-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rucus-bounces@ietf.org] > On Behalf Of Paul Hoffman > Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 9:26 AM > To: rucus@ietf.org > Subject: [Rucus] Can I get 10 minutes on the agenda for the RUCUS BoF? > > Greetings. Wearing my Domain Assurance Council hat, I would like to > do a very brief presentation about DAC's two independent submission > drafts that directly relate to RUCUS. The first, > draft-hoffman-dac-vbr-03.txt, is a way for reputation providers to > whitelist particular types of content from a domain. It is meant for > email, but could easily be extended to SIP if there is interest. That draft seems it could be useful for SIP's E.164 identity problem, too. -d > The > second, draft-hoffman-dac-domainrepdata-01.txt, is a more generic way > for a reputation provider to send reputation that can be used by a > recipient to determine whether or not to accept { mail | calls }. > > You don't currently have much in the agenda on whitelisting, and > these are getting a fair amount of interest in the email reputation > market. > > --Paul Hoffman, Director > --Domain Assurance Council > _______________________________________________ > Rucus mailing list > Rucus@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus _______________________________________________ Rucus mailing list Rucus@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus From rucus-bounces@ietf.org Wed Mar 5 13:14:00 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 334A428C2F9; Wed, 5 Mar 2008 13:14:00 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.986 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.986 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.550, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, HTML_MESSAGE=1, RDNS_NONE=0.1, WHOIS_NETSOLPR=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IuyvfjzdZUWD; Wed, 5 Mar 2008 13:13:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5209828C124; Wed, 5 Mar 2008 13:13:59 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACD2B3A68CA for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2008 13:13:58 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bswbBD5FhsAi for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2008 13:13:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com (sj-iport-6.cisco.com [171.71.176.117]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3148228C124 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2008 13:13:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from sj-dkim-1.cisco.com ([171.71.179.21]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 05 Mar 2008 13:13:47 -0800 Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (sj-core-2.cisco.com [171.71.177.254]) by sj-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m25LDl3I022219 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2008 13:13:47 -0800 Received: from dwingwxp01 ([10.32.240.196]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id m25LDkLh005443 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2008 21:13:46 GMT From: "Dan Wing" To: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 13:13:47 -0800 Message-ID: <04fb01c87f05$cdd8a330$c4f0200a@cisco.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 Thread-Index: Ach/Bc1hufv1WLJuRy+M+FKCX/geIQ== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=2255; t=1204751627; x=1205615627; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim1004; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=dwing@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Dan=20Wing=22=20 |Subject:=20article=3A=20Six=20botnets=20churning=20out=208 5=20percent=20of=20all=20spam |Sender:=20; bh=eefc3y0BkPXp+PnDFlZbYWJYgPvtzw38X9V77DkduN4=; b=IWZQTfKVK5pM5qHsxBrbXcduzw9sT4CU2qWEDYj83oYCHaQq2VPHy9FSdJ V5/W0azH7tA3fw1ITJh4/f7in+b+Dm2+BmDNrD0TFJBWCUYJwQlLqzOCLCTO +ynBkXEmzBwQNO8Mu3fEyjpm2+s/X/yp4KWYk81r9QeeBXen3xdpI=; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-1; header.From=dwing@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim1004 verified; ); Subject: [Rucus] article: Six botnets churning out 85 percent of all spam X-BeenThere: rucus@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Reducing Unwanted Communication Using SIP \(RUCUS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0000776042==" Sender: rucus-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rucus-bounces@ietf.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --===============0000776042== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_04FC_01C87EC2.BFB56330" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_04FC_01C87EC2.BFB56330 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To get a feeling of botnets and their contribution to today's email spam: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080305-six-botnets-churning-out-85-perc ent-of-all-spam.html "... At its peak, the Storm network accounted for 21 percent of all spam and contained an estimated 85,000 bots. Mega-D, on the other hand, grew to encompass 32 percent of the spam network in early February, but contained only an estimated 35,000 bots. ..." http://www.marshal.com/trace/traceitem.asp?article=567 -d ------=_NextPart_000_04FC_01C87EC2.BFB56330 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

To get a feeling of botnets and their contribution to = today's=20 email spam:


        http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/2= 0080305-six-botnets-churning-out-85-percent-of-all-spam.html

&= nbsp;    
      &nbs= p;=20 "...
        At its peak, the = Storm=20 network accounted for 21 percent of all spam and contained an estimated = 85,000=20 bots. Mega-D, on the other hand, grew to encompass 32 percent of the = spam=20 network in early February, but contained only an estimated 35,000=20 bots.
       =20 ..."

        http://= www.marshal.com/trace/traceitem.asp?article=3D567

-d




------=_NextPart_000_04FC_01C87EC2.BFB56330-- --===============0000776042== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Rucus mailing list Rucus@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus --===============0000776042==-- From rucus-bounces@ietf.org Thu Mar 6 01:07:33 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27B7828C822; Thu, 6 Mar 2008 01:07:33 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.485 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.485 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.048, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EWZRRzHh07QH; Thu, 6 Mar 2008 01:07:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 717CB28C3A6; Thu, 6 Mar 2008 01:07:32 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30DC43A6A04 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2008 01:07:31 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wtT-c9C-jkKw for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2008 01:07:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.bofh.priv.at (fardach.bofh.priv.at [88.198.34.164]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F9C928C170 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2008 01:07:30 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail.bofh.priv.at (Postfix, from userid 1000) id BDB9B4C975; Thu, 6 Mar 2008 10:07:17 +0100 (CET) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2008 10:07:17 +0100 From: Otmar Lendl To: rucus@ietf.org Message-ID: <20080306090717.GA15733@bofh.priv.at> References: <04fb01c87f05$cdd8a330$c4f0200a@cisco.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <04fb01c87f05$cdd8a330$c4f0200a@cisco.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) Subject: Re: [Rucus] article: Six botnets churning out 85 percent of all spam X-BeenThere: rucus@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Reducing Unwanted Communication Using SIP \(RUCUS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: rucus-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rucus-bounces@ietf.org On 2008/03/05 22:03, Dan Wing wrote: > To get a feeling of botnets and their contribution to today's email spam: > > "... > At its peak, the Storm network accounted for 21 percent of all spam > and contained an estimated 85,000 bots. Mega-D, on the other hand, grew to > encompass 32 percent of the spam network in early February, but contained only > an estimated 35,000 bots. > ..." If we think that the threat to open SIP proxies is comparable to the spam problem in the current email ecosystem, then this bodes ill for any approach which is based on trust between originating and terminating SIP provider. (e.g. interface (b) from draft-niccolini-sipping-spitstop-01) /ol -- -=- Otmar Lendl -- ol@bofh.priv.at -=- _______________________________________________ Rucus mailing list Rucus@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus From rucus-bounces@ietf.org Thu Mar 6 01:49:02 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8284A28C859; Thu, 6 Mar 2008 01:49:02 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.493 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.493 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.056, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id L+o3z-TV-TLY; Thu, 6 Mar 2008 01:49:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3F6E28C84F; Thu, 6 Mar 2008 01:49:01 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80C0A28C837 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2008 01:48:59 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AtYdvW+AZYF5 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2008 01:48:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.bofh.priv.at (fardach.bofh.priv.at [88.198.34.164]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AD1B28C80B for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2008 01:48:29 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail.bofh.priv.at (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 053C14C978; Thu, 6 Mar 2008 10:48:18 +0100 (CET) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2008 10:48:18 +0100 From: Otmar Lendl To: rucus@ietf.org Message-ID: <20080306094818.GB15733@bofh.priv.at> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) Subject: Re: [Rucus] Can I get 10 minutes on the agenda for the RUCUS BoF? X-BeenThere: rucus@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Reducing Unwanted Communication Using SIP \(RUCUS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: rucus-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rucus-bounces@ietf.org On 2008/03/05 18:03, Paul Hoffman wrote: > Greetings. Wearing my Domain Assurance Council hat, I would like to > do a very brief presentation about DAC's two independent submission > drafts that directly relate to RUCUS. The first, > draft-hoffman-dac-vbr-03.txt, is a way for reputation providers to > whitelist particular types of content from a domain. It is meant for > email, but could easily be extended to SIP if there is interest. The > second, draft-hoffman-dac-domainrepdata-01.txt, is a more generic way > for a reputation provider to send reputation that can be used by a > recipient to determine whether or not to accept { mail | calls }. > > You don't currently have much in the agenda on whitelisting, and > these are getting a fair amount of interest in the email reputation > market. The dac drafts sound like a KISS solution to the referral/whitelist problem. As such, they could be very valuable to any whitelist based anti-spit architecture. Certainly worth considering. I won't be in Philly, but I encourage this group to get as much input and experience from the email side of the spam-battle as possible. I have this nagging feeling that if the anti-spam veterans look at some of the proposals here, they'd give polite harumphs and explain to us that "yes, we thought of that 5 years ago, and it doesn't work because of X, Y and Z". As a consequence, what about adding another mandatory section to rucus I-D (like Security and IANA Considerations) called "Applicability to SPAM Considerations"? In that section, the author must explain either why this approach could also help with SPAM, or why in his view the analogy to email does not apply. /ol -- -=- Otmar Lendl -- ol@bofh.priv.at -=- _______________________________________________ Rucus mailing list Rucus@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus From rucus-bounces@ietf.org Sun Mar 9 15:08:52 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5422728C277; Sun, 9 Mar 2008 15:08:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -99.266 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.266 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.285, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, FROM_EXCESS_BASE64=1.456, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 853Fb47Enl86; Sun, 9 Mar 2008 15:08:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15D0E28C15D; Sun, 9 Mar 2008 15:08:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2B2E3A6850 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2008 15:08:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uPATXr078Sw6 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2008 15:08:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp03.bis.na.blackberry.com (smtp03.bis.na.blackberry.com [216.9.248.50]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D022F3A67FA for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2008 15:08:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bxe008.bisx.prod.on.blackberry (bxe008.bisx.prod.on.blackberry [172.20.225.27]) by srs.bis.na.blackberry.com (8.13.7 TEAMON/8.13.7) with ESMTP id m29LgCmY009842 for rucus@ietf.org; Sun, 9 Mar 2008 22:06:25 GMT X-rim-org-msg-ref-id: 429182561 Message-ID: <429182561-1205100385-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-402098813-@bxe008.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> X-Priority: Normal Sensitivity: Normal Importance: Normal To: rucus@ietf.org From: "=?utf-8?B?RGFuIFlvcms=?=" Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2008 22:07:17 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [Rucus] Jabber chat room for RUCUS BOF? (For remote participants) X-BeenThere: rucus@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: dyork@voxeo.com List-Id: "Reducing Unwanted Communication Using SIP \(RUCUS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: rucus-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rucus-bounces@ietf.org I just tried to connect to the chatroom rucus@jabber.ietf.org and it doesn't work. Do we use another room? Dan -- Dan York, CISSP, Director of Emerging Communication Technology Office of the CTO Voxeo Corporation dyork@voxeo.com Phone: +1-407-455-5859 Skype: danyork http://www.voxeo.com Blogs: http://blogs.voxeo.com http://www.disruptivetelephony.com Bring your web applications to the phone. Find out how at http://evolution.voxeo.com _______________________________________________ Rucus mailing list Rucus@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus From rucus-bounces@ietf.org Mon Mar 10 07:43:44 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9D8728E1F6; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 07:43:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -98.023 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-98.023 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.188, BAYES_50=0.001, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id afMHcyKmwG2J; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 07:43:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DAB2528D2D8; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 07:25:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D4F128CEF9 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 07:25:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wL8SdOzo0jCt for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 07:25:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from xconnect.net (host81-149-118-212.in-addr.btopenworld.com [81.149.118.212]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFA8A293DE4 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 06:49:07 -0700 (PDT) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 13:46:45 -0000 Message-ID: <062B8EE81F2EC945A577C3EFAE1DD68E99619F@mail.xconnect.net> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Rucus] Review of David's RUCUS Problem Statement Thread-Index: AciCtS44BH2xhxF5T+aWfCM6wBaV8g== From: "David Schwartz" To: Cc: rucus@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Rucus] Review of David's RUCUS Problem Statement X-BeenThere: rucus@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Reducing Unwanted Communication Using SIP \(RUCUS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0051452051==" Sender: rucus-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rucus-bounces@ietf.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --===============0051452051== Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C882B5.2E4C0AAE" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C882B5.2E4C0AAE Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Dan and sorry for the VERY late response to this... inline... On Feb 19, 2008, at 2:14 AM, Dan York wrote: Okay, so here are some comments about David's "problem statement" as = shown here: = http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-schwartz-rucus-problem-statemen= t-01.txt First, I do think documents like this are useful to help us refine what = it is we want to talk about at our meeting in Philadelphia, so thanks, = David, for taking the time to write this. Stepping through the document: 1. Introduction =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D A couple of comments: First, I don't know that I would characterize the attacks mentioned in = RFC5039 only as "misrepresentation". I view it as broader than that, = but then I guess I have some issues with how you have characterized it = (but more on that in a moment). DS: When I think of SPAM I think of EVIL and NAUGHTY with = misrepresentation falling into the EVIL camp and calls at 2AM falling = into the NAUGHTY one. Upon re-reading 5039 I would agree that the types = of threats that are being discussed there are more of the NAUGHTY kind = and less of the EVIL kind. The main focus is that with costs dropping = to 0 bulk messaging is possible and hence the increase in the annoyance = factor. The caller is not necessarily "hiding" who he is and hence = solutions such as white/black etc. will work. Obviously the caller MAY = be hiding his identity as well as bulk messaging but this is not = necessarily the case and hence I would still not automatically put in = the EVIL camp.=20 EVIL =3D=3D misrepresentation. So I agree with your comment. Second, you indicate that this document and by extension this WG/BOF is = focusing on "all types of 'unwanted' commmunications". Perhaps here is = where we need to discuss drawing lines a bit further. When we think of = "SPIT" (or whatever you want to call it), who is the communication = attacking? The human using the device? Or the system? Or both? DS: I think we can agree that at this point we should focus ONLY on the = human and leave the system for later. When *I* think of "SPIT", I am thinking of unwanted calls that I (or the = voicemail system or other apps receiving calls on my behalf) receive. I = am not necessarily thinking of system probes (such as perhaps what you = define as Data Mining). DS: The probes were mentioned as a precursor to unwanted communications. = In the scoping of the problem it is important that we look at unwanted = communications from start to end and not just look at one point in the = lifetime a a spammer. In order to SPAM you have to first find out who to = spam. Ignoring the "mining" issue IMHO is potentially biasing the = solution space. Third, I've already commented on my view of "What should have been done = earlier". DS: noted 2. Unwanted Communication =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D When you say that solving the "misrepresentation" issue will "clearly = not eliminate SPAM", I am not sure I follow you. Perhaps again we don't = agree on what constitutes "SPAM". =20 DS: As I said above, I just think we need to focus on both EVIL and = NAUGHTY. Personally, I don't know that I would include "voice phishing" (THANK = YOU for not giving in to the media and calling it "vishing"!) in a = definition of SPIT/voice spam. As you indicate, it is often brought = about by email scams that entice someone to call a phone number where = the listener then hears realistic prompts. I agree this is a problem = and I agree that with SIP there are undoubtedly things we could do to = help with this. I just don't know that it's something we should = incorporate into the first round of "RUCUS". DS: The reason for this inclusion is that in essence it is the same = problem only in reverse. Instead of a VoIP phone initiating the call (to = a VoIP or PSTN number) the VoIP phone is terminating the call (from a = VoIP or PSTN number). Again, in the scoping process I do not want to = bias one direction over the other. It also goes back to my scoping question above - Reducing Unwanted = Communications to *whom*? DS: Thats just it. Its not only TO but FROM as well Per your other note I assume that "underprivileged" was left in by = mistake and will disappear from a future draft. DS: Yes - sorry for that unfortunate addition. 3. Data Mining =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D I understand your rationale for including this, i.e. that an attacker = could, for instance, query an ENUM server in preparation for a SPIT = attack. Again I wonder if this is something we can address. It does, = though, probably fit in the framework of things to consider. DS: I think so 4. B-Side Attacks =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D I don't personally like the name, as it doesn't seem to line up with = anything else I've really heard in the security space. Basically what = you are defining would be better called "Voice Phishing". As I stated = above, it's not clear to me that this is a fit for the BOF or is getting = too far out of scope. DS: The name can change - but as I discussed above I think we should = have this in the scoping of the problem. 5. Lack of Policy =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D I understand what you are getting at here but I'm not sure naming the = category "Lack of Policy" works. I don't have a better suggestion right = now... perhaps "Policy-related Attacks". I don't know. It's all about = "policy", certainly. I also agree that policy is subjective and needs to ultimately be under = the recipient's control. There may be days when I don't want to take = any phone calls from unknown callers... and their may be other days when = I'm in a chatty mood and willing to talk to absolutely anyone who calls. DS: Yes 6. Misrepresentation =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Again, I'm not entirely comfortable lumping all of RFC 5039 under the = heading of "Misrepresentation". I also think that if this is to be a = "problem statement" for the BOF it should have some text in here about = the attacks rather than simply referring to RFC5039. Just a brief = paragraph, perhaps, summarizing the category. DS: Version 02 :( 7. Regulatory =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Agreed this is something that does need to be thought of in the larger = picture. I need to think about this document a bit more and also think about what = is missing. It seems to me there are some other categories of unwanted = communication that aren't there, but right now they aren't jumping out = at me. DS: Thanks for detailed input and sorry for late response :( Regards, Dan --=20 Dan York, CISSP, Director of Emerging Communication Technology Office of the CTO Voxeo Corporation dyork@voxeo.com Phone: +1-407-455-5859 Skype: danyork http://www.voxeo.com Blogs: http://blogs.voxeo.com http://www.disruptivetelephony.com Bring your web applications to the phone. Find out how at http://evolution.voxeo.com ------_=_NextPart_001_01C882B5.2E4C0AAE Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: [Rucus] Review of David's RUCUS Problem Statement

Hi Dan and sorry for the VERY late response to = this...

inline...


On Feb 19, 2008, at 2:14 AM, Dan York wrote:

Okay, so here are some comments about David's "problem = statement" as shown here:

  http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-schwartz-rucu= s-problem-statement-01.txt

First, I do think documents like this are useful to help us refine what = it is we want to talk about at our meeting in Philadelphia, so thanks, = David, for taking the time to write this.

Stepping through the document:

1. Introduction
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
A couple of comments:
First, I don't know that I would characterize the attacks mentioned in = RFC5039 only as "misrepresentation".  I view it as = broader than that, but then I guess I have some issues with how you have = characterized it (but more on that in a moment).

DS: When I think of SPAM I think of EVIL and NAUGHTY with = misrepresentation falling into the EVIL camp and calls at 2AM falling = into the NAUGHTY one.  Upon re-reading 5039 I would agree that the = types of threats that are being discussed there are more of the NAUGHTY = kind and less of the EVIL kind.  The main focus is that with costs = dropping to 0 bulk messaging is possible and hence the increase in the = annoyance factor.  The caller is not necessarily "hiding" = who he is and hence solutions such as white/black etc. will work.  = Obviously the caller MAY be hiding his identity as well as bulk = messaging but this is not necessarily the case and hence I would still = not automatically put in the EVIL camp.

EVIL =3D=3D misrepresentation.

So I agree with your comment.

Second, you indicate that this document and by extension this WG/BOF is = focusing on "all types of 'unwanted' commmunications".  = Perhaps here is where we need to discuss drawing lines a bit = further.   When we think of "SPIT" (or whatever you = want to call it), who is the communication attacking? The human using = the device?  Or the system?  Or both?

DS: I think we can agree that at this point we should focus ONLY on the = human and leave the system for later.

When *I* think of "SPIT", I am thinking of unwanted calls that = I (or the voicemail system or other apps receiving calls on my behalf) = receive. I am not necessarily thinking of system probes (such as perhaps = what you define as Data Mining).

DS: The probes were mentioned as a precursor to unwanted communications. = In the scoping of the problem it is important that we look at unwanted = communications from start to end and not just look at one point in the = lifetime a a spammer. In order to SPAM you have to first find out who to = spam. Ignoring the "mining" issue IMHO is potentially biasing = the solution space.

Third, I've already commented on my view of "What should have been = done earlier".

DS: noted

2. Unwanted Communication
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
= When you say that solving the "misrepresentation" issue will = "clearly not eliminate SPAM", I am not sure I follow you. = Perhaps again we don't agree on what constitutes = "SPAM". 

DS: As I said above, I just think we need to focus on both EVIL and = NAUGHTY.

Personally, I don't know that I would include "voice phishing" = (THANK YOU for not giving in to the media and calling it = "vishing"!) in a definition of SPIT/voice spam.  As you = indicate, it is often brought about by email scams that entice someone = to call a phone number where the listener then hears realistic = prompts.  I agree this is a problem and I agree that with SIP there = are undoubtedly things we could do to help with this.  I just don't = know that it's something we should incorporate into the first round of = "RUCUS".

DS: The reason for this inclusion is that in essence it is the same = problem only in reverse. Instead of a VoIP phone initiating the call (to = a VoIP or PSTN number) the VoIP phone is terminating the call (from a = VoIP or PSTN number). Again, in the scoping process I do not want to = bias one direction over the other.

It also goes back to my scoping question above - Reducing Unwanted = Communications to *whom*?

DS: Thats just it. Its not only TO but FROM as well

Per your other note I assume that "underprivileged" was left = in by mistake and will disappear from a future draft.

DS: Yes - sorry for that unfortunate addition.

3. Data Mining
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
I understand your rationale for including this, i.e. that an attacker = could, for instance, query an ENUM server in preparation for a SPIT = attack. Again I wonder if this is something we can address.  It = does, though, probably fit in the framework of things to consider.

DS: I think so

4. B-Side Attacks
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
I don't personally like the name, as it doesn't seem to line up with = anything else I've really heard in the security space.  Basically = what you are defining would be better called "Voice = Phishing".  As I stated above, it's not clear to me that this = is a fit for the BOF or is getting too far out of scope.

DS: The name can change - but as I discussed above I think we should = have this in the scoping of the problem.

5. Lack of Policy
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
I understand what you are getting at here but I'm not sure naming the = category "Lack of Policy" works.  I don't have a better = suggestion right now... perhaps "Policy-related = Attacks".  I don't know.  It's all about = "policy", certainly.

I also agree that policy is subjective and needs to ultimately be under = the recipient's control.  There may be days when I don't want to = take any phone calls from unknown callers... and their may be other days = when I'm in a chatty mood and willing to talk to absolutely anyone who = calls.

DS: Yes

6. Misrepresentation
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Again, I'm not entirely comfortable lumping all of RFC 5039 under the = heading of "Misrepresentation". I also think that if this is = to be a "problem statement" for the BOF it should have some = text in here about the attacks rather than simply referring to = RFC5039.  Just a brief paragraph, perhaps, summarizing the = category.

DS: Version 02 :(

7. Regulatory
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Agreed this is something that does need to be thought of in the larger = picture.


I need to think about this document a bit more and also think about what = is missing. It seems to me there are some other categories of unwanted = communication that aren't there, but right now they aren't jumping out = at me.

DS: Thanks for detailed input and sorry for late response :(

Regards,
Dan
--
Dan York, CISSP, Director of Emerging Communication Technology
Office of the CTO    Voxeo = Corporation     dyork@voxeo.com
Phone: +1-407-455-5859  Skype: danyork  http://www.voxeo.com
Blogs: http://blogs.voxeo.com  http://www.disruptivetelephon= y.com

Bring your web applications to the phone.
Find out how at http://evolution.voxeo.com

------_=_NextPart_001_01C882B5.2E4C0AAE-- --===============0051452051== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Rucus mailing list Rucus@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus --===============0051452051==-- From rucus-bounces@ietf.org Mon Mar 10 08:34:32 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E5E628CCD6; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 08:34:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.83 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.83 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.393, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id b0qpIPymVrGg; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 08:34:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 568A828D29F; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 08:08:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70D3828D56A for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 08:08:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bmk4Jm2+TgEV for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 08:08:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.bofh.priv.at (fardach.bofh.priv.at [88.198.34.164]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E7073A6B93 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 07:41:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail.bofh.priv.at (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 7CE1A4C649; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 15:38:58 +0100 (CET) Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 15:38:58 +0100 From: Otmar Lendl To: rucus@ietf.org Message-ID: <20080310143858.GA32147@bofh.priv.at> References: <429182561-1205100385-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-402098813-@bxe008.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <429182561-1205100385-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-402098813-@bxe008.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) Subject: Re: [Rucus] Jabber chat room for RUCUS BOF? (For remote participants) X-BeenThere: rucus@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Reducing Unwanted Communication Using SIP \(RUCUS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: rucus-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rucus-bounces@ietf.org On 2008/03/09 23:03, Dan York wrote: > I just tried to connect to the chatroom rucus@jabber.ietf.org and it doesn't work. Do we use another room? > As I'll be participating via audio-feed/jabber only, this is relevant to me. If we can't get rucus@jabber.ietf.org up till the meeting, I propose to hijack the sipping channel. /ol -- -=- Otmar Lendl -- ol@bofh.priv.at -=- _______________________________________________ Rucus mailing list Rucus@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus From rucus-bounces@ietf.org Mon Mar 10 09:23:49 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 527203A6D64; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 09:23:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.547 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.547 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.011, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8rDrmp8RGTk9; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 09:23:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BEB728CC7B; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 09:09:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01BD428CC7A for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 09:09:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oy067JACYTyr for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 09:09:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from voxeo.com (mmail.voxeo.com [66.193.54.208]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBF1028D0E0 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 08:46:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [130.129.23.41] (account dyork [130.129.23.41] verified) by voxeo.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.14) with ESMTPSA id 28640683 for rucus@ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 15:43:43 +0000 In-Reply-To: <429182561-1205100385-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-402098813-@bxe008.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> References: <429182561-1205100385-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-402098813-@bxe008.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753) X-Priority: Normal Message-Id: From: Dan York Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 11:43:42 -0400 To: rucus BoF X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.753) Subject: Re: [Rucus] Jabber chat room for RUCUS BOF? (For remote participants) X-BeenThere: rucus@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Reducing Unwanted Communication Using SIP \(RUCUS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0348956034==" Sender: rucus-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rucus-bounces@ietf.org --===============0348956034== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-27--776643599 --Apple-Mail-27--776643599 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed I have requested creation of "rucus@jabber.ietf.org" but if that doesn't get created in time, I'll suggest we use the SIPPING Jabber chat room at "sipping@jabber.ietf.org". Whatever the case we'll mention it on the audio stream. Dan On Mar 9, 2008, at 6:07 PM, Dan York wrote: > I just tried to connect to the chatroom rucus@jabber.ietf.org and > it doesn't work. Do we use another room? > > Dan > -- > Dan York, CISSP, Director of Emerging Communication Technology > Office of the CTO Voxeo Corporation dyork@voxeo.com > Phone: +1-407-455-5859 Skype: danyork http://www.voxeo.com > Blogs: http://blogs.voxeo.com http://www.disruptivetelephony.com > > Bring your web applications to the phone. > Find out how at http://evolution.voxeo.com > > _______________________________________________ > Rucus mailing list > Rucus@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus -- Dan York, CISSP, Director of Emerging Communication Technology Office of the CTO Voxeo Corporation dyork@voxeo.com Phone: +1-407-455-5859 Skype: danyork http://www.voxeo.com Blogs: http://blogs.voxeo.com http://www.disruptivetelephony.com Bring your web applications to the phone. Find out how at http://evolution.voxeo.com --Apple-Mail-27--776643599 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 I have requested creation of "rucus@jabber.ietf.org" but if = that doesn't get created in time, I'll suggest we use the SIPPING Jabber = chat room at "sipping@jabber.ietf.org".
=
Whatever the case = we'll mention it on the audio stream.

Dan

= On Mar 9, 2008, at 6:07 PM, Dan York wrote:

I just tried to connect to the chatroom rucus@jabber.ietf.org and it = doesn't work. Do we use another room?

Dan
--=A0
Dan = York, CISSP, Director of Emerging Communication Technology
Office of the CTO=A0 =A0 Voxeo Corporation =A0 =A0 dyork@voxeo.com
Phone: +1-407-455-5859=A0 Skype: danyork=A0 http://www.voxeo.com

Bring your web applications to the phone.

Rucus mailing list

--=A0
Dan York, = CISSP, Director of Emerging Communication Technology
Office of the CTO=A0 =A0=A0Voxeo Corporation=A0=A0 =A0=A0dyork@voxeo.com
Phone: +1-407-455-5859=A0=A0Skype: danyork=A0=A0http://www.voxeo.com

Bring your web applications to the phone.



=

= --Apple-Mail-27--776643599-- --===============0348956034== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Rucus mailing list Rucus@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus --===============0348956034==-- From rucus-bounces@ietf.org Mon Mar 10 09:39:58 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C2D03A7117; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 09:39:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.797 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.797 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.360, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iIhvCgF2A--q; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 09:39:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0C8528C3A6; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 09:23:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD6EC3A6F1C for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 09:22:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZnDFEWJ18kfY for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 09:22:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp0.neclab.eu (smtp0.neclab.eu [195.37.70.41]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A21628C74E for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 09:05:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost.office [127.0.0.1]) by smtp0.neclab.eu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 308EC2C01D460 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 17:02:40 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: Amavisd on Debian GNU/Linux (atlas2.office) Received: from smtp0.neclab.eu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (atlas2.office [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mfr7A8XRe2r1 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 17:02:40 +0100 (CET) Received: from mx1.office (mx1.office [10.1.1.23]) by smtp0.neclab.eu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1ABAB2C009E8E for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 17:02:35 +0100 (CET) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 17:02:34 +0100 Message-ID: <5F6519BF2DE0404D99B7C75607FF76FF53E8E1@mx1.office> In-Reply-To: <20080310143858.GA32147@bofh.priv.at> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Rucus] Jabber chat room for RUCUS BOF? (For remoteparticipants) Thread-Index: AciCxsKswpOJzYJ4T+i7zHly4fW4gAAAUv0w References: <429182561-1205100385-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-402098813-@bxe008.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> <20080310143858.GA32147@bofh.priv.at> From: "Saverio Niccolini" To: Subject: Re: [Rucus] Jabber chat room for RUCUS BOF? (For remoteparticipants) X-BeenThere: rucus@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Reducing Unwanted Communication Using SIP \(RUCUS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: rucus-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rucus-bounces@ietf.org Audio should be there, at least it is indicated in the list: http://videolab.uoregon.edu/events/ietf/ (search for rucus) Jabber room "rucus" does not work... Saverio ============================================================ Dr. Saverio Niccolini Senior Researcher NEC Laboratories Europe, Network Research Division Kurfuerstenanlage 36, D-69115 Heidelberg Tel. +49 (0)6221 4342-118 Fax: +49 (0)6221 4342-155 e-mail: saverio.niccolini@nw.neclab.eu <-- !!! NEW ADDRESS !!! ============================================================ NEC Europe Limited Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road, London W3 6BL Registered in England 2832014 > -----Original Message----- > From: rucus-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rucus-bounces@ietf.org] > On Behalf Of Otmar Lendl > Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 3:39 PM > To: rucus@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Rucus] Jabber chat room for RUCUS BOF? (For > remoteparticipants) > > On 2008/03/09 23:03, Dan York wrote: > > I just tried to connect to the chatroom > rucus@jabber.ietf.org and it doesn't work. Do we use another room? > > > > As I'll be participating via audio-feed/jabber only, this is > relevant to me. > > If we can't get rucus@jabber.ietf.org up till the meeting, I > propose to hijack the sipping channel. > > /ol > -- > -=- Otmar Lendl -- ol@bofh.priv.at -=- > _______________________________________________ > Rucus mailing list > Rucus@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus > _______________________________________________ Rucus mailing list Rucus@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus From rucus-bounces@ietf.org Mon Mar 10 10:12:47 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDC2228C468; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 10:12:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.564 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.564 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.028, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OVbZ6JqKGtpL; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 10:12:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC46D28C492; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 10:08:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EADF3A6EA1 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 10:08:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VH00f8cGpbbP for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 10:08:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from voxeo.com (mmail.voxeo.com [66.193.54.208]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9A7928C6C9 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 10:02:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [130.129.23.41] (account dyork [130.129.23.41] verified) by voxeo.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.14) with ESMTPSA id 28642675 for rucus@ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 17:00:16 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753) In-Reply-To: <5F6519BF2DE0404D99B7C75607FF76FF53E8E1@mx1.office> References: <429182561-1205100385-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-402098813-@bxe008.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> <20080310143858.GA32147@bofh.priv.at> <5F6519BF2DE0404D99B7C75607FF76FF53E8E1@mx1.office> Message-Id: <96E7ABF0-86DE-4360-971A-9E6036F61386@voxeo.com> From: Dan York Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 13:00:14 -0400 To: rucus BoF X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.753) Subject: Re: [Rucus] Jabber chat room for RUCUS BOF? (For remoteparticipants) X-BeenThere: rucus@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Reducing Unwanted Communication Using SIP \(RUCUS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0385260214==" Sender: rucus-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rucus-bounces@ietf.org --===============0385260214== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-31--772051861 --Apple-Mail-31--772051861 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Info on how to connect here: http://voipsa.org/blog/2008/03/10/info-on-how-to-listen-remotely- to-todays-rucus-session-at-ietf/ We WILL be using the SIPPING jabber chat room at sipping@jabber.ietf.org Dan On Mar 10, 2008, at 12:02 PM, Saverio Niccolini wrote: > Audio should be there, at least it is indicated in the list: > http://videolab.uoregon.edu/events/ietf/ > (search for rucus) > > Jabber room "rucus" does not work... > > Saverio > > ============================================================ > Dr. Saverio Niccolini > Senior Researcher > NEC Laboratories Europe, Network Research Division > Kurfuerstenanlage 36, D-69115 Heidelberg > Tel. +49 (0)6221 4342-118 > Fax: +49 (0)6221 4342-155 > e-mail: saverio.niccolini@nw.neclab.eu <-- !!! NEW ADDRESS !!! > ============================================================ > NEC Europe Limited Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria > Road, London W3 6BL Registered in England 2832014 > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: rucus-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rucus-bounces@ietf.org] >> On Behalf Of Otmar Lendl >> Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 3:39 PM >> To: rucus@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: [Rucus] Jabber chat room for RUCUS BOF? (For >> remoteparticipants) >> >> On 2008/03/09 23:03, Dan York wrote: >>> I just tried to connect to the chatroom >> rucus@jabber.ietf.org and it doesn't work. Do we use another room? >>> >> >> As I'll be participating via audio-feed/jabber only, this is >> relevant to me. >> >> If we can't get rucus@jabber.ietf.org up till the meeting, I >> propose to hijack the sipping channel. >> >> /ol >> -- >> -=- Otmar Lendl -- ol@bofh.priv.at -=- >> _______________________________________________ >> Rucus mailing list >> Rucus@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus >> > _______________________________________________ > Rucus mailing list > Rucus@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus -- Dan York, CISSP, Director of Emerging Communication Technology Office of the CTO Voxeo Corporation dyork@voxeo.com Phone: +1-407-455-5859 Skype: danyork http://www.voxeo.com Blogs: http://blogs.voxeo.com http://www.disruptivetelephony.com Bring your web applications to the phone. Find out how at http://evolution.voxeo.com --Apple-Mail-31--772051861 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Info on how to connect here:

We WILL be using the = SIPPING jabber chat room at sipping@jabber.ietf.org
<= div>
Dan

= On Mar 10, 2008, at 12:02 PM, Saverio Niccolini wrote:

Audio should be there, at least it is indicated in = the list:
(search for = rucus)

Jabber room "rucus" does not work...


Dr. Saverio = Niccolini
Senior Researcher
NEC Laboratories Europe, Network Research = Division =
Kurfuerstenanlage 36, D-69115 = Heidelberg
Tel. =A0 =A0 +49 (0)6221 = 4342-118
Fax: =A0 =A0 +49 (0)6221 = 4342-155
e-mail:=A0 saverio.niccolini@nw.neclab= .eu <-- !!! NEW ADDRESS !!!
NEC Europe = Limited Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria
Road, London W3 6BL Registered in England = 2832014



-----Original Message-----
From: rucus-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rucus-bounces@ietf.org]<= span class=3D"Apple-converted-space">=A0
On Behalf Of Otmar Lendl
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 3:39 PM
Subject: Re: [Rucus] Jabber chat room for RUCUS BOF? = (For=A0
remoteparticipants)

On 2008/03/09 = 23:03, Dan York <dyork@voxeo.com> wrote:
=
I just tried to connect to = the chatroom=A0
=
rucus@jabber.ietf.org and it = doesn't work. Do we use another room?


As I'll = be participating via audio-feed/jabber only, this is=A0
relevant = to me.

If we can't get rucus@jabber.ietf.org up till = the meeting, I=A0
propose to hijack the sipping channel.=A0

/ol
--
-=3D-=A0 Otmar Lendl=A0 --=A0 ol@bofh.priv.at=A0 -=3D-=A0
Rucus mailing list

Rucus mailing list

--=A0
Dan York, = CISSP, Director of Emerging Communication Technology
Office of the CTO=A0 =A0=A0Voxeo Corporation=A0=A0 =A0=A0dyork@voxeo.com
Phone: +1-407-455-5859=A0=A0Skype: danyork=A0=A0http://www.voxeo.com

Bring your web applications to the phone.



=
= --Apple-Mail-31--772051861-- --===============0385260214== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Rucus mailing list Rucus@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus --===============0385260214==-- From rucus-bounces@ietf.org Mon Mar 10 10:18:51 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 263CF3A6D11; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 10:18:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.583 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.583 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.047, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OVXUWwhb8tgO; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 10:18:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B656B3A6F3F; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 10:15:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C6793A6CB4 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 10:15:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0jICKAiNSIPu for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 10:15:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from voxeo.com (mmail.voxeo.com [66.193.54.208]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 585BF28C27F for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 10:11:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [130.129.23.41] (account dyork [130.129.23.41] verified) by voxeo.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.14) with ESMTPSA id 28642924 for rucus@ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 17:09:28 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753) To: rucus BoF Message-Id: <1DD6BA23-472C-4308-932E-70730E6B6A8C@voxeo.com> From: Dan York Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 13:09:27 -0400 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.753) Subject: [Rucus] Jabber chat room is - rucus@jabber.ietf.org X-BeenThere: rucus@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Reducing Unwanted Communication Using SIP \(RUCUS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1469580039==" Sender: rucus-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rucus-bounces@ietf.org --===============1469580039== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-32--771499463 --Apple-Mail-32--771499463 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed ... it got created before the meeting so we'll use it and NOT using sipping. Server: jabber.ietf.org Groupchat room: rucus -- Dan York, CISSP, Director of Emerging Communication Technology Office of the CTO Voxeo Corporation dyork@voxeo.com Phone: +1-407-455-5859 Skype: danyork http://www.voxeo.com Blogs: http://blogs.voxeo.com http://www.disruptivetelephony.com Bring your web applications to the phone. Find out how at http://evolution.voxeo.com --Apple-Mail-32--771499463 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 ... it got created before the meeting so we'll use it and NOT using = sipping.

Server: = jabber.ietf.org
Groupchat room: rucus

--=A0
Dan York, = CISSP, Director of Emerging Communication Technology
Office of the CTO=A0 =A0=A0Voxeo Corporation=A0=A0 =A0=A0dyork@voxeo.com
Phone: +1-407-455-5859=A0=A0Skype: danyork=A0=A0http://www.voxeo.com

Bring your web applications to the phone.



=

= --Apple-Mail-32--771499463-- --===============1469580039== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Rucus mailing list Rucus@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus --===============1469580039==-- From rucus-bounces@ietf.org Mon Mar 10 11:06:13 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8FE43A68B9; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 11:06:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.644 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.644 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.108, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Zk3IfSs6dm6u; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 11:06:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB52D28C211; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 11:06:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10B0028C2F5 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 11:06:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ef9DX7IGilcZ for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 11:06:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from voxeo.com (mmail.voxeo.com [66.193.54.208]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71FAD3A69C5 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 11:06:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [130.129.23.41] (account dyork [130.129.23.41] verified) by voxeo.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.14) with ESMTPSA id 28644205 for rucus@ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 18:03:45 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753) To: rucus BoF Message-Id: <07EBD76B-2687-4A61-830A-59105743BA22@voxeo.com> From: Dan York Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 14:03:44 -0400 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.753) Subject: [Rucus] Raising questions remotely... with the Jabber server down... X-BeenThere: rucus@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Reducing Unwanted Communication Using SIP \(RUCUS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0220422943==" Sender: rucus-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rucus-bounces@ietf.org --===============0220422943== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-38--768242421 --Apple-Mail-38--768242421 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed RUCUS members, The IETF Jabber server seems to be going up and down... if you are listening to the audio and want to raise a question, feel free to IM me at one of these addresses: Jabber: dyork@jabber.org Skype: danyork MSN/WLM: dyork@lodestar2.com Yahoo: danyork324 AIM: danyork324 Regards, Dan -- Dan York, CISSP, Director of Emerging Communication Technology Office of the CTO Voxeo Corporation dyork@voxeo.com Phone: +1-407-455-5859 Skype: danyork http://www.voxeo.com Blogs: http://blogs.voxeo.com http://www.disruptivetelephony.com Bring your web applications to the phone. Find out how at http://evolution.voxeo.com --Apple-Mail-38--768242421 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 RUCUS members,

The = IETF Jabber server seems to be going up and down... if you are listening = to the audio and want to raise a question, feel free to IM me at one of = these addresses:

Jabber: =A0 = dyork@jabber.org
Skype: = = danyork
Yaho= o: =A0=A0 = danyork324
AIM: danyork324

Regards,
Dan

--=A0
Dan York, = CISSP, Director of Emerging Communication Technology
Office of the CTO=A0 =A0=A0Voxeo Corporation=A0=A0 =A0=A0dyork@voxeo.com
Phone: +1-407-455-5859=A0=A0Skype: danyork=A0=A0http://www.voxeo.com

Bring your web applications to the phone.



=

= --Apple-Mail-38--768242421-- --===============0220422943== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Rucus mailing list Rucus@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus --===============0220422943==-- From rucus-bounces@ietf.org Mon Mar 10 11:18:27 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C50153A6A09; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 11:18:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.648 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.648 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.112, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id I40YjQ83wPjv; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 11:18:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1ABE3A6A12; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 11:18:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 944563A6A4B for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 11:18:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fYM3GJw8v4YD for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 11:18:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from voxeo.com (mmail.voxeo.com [66.193.54.208]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62CCE3A6A04 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 11:18:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [130.129.23.41] (account dyork [130.129.23.41] verified) by voxeo.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.14) with ESMTPSA id 28644556 for rucus@ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 18:15:42 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753) To: rucus BoF Message-Id: <14AD196D-5292-4B88-ADBF-4A0F338C7C44@voxeo.com> From: Dan York Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 14:15:41 -0400 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.753) Subject: [Rucus] Jabber server back up... X-BeenThere: rucus@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Reducing Unwanted Communication Using SIP \(RUCUS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0709499325==" Sender: rucus-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rucus-bounces@ietf.org --===============0709499325== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-40--767525492 --Apple-Mail-40--767525492 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed The Jabber server is back up... jabber.ietf.org groupchat room: rucus Hopefully it stays up, Dan -- Dan York, CISSP, Director of Emerging Communication Technology Office of the CTO Voxeo Corporation dyork@voxeo.com Phone: +1-407-455-5859 Skype: danyork http://www.voxeo.com Blogs: http://blogs.voxeo.com http://www.disruptivetelephony.com Bring your web applications to the phone. Find out how at http://evolution.voxeo.com --Apple-Mail-40--767525492 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 The Jabber server is back = up...

jabber.ietf.org
gr= oupchat room: =A0rucus

Hopefully it stays = up,
Dan

--=A0
Dan York, = CISSP, Director of Emerging Communication Technology
Office of the CTO=A0 =A0=A0Voxeo Corporation=A0=A0 =A0=A0dyork@voxeo.com
Phone: +1-407-455-5859=A0=A0Skype: danyork=A0=A0http://www.voxeo.com

Bring your web applications to the phone.



=

= --Apple-Mail-40--767525492-- --===============0709499325== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Rucus mailing list Rucus@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus --===============0709499325==-- From rucus-bounces@ietf.org Mon Mar 10 14:46:43 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8730B28C2E4; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 14:46:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.168 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.168 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.081, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SVcGG3DyUDMP; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 14:46:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA32528C271; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 14:46:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F4D43A6CC8 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 14:46:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EH5foi4jk211 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 14:46:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smail6.alcatel.fr (colt-na7.alcatel.fr [62.23.212.7]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 280CC28C1F3 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 14:46:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from FRVELSBHS02.ad2.ad.alcatel.com (frvelsbhs02.ad2.ad.alcatel.com [155.132.6.74]) by smail6.alcatel.fr (8.13.8/8.13.8/ICT) with ESMTP id m2ALeTA2012033 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 22:40:29 +0100 Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([155.132.188.76]) by FRVELSBHS02.ad2.ad.alcatel.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.2499); Mon, 10 Mar 2008 22:44:18 +0100 Message-ID: <47D5ABAE.4040504@alcatel-lucent.fr> Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 22:44:14 +0100 From: Thomas Froment User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (Windows/20080213) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: rucus@ietf.org X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Mar 2008 21:44:18.0734 (UTC) FILETIME=[E4CEA4E0:01C882F7] X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 155.132.188.84 Subject: [Rucus] RUCUS direction? X-BeenThere: rucus@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Reducing Unwanted Communication Using SIP \(RUCUS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: rucus-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rucus-bounces@ietf.org My 2 cents, after today's BOF, I am trying to formalize what contributions could be in the scope of a future RUCUS "exploratory group", as suggested in particular by Jonathan Rosenberg. I do so, because, it seems some people asked for 'use cases' documents, some other for 'deployment example' or even 'architecture' documents, and, at the end, I am not sure it is really what was really suggested. I understood (stop me as soon as I write something wrong), it was suggested to concentrate on documents (let's call them 'applicability documents') that answer the following requirements: - Each document SHOULD address only one specific 'technique' (not sure about this word), e.g.: feedback mechanisms, SPIT policies, any individual solution building blocks that are discussed in RFC 5039, ... - Documents SHOULD NOT discuss the techniques themselves: they should only reference state of the art specs / publications and so on... - They SHOULD describe/give the full applicability description of the technique, in particular: * are there some specific deployment hypothesis lying underneath the technique? * what use case(s) does it address? * Is the addressed use case something that is (already, or likely to be) a real threat? (if possible quantify, or give a concrete example) * Why the standardization of the technique would improve the situation? * What happens if not standardized? * What is the likelihood of being used/deployed? * How could that technique become obsolete (this to address the concern about 'SPAM keeps changing', but I don't know if it is clear written like this...), - Usefull content (forgetting the draft template) SHOULD NOT be more than 2 pages (not sure about this one too ;-)). Output of all these documents in the context of an exploratory group should be a WG charter proposal... Is it the correct direction? Thomas _______________________________________________ Rucus mailing list Rucus@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus From rucus-bounces@ietf.org Mon Mar 10 14:57:40 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B32643A6917; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 14:57:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.832 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.832 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.605, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, GB_I_INVITATION=-2, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lKv7fWiMfpB7; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 14:57:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4608128C11A; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 14:57:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D5F83A68BD for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 14:57:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ioi7VjbZskiv for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 14:57:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.bofh.priv.at (fardach.bofh.priv.at [88.198.34.164]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86B0728C0E5 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 14:57:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail.bofh.priv.at (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 382344C64E; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 22:55:12 +0100 (CET) Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 22:55:12 +0100 From: Otmar Lendl To: rucus@ietf.org Message-ID: <20080310215512.GA10791@bofh.priv.at> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) Subject: [Rucus] Some comments on today's presentation X-BeenThere: rucus@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Reducing Unwanted Communication Using SIP \(RUCUS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: rucus-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rucus-bounces@ietf.org Despite Dan's heroic efforts as the jabber/skype scribe, I declined to raise questions via him (unless it's a simple question on a slow session, it's not worth the effort). There were a few notable points during the presentations which merit a response, though: Can someone please upload the slides of the CDT presentation? --- From Henning's presentation: I think slide 4 (categorization of groups) is way too simplistic. You *want* to be able to reach your kid if your own phone broke down (lost, out-of-batteries, some emergency) and you have to borrow one from a stranger. The Detection vs. Action slide is good. Way too much focus has been on the detection part. Much more interesting (IMHO at least from a protocol design point of view) is the Action part. If my oracle/policy decides not to let a legitimate call through directly (e.g. no whitelist entry), then what are the fall-back mechanisms with which the caller can get through? Perhaps some sort of fall-back routing via a premium rate line provider which may charge serious money for the service. (As someone rightly said: if a caller is prepared to pay 1$/min for talking with me, I'm inclined to pick up the phone.) --- On the 5039 presentation, the color-coded lists was good as it IMHO basically gave a possible solution in green: * Use "Centralized Providers" to guarantee reachability (Whether it's on SIP or or TDM doesn't matter that much). * Use "circles of trust" to provide arbitrage possibilities to smaller providers (or enterprises) against the big centralized ones * Use Consent/Whitelist schemes to enable direct IP calling for those 90% (or whatever) of calls which stay in close social groups. --- Regarding Jim's slides: Concerning "legacy": The overall inter-domain call routing architectures of SMTP and SIP are identical, but the legacy isn't. Isn't that an invitation to see whether we can't just use that difference to find a solution to SPIT where there is none to SPAM? In a nutshell: on the email side, everybody needs to talk to everybody else: if you mess with that, you break email. On the SIP side, we currently have islands of SIP networks, with the PSTN as connecting network. In real deployments, not everybody is talking to everybody else. The email side is battling to keep the bad guys out. They start from "I accept every connection" and try to find reasons to block a specific email. The state of the game is different in the VoIP world: Zero SIP interconnection is the norm (the PSTN is used), and people can look for reasons why they should allow connections in. That reason for letting someone connect to your SIP server doesn't need to be perfect and fail-safe. It just needs to be in the same range of SPIT-risk as an SS7 trunk connection. --- To summarize: focusing on SPIT detection is a fool's game and the path into an endless spy-vs-spy evolutionary escalation with the adversary. (as with email and spam-detection). Don't. Go. There. What's needed is a more flexible call routing algorithm such that a false positive (or incomplete whitelists, ...) is not the end of a call. Once we have flexibility here, then the individual building blocks don't need to be perfect. And we apply a judo-move on the PSTN and leverage the settlement and trust relationships built in there. Let them (or their SIP equivalents) deal with the 2% of calls which we can't handle with the straight forward "good-call detection" algorithms out there. /ol -- -=- Otmar Lendl -- ol@bofh.priv.at -=- _______________________________________________ Rucus mailing list Rucus@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus From rucus-bounces@ietf.org Mon Mar 10 16:03:48 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56B4B3A6B69; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 16:03:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.811 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.811 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.457, BAYES_00=-2.599, DIET_1=0.083, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LahbYszY5TDg; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 16:03:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF66B28C1B3; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 16:03:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77C8C3A6A6D for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 16:03:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 04G9XKjCGb0n for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 16:03:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from outbound-mail-136.bluehost.com (outbound-mail-136.bluehost.com [67.222.39.26]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id D61533A6ACD for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 16:03:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 30434 invoked by uid 0); 10 Mar 2008 23:01:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO box7.bluehost.com) (69.89.30.147) by outboundproxy4.bluehost.com with SMTP; 10 Mar 2008 23:01:22 -0000 Received: from dhcp-1382.ietf71.ietf.org ([130.129.19.130] helo=KingsMountain.com) by box7.bluehost.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1JYqzg-0001lM-Dy for rucus@ietf.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 17:01:20 -0600 X-Mailer: exmh version 2.7.2 01/07/2005 (debian 1:2.7.2-7) with nmh-1.1 To: rucus@ietf.org From: ' =JeffH ' Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 16:01:22 -0700 X-Identified-User: {32571:box7.bluehost.com:kingsmou:kingsmountain.com} {sentby:bopbeforesmtp 130.129.19.130 authed with kingsmountain.com} Message-Id: <20080310230343.D61533A6ACD@core3.amsl.com> Subject: [Rucus] fyi: VoIP competitors try to avoid spiting on their subscribers X-BeenThere: rucus@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: rucus@ietf.org List-Id: "Reducing Unwanted Communication Using SIP \(RUCUS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: rucus-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rucus-bounces@ietf.org conincidentally enuff, this msg appeared today amongst my mail influx shortly after the rucus BOF... =JeffH ------- Forwarded Message Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 12:15:56 -0700 From: dewayne@warpspeed.com (Dewayne Hendricks) To: Dewayne-Net Technology List Subject: [Dewayne-Net] VoIP competitors try to avoid spiting on their subscribe rs VoIP competitors try to avoid spiting on their subscribers Telecompetitor.com Welcome to the world of SPIT, op SPam over Internet Telephony. It's the latest craze for spammers and it=92s causing headaches for VoIP providers like Skype. SPIT is very analogous to SPAM, where VoIP subscribers receive actual unsolicited telephone calls offering typical SPAM type products like organ enlargement or weight loss pitches. The difference with SPIT though is can be much more damaging to a VoIP providers network because of the large bandwidth bottlenecks it can create. If not kept in check, SPIT can cause serious quality of service problems for VoIP providers, leading to a potential competitive disadvantage. ------- End of Forwarded Message _______________________________________________ Rucus mailing list Rucus@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus From rucus-bounces@ietf.org Mon Mar 10 16:51:18 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A0BE3A6BB5; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 16:51:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.053 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.053 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.616, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lDkRKAssffiq; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 16:51:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 952D83A69EB; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 16:51:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9882A3A69EB for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 16:51:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id INR8C72dboYy for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 16:51:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rtp-iport-1.cisco.com (rtp-iport-1.cisco.com [64.102.122.148]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 525653A6998 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 16:51:15 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.25,477,1199682000"; d="scan'208";a="1214479" Received: from rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com ([64.102.121.159]) by rtp-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 10 Mar 2008 19:48:55 -0400 Received: from rtp-core-1.cisco.com (rtp-core-1.cisco.com [64.102.124.12]) by rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m2ANmsrH006453; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 19:48:54 -0400 Received: from xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-211.cisco.com [64.102.31.102]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m2ANmsv4011239; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 23:48:54 GMT Received: from xfe-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.38]) by xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 10 Mar 2008 19:48:54 -0400 Received: from [10.82.249.222] ([10.82.249.222]) by xfe-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 10 Mar 2008 19:48:54 -0400 Message-ID: <47D5C8DE.9010806@cisco.com> Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 19:48:46 -0400 From: Jonathan Rosenberg User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Thomas Froment References: <47D5ABAE.4040504@alcatel-lucent.fr> In-Reply-To: <47D5ABAE.4040504@alcatel-lucent.fr> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Mar 2008 23:48:54.0538 (UTC) FILETIME=[4CBBCEA0:01C88309] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=2561; t=1205192934; x=1206056934; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim2001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=jdrosen@cisco.com; z=From:=20Jonathan=20Rosenberg=20 |Subject:=20Re=3A=20[Rucus]=20RUCUS=20direction? |Sender:=20 |To:=20Thomas=20Froment=20; bh=RwSIOxTYBSG89hAnnsUdZaqWXU+/DGtxz1ORJv+mblo=; b=OtoPuhM74IpJT2TO4vAng2XWfPpYl2xQZOYLFvV8HqVTkHkiDpM/4pMRUb Un0NCwpfsyR9kT7Tf9pDzg4q5exPeyuVXVOfc4MnSEhFVqj0HFAXoo6nK9wW I4CuKmMqIz; Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-2; header.From=jdrosen@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/rtpdkim2001 verified; ); Cc: rucus@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Rucus] RUCUS direction? X-BeenThere: rucus@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Reducing Unwanted Communication Using SIP \(RUCUS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: rucus-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rucus-bounces@ietf.org What you say below captures my understanding of what we discussed and hummed in favor of. -Jonathan R. Thomas Froment wrote: > My 2 cents, after today's BOF, I am trying to formalize what > contributions could be in the scope of a future RUCUS "exploratory > group", as suggested in particular by Jonathan Rosenberg. > I do so, because, it seems some people asked for 'use cases' documents, > some other for 'deployment example' or even 'architecture' documents, > and, at the end, I am not sure it is really what was really suggested. > > I understood (stop me as soon as I write something wrong), it was > suggested to concentrate on documents (let's call them 'applicability > documents') that answer the following requirements: > > - Each document SHOULD address only one specific 'technique' (not sure > about this word), e.g.: feedback mechanisms, SPIT policies, any > individual solution building blocks that are discussed in RFC 5039, ... > - Documents SHOULD NOT discuss the techniques themselves: they should > only reference state of the art specs / publications and so on... > - They SHOULD describe/give the full applicability description of the > technique, in particular: > * are there some specific deployment hypothesis lying underneath the > technique? > * what use case(s) does it address? > * Is the addressed use case something that is (already, or likely to be) > a real threat? (if possible quantify, or give a concrete example) > * Why the standardization of the technique would improve the situation? > * What happens if not standardized? > * What is the likelihood of being used/deployed? > * How could that technique become obsolete (this to address the concern > about 'SPAM keeps changing', but I don't know if it is clear written > like this...), > > - Usefull content (forgetting the draft template) SHOULD NOT be more > than 2 pages (not sure about this one too ;-)). > > Output of all these documents in the context of an exploratory group > should be a WG charter proposal... > Is it the correct direction? > > Thomas > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Rucus mailing list > Rucus@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus > -- Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D. 499 Thornall St. Cisco Fellow Edison, NJ 08837 Cisco, Voice Technology Group jdrosen@cisco.com http://www.jdrosen.net PHONE: (408) 902-3084 http://www.cisco.com _______________________________________________ Rucus mailing list Rucus@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus From rucus-bounces@ietf.org Wed Mar 19 06:23:20 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3417C28C49D; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 06:23:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.518 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.518 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.081, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5jQUpnG+tPXi; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 06:23:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3372B28C42D; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 06:23:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D28C43A6D31 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 06:23:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id l+5+p4lqofff for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 06:23:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wx-out-0506.google.com (wx-out-0506.google.com [66.249.82.224]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F7F43A6BD3 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 06:23:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wx-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id i26so460971wxd.31 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 06:20:56 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition; bh=Gg0kND4+4h1y/Sh+DUlNLV1zjpbpC0ZecN3NCcPUA6g=; b=uHn7ECVgZVuwAySZSlatvAIFYydwlLXhm/dp3AdoFd7XJNvpHkZDI5N78SaE/hBDOvKeyPGyWDKkVMPs2lnHR70WfOZHIXdiOLPdC2JgWJo5eMlidZRcoNG0bWbUV6yamKHFvH6uTY1RVeV2q9jXlW93h93SMzj9gLYllQm/yhM= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition; b=ANESfkVhzu2TJUntLqNvFTGmSFAko8HQPjI9OtOtpbMXd2OwAFaccu3B/DAUCTIWXk0iNk8s9MvXfIS3p/ZYVm0VEovr8e0zwR3ocdJuJxiDSoop4HqhDFifSCLL0JtrBO+OQ7O6m87HGE9UZ3ysCIYCvM1U7feGv8kOwrnYHQQ= Received: by 10.70.80.14 with SMTP id d14mr1053769wxb.12.1205932856237; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 06:20:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.70.110.8 with HTTP; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 06:20:56 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <18a603a60803190620x460168c1m2f7ccd43a2fcfa83@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 15:20:56 +0200 From: "Pars Mutaf" To: rucus@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Subject: [Rucus] Comparison of disposable SIP URI and IPsec solutions to SPIT X-BeenThere: rucus@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Reducing Unwanted Communication Using SIP \(RUCUS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: rucus-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rucus-bounces@ietf.org Hello, Below is a comparison of disposable SIP URI and IPsec solutions to SPIT. Comments are welcome. 1. Disposable SIP URIs A SIP user can have many SIP URIs, called "disposable" SIP URIs. Similarly to standard SIP URIs, disposable SIP URIs can be distributed upon face-to-face contact through oral communication, by giving it on a piece of paper or business card, etc. The owner of the disposable SIP URIs can distribute a different SIP URI to each person (s)he has a contact. If one of the SIP URIs receives SPIT, it can be disabled, i.e. disposed of by its owner. Other SIP URIs, being different, would not be affected. Consequently, the communication channels with legitimate correspondents would be preserved. The difficulty of this solution may lie in the generation and removal of the disposable SIP URIs. The SIP URIs must be known to the SIP architecture. One needs to locally generate disposable SIP URIs, check for duplicates and register them to the system. Similarly when a SIP URI receives SPIT, it should be removed from the system. The number of SIP URIs per user may be large, consequently their generation and removal may represent an important overhead depending on the disposable SIP URI distribution and SPIT frequency. Alternatively, a disposable SIP URI can be distributed along with a Mobile IP address (for cell phones) possibly in a vCARD structure. In this scheme, the SIP architecture i.e. SIP triangle or trapezoid is not needed. The entity who received a disposable SIP URI already has the target IP address. Calls can be routed to the destination host without SIP infrastructure. The advantage of this scheme is that disposable SIP URIs can be locally generated and disabled by the host without informing the system. 2. IPsec The above scheme is not secure. Disposable SIP URIs travel in the network in clear-text and can be collected by an attacker who installed sniffers to strategical points in the network. An entity who were given a disposable SIP URI can easily be impersonated. An attacker can send SPIT from a spoofed disposable SIP URI collected from network. The attacker may have commercial purposes for sending SPIT or may want to break existing trust relationships. In either case, the target user would disable the impersonated SIP URI, tearing down the communication channel with the real owner of the SIP URI. The solution to this problem is to encrypt the SIP URIs using IPsec. The SIP URIs would never be exchanged in clear-text, protecting them from eavesdroppers. As described above, disposable SIP URIs are distributed upon user contact, i.e. face-to-face meeting. IPsec security assocations can also be easily established upon user contact [SAS]. When an IPsec Security Association (SA) is available between two users, disposable SIP URIs are not needed. One can establish a different SA with each correspondent and upon receipt of SPIT from one SA, disable that SA. IPsec SAs act as disposable communication channels. The limitations of using IPsec, however, are: they are hard to establish without user contact. For example, one cannot establish an SA through e-mail, but can send a disposable SIP URI via e-mail. When filling a web form one can comfortably reveal a disposable SIP URIs. IPsec, however, does not address this problem. [SAS] Vaudenay, S., "Secure Communications over Insecure Channels Based on Short Authenticated Strings", Advances in Cryptology, CRYPTO 2005. _______________________________________________ Rucus mailing list Rucus@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus From rucus-bounces@ietf.org Wed Mar 19 11:33:08 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F18C73A6F8A; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 11:33:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.069 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.069 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.632, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nmipOpDJ4B-v; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 11:33:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F32493A6A9A; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 11:33:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 007A428C1D4 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 11:33:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OAyK4yBM0AxJ for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 11:33:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from brinza.cc.columbia.edu (brinza.cc.columbia.edu [128.59.29.8]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6B9B3A68DE for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 11:33:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dyn-160-39-253-76.dyn.columbia.edu (dyn-160-39-253-76.dyn.columbia.edu [160.39.253.76]) (user=hgs10 mech=PLAIN bits=0) by brinza.cc.columbia.edu (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id m2JIUhtj013157 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Wed, 19 Mar 2008 14:30:44 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <5AB50DEF-5830-48C2-83ED-C6D83BBD9521@cs.columbia.edu> From: Henning Schulzrinne To: Pars Mutaf In-Reply-To: <18a603a60803190620x460168c1m2f7ccd43a2fcfa83@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v919.2) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 14:30:45 -0400 References: <18a603a60803190620x460168c1m2f7ccd43a2fcfa83@mail.gmail.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.919.2) X-No-Spam-Score: Local X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.63 on 128.59.29.8 Cc: rucus@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Rucus] Comparison of disposable SIP URI and IPsec solutions to SPIT X-BeenThere: rucus@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Reducing Unwanted Communication Using SIP \(RUCUS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: rucus-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rucus-bounces@ietf.org For what it's worth, many email systems (apparently, including gmail) allow email addresses of the form foo+bar@example.com and they are all automatically delivered to user 'foo'. Along with others, I use this in Internet drafts to see if putting email addresses in I-Ds generates spam. This seems to occur, but surprisingly rarely, indicating either that spam address harvesters don't go through plain text files or that address harvesting is not as common as usually believed. On Mar 19, 2008, at 9:20 AM, Pars Mutaf wrote: > Hello, > > Below is a comparison of disposable SIP URI and IPsec solutions to > SPIT. > Comments are welcome. > > 1. Disposable SIP URIs > > A SIP user can have many SIP URIs, called "disposable" SIP URIs. > Similarly to standard SIP URIs, disposable SIP URIs can be distributed > upon face-to-face contact through oral communication, by giving it > on a piece of paper or business card, etc. The owner of the disposable > SIP URIs can distribute a different SIP URI to each person (s)he has a > contact. If one of the SIP URIs receives SPIT, it can be disabled, > i.e. disposed of by its owner. Other SIP URIs, being different, would > not be affected. Consequently, the communication channels with > legitimate > correspondents would be preserved. > > The difficulty of this solution may lie in the generation and removal > of the disposable SIP URIs. The SIP URIs must be known to the SIP > architecture. One needs to locally generate disposable SIP URIs, check > for duplicates and register them to the system. Similarly when a SIP > URI receives SPIT, it should be removed from the system. The number of > SIP URIs per user may be large, consequently their generation and > removal may represent an important overhead depending on the > disposable > SIP URI distribution and SPIT frequency. > > Alternatively, a disposable SIP URI can be distributed along with a > Mobile IP address (for cell phones) possibly in a vCARD structure. > In this scheme, the SIP architecture i.e. SIP triangle or trapezoid > is not needed. The entity who received a disposable SIP URI already > has the target IP address. Calls can be routed to the destination host > without SIP infrastructure. The advantage of this scheme is that > disposable SIP URIs can be locally generated and disabled by the > host without informing the system. > > 2. IPsec > > The above scheme is not secure. Disposable SIP URIs travel in the > network in clear-text and can be collected by an attacker who > installed sniffers to strategical points in the network. An entity > who were given a disposable SIP URI can easily be impersonated. An > attacker can send SPIT from a spoofed disposable SIP URI collected > from network. The attacker may have commercial purposes for sending > SPIT or may want to break existing trust relationships. In either > case, the target user would disable the impersonated SIP URI, tearing > down the communication channel with the real owner of the SIP URI. > > The solution to this problem is to encrypt the SIP URIs using IPsec. > The SIP URIs would never be exchanged in clear-text, protecting them > from eavesdroppers. > > As described above, disposable SIP URIs are distributed upon user > contact, i.e. face-to-face meeting. IPsec security assocations can > also > be easily established upon user contact [SAS]. When an IPsec Security > Association (SA) is available between two users, disposable SIP URIs > are not needed. One can establish a different SA with each > correspondent > and upon receipt of SPIT from one SA, disable that SA. IPsec SAs > act as disposable communication channels. > > The limitations of using IPsec, however, are: they are hard to > establish > without user contact. For example, one cannot establish an SA through > e-mail, but can send a disposable SIP URI via e-mail. When filling a > web form one can comfortably reveal a disposable SIP URIs. IPsec, > however, > does not address this problem. > > > [SAS] Vaudenay, S., "Secure Communications over Insecure > Channels Based on Short Authenticated Strings", Advances > in Cryptology, CRYPTO 2005. > _______________________________________________ > Rucus mailing list > Rucus@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus _______________________________________________ Rucus mailing list Rucus@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus From rucus-bounces@ietf.org Wed Mar 19 12:56:12 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04D8028C68B; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 12:56:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.707 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.707 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.270, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rWHIf4iP0tAx; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 12:56:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00B4A28C3B5; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 12:56:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9631628C597 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 12:56:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4WOAst3Srzp0 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 12:56:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wx-out-0506.google.com (wx-out-0506.google.com [66.249.82.227]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5192A28C260 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 12:56:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wx-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id i26so640569wxd.31 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 12:53:51 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=gqQEii13IThPCVfcBGvEuAtx3T2B0p8LDnnLpjgu2Uw=; b=DtsLpOpckRC7oyedS1rmjauQ79BNV5iltEDOr1QIQrTArEUWxvnEA0E/Y2pJVirt6rBN1E/8r85ziLdvoieRof9Uis5ZBBIFHvubn7a31d8n4PqxUtMuVSGf8/zf0T1gFPstwX82myizKFKVuSW8tVq8wa2H+n8CNrxbfY9N3hw= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=uKGB8nkPlYQJbAZBV0ZsZBhLaNgRcPLflwumWoADSj9NTlazO4/DHL6twFG5k+SQ713QnXRGrlVufw8oqHOUBokQcD1fVNVZDatmlXarXhjqvQnoJ3zC5W7MmH/3phh7dwg2yzt5jYlIPKwBW/TrBxT/GmRSAKv5aQcZ2R+hMvY= Received: by 10.70.32.2 with SMTP id f2mr1436155wxf.63.1205956430908; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 12:53:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.70.110.8 with HTTP; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 12:53:50 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <18a603a60803191253w2552531qda9788db9170745b@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 21:53:50 +0200 From: "Pars Mutaf" To: "Henning Schulzrinne" In-Reply-To: <5AB50DEF-5830-48C2-83ED-C6D83BBD9521@cs.columbia.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline References: <18a603a60803190620x460168c1m2f7ccd43a2fcfa83@mail.gmail.com> <5AB50DEF-5830-48C2-83ED-C6D83BBD9521@cs.columbia.edu> Cc: rucus@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Rucus] Comparison of disposable SIP URI and IPsec solutions to SPIT X-BeenThere: rucus@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Reducing Unwanted Communication Using SIP \(RUCUS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: rucus-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rucus-bounces@ietf.org Hello, On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 8:30 PM, Henning Schulzrinne wrote: > For what it's worth, many email systems (apparently, including gmail) > allow email addresses of the form > > foo+bar@example.com > > and they are all automatically delivered to user 'foo'. Along with > others, I use this in Internet drafts to see if putting email > addresses in I-Ds generates spam. This seems to occur, but > surprisingly rarely, indicating either that spam address harvesters > don't go through plain text files or that address harvesting is not as > common as usually believed. I kept my gmail address secret during several months (except for IETF ML conversations) and did not receive spam. Recently I decided to published it on a web page. The day after I received spam. Now I receive spam everyday. :-/ Maybe spammers don't harvest e-mail addresses from documents. They prefer html pages perhaps. Another related question: Would spammers harvest e-mail addresses from the network if e-mail sessions were not secured? This would have implications on SIP URIs. In theory, this is a much easier way of harvesting addresses. On a public wireless network one can install a sniffer and eavesdrop many different (because mobile) user's SIP traffic. pars > On Mar 19, 2008, at 9:20 AM, Pars Mutaf wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > Below is a comparison of disposable SIP URI and IPsec solutions to > > SPIT. > > Comments are welcome. > > > > 1. Disposable SIP URIs > > > > A SIP user can have many SIP URIs, called "disposable" SIP URIs. > > Similarly to standard SIP URIs, disposable SIP URIs can be distributed > > upon face-to-face contact through oral communication, by giving it > > on a piece of paper or business card, etc. The owner of the disposable > > SIP URIs can distribute a different SIP URI to each person (s)he has a > > contact. If one of the SIP URIs receives SPIT, it can be disabled, > > i.e. disposed of by its owner. Other SIP URIs, being different, would > > not be affected. Consequently, the communication channels with > > legitimate > > correspondents would be preserved. > > > > The difficulty of this solution may lie in the generation and removal > > of the disposable SIP URIs. The SIP URIs must be known to the SIP > > architecture. One needs to locally generate disposable SIP URIs, check > > for duplicates and register them to the system. Similarly when a SIP > > URI receives SPIT, it should be removed from the system. The number of > > SIP URIs per user may be large, consequently their generation and > > removal may represent an important overhead depending on the > > disposable > > SIP URI distribution and SPIT frequency. > > > > Alternatively, a disposable SIP URI can be distributed along with a > > Mobile IP address (for cell phones) possibly in a vCARD structure. > > In this scheme, the SIP architecture i.e. SIP triangle or trapezoid > > is not needed. The entity who received a disposable SIP URI already > > has the target IP address. Calls can be routed to the destination host > > without SIP infrastructure. The advantage of this scheme is that > > disposable SIP URIs can be locally generated and disabled by the > > host without informing the system. > > > > 2. IPsec > > > > The above scheme is not secure. Disposable SIP URIs travel in the > > network in clear-text and can be collected by an attacker who > > installed sniffers to strategical points in the network. An entity > > who were given a disposable SIP URI can easily be impersonated. An > > attacker can send SPIT from a spoofed disposable SIP URI collected > > from network. The attacker may have commercial purposes for sending > > SPIT or may want to break existing trust relationships. In either > > case, the target user would disable the impersonated SIP URI, tearing > > down the communication channel with the real owner of the SIP URI. > > > > The solution to this problem is to encrypt the SIP URIs using IPsec. > > The SIP URIs would never be exchanged in clear-text, protecting them > > from eavesdroppers. > > > > As described above, disposable SIP URIs are distributed upon user > > contact, i.e. face-to-face meeting. IPsec security assocations can > > also > > be easily established upon user contact [SAS]. When an IPsec Security > > Association (SA) is available between two users, disposable SIP URIs > > are not needed. One can establish a different SA with each > > correspondent > > and upon receipt of SPIT from one SA, disable that SA. IPsec SAs > > act as disposable communication channels. > > > > The limitations of using IPsec, however, are: they are hard to > > establish > > without user contact. For example, one cannot establish an SA through > > e-mail, but can send a disposable SIP URI via e-mail. When filling a > > web form one can comfortably reveal a disposable SIP URIs. IPsec, > > however, > > does not address this problem. > > > > > > [SAS] Vaudenay, S., "Secure Communications over Insecure > > Channels Based on Short Authenticated Strings", Advances > > in Cryptology, CRYPTO 2005. > > _______________________________________________ > > Rucus mailing list > > Rucus@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus > > _______________________________________________ Rucus mailing list Rucus@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus From rucus-bounces@ietf.org Wed Mar 19 13:46:22 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2523028C3E1; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 13:46:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.911 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.911 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.474, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GYI1lKlCz6Ly; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 13:46:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 373853A697B; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 13:46:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B3133A6A94 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 13:46:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zFyMRoVaGj14 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 13:46:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from serrano.cc.columbia.edu (serrano.cc.columbia.edu [128.59.29.6]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B56073A697B for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 13:46:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dyn-160-39-253-76.dyn.columbia.edu (dyn-160-39-253-76.dyn.columbia.edu [160.39.253.76]) (user=hgs10 mech=PLAIN bits=0) by serrano.cc.columbia.edu (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id m2JKhrFZ002618 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Wed, 19 Mar 2008 16:43:53 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: From: Henning Schulzrinne To: Pars Mutaf In-Reply-To: <18a603a60803191253w2552531qda9788db9170745b@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v919.2) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 16:43:55 -0400 References: <18a603a60803190620x460168c1m2f7ccd43a2fcfa83@mail.gmail.com> <5AB50DEF-5830-48C2-83ED-C6D83BBD9521@cs.columbia.edu> <18a603a60803191253w2552531qda9788db9170745b@mail.gmail.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.919.2) X-No-Spam-Score: Local X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.63 on 128.59.29.6 Cc: rucus@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Rucus] Comparison of disposable SIP URI and IPsec solutions to SPIT X-BeenThere: rucus@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Reducing Unwanted Communication Using SIP \(RUCUS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: rucus-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rucus-bounces@ietf.org > This requires physical presence and significant hardware investment. I have a hard time imagining spammers visiting hundreds of Starbucks, install multi-hundred-dollar sniffers in ways that don't raise suspicion immediately (where would they plug them in, say, given that Starbucks and other cafes make a point of having as few outlets as possible to increase table turnover), and then gather a few dozen addresses each day. In the US, they'd probably draw bomb squads within a few minutes. Not that I would mind sending a few spammers to Guantanamo. To be honest, this is wayyy down my list of worries. This isn't a problem for email since any sane person uses IMAP and SMTP over TLS, primarily to protect their passwords. SIP terminals will do the same thing eventually. Henning > Another related question: Would spammers harvest e-mail addresses > from the network if e-mail sessions were not secured? This would > have implications on SIP URIs. In theory, this is a much easier way > of harvesting addresses. On a public wireless network one can install > a sniffer and eavesdrop many different (because mobile) user's SIP > traffic. > > pars > _______________________________________________ Rucus mailing list Rucus@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus From rucus-bounces@ietf.org Wed Mar 19 14:02:05 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3BB03A67B1; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 14:02:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.398 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.398 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.039, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qz-sHZ2Wf4Ll; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 14:02:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CF653A67E9; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 14:02:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0B973A67E9 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 14:02:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lowuLAvoQlAj for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 14:02:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.gmx.net (mail.gmx.net [213.165.64.20]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id E9CBB3A67B1 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 14:02:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 19 Mar 2008 20:59:42 -0000 Received: from 85-156-75-43.elisa-mobile.fi (EHLO [85.156.75.43]) [85.156.75.43] by mail.gmx.net (mp030) with SMTP; 19 Mar 2008 21:59:42 +0100 X-Authenticated: #29516787 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX19MTVdJNUxM9UAbBHaq7zdwauP+DoMENeDp5M7q6b 75CLt7gz3zfZgw Message-ID: <47E17EBA.7040603@gmx.net> Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 22:59:38 +0200 From: Hannes Tschofenig User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (Windows/20080213) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Henning Schulzrinne References: <18a603a60803190620x460168c1m2f7ccd43a2fcfa83@mail.gmail.com> <5AB50DEF-5830-48C2-83ED-C6D83BBD9521@cs.columbia.edu> In-Reply-To: <5AB50DEF-5830-48C2-83ED-C6D83BBD9521@cs.columbia.edu> X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Cc: rucus@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Rucus] Comparison of disposable SIP URI and IPsec solutions to SPIT X-BeenThere: rucus@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Reducing Unwanted Communication Using SIP \(RUCUS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: rucus-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rucus-bounces@ietf.org To Pars: To me it seems doing things at lower layers is not really a good idea (if the semantic is at the higher layer). Hence, I don't see how this provides any help. Ciao Hannes Henning Schulzrinne wrote: > For what it's worth, many email systems (apparently, including gmail) > allow email addresses of the form > > foo+bar@example.com > > and they are all automatically delivered to user 'foo'. Along with > others, I use this in Internet drafts to see if putting email > addresses in I-Ds generates spam. This seems to occur, but > surprisingly rarely, indicating either that spam address harvesters > don't go through plain text files or that address harvesting is not as > common as usually believed. > > On Mar 19, 2008, at 9:20 AM, Pars Mutaf wrote: > > >> Hello, >> >> Below is a comparison of disposable SIP URI and IPsec solutions to >> SPIT. >> Comments are welcome. >> >> 1. Disposable SIP URIs >> >> A SIP user can have many SIP URIs, called "disposable" SIP URIs. >> Similarly to standard SIP URIs, disposable SIP URIs can be distributed >> upon face-to-face contact through oral communication, by giving it >> on a piece of paper or business card, etc. The owner of the disposable >> SIP URIs can distribute a different SIP URI to each person (s)he has a >> contact. If one of the SIP URIs receives SPIT, it can be disabled, >> i.e. disposed of by its owner. Other SIP URIs, being different, would >> not be affected. Consequently, the communication channels with >> legitimate >> correspondents would be preserved. >> >> The difficulty of this solution may lie in the generation and removal >> of the disposable SIP URIs. The SIP URIs must be known to the SIP >> architecture. One needs to locally generate disposable SIP URIs, check >> for duplicates and register them to the system. Similarly when a SIP >> URI receives SPIT, it should be removed from the system. The number of >> SIP URIs per user may be large, consequently their generation and >> removal may represent an important overhead depending on the >> disposable >> SIP URI distribution and SPIT frequency. >> >> Alternatively, a disposable SIP URI can be distributed along with a >> Mobile IP address (for cell phones) possibly in a vCARD structure. >> In this scheme, the SIP architecture i.e. SIP triangle or trapezoid >> is not needed. The entity who received a disposable SIP URI already >> has the target IP address. Calls can be routed to the destination host >> without SIP infrastructure. The advantage of this scheme is that >> disposable SIP URIs can be locally generated and disabled by the >> host without informing the system. >> >> 2. IPsec >> >> The above scheme is not secure. Disposable SIP URIs travel in the >> network in clear-text and can be collected by an attacker who >> installed sniffers to strategical points in the network. An entity >> who were given a disposable SIP URI can easily be impersonated. An >> attacker can send SPIT from a spoofed disposable SIP URI collected >> from network. The attacker may have commercial purposes for sending >> SPIT or may want to break existing trust relationships. In either >> case, the target user would disable the impersonated SIP URI, tearing >> down the communication channel with the real owner of the SIP URI. >> >> The solution to this problem is to encrypt the SIP URIs using IPsec. >> The SIP URIs would never be exchanged in clear-text, protecting them >> from eavesdroppers. >> >> As described above, disposable SIP URIs are distributed upon user >> contact, i.e. face-to-face meeting. IPsec security assocations can >> also >> be easily established upon user contact [SAS]. When an IPsec Security >> Association (SA) is available between two users, disposable SIP URIs >> are not needed. One can establish a different SA with each >> correspondent >> and upon receipt of SPIT from one SA, disable that SA. IPsec SAs >> act as disposable communication channels. >> >> The limitations of using IPsec, however, are: they are hard to >> establish >> without user contact. For example, one cannot establish an SA through >> e-mail, but can send a disposable SIP URI via e-mail. When filling a >> web form one can comfortably reveal a disposable SIP URIs. IPsec, >> however, >> does not address this problem. >> >> >> [SAS] Vaudenay, S., "Secure Communications over Insecure >> Channels Based on Short Authenticated Strings", Advances >> in Cryptology, CRYPTO 2005. >> _______________________________________________ >> Rucus mailing list >> Rucus@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus >> > > _______________________________________________ > Rucus mailing list > Rucus@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus > _______________________________________________ Rucus mailing list Rucus@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus From rucus-bounces@ietf.org Wed Mar 19 14:07:40 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 199F928C0D8; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 14:07:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.432 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.432 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.005, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id d0u8wmrGN3wn; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 14:07:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 438703A67E9; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 14:07:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21C353A6808 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 14:07:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9OsWwA+7pnSX for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 14:07:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.gmx.net (mail.gmx.net [213.165.64.20]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 96E573A67E9 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 14:07:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 19 Mar 2008 21:05:15 -0000 Received: from 85-156-75-43.elisa-mobile.fi (EHLO [85.156.75.43]) [85.156.75.43] by mail.gmx.net (mp013) with SMTP; 19 Mar 2008 22:05:15 +0100 X-Authenticated: #29516787 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/aWJ04psPaGMg4/+IXW17IGZp4To1R9ZaCVRupOP w3eQQVeDGpd6yY Message-ID: <47E1800D.6000505@gmx.net> Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 23:05:17 +0200 From: Hannes Tschofenig User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (Windows/20080213) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Henning Schulzrinne References: <18a603a60803190620x460168c1m2f7ccd43a2fcfa83@mail.gmail.com> <5AB50DEF-5830-48C2-83ED-C6D83BBD9521@cs.columbia.edu> <18a603a60803191253w2552531qda9788db9170745b@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Cc: rucus@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Rucus] Comparison of disposable SIP URI and IPsec solutions to SPIT X-BeenThere: rucus@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Reducing Unwanted Communication Using SIP \(RUCUS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: rucus-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rucus-bounces@ietf.org To Pars: I agree with Henning that you seem to have a bit outdated adversary model in mind given that we had previous discussions about Botnets (with the ability to steal your credentials) on this list. Henning Schulzrinne wrote: > > This requires physical presence and significant hardware investment. I > have a hard time imagining spammers visiting hundreds of Starbucks, > install multi-hundred-dollar sniffers in ways that don't raise > suspicion immediately (where would they plug them in, say, given that > Starbucks and other cafes make a point of having as few outlets as > possible to increase table turnover), and then gather a few dozen > addresses each day. In the US, they'd probably draw bomb squads within > a few minutes. Not that I would mind sending a few spammers to > Guantanamo. > > To be honest, this is wayyy down my list of worries. > > This isn't a problem for email since any sane person uses IMAP and > SMTP over TLS, primarily to protect their passwords. SIP terminals > will do the same thing eventually. > > Henning > > >> Another related question: Would spammers harvest e-mail addresses >> from the network if e-mail sessions were not secured? This would >> have implications on SIP URIs. In theory, this is a much easier way >> of harvesting addresses. On a public wireless network one can install >> a sniffer and eavesdrop many different (because mobile) user's SIP >> traffic. >> >> pars >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Rucus mailing list > Rucus@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus > _______________________________________________ Rucus mailing list Rucus@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus From rucus-bounces@ietf.org Wed Mar 19 14:30:12 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB9AD28C260; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 14:30:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.653 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.653 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.216, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JzmuIwDQ00IS; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 14:30:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC6FA3A68AF; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 14:30:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DE453A68AF for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 14:30:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jAFiAhcJIbUx for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 14:30:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wx-out-0506.google.com (wx-out-0506.google.com [66.249.82.231]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61B433A6854 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 14:30:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wx-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id i26so680966wxd.31 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 14:27:47 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=8lr6TqN6n841Wn1Wp2hzyzsCUUUFwvshypKl+zM1MmQ=; b=sMswuhbDUGwfJVA5norz62kX1LTggQIqynzdhK81jFUS2qsEj/DOewQEi5Kl6rPtNBYhzUG1nPtb4J/NVPRcKopr0xSfqUq9Bzgf+NRUn1mK/yCsft51+7yMyb7iZisjbrDOH/fp4t7JMIbiQ6JnEXjCkDibO9HbuhwiYaS9EDs= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=A5XKC8VoFZrsA/Ug2oQa4fRWVdyMiJrTS1FEqwduyg4hSq9l0mmHGbeWKnT6V915koO10jhFQ9UX/4SIEjHNkA8YFvaE3UD1Q2aUuaozzkUhL+borEOBhaNeuaD8aip5fo7Zn2UPH8U0r0oZAkI79pEYItL4+nj75TmJtJ+WQ+U= Received: by 10.70.77.17 with SMTP id z17mr1526603wxa.88.1205962067870; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 14:27:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.70.110.8 with HTTP; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 14:27:47 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <18a603a60803191427l1ea3aa72taf14c8bc8154341c@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 23:27:47 +0200 From: "Pars Mutaf" To: "Hannes Tschofenig" In-Reply-To: <47E1800D.6000505@gmx.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline References: <18a603a60803190620x460168c1m2f7ccd43a2fcfa83@mail.gmail.com> <5AB50DEF-5830-48C2-83ED-C6D83BBD9521@cs.columbia.edu> <18a603a60803191253w2552531qda9788db9170745b@mail.gmail.com> <47E1800D.6000505@gmx.net> Cc: rucus@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Rucus] Comparison of disposable SIP URI and IPsec solutions to SPIT X-BeenThere: rucus@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Reducing Unwanted Communication Using SIP \(RUCUS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: rucus-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rucus-bounces@ietf.org Hello, I would imagine the owner of a shop constantly sniffing SIP URIs and send advertisement to invite nearby users, for example. Is there a plan for publishing a hypothetical threat model document like security folks do? thanks pars On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 11:05 PM, Hannes Tschofenig wrote: > To Pars: I agree with Henning that you seem to have a bit outdated > adversary model in mind given that we had previous discussions about > Botnets (with the ability to steal your credentials) on this list. > > > > Henning Schulzrinne wrote: > > > > This requires physical presence and significant hardware investment. I > > have a hard time imagining spammers visiting hundreds of Starbucks, > > install multi-hundred-dollar sniffers in ways that don't raise > > suspicion immediately (where would they plug them in, say, given that > > Starbucks and other cafes make a point of having as few outlets as > > possible to increase table turnover), and then gather a few dozen > > addresses each day. In the US, they'd probably draw bomb squads within > > a few minutes. Not that I would mind sending a few spammers to > > Guantanamo. > > > > To be honest, this is wayyy down my list of worries. > > > > This isn't a problem for email since any sane person uses IMAP and > > SMTP over TLS, primarily to protect their passwords. SIP terminals > > will do the same thing eventually. > > > > Henning > > > > > >> Another related question: Would spammers harvest e-mail addresses > >> from the network if e-mail sessions were not secured? This would > >> have implications on SIP URIs. In theory, this is a much easier way > >> of harvesting addresses. On a public wireless network one can install > >> a sniffer and eavesdrop many different (because mobile) user's SIP > >> traffic. > >> > >> pars > >> > >> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Rucus mailing list > > Rucus@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus > > > > _______________________________________________ Rucus mailing list Rucus@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus From rucus-bounces@ietf.org Wed Mar 19 16:44:25 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B4E53A6A16; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 16:44:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.602 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.602 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.765, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, J_CHICKENPOX_33=0.6, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nFWDWgaaC5df; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 16:44:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 544C53A691F; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 16:44:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0A353A68D8 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 16:44:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mx0DRM5V9gXr for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 16:44:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sj-iport-1.cisco.com (sj-iport-1.cisco.com [171.71.176.70]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06ABA3A691F for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 16:43:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sj-dkim-1.cisco.com ([171.71.179.21]) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 19 Mar 2008 16:41:30 -0700 Received: from sj-core-4.cisco.com (sj-core-4.cisco.com [171.68.223.138]) by sj-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m2JNfUop020684; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 16:41:30 -0700 Received: from dwingwxp01 ([10.32.240.197]) by sj-core-4.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m2JNfUAj023449; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 23:41:30 GMT From: "Dan Wing" To: "'Pars Mutaf'" References: <18a603a60803190620x460168c1m2f7ccd43a2fcfa83@mail.gmail.com> <5AB50DEF-5830-48C2-83ED-C6D83BBD9521@cs.columbia.edu> Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 16:41:29 -0700 Message-ID: <079f01c88a1a$c1d00f40$c5f0200a@cisco.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: <5AB50DEF-5830-48C2-83ED-C6D83BBD9521@cs.columbia.edu> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 thread-index: AciJ72CLq6lhWfUhQoKKpAXCRU90xwAKs5Ag DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1408; t=1205970090; x=1206834090; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim1004; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=dwing@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Dan=20Wing=22=20 |Subject:=20RE=3A=20[Rucus]=20Comparison=20of=20disposable= 20SIP=20URI=20and=20IPsec=20solutions=20toSPIT |Sender:=20; bh=u+5jOWhTmRWTEL3ZaS2i58OPdMjSSWp5wVTiDydFmNU=; b=mATfSDs1MVCz69VjUItucOfGKmn4sDtXFY2engutnroxVFsn2CciYEHCQa 5SJE8PIVj0MOKqM3WmQCtrix/dH73yLuCHx+rgh8Hb1A+I30X6p14k4PbQU6 RD0qnKGRH/NGndZc1KFDjb/ZxIY+Co2zExLqQQgFcOGhD4BWWnPyM=; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-1; header.From=dwing@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim1004 verified; ); Cc: rucus@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Rucus] Comparison of disposable SIP URI and IPsec solutions toSPIT X-BeenThere: rucus@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Reducing Unwanted Communication Using SIP \(RUCUS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: rucus-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rucus-bounces@ietf.org In a message, Henning wrote: > For what it's worth, many email systems (apparently, > including gmail) allow email addresses of the form > > foo+bar@example.com > > and they are all automatically delivered to user 'foo'. Right; this means the user need not pre-configure their mail system to understand "bar". Additionally, instead of just disabling foo+bar, you could adjust the handling of SIP requests to foo+bar to only allow those from a whitelist, or to challange them with a captcha, etc. In a separate message, Pars wrote: ... > I kept my gmail address secret during several months (except > for IETF ML conversations) and did not receive spam. Recently > I decided to published it on a web page. The day after I received > spam. Now I receive spam everyday. :-/ > > Maybe spammers don't harvest e-mail addresses from documents. > They prefer html pages perhaps. The HTML page http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5069.html contains one of Henning's "+" addresses. In a separate message, Pars wrote: > I would imagine the owner of a shop constantly sniffing SIP > URIs and send advertisement to invite nearby users, for > example. Is there a plan for publishing a hypothetical threat > model document like security folks do? That seems reasonable. Of course, protecting your SIP signaling with (D)TLS would protect from such eavesdropping. -d _______________________________________________ Rucus mailing list Rucus@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus From rucus-bounces@ietf.org Thu Mar 20 01:36:13 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB77828C133; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 01:36:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.518 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.518 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.081, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tbSXWyROAiWs; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 01:36:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E68BA3A68E6; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 01:36:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FA773A6E2A for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 01:36:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RbCN9AEg1At5 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 01:36:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.gmx.net (mail.gmx.net [213.165.64.20]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 4030F3A682D for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 01:36:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 20 Mar 2008 08:33:49 -0000 Received: from a81-197-16-245.elisa-laajakaista.fi (EHLO [81.197.16.245]) [81.197.16.245] by mail.gmx.net (mp029) with SMTP; 20 Mar 2008 09:33:49 +0100 X-Authenticated: #29516787 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+qxFIM8NWqXPo72wG+mYh73RSEslS3S0VGWo1SsP UiNP+7YEWpifQd Message-ID: <47E2216D.6000906@gmx.net> Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 10:33:49 +0200 From: Hannes Tschofenig User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (Windows/20080213) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pars Mutaf References: <18a603a60803190620x460168c1m2f7ccd43a2fcfa83@mail.gmail.com> <5AB50DEF-5830-48C2-83ED-C6D83BBD9521@cs.columbia.edu> <18a603a60803191253w2552531qda9788db9170745b@mail.gmail.com> <47E1800D.6000505@gmx.net> <18a603a60803191427l1ea3aa72taf14c8bc8154341c@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <18a603a60803191427l1ea3aa72taf14c8bc8154341c@mail.gmail.com> X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Cc: rucus@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Rucus] Comparison of disposable SIP URI and IPsec solutions to SPIT X-BeenThere: rucus@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Reducing Unwanted Communication Using SIP \(RUCUS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: rucus-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rucus-bounces@ietf.org I wonder how a shop owner can do that given the available SIP security mechanisms. The shop owner (let's assume a WLAN hotspot) would not be able to see anything other than TLS protected traffic. Nobody so far wanted to write a threats document. I am also not sure whether the threats aren't already sufficiently documented in the various SIP specifications already Ciao Hannes Pars Mutaf wrote: > Hello, > I would imagine the owner of a shop constantly sniffing SIP URIs > and send advertisement to invite nearby users, for example. > Is there a plan for publishing a hypothetical threat model document > like security folks do? > > thanks > pars > > > On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 11:05 PM, Hannes Tschofenig > wrote: > >> To Pars: I agree with Henning that you seem to have a bit outdated >> adversary model in mind given that we had previous discussions about >> Botnets (with the ability to steal your credentials) on this list. >> >> >> >> Henning Schulzrinne wrote: >> > >> > This requires physical presence and significant hardware investment. I >> > have a hard time imagining spammers visiting hundreds of Starbucks, >> > install multi-hundred-dollar sniffers in ways that don't raise >> > suspicion immediately (where would they plug them in, say, given that >> > Starbucks and other cafes make a point of having as few outlets as >> > possible to increase table turnover), and then gather a few dozen >> > addresses each day. In the US, they'd probably draw bomb squads within >> > a few minutes. Not that I would mind sending a few spammers to >> > Guantanamo. >> > >> > To be honest, this is wayyy down my list of worries. >> > >> > This isn't a problem for email since any sane person uses IMAP and >> > SMTP over TLS, primarily to protect their passwords. SIP terminals >> > will do the same thing eventually. >> > >> > Henning >> > >> > >> >> Another related question: Would spammers harvest e-mail addresses >> >> from the network if e-mail sessions were not secured? This would >> >> have implications on SIP URIs. In theory, this is a much easier way >> >> of harvesting addresses. On a public wireless network one can install >> >> a sniffer and eavesdrop many different (because mobile) user's SIP >> >> traffic. >> >> >> >> pars >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> >> > Rucus mailing list >> > Rucus@ietf.org >> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus >> > >> >> >> _______________________________________________ Rucus mailing list Rucus@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus From rucus-bounces@ietf.org Thu Mar 20 02:02:20 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC88028C21B; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 02:02:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.677 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.677 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.240, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SIUOwdIjp77j; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 02:02:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BDAE3A6F20; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 02:02:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 453193A68E6 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 02:02:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aWu66t20Zmdb for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 02:02:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wx-out-0506.google.com (wx-out-0506.google.com [66.249.82.230]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CDFD3A6B97 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 02:02:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wx-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id i26so938443wxd.31 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 01:59:53 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=18OKLgsgKXsJQXRQHaygnTCpYYEW3JR/z6qDJsTeHW4=; b=ABP9hC2sD8yI5uJgKJOs6NDfO2Ws94W6LRQEs2Rex0r2jAWc4h/6EvMmKCSrHVskKwr1uW6Wsj39Fj23rX4hq4AX9H6KtJTyuYqteHjhtVQVT3/HCNfE9+WYgcCZix89gXL8xQCEaErq1Uy6gWhIOiZO7FjHBgmaYPj+C5ddJRs= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=stves58uQne/fji0OiH92L1CDl4U/xgYS/kjDWaxEWju2fIXUQ95ZHLgMzlXg2ExyB2mVK+jgzc6vPT7ITzDBUUwfU/y6GjykDvj8ekjf0ctKiy7BNdhBzCYh/bjN6W9VN0dyNnssZfJzG7yNjHBHKgxVlWd4fvT/UgwgfTygb0= Received: by 10.150.54.6 with SMTP id c6mr679931yba.43.1206003593710; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 01:59:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.70.110.8 with HTTP; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 01:59:53 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <18a603a60803200159j7bdd3f48p2b9df76dc0b90adc@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 10:59:53 +0200 From: "Pars Mutaf" To: "Hannes Tschofenig" In-Reply-To: <47E2216D.6000906@gmx.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline References: <18a603a60803190620x460168c1m2f7ccd43a2fcfa83@mail.gmail.com> <5AB50DEF-5830-48C2-83ED-C6D83BBD9521@cs.columbia.edu> <18a603a60803191253w2552531qda9788db9170745b@mail.gmail.com> <47E1800D.6000505@gmx.net> <18a603a60803191427l1ea3aa72taf14c8bc8154341c@mail.gmail.com> <47E2216D.6000906@gmx.net> Cc: rucus@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Rucus] Comparison of disposable SIP URI and IPsec solutions to SPIT X-BeenThere: rucus@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Reducing Unwanted Communication Using SIP \(RUCUS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: rucus-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rucus-bounces@ietf.org On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 10:33 AM, Hannes Tschofenig wrote: > I wonder how a shop owner can do that given the available SIP security > mechanisms. The shop owner (let's assume a WLAN hotspot) would not be > able to see anything other than TLS protected traffic. > That's right. SIP URIs MUST be protected from eavesdroppers. > Nobody so far wanted to write a threats document. I am also not sure > whether the threats aren't already sufficiently documented in the > various SIP specifications already OK Thanks, pars > > Ciao > Hannes > > > > > Pars Mutaf wrote: > > Hello, > > I would imagine the owner of a shop constantly sniffing SIP URIs > > and send advertisement to invite nearby users, for example. > > Is there a plan for publishing a hypothetical threat model document > > like security folks do? > > > > thanks > > pars > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 11:05 PM, Hannes Tschofenig > > wrote: > > > >> To Pars: I agree with Henning that you seem to have a bit outdated > >> adversary model in mind given that we had previous discussions about > >> Botnets (with the ability to steal your credentials) on this list. > >> > >> > >> > >> Henning Schulzrinne wrote: > >> > > >> > This requires physical presence and significant hardware investment. I > >> > have a hard time imagining spammers visiting hundreds of Starbucks, > >> > install multi-hundred-dollar sniffers in ways that don't raise > >> > suspicion immediately (where would they plug them in, say, given that > >> > Starbucks and other cafes make a point of having as few outlets as > >> > possible to increase table turnover), and then gather a few dozen > >> > addresses each day. In the US, they'd probably draw bomb squads within > >> > a few minutes. Not that I would mind sending a few spammers to > >> > Guantanamo. > >> > > >> > To be honest, this is wayyy down my list of worries. > >> > > >> > This isn't a problem for email since any sane person uses IMAP and > >> > SMTP over TLS, primarily to protect their passwords. SIP terminals > >> > will do the same thing eventually. > >> > > >> > Henning > >> > > >> > > >> >> Another related question: Would spammers harvest e-mail addresses > >> >> from the network if e-mail sessions were not secured? This would > >> >> have implications on SIP URIs. In theory, this is a much easier way > >> >> of harvesting addresses. On a public wireless network one can install > >> >> a sniffer and eavesdrop many different (because mobile) user's SIP > >> >> traffic. > >> >> > >> >> pars > >> >> > >> >> > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> > >> > Rucus mailing list > >> > Rucus@ietf.org > >> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus > >> > > >> > >> > >> > > _______________________________________________ Rucus mailing list Rucus@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus From rucus-bounces@ietf.org Thu Mar 20 02:15:03 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B9153A6F3A; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 02:15:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.935 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.935 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.498, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5s35Kdf5N7-1; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 02:15:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3F1C3A6ECC; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 02:15:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 964213A69D3 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 02:14:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IcrgD43ks5EM for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 02:14:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.bofh.priv.at (fardach.bofh.priv.at [88.198.34.164]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D27FA3A68E6 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 02:14:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail.bofh.priv.at (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 32AC84C658; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 10:12:37 +0100 (CET) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 10:12:37 +0100 From: Otmar Lendl To: rucus@ietf.org Message-ID: <20080320091236.GA4505@bofh.priv.at> References: <18a603a60803190620x460168c1m2f7ccd43a2fcfa83@mail.gmail.com> <5AB50DEF-5830-48C2-83ED-C6D83BBD9521@cs.columbia.edu> <18a603a60803191253w2552531qda9788db9170745b@mail.gmail.com> <47E1800D.6000505@gmx.net> <18a603a60803191427l1ea3aa72taf14c8bc8154341c@mail.gmail.com> <47E2216D.6000906@gmx.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <47E2216D.6000906@gmx.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) Subject: Re: [Rucus] Comparison of disposable SIP URI and IPsec solutions to SPIT X-BeenThere: rucus@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Reducing Unwanted Communication Using SIP \(RUCUS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: rucus-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rucus-bounces@ietf.org On 2008/03/20 09:03, Hannes Tschofenig wrote: > > Nobody so far wanted to write a threats document. I am also not sure > whether the threats aren't already sufficiently documented in the > various SIP specifications already > I agree, the threats to SIP security are sufficently documented already. What's IMHO missing is a discussion on what properties of SIP deployments are critical for a SPIT threat to materialize. e.g. if two large telcos switch their peering link from TDM/SS7 to SIP via a private IP connection between their session border elements, then I don't see how this affects the SPIT threat assessment. Or, if a PBX uses SIP inside an office to talk to the phones, but ISDN to the outside world, I don't see a realistic SPIT threat. In other words, SIP per se isn't the problem. It's how you deploy it and what connections you allow. /ol -- -=- Otmar Lendl -- ol@bofh.priv.at -=- _______________________________________________ Rucus mailing list Rucus@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus From rucus-bounces@ietf.org Thu Mar 20 03:06:03 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9B6C3A68E0; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 03:06:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.918 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.918 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.081, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, J_CHICKENPOX_33=0.6, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5SekJP3FBHe8; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 03:06:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1E0028C2B7; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 03:06:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C89EB28C2B7 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 03:06:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DFwiwjj2zeEC for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 03:06:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wr-out-0506.google.com (wr-out-0506.google.com [64.233.184.238]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF53728C1FC for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 03:06:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wr-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id 50so785019wra.13 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 03:03:43 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=2T/qmvSQ5b4UrG5UwsIlxHY9b+udlq1aCkSo4yaB44g=; b=nIdpKj4PZBsu3O2O+B8ch9DhVWW8QV6sHLpec4rhkaXjrrwDDKwY0j3+HdRWnJ72W0lWR0zVqDAVhQTYF5DCm+y2NjrJMdpD9hqUabWXlfh/LWriVNPK5MsoWL9g5GppA0+tmBMp17LMMkKOp6Y6AtAZ8uxBxfYzCEZixz+KzOc= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=hH0zJLb3LRBPYWf1eZeKbpFQCBTVlKG1WCuTnKrQcrO8BftXjlFAYcelBc0DArFLONFBT5iRIsFxOijZ+C+Ck6pZ4WQiK99ANka25k0SwkyN4DTjBhCl9Op/BpTvJ0SCElkgv48ei+MIrbaId/02lK9iwwfAXxJkiLQ4RiEKaX4= Received: by 10.151.108.10 with SMTP id k10mr709705ybm.123.1206007423310; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 03:03:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.70.110.8 with HTTP; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 03:03:43 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <18a603a60803200303r23d26a0aoe6b3d44f3dbcd166@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 12:03:43 +0200 From: "Pars Mutaf" To: "Dan Wing" In-Reply-To: <079f01c88a1a$c1d00f40$c5f0200a@cisco.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline References: <18a603a60803190620x460168c1m2f7ccd43a2fcfa83@mail.gmail.com> <5AB50DEF-5830-48C2-83ED-C6D83BBD9521@cs.columbia.edu> <079f01c88a1a$c1d00f40$c5f0200a@cisco.com> Cc: rucus@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Rucus] Comparison of disposable SIP URI and IPsec solutions toSPIT X-BeenThere: rucus@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Reducing Unwanted Communication Using SIP \(RUCUS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: rucus-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rucus-bounces@ietf.org Hello, On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 1:41 AM, Dan Wing wrote: > In a message, Henning wrote: > > For what it's worth, many email systems (apparently, > > including gmail) allow email addresses of the form > > > > foo+bar@example.com > > > > and they are all automatically delivered to user 'foo'. > > Right; this means the user need not pre-configure their > mail system to understand "bar". > > Additionally, instead of just disabling foo+bar, you could > adjust the handling of SIP requests to foo+bar to only allow > those from a whitelist, or to challange them with a captcha, > etc. > > > In a separate message, Pars wrote: > ... > > > I kept my gmail address secret during several months (except > > for IETF ML conversations) and did not receive spam. Recently > > I decided to published it on a web page. The day after I received > > spam. Now I receive spam everyday. :-/ > > > > Maybe spammers don't harvest e-mail addresses from documents. > > They prefer html pages perhaps. > > The HTML page http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5069.html contains one > of Henning's "+" addresses. > > > > In a separate message, Pars wrote: > > I would imagine the owner of a shop constantly sniffing SIP > > URIs and send advertisement to invite nearby users, for > > example. Is there a plan for publishing a hypothetical threat > > model document like security folks do? > > That seems reasonable. Of course, protecting your SIP > signaling with (D)TLS would protect from such eavesdropping. I am curious, why one would use Datagram TLS and not IPsec. thanks, pars > > -d > > _______________________________________________ Rucus mailing list Rucus@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus From rucus-bounces@ietf.org Thu Mar 20 09:27:35 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C700F28C5E0; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 09:27:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.194 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.194 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.757, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DJbLWBLc-BeX; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 09:27:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12A5028C2C4; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 09:27:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF1CA28C24A for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 09:27:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id f66iSsGFFy+I for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 09:27:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com (sj-iport-6.cisco.com [171.71.176.117]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C05328C57E for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 09:27:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sj-dkim-3.cisco.com ([171.71.179.195]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 20 Mar 2008 09:25:16 -0700 Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (sj-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.177.237]) by sj-dkim-3.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m2KGPGU9003418; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 09:25:16 -0700 Received: from dwingwxp01 ([10.32.240.197]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m2KGPFxm006399; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 16:25:16 GMT From: "Dan Wing" To: "'Pars Mutaf'" References: <18a603a60803190620x460168c1m2f7ccd43a2fcfa83@mail.gmail.com> <5AB50DEF-5830-48C2-83ED-C6D83BBD9521@cs.columbia.edu> <079f01c88a1a$c1d00f40$c5f0200a@cisco.com> <18a603a60803200303r23d26a0aoe6b3d44f3dbcd166@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 09:25:15 -0700 Message-ID: <029c01c88aa6$fb60d2d0$c5f0200a@cisco.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 In-Reply-To: <18a603a60803200303r23d26a0aoe6b3d44f3dbcd166@mail.gmail.com> Thread-Index: AciKcq1krujwqlhjSTa1dLqdwczRTQAM+/BQ DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=577; t=1206030316; x=1206894316; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim3002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=dwing@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Dan=20Wing=22=20 |Subject:=20RE=3A=20[Rucus]=20Comparison=20of=20disposable= 20SIP=20URI=20and=20IPsec=20solutions=20toSPIT |Sender:=20; bh=8zHVMR7mKAGW2L9TMgR/4+nIBA/7ayJbydU4qo7jNPM=; b=Fzg14QLp6GhKEQ+Br4eGgZ+sE1X5hlm6zcgn7KRzeSNBT30CMpGXz6G1Q2 5g9deEggKNSARFLFpBXNvMME5JFf1GDlY5XhI6fMtzhg8ge1z++aWKkb0PxZ sDX96g9ozt; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-3; header.From=dwing@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim3002 verified; ); Cc: rucus@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Rucus] Comparison of disposable SIP URI and IPsec solutions toSPIT X-BeenThere: rucus@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Reducing Unwanted Communication Using SIP \(RUCUS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: rucus-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rucus-bounces@ietf.org > > That seems reasonable. Of course, protecting your SIP > > signaling with (D)TLS would protect from such eavesdropping. > > I am curious, why one would use Datagram TLS and not IPsec. TLS is specified in RFC3261, and DTLS is specified in an individual draft (draft-jennings-sip-dtls-05.txt). RFC3261 explicitly says that IPsec isn't described in RFC3261 (see end of page 238). And, due to IPsec's lack of an API to verify that traffic is protected with IPsec, an application (such as SIP) cannot verify that its communications are IPsec protected. -d _______________________________________________ Rucus mailing list Rucus@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus From rucus-bounces@ietf.org Thu Mar 20 11:27:43 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57EED28C3C3; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 11:27:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.178 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.178 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.741, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ND8SBFEj+es4; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 11:27:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0C8828C118; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 11:27:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C667228C49D for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 11:27:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BUtc2yo3Xonb for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 11:27:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sj-iport-4.cisco.com (sj-iport-4.cisco.com [171.68.10.86]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69E2E3A6EBC for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 11:27:36 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.25,532,1199692800"; d="scan'208";a="9263007" Received: from sj-dkim-1.cisco.com ([171.71.179.21]) by sj-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 20 Mar 2008 11:25:19 -0700 Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (sj-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.177.237]) by sj-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m2KIPJ3R005299; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 11:25:19 -0700 Received: from dwingwxp01 ([10.32.240.197]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m2KIPIXJ024134; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 18:25:18 GMT From: "Dan Wing" To: "'Otmar Lendl'" , References: <18a603a60803190620x460168c1m2f7ccd43a2fcfa83@mail.gmail.com><5AB50DEF-5830-48C2-83ED-C6D83BBD9521@cs.columbia.edu><18a603a60803191253w2552531qda9788db9170745b@mail.gmail.com><47E1800D.6000505@gmx.net><18a603a60803191427l1ea3aa72taf14c8bc8154341c@mail.gmail.com><47E2216D.6000906@gmx.net> <20080320091236.GA4505@bofh.priv.at> Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 11:25:18 -0700 Message-ID: <052c01c88ab7$c0403220$c5f0200a@cisco.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 In-Reply-To: <20080320091236.GA4505@bofh.priv.at> Thread-Index: AciKapDELlD3MaQfSGKM7v55Jpy81gATNVLA DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1038; t=1206037519; x=1206901519; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim1004; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=dwing@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Dan=20Wing=22=20 |Subject:=20RE=3A=20[Rucus]=20Comparison=20of=20disposable= 20SIP=20URI=20and=20IPsec=20solutions=20toSPIT |Sender:=20; bh=JrIesMPsAqO6B/52w3TIUiGGDo4od0GMo2rrmKr6NNQ=; b=IKQ9UEYfHYuxdb2yAYXZZvDyrBOFQHZJryi9Vh44FZpwVacNTtneL3hvzi XLIwYbbpLqDeRIoWmlARlHLq7xEXR/oidZNW9v0Bq6cO1rGVxuuPkSG8xVXU ICU5oH4oRjB96xRBa9tBkyqD+8dHkGwCV7ENNQwB9BmVJ4luMXZFY=; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-1; header.From=dwing@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim1004 verified; ); Subject: Re: [Rucus] Comparison of disposable SIP URI and IPsec solutions toSPIT X-BeenThere: rucus@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Reducing Unwanted Communication Using SIP \(RUCUS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: rucus-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rucus-bounces@ietf.org > I agree, the threats to SIP security are sufficently > documented already. > > What's IMHO missing is a discussion on what properties of SIP > deployments are critical for a SPIT threat to materialize. > > e.g. if two large telcos switch their peering link from TDM/SS7 to SIP > via a private IP connection between their session border > elements, then > I don't see how this affects the SPIT threat assessment. > > Or, if a PBX uses SIP inside an office to talk to the phones, but > ISDN to the outside world, I don't see a realistic SPIT threat. > > In other words, SIP per se isn't the problem. It's how you deploy it > and what connections you allow. Both of the above example scenarios involve connections to the PSTN. If you are originating or terminating calls to/from the PSTN, there is no SPam over Internet Telephony with those calls. It is, instead, just "plain old" PSTN spam. I agree we don't care much about that; we cannot do anything to reduce such traffic to/from the PSTN. -d _______________________________________________ Rucus mailing list Rucus@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus From rucus-bounces@ietf.org Thu Mar 20 11:56:29 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26CD928C423; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 11:56:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.661 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.661 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.224, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LMZXUBIZUY8I; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 11:56:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F8F528C10F; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 11:56:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B4F33A69A3 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 11:56:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id l1fPPjC6fpCe for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 11:56:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ihemail3.lucent.com (ihemail3.lucent.com [135.245.0.37]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 764D63A6F95 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 11:56:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ihmail.ih.lucent.com (h135-1-218-70.lucent.com [135.1.218.70]) by ihemail3.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id m2KIs2ld000192; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 13:54:02 -0500 (CDT) Received: from [135.185.244.90] (il0015vkg1.ih.lucent.com [135.185.244.90]) by ihmail.ih.lucent.com (8.11.7p1+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m2KIs2A12279; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 13:54:02 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <47E2B2CA.6070606@alcatel-lucent.com> Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 13:54:02 -0500 From: "Vijay K. Gurbani" Organization: Bell Labs Security Technology Research Group User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dan Wing References: <18a603a60803190620x460168c1m2f7ccd43a2fcfa83@mail.gmail.com> <5AB50DEF-5830-48C2-83ED-C6D83BBD9521@cs.columbia.edu> <079f01c88a1a$c1d00f40$c5f0200a@cisco.com> <18a603a60803200303r23d26a0aoe6b3d44f3dbcd166@mail.gmail.com> <029c01c88aa6$fb60d2d0$c5f0200a@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <029c01c88aa6$fb60d2d0$c5f0200a@cisco.com> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.37 Cc: rucus@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Rucus] Comparison of disposable SIP URI and IPsec solutions toSPIT X-BeenThere: rucus@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Reducing Unwanted Communication Using SIP \(RUCUS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: rucus-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rucus-bounces@ietf.org Dan Wing wrote: > And, due to IPsec's lack of an API to verify that traffic is > protected with IPsec, an application (such as SIP) cannot verify that > its communications are IPsec protected. There is some work going on in btns WG on the creation of such an API. An abstract API (interface) is defined in: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-btns-abstract-api-01 and a C binding is defined in: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-btns-c-api-03 Thanks, - vijay -- Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent 2701 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9F-546, Lisle, Illinois 60532 (USA) Email: vkg@{alcatel-lucent.com,bell-labs.com,acm.org} WWW: http://www.alcatel-lucent.com/bell-labs _______________________________________________ Rucus mailing list Rucus@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus From rucus-bounces@ietf.org Fri Mar 21 02:08:42 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03DD53A6C42; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 02:08:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.739 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.739 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.698, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, GB_I_LETTER=-2, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id d2TcTogubg3U; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 02:08:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 305CE3A6949; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 02:08:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40DB03A6B22 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 02:08:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id plRC6E3TssNT for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 02:08:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wx-out-0506.google.com (wx-out-0506.google.com [66.249.82.236]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68EB83A6949 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 02:08:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wx-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id i26so1524559wxd.31 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 02:06:21 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition; bh=ZhTjP4O7NqqjnO5VP8cEikP22WWtnQvZ6D0Rvr15dTk=; b=keTITiCykT5e2a7aZIw/Qydmkuk0kM0m5xjFmbRwG7K9zRcNmsgCw04mqBUIYlS8WBqFi5MRgJSQ6ElRTKvXwzdFy/LmRUY1qDQ3jURSv7/nHPaomDuTMbh6R6/Wfw1Ntc36X0hPLuVbDSVN2zg0UXOZSoiCjMvMjK879WKrLhM= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition; b=Yxidm0uf+hlmXFhm1yp5F58UkOLAZ0BEqu1wZVjT8KieTVtfT3Fa6mlxZ0QA1zK71uhYxIhvoAbX5MWfiqak6HmYvnuDvZScRROlkZXeofAZR9Yy2XatYy8HRwpmloo499lct2GQW54nJ0c/qfkiLn7jGD/XIOp54t+YTy1JJaA= Received: by 10.70.75.12 with SMTP id x12mr3892821wxa.68.1206090381546; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 02:06:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.70.110.8 with HTTP; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 02:06:21 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <18a603a60803210206h7d0d3077q6c07a5062c182624@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 11:06:21 +0200 From: "Pars Mutaf" To: rucus@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Subject: [Rucus] Maybe we should use the keyword: please X-BeenThere: rucus@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Reducing Unwanted Communication Using SIP \(RUCUS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: rucus-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rucus-bounces@ietf.org Hello, In real-life, from my experience in France, people receive a lot of "paper" spam filling mailboxes leaving no space for important letters. Some people stick a paper on their mailbox, where they write "No ads please". This works. Perhaps this rule could apply electronic spam too? Would it be possible to distinguish the SIP URIs interested in ads and the ones who wish to avoid them. Some people are clearly interested, otherwise SPAMmers wouldn't continue. Others are not. I.e., two different kinds of SIP URIs can be used perhaps? Regards, pars _______________________________________________ Rucus mailing list Rucus@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus From rucus-bounces@ietf.org Fri Mar 21 02:43:53 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2402628C138; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 02:43:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.214 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.214 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.223, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, GB_I_LETTER=-2, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zbi7sVnx6oJ5; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 02:43:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB46C3A6B58; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 02:43:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D04AC3A6B57 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 02:43:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3NKSS1HLnYlM for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 02:43:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.bofh.priv.at (fardach.bofh.priv.at [88.198.34.164]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFF513A6A81 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 02:43:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail.bofh.priv.at (Postfix, from userid 1000) id D8FE04C6B0; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 10:41:28 +0100 (CET) Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 10:41:28 +0100 From: Otmar Lendl To: rucus@ietf.org Message-ID: <20080321094128.GA3087@bofh.priv.at> References: <18a603a60803210206h7d0d3077q6c07a5062c182624@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <18a603a60803210206h7d0d3077q6c07a5062c182624@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) Subject: Re: [Rucus] Maybe we should use the keyword: please X-BeenThere: rucus@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Reducing Unwanted Communication Using SIP \(RUCUS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: rucus-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rucus-bounces@ietf.org On 2008/03/21 10:03, Pars Mutaf wrote: > Hello, > > In real-life, from my experience in France, people receive > a lot of "paper" spam filling mailboxes leaving no space > for important letters. Some people stick a paper on their > mailbox, where they write "No ads please". This works. > > Perhaps this rule could apply electronic spam too? No. In Austria, it's legal to deposit paper spam *unless* there is such a sticker at the door. Email spam is illegal. In the paper version, the sender needs to be physical present to distribute his junk: there is a direct feedback loop: if he misbehaves, it's rather easy to catch him, yell at him, and ultimatively fine him. That accountability loop is almost completely missing in the case of email spam, and once you run open SIP proxies, the same applies for SIP. What is the incentive of an anonymous russian SIP spammer to be nice to french resident? There is zero chance that the two will ever meet. There is close to zero chance that any legal action will reach him. If the spit run promises to earn him an average monthly salary every single day, the temptation is too high. Ethics might prevent *some* people from doing it, but by far not everybody. As long as the cost/benfit/risk relationship is so lopsided, we will have to deal with spam/spit. All the technical proposals will fail unless they manage to tilt the cost/benefit ratio. /ol -- -=- Otmar Lendl -- ol@bofh.priv.at -=- _______________________________________________ Rucus mailing list Rucus@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus From rucus-bounces@ietf.org Fri Mar 21 04:01:21 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A1E53A6BD1; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 04:01:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.186 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.186 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.749, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eFbE1i1VfZhc; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 04:01:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 770D63A6B4E; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 04:01:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A83E13A6B37 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 04:01:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gt57TQmjgGF0 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 04:01:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.bofh.priv.at (fardach.bofh.priv.at [88.198.34.164]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1FBF3A6949 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 04:01:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail.bofh.priv.at (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 6BBF24C6B0; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 11:58:54 +0100 (CET) Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 11:58:54 +0100 From: Otmar Lendl To: rucus@ietf.org Message-ID: <20080321105854.GA5050@bofh.priv.at> Mail-Followup-To: Otmar Lendl , rucus@ietf.org References: <20080320091236.GA4505@bofh.priv.at> <052c01c88ab7$c0403220$c5f0200a@cisco.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <052c01c88ab7$c0403220$c5f0200a@cisco.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) Subject: Re: [Rucus] Comparison of disposable SIP URI and IPsec solutions toSPIT X-BeenThere: rucus@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Reducing Unwanted Communication Using SIP \(RUCUS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: rucus-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rucus-bounces@ietf.org On 2008/03/20 19:03, Dan Wing wrote: > > If you are originating or terminating calls to/from the PSTN, there > is no SPam over Internet Telephony with those calls. It is, instead, > just "plain old" PSTN spam. > > I agree we don't care much about that; we cannot do anything to > reduce such traffic to/from the PSTN. Let me expand a bit on that thought: Imagine for a moment that the NGN efforts take off and all SS7 interconnections between PSTN operators are magically converted to SIP trunks. On one hand, this is still the PSTN, as the interconnection structure, pricing, adminssion control, regulation, ... stays the same. On the other hand, this is now a SIP based network. Is SPIT in this (hypothetical) scenario still "plain old" PSTN spam, and as such out of scope for RUCUS? (IMHO: yes) Is the crucial distinction here "voice over IP" versus "voice over the Internet" which brings RUCUS into play? In other words, only if you * accept calls from other entities without prior signed agreements or * have "free providers" which accept anonymous signups via the web (the hotmai/yahoo/gmail equivalents for VoIP) then you may run into a spit problem which is similar to the SPAM problem. I'm still not sure whether we're all on the same page with regards to which scenario we will actually consider. /ol -- -=- Otmar Lendl -- ol@bofh.priv.at -=- _______________________________________________ Rucus mailing list Rucus@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus From rucus-bounces@ietf.org Fri Mar 21 04:46:32 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 082423A6CC6; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 04:46:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.477 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.477 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.040, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ryFklbWWm8jJ; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 04:46:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 574EA3A6C24; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 04:46:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC73D3A6BF4 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 04:46:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2Tmz0AEMyDuQ for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 04:46:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.gmx.net (mail.gmx.net [213.165.64.20]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 421DB3A6C24 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 04:46:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 21 Mar 2008 11:44:07 -0000 Received: from 85-156-178-1.elisa-mobile.fi (EHLO [85.156.178.1]) [85.156.178.1] by mail.gmx.net (mp016) with SMTP; 21 Mar 2008 12:44:07 +0100 X-Authenticated: #29516787 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX18GdQ5/UhYGCc+muPF1JzwYwKKQhiBKzi4un/TbIx qZKCcfv1OnozBO Message-ID: <47E39F8B.3090309@gmx.net> Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 13:44:11 +0200 From: Hannes Tschofenig User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (Windows/20080213) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Vijay K. Gurbani" References: <18a603a60803190620x460168c1m2f7ccd43a2fcfa83@mail.gmail.com> <5AB50DEF-5830-48C2-83ED-C6D83BBD9521@cs.columbia.edu> <079f01c88a1a$c1d00f40$c5f0200a@cisco.com> <18a603a60803200303r23d26a0aoe6b3d44f3dbcd166@mail.gmail.com> <029c01c88aa6$fb60d2d0$c5f0200a@cisco.com> <47E2B2CA.6070606@alcatel-lucent.com> In-Reply-To: <47E2B2CA.6070606@alcatel-lucent.com> X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Cc: rucus@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Rucus] Comparison of disposable SIP URI and IPsec solutions toSPIT X-BeenThere: rucus@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Reducing Unwanted Communication Using SIP \(RUCUS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: rucus-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rucus-bounces@ietf.org Ah. The widely implemented BTNS work.... Vijay K. Gurbani wrote: > Dan Wing wrote: > >> And, due to IPsec's lack of an API to verify that traffic is >> protected with IPsec, an application (such as SIP) cannot verify that >> its communications are IPsec protected. >> > > There is some work going on in btns WG on the creation of such > an API. > > An abstract API (interface) is defined in: > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-btns-abstract-api-01 > and a C binding is defined in: > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-btns-c-api-03 > > Thanks, > > - vijay > _______________________________________________ Rucus mailing list Rucus@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus From rucus-bounces@ietf.org Fri Mar 21 05:18:55 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A03D28C1EA; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 05:18:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.853 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.853 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.584, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, GB_I_LETTER=-2, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZD1PxlozJPWg; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 05:18:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88B423A6C21; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 05:18:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDEB63A6C21 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 05:18:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NcYfN0cByHF8 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 05:18:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wx-out-0506.google.com (wx-out-0506.google.com [66.249.82.238]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CADC628C0FF for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 05:18:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wx-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id i26so1599556wxd.31 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 05:16:13 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=/1a7fPiQO0snTCRPzu5iNuBCOKEBap7LtU+I7V1d4oQ=; b=X/8dCADxiEgq/AU7DX0+el2NCqqutEVPM+53iUDWcXIkLzasLSQ3OZwz/hCQHV6+nzIX3jrO2UVdopQPwQ8cJgpGdnvzfRgOSaaG9av9sUCXm/JgCt4Xh74Cx2PWNsyUsUOMwG5dlFZ2HDigxiAL+wG3uL18fyVbn1i3rV4M0ks= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=lgRHtq6vab/I95ylu6+7lz+G7UK3YrdDedFxmA1z4fe/POfcUzJX6SQqCjBiPiWrugXKxNAwP7tCHNcn7IdN6lL6iV7uPOk+ijI63gRqY25q2+zJ4asg0FeYMzur1ZD1MSqnBtEyYROGMGm7krIhXIL1CIYpUxYtZfc4k0/aZrI= Received: by 10.70.9.4 with SMTP id 4mr4113788wxi.2.1206101771730; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 05:16:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.70.110.8 with HTTP; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 05:16:11 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <18a603a60803210516g749a0e1av98de7acf627d15a9@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 14:16:11 +0200 From: "Pars Mutaf" To: "Otmar Lendl" In-Reply-To: <20080321094128.GA3087@bofh.priv.at> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline References: <18a603a60803210206h7d0d3077q6c07a5062c182624@mail.gmail.com> <20080321094128.GA3087@bofh.priv.at> Cc: rucus@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Rucus] Maybe we should use the keyword: please X-BeenThere: rucus@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Reducing Unwanted Communication Using SIP \(RUCUS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: rucus-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rucus-bounces@ietf.org On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 11:41 AM, Otmar Lendl wrote: > On 2008/03/21 10:03, Pars Mutaf wrote: > > Hello, > > > > In real-life, from my experience in France, people receive > > a lot of "paper" spam filling mailboxes leaving no space > > for important letters. Some people stick a paper on their > > mailbox, where they write "No ads please". This works. > > > > Perhaps this rule could apply electronic spam too? > > No. > > In Austria, it's legal to deposit paper spam *unless* there > is such a sticker at the door. Email spam is illegal. > > In the paper version, the sender needs to be physical present > to distribute his junk: there is a direct feedback loop: if > he misbehaves, it's rather easy to catch him, yell at him, > and ultimatively fine him. > > That accountability loop is almost completely missing in the case of > email spam, and once you run open SIP proxies, the same applies for SIP. > > What is the incentive of an anonymous russian SIP spammer to be nice to > french resident? There is zero chance that the two will ever meet. There > is close to zero chance that any legal action will reach him. > > If the spit run promises to earn him an average monthly salary every > single day, the temptation is too high. Ethics might prevent *some* > people from doing it, but by far not everybody. I agree with you. But this would probably reinforce the ethics and perhaps reduce (future) SPIT. After all, when the spammer programs a robot to send SPIT to an address that explicitly dislikes it, he knows that the piece of code that he is writing is probably useless and unethical. He cannot defend himself saying: "Well you accuse me but some people need and buy our products, we are doing a good thing". He cannot say that because he sent spam to a person who is not interested, and he knew this by the time he wrote his code. This would also reinforce the law: he sent SPIT to a target user, although you knew for sure that she dislikes it. My problem is rather technical. Would such separation of SIP URIs be feasable technically. Thanks, pars > As long as the cost/benfit/risk relationship is so lopsided, we will > have to deal with spam/spit. > > All the technical proposals will fail unless they manage to tilt > the cost/benefit ratio. > > /ol > -- > -=- Otmar Lendl -- ol@bofh.priv.at -=- > _______________________________________________ > Rucus mailing list > Rucus@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus > _______________________________________________ Rucus mailing list Rucus@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus From rucus-bounces@ietf.org Fri Mar 21 06:26:04 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E99713A6D9F; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 06:26:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.659 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.659 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.222, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9b2FgpQvofjR; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 06:26:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C79A3A6D8F; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 06:26:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 262CE3A6C68 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 06:26:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id W7OblVXjBaxc for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 06:26:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ihemail1.lucent.com (ihemail1.lucent.com [135.245.0.33]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A9743A67D4 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 06:26:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ihmail.ih.lucent.com (h135-1-218-70.lucent.com [135.1.218.70]) by ihemail1.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id m2LDNgbK013155; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 08:23:42 -0500 (CDT) Received: from [135.185.244.90] (il0015vkg1.ih.lucent.com [135.185.244.90]) by ihmail.ih.lucent.com (8.11.7p1+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m2LDNgA29073; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 08:23:42 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <47E3B6DD.3000506@alcatel-lucent.com> Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 08:23:41 -0500 From: "Vijay K. Gurbani" Organization: Bell Labs Security Technology Research Group User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Hannes Tschofenig References: <18a603a60803190620x460168c1m2f7ccd43a2fcfa83@mail.gmail.com> <5AB50DEF-5830-48C2-83ED-C6D83BBD9521@cs.columbia.edu> <079f01c88a1a$c1d00f40$c5f0200a@cisco.com> <18a603a60803200303r23d26a0aoe6b3d44f3dbcd166@mail.gmail.com> <029c01c88aa6$fb60d2d0$c5f0200a@cisco.com> <47E2B2CA.6070606@alcatel-lucent.com> <47E39F8B.3090309@gmx.net> In-Reply-To: <47E39F8B.3090309@gmx.net> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.33 Cc: rucus@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Rucus] Comparison of disposable SIP URI and IPsec solutions toSPIT X-BeenThere: rucus@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Reducing Unwanted Communication Using SIP \(RUCUS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: rucus-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rucus-bounces@ietf.org Hannes Tschofenig wrote: > Ah. The widely implemented BTNS work.... Yes, I agree. Deployment is a long way off. But I thought it was interesting to see any work in this area at all (unless I am missing something germane; I do not have the same background context on this work as you may have. As such, I am evaluating it based on solely the existence of the draft...) - vijay -- Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent 2701 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9F-546, Lisle, Illinois 60532 (USA) Email: vkg@{alcatel-lucent.com,bell-labs.com,acm.org} WWW: http://www.alcatel-lucent.com/bell-labs _______________________________________________ Rucus mailing list Rucus@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus From rucus-bounces@ietf.org Fri Mar 21 08:24:39 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44A563A6843; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 08:24:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.23 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.23 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.793, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kIyyp+Ot9NqC; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 08:24:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE3343A6968; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 08:24:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A2743A68BE for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 08:24:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5KMs+PTet-1u for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 08:24:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sj-iport-3.cisco.com (sj-iport-3.cisco.com [171.71.176.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2025C3A67B2 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 08:24:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sj-dkim-3.cisco.com ([171.71.179.195]) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 21 Mar 2008 08:22:02 -0700 Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (sj-core-2.cisco.com [171.71.177.254]) by sj-dkim-3.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m2LFM2JB012427; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 08:22:02 -0700 Received: from dwingwxp01 ([10.32.240.197]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m2LFM1ZQ015291; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 15:22:01 GMT From: "Dan Wing" To: "'Pars Mutaf'" , "'Otmar Lendl'" References: <18a603a60803210206h7d0d3077q6c07a5062c182624@mail.gmail.com><20080321094128.GA3087@bofh.priv.at> <18a603a60803210516g749a0e1av98de7acf627d15a9@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 08:22:01 -0700 Message-ID: <01bf01c88b67$50273be0$c5f0200a@cisco.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 Thread-Index: AciLTWmS71fC5JV6QEmyNKwz5ysgNgAGdX1A In-Reply-To: <18a603a60803210516g749a0e1av98de7acf627d15a9@mail.gmail.com> DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=193; t=1206112922; x=1206976922; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim3002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=dwing@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Dan=20Wing=22=20 |Subject:=20RE=3A=20[Rucus]=20Maybe=20we=20should=20use=20t he=20keyword=3A=20please |Sender:=20; bh=bR+R/GvAzwuZ49HZmZemGk+0vTogVTPvkuGBhnIviDM=; b=vtgxIw2nCVoEJDNGIBy8gz/SFJXq4aprjONSMQ0LPGxIhuxGNz97hBbb0F SCFIPm1SHUS0//MylRBqf+s/cB+1ONpEURd47ctTo1HyMdJqlKorssS9T9TS PPZdMyh4OL; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-3; header.From=dwing@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim3002 verified; ); Cc: rucus@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Rucus] Maybe we should use the keyword: please X-BeenThere: rucus@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Reducing Unwanted Communication Using SIP \(RUCUS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: rucus-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rucus-bounces@ietf.org > My problem is rather technical. Would such separation of SIP URIs be > feasable technically. As in, sip:+14085551234@cisco.com;spam=no No, I don't see that being useful. -d _______________________________________________ Rucus mailing list Rucus@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus From rucus-bounces@ietf.org Fri Mar 21 09:04:39 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBFC728C2BD; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 09:04:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.24 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.24 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.803, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GYdi7zPK4awb; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 09:04:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F5353A6D6A; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 09:04:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3A9A3A6D6A for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 09:04:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id V2FGycG5iXys for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 09:04:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sj-iport-4.cisco.com (sj-iport-4.cisco.com [171.68.10.86]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA73A3A6D6D for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 09:04:30 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.25,536,1199692800"; d="scan'208";a="9306543" Received: from sj-dkim-4.cisco.com ([171.71.179.196]) by sj-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 21 Mar 2008 09:02:13 -0700 Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (sj-core-2.cisco.com [171.71.177.254]) by sj-dkim-4.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m2LG2CeE020774; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 09:02:12 -0700 Received: from dwingwxp01 ([10.32.240.197]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m2LG2C1K019897; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 16:02:12 GMT From: "Dan Wing" To: "'Otmar Lendl'" , References: <20080320091236.GA4505@bofh.priv.at><052c01c88ab7$c0403220$c5f0200a@cisco.com> <20080321105854.GA5050@bofh.priv.at> Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 09:02:12 -0700 Message-ID: <026b01c88b6c$ecf70680$c5f0200a@cisco.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 Thread-Index: AciLQpOSOsVZBmIHSfqJbRBGTO65AwAJM8zw In-Reply-To: <20080321105854.GA5050@bofh.priv.at> DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1368; t=1206115332; x=1206979332; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim4002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=dwing@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Dan=20Wing=22=20 |Subject:=20RE=3A=20[Rucus]=20Comparison=20of=20disposable= 20SIP=20URI=20and=20IPsec=20solutionstoSPIT |Sender:=20; bh=sjab5CqlICKMa019H/yALZlCxAl7t1LaHeefppOAj1U=; b=AtrUayanjwd5h6wc5kloErfyNaI3J52WXmGBxvIC5yB8Ag/ttK7uHLjFtL bqytoOZZ2h8H28YHmRzUF+NiGGK0sfYX+DFRvxBZjFORrDQL3Sn+1m5Jh0XH O2hObBr7D4; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-4; header.From=dwing@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim4002 verified; ); Subject: Re: [Rucus] Comparison of disposable SIP URI and IPsec solutionstoSPIT X-BeenThere: rucus@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Reducing Unwanted Communication Using SIP \(RUCUS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: rucus-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rucus-bounces@ietf.org ... > Is the crucial distinction here "voice over IP" versus "voice over the > Internet" which brings RUCUS into play? > > In other words, only if you > > * accept calls from other entities without prior signed agreements > or > * have "free providers" which accept anonymous signups via the web > (the hotmai/yahoo/gmail equivalents for VoIP) > > then you may run into a spit problem which is similar to the SPAM > problem. Today, even with signed agreements, you can still receive email spam. For example, I could have an agreement with a cable provider to not send me spam. But, sometimes, due to no fault of their own, some cable subscriber would decide it is Really Important to "get the word out" about some environmental cause (for example). The subscriber might try to send 1,000,000 of their spams and only be detected as a spammer around 1,000 or 10,000. So 1,000 or 10,000 unlucky people will receive spams. One might imagine a trojan horse, or other software, could learn the user's SIP login credentials and use those credentials to send spam, unbeknownst to the user. As for free providers, yes, they could be a hotbed for SPIT, much as they are a hotbed for today's email spam. > I'm still not sure whether we're all on the same page with regards > to which scenario we will actually consider. -d _______________________________________________ Rucus mailing list Rucus@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus From rucus-bounces@ietf.org Fri Mar 21 09:05:53 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1E783A6B78; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 09:05:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.653 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.653 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.216, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, GB_I_LETTER=-2, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KHm2cFYrMcdE; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 09:05:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40B353A6831; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 09:05:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6026D3A6831 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 09:05:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0XOuVQdRwhFa for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 09:05:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from erkkila.org (services.erkkila.org [24.97.94.217]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 563483A6774 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 09:05:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.1.1.25] (t61pee.erkkila.org [::ffff:10.1.1.25]) (AUTH: PLAIN pee@erkkila.org, TLS: TLSv1/SSLv3,256bits,AES256-SHA) by erkkila.org with esmtp; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 16:03:26 +0000 id 0020F3AC.47E3DC4E.00007850 Message-ID: <47E3DC4D.4000503@erkkila.org> Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 12:03:25 -0400 From: Paul Erkkila User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (X11/20080213) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pars Mutaf References: <18a603a60803210206h7d0d3077q6c07a5062c182624@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <18a603a60803210206h7d0d3077q6c07a5062c182624@mail.gmail.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.6 Cc: rucus@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Rucus] Maybe we should use the keyword: please X-BeenThere: rucus@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Reducing Unwanted Communication Using SIP \(RUCUS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: rucus-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rucus-bounces@ietf.org Pars Mutaf wrote: > Hello, > > In real-life, from my experience in France, people receive > a lot of "paper" spam filling mailboxes leaving no space > for important letters. Some people stick a paper on their > mailbox, where they write "No ads please". This works. > > Perhaps this rule could apply electronic spam too? > > Would it be possible to distinguish the SIP URIs interested > in ads and the ones who wish to avoid them. Some > people are clearly interested, otherwise SPAMmers > wouldn't continue. Others are not. > > I.e., two different kinds of SIP URIs can be used perhaps? > Would this be for (for lack of a better term) harvested addresses only? If the default state was to opt-out, couldn't someone who was interested in receiving these types of communications just give them their SIP contact information? I don't think the two parties would have trouble finding one another w/o help. -pee _______________________________________________ Rucus mailing list Rucus@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus From rucus-bounces@ietf.org Fri Mar 21 10:01:26 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C26283A6DC2; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 10:01:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.539 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.539 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.102, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id v2OARqjhtTyQ; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 10:01:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E6EF3A6A49; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 10:01:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B5D13A6A49 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 10:01:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iVg8hsLk0x+s for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 10:01:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from etmail.acmepacket.com (etmail.acmepacket.com [216.41.24.6]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 168C33A684F for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 10:01:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.acmepacket.com (216.41.24.7) by etmail.acmepacket.com (216.41.24.6) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.1.240.5; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 12:58:40 -0400 Received: from mail.acmepacket.com ([216.41.24.7]) by mail.acmepacket.com ([216.41.24.7]) with mapi; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 12:58:40 -0400 From: Hadriel Kaplan To: Pars Mutaf Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 12:57:35 -0400 Thread-Topic: [Rucus] Comparison of disposable SIP URI and IPsec solutions to SPIT Thread-Index: AciKaL2MUJppLMCOTlGVJs7NMmoxjABBmlDQ Message-ID: References: <18a603a60803190620x460168c1m2f7ccd43a2fcfa83@mail.gmail.com> <5AB50DEF-5830-48C2-83ED-C6D83BBD9521@cs.columbia.edu> <18a603a60803191253w2552531qda9788db9170745b@mail.gmail.com> <47E1800D.6000505@gmx.net> <18a603a60803191427l1ea3aa72taf14c8bc8154341c@mail.gmail.com> <47E2216D.6000906@gmx.net> <18a603a60803200159j7bdd3f48p2b9df76dc0b90adc@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <18a603a60803200159j7bdd3f48p2b9df76dc0b90adc@mail.gmail.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "rucus@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Rucus] Comparison of disposable SIP URI and IPsec solutions to SPIT X-BeenThere: rucus@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Reducing Unwanted Communication Using SIP \(RUCUS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: rucus-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rucus-bounces@ietf.org > -----Original Message----- > From: rucus-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rucus-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Pars Mutaf > Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2008 5:00 AM > To: Hannes Tschofenig > Cc: rucus@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Rucus] Comparison of disposable SIP URI and IPsec solutions > to SPIT > > On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 10:33 AM, Hannes Tschofenig > wrote: > > I wonder how a shop owner can do that given the available SIP security > > mechanisms. The shop owner (let's assume a WLAN hotspot) would not be > > able to see anything other than TLS protected traffic. > > > > That's right. SIP URIs MUST be protected from eavesdroppers. For SPIT protection? Why? "Harvesting" is not necessary for common SIP URI usage, because it's commonly based on phone numbers. One does not need to harvest phone numbers by sniffing anything, or looking through documents, or web mining. You can buy a white-pages database with all of them ahead of time, or you can simply auto-dial - it's a constrained number space. And even for alphabetic usernames, the ship has sailed, because they're often the same as the email address. -hadriel _______________________________________________ Rucus mailing list Rucus@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus From rucus-bounces@ietf.org Fri Mar 21 10:22:36 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E96428C23F; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 10:22:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.899 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.462, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3jEVk4jpwfP5; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 10:22:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F5473A6CB8; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 10:22:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FE6C3A6CD7 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 10:22:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id g-Jr3XMrxMr9 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 10:22:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wx-out-0506.google.com (wx-out-0506.google.com [66.249.82.234]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9074A3A6CB8 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 10:22:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wx-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id i26so1716965wxd.31 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 10:20:11 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=e54nHG+7K3tiXE6rNGfVAcd8tKaVNSUzyb5dhO8x4lg=; b=JoGmUrLZ4G93PfbL/ArdEA8BQuqeUspKAlQdi16JNX4frLVVKYhZN4fDbsY2IOEWpn8QljW/KZJTYncjNHYniR+KThlXrVB/x1s/GRleRrtmyHBuQSS/krAyvsLctWe3SQnQPtxC4xz2/11QSFP+vBLI7EUP7YnlYFBaBM7TrbI= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=mSSODmVq2xw2fx2H+OFetAHJAapCL1dBi3VRSIeMKAuX2b1iwwsTPb4fk+meGjNBqNDHQqFqkNdrCu7Y4urPlthc7MgpninKv7ba8xlu74ZLsE0j08F+erAN1WFL/YXvVEuq6WHgQLbzTRmAN3bAXJ4jHZfpcmabAnEnVbR9wVE= Received: by 10.140.126.14 with SMTP id y14mr1469296rvc.96.1206120010749; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 10:20:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.70.110.8 with HTTP; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 10:20:10 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <18a603a60803211020m426c787dqb29dad4043ad3502@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 19:20:10 +0200 From: "Pars Mutaf" To: "Hadriel Kaplan" In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline References: <18a603a60803190620x460168c1m2f7ccd43a2fcfa83@mail.gmail.com> <5AB50DEF-5830-48C2-83ED-C6D83BBD9521@cs.columbia.edu> <18a603a60803191253w2552531qda9788db9170745b@mail.gmail.com> <47E1800D.6000505@gmx.net> <18a603a60803191427l1ea3aa72taf14c8bc8154341c@mail.gmail.com> <47E2216D.6000906@gmx.net> <18a603a60803200159j7bdd3f48p2b9df76dc0b90adc@mail.gmail.com> Cc: "rucus@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Rucus] Comparison of disposable SIP URI and IPsec solutions to SPIT X-BeenThere: rucus@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Reducing Unwanted Communication Using SIP \(RUCUS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: rucus-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rucus-bounces@ietf.org On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 6:57 PM, Hadriel Kaplan wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: rucus-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rucus-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > > Pars Mutaf > > Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2008 5:00 AM > > To: Hannes Tschofenig > > Cc: rucus@ietf.org > > Subject: Re: [Rucus] Comparison of disposable SIP URI and IPsec solutions > > to SPIT > > > > > On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 10:33 AM, Hannes Tschofenig > > wrote: > > > I wonder how a shop owner can do that given the available SIP security > > > mechanisms. The shop owner (let's assume a WLAN hotspot) would not be > > > able to see anything other than TLS protected traffic. > > > > > > > That's right. SIP URIs MUST be protected from eavesdroppers. > > For SPIT protection? Why? "Harvesting" is not necessary for common SIP URI usage, because it's commonly based on phone > numbers. One does not need to harvest phone numbers by sniffing anything, or looking through documents, or web mining. You can > buy a white-pages database with all of them ahead of time, or you can simply auto-dial - it's a constrained number space. And even for > alphabetic usernames, the ship has sailed, because they're often the same as the email address. In the initial text that I sended, I reviewed the disposable SIP URIs. This defense is weakened if it is vulnerable to eavesdroppers. Moreover, if all other doors are closed, SPAMmers may attack in that way i.e. by eavesdropping on SIP traffic. In another hypothetical attack (that makes a lot of sense to me), the owner of a shop may install a snifer and automatically send advertisements to nearby mobile phone users' sniffed SIP URIs. Note that my IETF experience is limited to Internet Area, where this kind of models are not considered marginal (Wi-FI, WiMax, Mobile IPv6 etc). Excuse my ignorance. The SIP URIs never appear in clear-text when protected with TLS? What about end2 messages e.g F12? Again sorry I missed something obvious. pars > -hadriel > _______________________________________________ Rucus mailing list Rucus@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus From rucus-bounces@ietf.org Fri Mar 21 11:26:19 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE7203A6B82; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 11:26:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.541 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.541 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.104, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vXoQFIM7Ubx2; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 11:26:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 208003A6A25; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 11:26:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFA083A67DA for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 11:26:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OKFvptShDuJg for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 11:26:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from etmail.acmepacket.com (etmail.acmepacket.com [216.41.24.6]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7191E3A6B37 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 11:26:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.acmepacket.com (216.41.24.7) by etmail.acmepacket.com (216.41.24.6) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.1.240.5; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 14:23:27 -0400 Received: from mail.acmepacket.com ([216.41.24.7]) by mail.acmepacket.com ([216.41.24.7]) with mapi; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 14:23:27 -0400 From: Hadriel Kaplan To: Pars Mutaf Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 14:22:16 -0400 Thread-Topic: [Rucus] Comparison of disposable SIP URI and IPsec solutions to SPIT Thread-Index: AciLd8We566UYGIhTyS3Ijpdi2I+RQABa+Lw Message-ID: References: <18a603a60803190620x460168c1m2f7ccd43a2fcfa83@mail.gmail.com> <5AB50DEF-5830-48C2-83ED-C6D83BBD9521@cs.columbia.edu> <18a603a60803191253w2552531qda9788db9170745b@mail.gmail.com> <47E1800D.6000505@gmx.net> <18a603a60803191427l1ea3aa72taf14c8bc8154341c@mail.gmail.com> <47E2216D.6000906@gmx.net> <18a603a60803200159j7bdd3f48p2b9df76dc0b90adc@mail.gmail.com> <18a603a60803211020m426c787dqb29dad4043ad3502@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <18a603a60803211020m426c787dqb29dad4043ad3502@mail.gmail.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "rucus@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Rucus] Comparison of disposable SIP URI and IPsec solutions to SPIT X-BeenThere: rucus@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Reducing Unwanted Communication Using SIP \(RUCUS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: rucus-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rucus-bounces@ietf.org > -----Original Message----- > From: Pars Mutaf [mailto:pars.mutaf@gmail.com] > > In the initial text that I sended, I reviewed the disposable SIP URIs. > This defense is weakened if it is vulnerable to eavesdroppers. > Moreover, if all other doors are closed, SPAMmers may attack > in that way i.e. by eavesdropping on SIP traffic. Right, but my point is traditional "SPAMmers" would not bother to do so, because they wouldn't need to - they already know or can easily guess the SIP AoR's to use. A "local SPAMer" maybe, but that's like a drop in the bucket compared to general SPAM. > In another hypothetical > attack (that makes a lot of sense to me), the owner of a shop > may install a snifer and automatically send advertisements to > nearby mobile phone users' sniffed SIP URIs. Note that my IETF > experience is limited to Internet Area, where this kind of models > are not considered marginal (Wi-FI, WiMax, Mobile IPv6 etc). Well, it should be considered marginal, imho. The impact of eavesdropping is far more severe for things other than SPAM. SPAM would be one of the more benign issues for that case, frankly. A shop owner has no incentive to do this, because the customer backlash would be severe. Another eavesdropper on the same broadcast domain may have such incentive, but that's why protection mechanisms are available to prevent eavesdropping. > Excuse my ignorance. The SIP URIs never appear in clear-text > when protected with TLS? What about end2 messages e.g F12? It depends on some registration behavior, but no normally the SIP URI's would not appear in cleartext on the local broadcast domain if TLS is used. (whether it actually is used is another matter, but it's available) I don't know what "F12" is. -hadriel _______________________________________________ Rucus mailing list Rucus@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus From rucus-bounces@ietf.org Fri Mar 21 11:29:59 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 989C63A6A5D; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 11:29:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.544 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.544 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.107, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SgFuoJTP9tWv; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 11:29:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC0FD3A6A0C; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 11:29:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A21253A6A50 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 11:29:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7Qj9xmyLbGeB for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 11:29:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from etmail.acmepacket.com (etmail.acmepacket.com [216.41.24.6]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 731A73A68B1 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 11:29:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.acmepacket.com (216.41.24.7) by etmail.acmepacket.com (216.41.24.6) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.1.240.5; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 14:27:12 -0400 Received: from mail.acmepacket.com ([216.41.24.7]) by mail.acmepacket.com ([216.41.24.7]) with mapi; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 14:27:12 -0400 From: Hadriel Kaplan To: Pars Mutaf Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 14:26:06 -0400 Thread-Topic: [Rucus] Maybe we should use the keyword: please Thread-Index: AciLTV2An2BbIiIVS9+U2920pU/CRwAM0YRg Message-ID: References: <18a603a60803210206h7d0d3077q6c07a5062c182624@mail.gmail.com> <20080321094128.GA3087@bofh.priv.at> <18a603a60803210516g749a0e1av98de7acf627d15a9@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <18a603a60803210516g749a0e1av98de7acf627d15a9@mail.gmail.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "rucus@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Rucus] Maybe we should use the keyword: please X-BeenThere: rucus@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Reducing Unwanted Communication Using SIP \(RUCUS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: rucus-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rucus-bounces@ietf.org > -----Original Message----- > From: rucus-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rucus-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Pars Mutaf > > I agree with you. But this would probably reinforce the ethics and perhaps > reduce (future) SPIT. After all, when the spammer programs a robot to > send SPIT to an address that explicitly dislikes it, he knows that the > piece > of code that he is writing is probably useless and unethical. > He cannot defend himself saying: "Well you accuse me but some people > need and buy our products, we are doing a good thing". He cannot say that > because he sent spam to a person who is not interested, and he knew this > by the time he wrote his code. This would also reinforce the law: he > sent SPIT to a target user, although you knew for sure that she dislikes > it. You're joking, right? Are you suggesting maybe this flag be set using RFC 3514? ;) -hadriel _______________________________________________ Rucus mailing list Rucus@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus From rucus-bounces@ietf.org Fri Mar 21 11:34:52 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E02928C15F; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 11:34:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.182 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.182 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.945, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, GB_I_LETTER=-2, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, MANGLED_SPAM=2.3, RCVD_IN_BSP_OTHER=-0.1, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QxnLXvhR2avi; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 11:34:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9002D28C36A; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 11:34:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 227893A6A6B for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 11:30:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XOYXa3pj2G9s for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 11:30:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [208.31.42.53]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A52193A6A50 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 11:30:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 35305 invoked from network); 21 Mar 2008 18:27:59 -0000 Received: from simone.iecc.com (208.31.42.47) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 21 Mar 2008 18:27:59 -0000 Date: 21 Mar 2008 18:27:59 -0000 Message-ID: <20080321182759.11884.qmail@simone.iecc.com> From: John Levine To: rucus@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <18a603a60803210206h7d0d3077q6c07a5062c182624@mail.gmail.com> Organization: X-Headerized: yes Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 11:34:02 -0700 Subject: Re: [Rucus] various well known techniques, Maybe we should use the keyword: please X-BeenThere: rucus@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Reducing Unwanted Communication Using SIP \(RUCUS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: rucus-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rucus-bounces@ietf.org >In real-life, from my experience in France, people receive a lot of >"paper" spam filling mailboxes leaving no space for important >letters. Some people stick a paper on their mailbox, where they write >"No ads please". This works. Various sorts of no-spam banners and do-not spam lists have been proposed for e-mail spam for a very long time. I published a draft for an SMTP banner saying NO UCE in 1998. It was the inspiration for RFC 3865 in 2004. There are some completely useless no-spam registries in the US, notably including eMPS run by the Direct Marketing Association. They don't work for fairly obvious reasons, mostly that spammers have no reason to pay attention to them. Postal no-spam notices work in countries where the postal monopoly has told its mail carriers to follow them, but that's not much of a model for SMTP or SIP. Over in the ASRG, which I chair, we're compiling a taxonomy of anti-spam techniques, among other reasons to document the many that are known not to be effective. See http://wiki.asrg.sp.am/index.php/Taxonomy_of_anti-spam_techniques The issues of SIP spam and e-mail spam aren't identical, but they overlap a lot, and I expect that whatever makes bad anti-spam techniques ineffective is likely to make them bad anti-spit techniques as well. We can save a lot of time here. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, ex-Mayor "More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly. PS: Anyone's welcome to work on the taxonomy wiki. Send me a note to get a login. _______________________________________________ Rucus mailing list Rucus@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus From rucus-bounces@ietf.org Fri Mar 21 11:43:13 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31FFC3A6B37; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 11:43:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.518 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.518 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.081, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NFSiFh91Mfyn; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 11:43:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5315F28C31C; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 11:43:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95C203A68BE for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 11:43:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2JcTFTzE0yXt for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 11:43:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wf-out-1314.google.com (wf-out-1314.google.com [209.85.200.171]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D74A428C2E3 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 11:43:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wf-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id 25so1703651wfa.31 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 11:40:47 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=sHoUZTzOhiM4IcLwFt1qITeP8iuwG0C5rDh101HYw58=; b=Nyk0gwFIL9I+dXaIgAH4ezRNRYIwqVzQyYn+PcJuPAcK9Foy5cTXYg5GH91IWWRJMmtFhtr/TYHAaj0UZ7rzJVUp1VuZGcpOejvi+DcXVtQB6SSC2d9kbKt3IUSnynVQddz6zaLR2Zfwa+yC1uUHEJjBQqP4059a1ApemrLNHqY= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=GMCJcfiDkRu00e+TXM5Zgtt5k+5EHNJ8PhWDo0Usm0JcSEvPrFkG6h+/NVjiMvqIOdX4GKJJwoSqwTt0SZDUYv6hwkfQXDl47buLFlbOvJcECkNkr47/U658rhXa4kPHAdta6zf21RdkoOd9mZHmByLDCWGpG0vGqeZQALCboE0= Received: by 10.142.52.9 with SMTP id z9mr2589344wfz.237.1206124847471; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 11:40:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.70.110.8 with HTTP; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 11:40:47 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <18a603a60803211140h5cf6b485id554aefa178910dc@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 20:40:47 +0200 From: "Pars Mutaf" To: "Hadriel Kaplan" In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline References: <18a603a60803190620x460168c1m2f7ccd43a2fcfa83@mail.gmail.com> <18a603a60803191253w2552531qda9788db9170745b@mail.gmail.com> <47E1800D.6000505@gmx.net> <18a603a60803191427l1ea3aa72taf14c8bc8154341c@mail.gmail.com> <47E2216D.6000906@gmx.net> <18a603a60803200159j7bdd3f48p2b9df76dc0b90adc@mail.gmail.com> <18a603a60803211020m426c787dqb29dad4043ad3502@mail.gmail.com> Cc: "rucus@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Rucus] Comparison of disposable SIP URI and IPsec solutions to SPIT X-BeenThere: rucus@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Reducing Unwanted Communication Using SIP \(RUCUS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: rucus-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rucus-bounces@ietf.org On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 8:22 PM, Hadriel Kaplan wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Pars Mutaf [mailto:pars.mutaf@gmail.com] > > > > > In the initial text that I sended, I reviewed the disposable SIP URIs. > > This defense is weakened if it is vulnerable to eavesdroppers. > > Moreover, if all other doors are closed, SPAMmers may attack > > in that way i.e. by eavesdropping on SIP traffic. > > > Right, but my point is traditional "SPAMmers" would not bother to do so, because they wouldn't need to - they already know or can easily guess the SIP AoR's to use. A "local SPAMer" maybe, but that's like a drop in the bucket compared to general SPAM. > > > > In another hypothetical > > attack (that makes a lot of sense to me), the owner of a shop > > may install a snifer and automatically send advertisements to > > nearby mobile phone users' sniffed SIP URIs. Note that my IETF > > experience is limited to Internet Area, where this kind of models > > are not considered marginal (Wi-FI, WiMax, Mobile IPv6 etc). > > Well, it should be considered marginal, imho. The impact of eavesdropping is far more severe for things other than SPAM. SPAM > would be one of the more benign issues for that case, frankly. A shop owner has no incentive to do this, because the customer backlash > would be severe. :-) I hope you are right. >Another eavesdropper on the same broadcast domain may have such incentive, but that's why protection mechanisms are available to >prevent eavesdropping. > > > > > Excuse my ignorance. The SIP URIs never appear in clear-text > > when protected with TLS? What about end2 messages e.g F12? > > It depends on some registration behavior, but no normally the SIP URI's would not appear in cleartext on the local broadcast domain if TLS is used. (whether it actually is used is another matter, but it's available) > I don't know what "F12" is. F12 is the end2end ACK message in the Figure 1 of Session Initiation Protocol document (rfc3261). I couln't figure out if there is a risk. Thanks, pars > > -hadriel > _______________________________________________ Rucus mailing list Rucus@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus From rucus-bounces@ietf.org Fri Mar 21 13:16:52 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C06528C349; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 13:16:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.963 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.963 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.526, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zwqnISmLGs7d; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 13:16:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F43A3A6DC2; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 13:16:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6F7C3A6BCD for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 13:16:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id w5TQi8iwv0Dx for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 13:16:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.bofh.priv.at (fardach.bofh.priv.at [88.198.34.164]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA52E3A6818 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 13:16:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail.bofh.priv.at (Postfix, from userid 1000) id E96EF4C962; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 21:14:29 +0100 (CET) Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 21:14:29 +0100 From: Otmar Lendl To: rucus@ietf.org Message-ID: <20080321201429.GA16800@bofh.priv.at> Mail-Followup-To: Otmar Lendl , rucus@ietf.org References: <20080321105854.GA5050@bofh.priv.at> <026b01c88b6c$ecf70680$c5f0200a@cisco.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <026b01c88b6c$ecf70680$c5f0200a@cisco.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) Subject: Re: [Rucus] Comparison of disposable SIP URI and IPsec solutionstoSPIT X-BeenThere: rucus@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Reducing Unwanted Communication Using SIP \(RUCUS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: rucus-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rucus-bounces@ietf.org On 2008/03/21 17:03, Dan Wing wrote: > ... > > Is the crucial distinction here "voice over IP" versus "voice over the > > Internet" which brings RUCUS into play? > > > > In other words, only if you > > > > * accept calls from other entities without prior signed agreements > > or > > * have "free providers" which accept anonymous signups via the web > > (the hotmai/yahoo/gmail equivalents for VoIP) > > > > then you may run into a spit problem which is similar to the SPAM > > problem. > > Today, even with signed agreements, you can still receive email > spam. For example, I could have an agreement with a cable provider > to not send me spam. But, sometimes, due to no fault of their own, > some cable subscriber would decide it is Really Important to "get > the word out" about some environmental cause (for example). The > subscriber might try to send 1,000,000 of their spams and only be > detected as a spammer around 1,000 or 10,000. So 1,000 or 10,000 > unlucky people will receive spams. Correct, but is this in any way different to what can happen on the old fashioned PSTN? If the provider limits the number of concurrent calls a single subscriber can make, what difference does it make that this is a SIP-based provider and not a POTS-based one? In other words, is this really a new threat? > One might imagine a trojan horse, or other software, could > learn the user's SIP login credentials and use those credentials > to send spam, unbeknownst to the user. Yes, that is something new. A softphone on a PC, or even a hardphone using SIP is more vulnerable than a good old steam-powered POTS phone. > As for free providers, yes, they could be a hotbed for SPIT, much > as they are a hotbed for today's email spam. Good, we found a good scenario against which to judge anti-SPIT proposals. /ol -- -=- Otmar Lendl -- ol@bofh.priv.at -=- _______________________________________________ Rucus mailing list Rucus@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus From rucus-bounces@ietf.org Fri Mar 21 13:31:33 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CE0728C3FB; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 13:31:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.788 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.788 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.351, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 59hLY5heMIqw; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 13:31:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51D5E3A6C2F; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 13:31:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A58928C38F for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 13:31:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zJwe3t1bgeWq for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 13:31:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from serrano.cc.columbia.edu (serrano.cc.columbia.edu [128.59.29.6]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B7C03A67D7 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 13:31:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dhcp62.cs.columbia.edu (dhcp62.cs.columbia.edu [128.59.17.212]) (user=hgs10 mech=PLAIN bits=0) by serrano.cc.columbia.edu (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id m2LKT5ii021270 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Fri, 21 Mar 2008 16:29:06 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <2FEBE187-E882-4669-94FF-8924E2E1ADF0@cs.columbia.edu> From: Henning Schulzrinne To: Otmar Lendl In-Reply-To: <20080321201429.GA16800@bofh.priv.at> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v919.2) Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 16:29:04 -0400 References: <20080321105854.GA5050@bofh.priv.at> <026b01c88b6c$ecf70680$c5f0200a@cisco.com> <20080321201429.GA16800@bofh.priv.at> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.919.2) X-No-Spam-Score: Local X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.63 on 128.59.29.6 Cc: rucus@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Rucus] Comparison of disposable SIP URI and IPsec solutionstoSPIT X-BeenThere: rucus@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Reducing Unwanted Communication Using SIP \(RUCUS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: rucus-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rucus-bounces@ietf.org > Is this statement based on data or hearsay? From what I can tell, spam actually originating from Yahoo, Google or Hotmail is exceedingly rare (as opposed to spam claiming to come from these organizations). >> As for free providers, yes, they could be a hotbed for SPIT, much >> as they are a hotbed for today's email spam. > > Good, we found a good scenario against which to judge anti-SPIT > proposals. > > /ol > -- > -=- Otmar Lendl -- ol@bofh.priv.at -=- > _______________________________________________ > Rucus mailing list > Rucus@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus _______________________________________________ Rucus mailing list Rucus@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus From rucus-bounces@ietf.org Fri Mar 21 14:24:30 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DD6728C407; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 14:24:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.264 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.264 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.727, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RCVD_IN_BSP_OTHER=-0.1, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4w9Gn2PxOeUp; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 14:24:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFEA23A6DF4; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 14:24:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEDFF28C1EA for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 14:24:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id maL9Dz5g+Cfk for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 14:24:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [208.31.42.53]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB73228C3DF for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 14:24:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 70926 invoked from network); 21 Mar 2008 21:22:08 -0000 Received: from simone.iecc.com (208.31.42.47) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 21 Mar 2008 21:22:08 -0000 Date: 21 Mar 2008 21:22:08 -0000 Message-ID: <20080321212208.12513.qmail@simone.iecc.com> From: John Levine To: rucus@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <2FEBE187-E882-4669-94FF-8924E2E1ADF0@cs.columbia.edu> Organization: X-Headerized: yes Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Rucus] Comparison of disposable SIP URI and IPsec solutionstoSPIT X-BeenThere: rucus@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Reducing Unwanted Communication Using SIP \(RUCUS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: rucus-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rucus-bounces@ietf.org >Is this statement based on data or hearsay? From what I can tell, spam >actually originating from Yahoo, Google or Hotmail is exceedingly rare >(as opposed to spam claiming to come from these organizations). They tend to have outbreaks of spam when someone either breaks their signup CAPTCHA, uses a mechanical Turk to sign up a lot of accounts, or finds some other chink in their armor. For example, Yahoo currently has an outbound spam problem that appears to be due to a bug that lets free accounts use the outbound SMTP servers intended for their paid accounts. obSPIT: The main thing that keeps webmail systems from being a constant spam problem is that they rate limit outgoing mail. I would expect rate limits to be fairly effective against SPIT since it is a rare individual who really needs to talk (for free) to more than one person at a time. R's, John _______________________________________________ Rucus mailing list Rucus@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus From rucus-bounces@ietf.org Fri Mar 21 14:44:31 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0726E28C3DF; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 14:44:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.548 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.548 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.111, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 961v6zj94jyb; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 14:44:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 455683A683D; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 14:44:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9A553A683D for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 14:44:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8SCzmf0Jx9ix for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 14:44:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from etmail.acmepacket.com (etmail.acmepacket.com [216.41.24.6]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3B903A67AD for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 14:44:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.acmepacket.com (216.41.24.7) by etmail.acmepacket.com (216.41.24.6) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.1.240.5; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 17:41:47 -0400 Received: from mail.acmepacket.com ([216.41.24.7]) by mail.acmepacket.com ([216.41.24.7]) with mapi; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 17:41:47 -0400 From: Hadriel Kaplan To: John Levine , "rucus@ietf.org" Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 17:40:42 -0400 Thread-Topic: [Rucus] Comparison of disposable SIP URI and IPsec solutionstoSPIT Thread-Index: AciLmZm68TJIngZKQGSQW0ZMsZXhxgAAI5EQ Message-ID: References: <2FEBE187-E882-4669-94FF-8924E2E1ADF0@cs.columbia.edu> <20080321212208.12513.qmail@simone.iecc.com> In-Reply-To: <20080321212208.12513.qmail@simone.iecc.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Rucus] Comparison of disposable SIP URI and IPsec solutionstoSPIT X-BeenThere: rucus@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Reducing Unwanted Communication Using SIP \(RUCUS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: rucus-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rucus-bounces@ietf.org > -----Original Message----- > From: rucus-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rucus-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > John Levine > > obSPIT: The main thing that keeps webmail systems from being a > constant spam problem is that they rate limit outgoing mail. I would > expect rate limits to be fairly effective against SPIT since it is a > rare individual who really needs to talk (for free) to more than one > person at a time. Indeed, such call rate limiting already occurs in lots of SIP provider deployments, including throttles per subscriber/IAD/phone and dynamic blacklisting and more - the concern (for me) isn't those, the concern is inbound throttling on the inter-provider peering side, which is also very common today. The problem with that is if large volume of SPIT gets into the peers through whatever means, it either fills up the inbound throttles and thus denies legitimate traffic, or stays below the throttles but for which identification of the traffic as SPIT is exceedingly difficult. Identification is far harder than email, because there is a lot less info to go on for detecting it in the message. For example I don't see a single anti-spam technique on your wiki that would work for SIP today or in the foreseeable future. Well, a few would work but I strongly doubt would be acceptable to users or providers. -hadriel _______________________________________________ Rucus mailing list Rucus@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus From rucus-bounces@ietf.org Fri Mar 21 15:09:31 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F7FF28C400; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 15:09:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.832 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.832 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.295, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RCVD_IN_BSP_OTHER=-0.1, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LKo1Mxj+T-9X; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 15:09:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25E1428C266; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 15:09:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2F2628C335 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 15:09:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Yd3-NzPVUxLZ for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 15:09:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [208.31.42.53]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DA8628C3F5 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 15:09:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 1305 invoked from network); 21 Mar 2008 22:07:06 -0000 Received: from simone.iecc.com (208.31.42.47) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 21 Mar 2008 22:07:06 -0000 Received: from localhost (sendmail-bs@127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 21 Mar 2008 22:07:06 -0000 Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 18:07:06 -0400 (EDT) From: John R Levine To: Hadriel Kaplan In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <2FEBE187-E882-4669-94FF-8924E2E1ADF0@cs.columbia.edu> <20080321212208.12513.qmail@simone.iecc.com> User-Agent: Alpine 1.00 (BSF 882 2007-12-20) Cleverness: None detected MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "rucus@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Rucus] rate limiting and other techniques X-BeenThere: rucus@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Reducing Unwanted Communication Using SIP \(RUCUS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: rucus-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rucus-bounces@ietf.org > Identification is far harder than email, because there is a lot less > info to go on for detecting it in the message. For example I don't see > a single anti-spam technique on your wiki that would work for SIP today or > in the foreseeable future. Well, a few would work but I strongly doubt > would be acceptable to users or providers. Most of them don't work so great for spam either. I think there's a few that are applicable. DNSBLs listing IP ranges that should never be trying to connect directly work quite well for spam and would probably work well for SIP, too. ISPs now typically require that their customers use SMTP AUTH to send mail via a fixed relay, and I expect we'll have similar rules for SIP. On the other hand, challenge/response is awful for mail but widely used for voice calls today. ("For service in English, dial 39474. Para servicio en espanol, marque el 04958. Pour service en francais, faites le 67589 ...") Given that most SIP systems, unlike mail systems, default to rejecting unknown calls, I suspect that the most useful technique will be shared whitelists of IPs or domains that are known to behave themselves. Regards, John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY "I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly. _______________________________________________ Rucus mailing list Rucus@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus From rucus-bounces@ietf.org Sat Mar 22 12:33:15 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CDE828C3B2; Sat, 22 Mar 2008 12:33:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.583 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.583 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.146, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id H8tkEVSezDZe; Sat, 22 Mar 2008 12:33:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28D573A6C84; Sat, 22 Mar 2008 12:33:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27D4728C22E for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2008 12:33:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 000p71m0htpe for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2008 12:33:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from etmail.acmepacket.com (etmail.acmepacket.com [216.41.24.6]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B77C28C338 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2008 12:33:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.acmepacket.com (216.41.24.7) by etmail.acmepacket.com (216.41.24.6) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.1.240.5; Sat, 22 Mar 2008 15:30:28 -0400 Received: from mail.acmepacket.com ([216.41.24.7]) by mail.acmepacket.com ([216.41.24.7]) with mapi; Sat, 22 Mar 2008 15:30:25 -0400 From: Hadriel Kaplan To: John R Levine Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2008 15:28:32 -0400 Thread-Topic: [Rucus] rate limiting and other techniques Thread-Index: AciLn9rfBqztqU/DTfi86BMWdWpQFgACCa1Q Message-ID: References: <2FEBE187-E882-4669-94FF-8924E2E1ADF0@cs.columbia.edu> <20080321212208.12513.qmail@simone.iecc.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "rucus@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Rucus] rate limiting and other techniques X-BeenThere: rucus@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Reducing Unwanted Communication Using SIP \(RUCUS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: rucus-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rucus-bounces@ietf.org > -----Original Message----- > From: John R Levine [mailto:johnl@taugh.com] > > Most of them don't work so great for spam either. I think there's a few > that are applicable. DNSBLs listing IP ranges that should never be trying > to connect directly work quite well for spam and would probably work well > for SIP, too. I don't see how? I mean that's already the case in a way - many providers (if not most) do not just allow any IP to connect directly. At least in my market, but there are many SIP-use markets. > On the other hand, challenge/response is awful for mail but widely used > for voice calls today. ("For service in English, dial 39474. Para > servicio en espanol, marque el 04958. Pour service en francais, faites le > 67589 ...") That's only acceptable for certain call types, mostly ones to systems (IVR's, Voicemail, etc.). Some of those call types happen to be not very attractive for spammers to begin with. Although for voicemail it would be good, to prevent Voice-Mail SPIT (VoMIT? :) But most people simply won't accept having to wait and pass a turing test to reach someone direct, and the people being "protected" won't like it either. They'll just switch back to the PSTN. There's also a problem for such tests with billing, since billing frequently starts on 200 ok or bi-directional media. > Given that most SIP systems, unlike mail systems, default to rejecting > unknown calls, I suspect that the most useful technique will be shared > whitelists of IPs or domains that are known to behave themselves. Only certain SIP systems default that way - many don't, fwiw. But yes, a federation model I think will work, because that is the PSTN model essentially - but for PSTN it's under regulatory control which keeps the federation membership fairly closed, and it costs money and physical access to the federation. The problem (and advantage) of SIP is it has no such control or physical barriers in place - it has federations and closed peering, but my worry is the chain of trust in such a model could someday be broken by domains joining the federations that don't configure correctly or have as tight a control. -hadriel _______________________________________________ Rucus mailing list Rucus@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus From rucus-bounces@ietf.org Sat Mar 22 13:43:56 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B29EB3A6E55; Sat, 22 Mar 2008 13:43:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.779 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.779 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.242, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RCVD_IN_BSP_OTHER=-0.1, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DEIiUL9cwkBW; Sat, 22 Mar 2008 13:43:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA30E3A6870; Sat, 22 Mar 2008 13:43:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D971F3A6870 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2008 13:43:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id I+E4up7hbueP for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2008 13:43:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [208.31.42.53]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 533EF3A6849 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2008 13:43:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 1679 invoked from network); 22 Mar 2008 20:41:32 -0000 Received: from simone.iecc.com (208.31.42.47) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 22 Mar 2008 20:41:32 -0000 Date: 22 Mar 2008 20:41:32 -0000 Message-ID: <20080322204132.47724.qmail@simone.iecc.com> From: John Levine To: rucus@ietf.org In-Reply-To: Organization: X-Headerized: yes Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: HKaplan@acmepacket.com Subject: Re: [Rucus] rate limiting and other techniques X-BeenThere: rucus@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Reducing Unwanted Communication Using SIP \(RUCUS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: rucus-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rucus-bounces@ietf.org In case it's not obvious, I'm not suggesting there's a magic bullet for spit any more than there is for spam. Different setups will use different combinations of techniques. >> that are applicable. DNSBLs listing IP ranges that should never be trying >> to connect directly work quite well for spam and would probably work well >> for SIP, too. > >I don't see how? I mean that's already the case in a way - many >providers (if not most) do not just allow any IP to connect directly. >At least in my market, but there are many SIP-use markets. Again, it's part of a toolkit. If you know you can safely ignore attempts from vast swaths of IP space, you can afford to work harder checking the attempts from what's left. This is quite common and effective in spam filtering. >> On the other hand, challenge/response is awful for mail but widely used >> for voice calls today. ... >That's only acceptable for certain call types, mostly ones to systems >(IVR's, Voicemail, etc.). ... and most large organizations. When's the last time you called an 800 number and a person answered? Again, useful some places, less useful other places. It also might be useful as part of a more complex system, e.g., whitelist callers who pass the challenge a couple of times. >> Given that most SIP systems, unlike mail systems, default to rejecting >> unknown calls, I suspect that the most useful technique will be shared >> whitelists of IPs or domains that are known to behave themselves. > >Only certain SIP systems default that way - many don't, fwiw. (Huh? Three paragraphs back you said "many providers (if not most) do not just allow any IP to connect directly.") > my worry is the chain of trust in such a model could someday be >broken by domains joining the federations that don't configure >correctly or have as tight a control. Well, here's a time saver from the anti-spam world. You can be 100% sure than any sort of web-of-trust that depends on members self-certifying or FOAF certifying won't work, because any such group that's large enough to be interesting will be large enough to attract lying sleazeballs, and one or two sloppy members letting people in will ruin the whole thing. BTDT. A model that works better is organizations that publish certification lists of senders (or callers) who've paid to be certified. Despite the rants from certain quarters that it's just pay to spam, my experience with them has been pretty good. The certifiers have an incentive to keep their lists clean so that receivers will continue to use them, and the senders pay because it's cheaper to pay once to be certified than to negotiate separately with all of a list's users that they might want to contact. Another similar approach is organizations or regulators publishing certification lists of their members. For example, if the FDIC published a list of its member banks' domains, a lot of people would figure that if it's a call from a real bank, it's worth accepting. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, ex-Mayor "More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly. _______________________________________________ Rucus mailing list Rucus@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus From rucus-bounces@ietf.org Sat Mar 22 19:29:00 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4485E28C31C; Sat, 22 Mar 2008 19:29:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.584 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.584 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.147, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5Yqt+3SaNsFj; Sat, 22 Mar 2008 19:28:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75F953A68A3; Sat, 22 Mar 2008 19:28:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27C8A28C126 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2008 19:28:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dBGsWyDG4Hx7 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2008 19:28:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from etmail.acmepacket.com (etmail.acmepacket.com [216.41.24.6]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B7233A67D8 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2008 19:28:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.acmepacket.com (216.41.24.7) by etmail.acmepacket.com (216.41.24.6) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.1.240.5; Sat, 22 Mar 2008 22:26:15 -0400 Received: from mail.acmepacket.com ([216.41.24.7]) by mail.acmepacket.com ([216.41.24.7]) with mapi; Sat, 22 Mar 2008 22:26:15 -0400 From: Hadriel Kaplan To: John Levine , "rucus@ietf.org" Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2008 22:24:07 -0400 Thread-Topic: [Rucus] rate limiting and other techniques Thread-Index: AciMXREQWUwi6qdWSSSjf9FkFPt4FgALSQrw Message-ID: References: <20080322204132.47724.qmail@simone.iecc.com> In-Reply-To: <20080322204132.47724.qmail@simone.iecc.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Rucus] rate limiting and other techniques X-BeenThere: rucus@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Reducing Unwanted Communication Using SIP \(RUCUS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: rucus-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rucus-bounces@ietf.org > -----Original Message----- > From: John Levine [mailto:johnl@taugh.com] > > In case it's not obvious, I'm not suggesting there's a magic bullet > for spit any more than there is for spam. Different setups will use > different combinations of techniques. Nope, I wasn't thinking you did. :) > >> Given that most SIP systems, unlike mail systems, default to rejecting > >> unknown calls, I suspect that the most useful technique will be shared > >> whitelists of IPs or domains that are known to behave themselves. > > > >Only certain SIP systems default that way - many don't, fwiw. > > (Huh? Three paragraphs back you said "many providers (if not most) do > not just allow any IP to connect directly.") You said "systems" here, whereas in the earlier section (not in this email) I was talking about providers (who have many systems). Also in the earlier section you were talking about IP Addresses, whereas in this section it's "unknown calls". Providers have SIP systems that do block based on source IP, and systems that reject relayed requests if the domain isn't known, but most SIP systems don't, afaik. It was a minor nit comment, anyway. > > my worry is the chain of trust in such a model could someday be > >broken by domains joining the federations that don't configure > >correctly or have as tight a control. > > Well, here's a time saver from the anti-spam world. You can be 100% > sure than any sort of web-of-trust that depends on members > self-certifying or FOAF certifying won't work, because any such group > that's large enough to be interesting will be large enough to attract > lying sleazeballs, and one or two sloppy members letting people in > will ruin the whole thing. BTDT. Yup, that's my concern. -hadriel _______________________________________________ Rucus mailing list Rucus@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus From rucus-bounces@ietf.org Wed Mar 26 10:37:46 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5DA63A683E; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 10:37:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.725 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.725 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.288, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Sod1RF76L7BB; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 10:37:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEB7E3A6986; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 10:37:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B441B3A6986 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 10:37:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sxVoxWXHjFT3 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 10:37:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.gmx.net (mail.gmx.net [213.165.64.20]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id CB17D3A683E for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 10:37:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 26 Mar 2008 17:35:20 -0000 Received: from a91-154-103-163.elisa-laajakaista.fi (EHLO [192.168.255.4]) [91.154.103.163] by mail.gmx.net (mp054) with SMTP; 26 Mar 2008 18:35:20 +0100 X-Authenticated: #29516787 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+rdF1sF+OrzA3IwBIieGn+y6UC4+JO/lu185d4jx +vw6lQ+5FiB2gQ Message-ID: <47EA8961.3010103@gmx.net> Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 19:35:29 +0200 From: Hannes Tschofenig User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (Windows/20080213) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: rucus BoF X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Subject: [Rucus] Meeting Minutes X-BeenThere: rucus@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Reducing Unwanted Communication Using SIP \(RUCUS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: rucus-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rucus-bounces@ietf.org We have uploaded the meeting minutes. You can find them here: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/08mar/minutes/rucus.txt Please let us know if you have comments. Thanks to Richard Barnes for preparing the meeting minutes. Ciao Hannes _______________________________________________ Rucus mailing list Rucus@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus From rucus-bounces@ietf.org Wed Mar 26 16:44:09 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66DBE28C826; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 16:44:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.835 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.835 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.398, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ermy3k-Gt6BD; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 16:44:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77EC53A69F6; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 16:44:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5A0B3A6F66 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 16:44:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Fi2qyTNVXeA5 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 16:44:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wx-out-0506.google.com (wx-out-0506.google.com [66.249.82.225]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B47A28C807 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 16:44:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wx-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id i26so4423906wxd.31 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 16:41:45 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition; bh=AMRt5clqggPuGfpKaTH4v8hdehmioKbQkN6H4YnCJ9c=; b=M9e0tKTiyZsTrM3VVPAYrwmNuj/gU0u02pqc5bbVb8LsxD530seYEl91HT8ze9rAmFxD67Hg302h0BuQLIIiSvvluZKcC9Sl7wEPnViMcJDxDuYiu1nY/IoYfU9QNTYpReji8Odg5Q6VNJHJi4F6GtE3S4NDJ5xAxYe9G5NRQp0= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition; b=ZP3qsguoWu0MnjEbpLJCbHSOBnMYRDP/DuJ0huHgcrQdho1EGomx9er+GUIQRniwkDr2+htuGFld+DHTdIMDF2iWZwIGxF3KBhwRYN7pfn1NParXbr2/o05QVWCCVPR+3jzOzfbF62ClmuVVOaoAnTLlUL65ceHZ+gJHRiHoaX0= Received: by 10.70.19.20 with SMTP id 20mr702047wxs.16.1206574905859; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 16:41:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.70.94.8 with HTTP; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 16:41:45 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <18a603a60803261641x10f130bemca190e7c10d59a20@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 01:41:45 +0200 From: "Pars Mutaf" To: rucus@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Subject: [Rucus] Lost use cases X-BeenThere: rucus@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Reducing Unwanted Communication Using SIP \(RUCUS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: rucus-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rucus-bounces@ietf.org Hello, What is missing IMHO is a discussion about the profits of publishing phone numbers. If we can understand why users would like to publish their phone numbers on the Web (and why they can't today) we can better measure the problem. Cell phone users do not publish their phone numbers today because they want to avoid undesired calls. For example, I would very much like to leave a message on a forum for selling an item or asking for help and paste my cell phone number. We can invent many possible use cases of cell phones. Today we do not publish our phone numbers because we don't even think about it. We unconsciously fear SPIT and protect our tranquility. What (i.e. which use cases of cell phones) we really lose because of SPIT or "the fear of it"? This question has not been answered IMO. Regards, pars _______________________________________________ Rucus mailing list Rucus@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus From rucus-bounces@ietf.org Wed Mar 26 18:06:03 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 385B828C874; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 18:06:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.096 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.096 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.659, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oSQTtw3T3Zcm; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 18:06:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB91F3A6E69; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 18:06:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 616C228C83A for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 18:05:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uGzu9MKNrfaK for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 18:05:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sj-iport-1.cisco.com (sj-iport-1.cisco.com [171.71.176.70]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A47AF3A6934 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 18:04:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sj-dkim-3.cisco.com ([171.71.179.195]) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 26 Mar 2008 18:02:40 -0700 Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (sj-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.177.237]) by sj-dkim-3.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m2R12exk025686; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 18:02:40 -0700 Received: from dwingwxp01 ([10.32.240.197]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m2R12dZY006232; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 01:02:40 GMT From: "Dan Wing" To: "'Pars Mutaf'" , References: <18a603a60803261641x10f130bemca190e7c10d59a20@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 18:02:39 -0700 Message-ID: <05cb01c88fa6$4136c270$c5f0200a@cisco.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 In-Reply-To: <18a603a60803261641x10f130bemca190e7c10d59a20@mail.gmail.com> Thread-Index: AciPmvlHl6gjgUliTa643hHAgWZowAACnkSA DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=2116; t=1206579760; x=1207443760; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim3002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=dwing@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Dan=20Wing=22=20 |Subject:=20RE=3A=20[Rucus]=20Lost=20use=20cases |Sender:=20; bh=wfU6tr7JpRoVpwVmjNv0H1a33Z0Bf7X9Wrywdr/44UI=; b=LpF2em3XPWmmOWBMkBebt4XxZL+JV3M6PAIa7sC6l24yFGjuQsZ6Alcg00 20ochWyThgzlKriLO1TQY5q06QcWSpHh/fBfsa6D0uv0NlpgmcX7a9ObCeW2 9DaGds4VOa; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-3; header.From=dwing@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim3002 verified; ); Subject: Re: [Rucus] Lost use cases X-BeenThere: rucus@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Reducing Unwanted Communication Using SIP \(RUCUS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: rucus-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rucus-bounces@ietf.org > -----Original Message----- > From: rucus-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rucus-bounces@ietf.org] > On Behalf Of Pars Mutaf > Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 4:42 PM > To: rucus@ietf.org > Subject: [Rucus] Lost use cases > > Hello, > > What is missing IMHO is a discussion about the profits > of publishing phone numbers. If we can understand why > users would like to publish their phone numbers on the Web > (and why they can't today) we can better measure the > problem. > > Cell phone users do not publish their phone numbers > today because they want to avoid undesired calls. > > For example, I would very much like to leave a message > on a forum for selling an item or asking for help and paste my > cell phone number. We can invent many possible use cases of > cell phones. Today we do not publish our phone numbers because > we don't even think about it. We unconsciously fear SPIT and > protect our tranquility. My cellular phone and my home phone are not running VoIP, so I don't fear SPIT. Rather, I fear some whack-job person, awake at 2am in the morning (in my timezone), who wants to get information about the item I am selling. I would say it is the inability for me, as the owner of the phone number, to set policies for who can call me and when they can call me. Some mobile phones have such a capability with custom ringtones (including no ringing for unknown numbers), which can also be adjusted based on time. With that, and with the ability to prevent redirecting to voicemail, I could reasonably publish my number on a public forum -- afterall, it isn't just EBAY and Craigslist where I might want to have random people call me. This does not seem to be a new problem with VoIP, SIP, or SPIT -- or am I missing something? -d > What (i.e. which use cases of cell phones) we really lose > because of SPIT or "the fear of it"? This question has not been > answered IMO. > > Regards, > pars > _______________________________________________ > Rucus mailing list > Rucus@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus _______________________________________________ Rucus mailing list Rucus@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus From rucus-bounces@ietf.org Thu Mar 27 04:07:58 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0319628C19D; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 04:07:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.815 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.815 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.378, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oXF61OnUSWgA; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 04:07:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E98853A6C51; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 04:07:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28D603A6C51 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 04:07:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tEVEE-eTYpf6 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 04:07:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wx-out-0506.google.com (wx-out-0506.google.com [66.249.82.227]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 694403A6875 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 04:07:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wx-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id i26so4697030wxd.31 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 04:05:26 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=kBqKWrpchRzjL+8ePxQa7pWEhAXIqnLCb91zSc2npb8=; b=bYYU68l+cH3K7jW+7en/MD7uzJvCSgpC7MzeNfK+vkF4QmpuVyB0QSbuRKrBY39aktoetVR4ylhimsLa9UGbLHQmtAtFaaTWTHwXKuQfULpEQzD6QLm3/rYOkyRP6/NtCbiRjuPNf86jrn9d0Um+T9JZa7+qK4z3jwftMcrVg0k= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=DMLn5lPPKWuuDz5cszBE12MxAwxZxdm4fEPHkMPUi/vcoiLThwaZvydZxRsdwotFIgxjsrZ/ez4/F7TXleSISoEDH9aLnGTbJV8N3G6+F8CguyRyjlFmcS+J267W4iUd6dhzrNHmgTVi+3bS7X6YMI0bH4pOpE0f8kau7IMsRDI= Received: by 10.70.108.18 with SMTP id g18mr1442379wxc.26.1206615926333; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 04:05:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.70.94.8 with HTTP; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 04:05:26 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <18a603a60803270405t5947adbfma3d745d963dabe0b@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 13:05:26 +0200 From: "Pars Mutaf" To: "Dan Wing" In-Reply-To: <05cb01c88fa6$4136c270$c5f0200a@cisco.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline References: <18a603a60803261641x10f130bemca190e7c10d59a20@mail.gmail.com> <05cb01c88fa6$4136c270$c5f0200a@cisco.com> Cc: rucus@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Rucus] Lost use cases X-BeenThere: rucus@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Reducing Unwanted Communication Using SIP \(RUCUS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: rucus-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rucus-bounces@ietf.org On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 3:02 AM, Dan Wing wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: rucus-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rucus-bounces@ietf.org] > > On Behalf Of Pars Mutaf > > Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 4:42 PM > > To: rucus@ietf.org > > Subject: [Rucus] Lost use cases > > > > Hello, > > > > What is missing IMHO is a discussion about the profits > > of publishing phone numbers. If we can understand why > > users would like to publish their phone numbers on the Web > > (and why they can't today) we can better measure the > > problem. > > > > Cell phone users do not publish their phone numbers > > today because they want to avoid undesired calls. > > > > For example, I would very much like to leave a message > > on a forum for selling an item or asking for help and paste my > > cell phone number. We can invent many possible use cases of > > cell phones. Today we do not publish our phone numbers because > > we don't even think about it. We unconsciously fear SPIT and > > protect our tranquility. > My cellular phone and my home phone are not running VoIP, so I > don't fear SPIT. Excuse the bad sentence. I mean, you probably fear SPIT hence here you are in this ML interested in the problem. > Rather, I fear some whack-job person, awake > at 2am in the morning (in my timezone), who wants to get > information about the item I am selling. > I would say it is the inability for me, as the owner of the > phone number, to set policies for who can call me and when > they can call me. Some mobile phones have such a capability > with custom ringtones (including no ringing for unknown > numbers), which can also be adjusted based on time. With that, > and with the ability to prevent redirecting to voicemail, I Why are you preventing redirecting to voicemail. You are unconsciously limiting yourself. These are not solutions. A better solution would be to use a disposable phone number. > could reasonably publish my number on a public forum -- > afterall, it isn't just EBAY and Craigslist where I might want > to have random people call me. > This does not seem to be a new problem with VoIP, SIP, or > SPIT -- or am I missing something? Why are we looking for a new problem? There is already a problem. Users have shown already that they can't want to publish their phone numbers without SPIT. The problem is not even telemarketing calls. The problem is the possibility to receive undesired calls to that device that you carry in your pocket. The number that you paste on the web, stays on the web. But the solution is not hiding the numbers. This cannot be called a solution. Thanks, pars - Hide quoted text - > -d > > > > > What (i.e. which use cases of cell phones) we really lose > > because of SPIT or "the fear of it"? This question has not been > > answered IMO. > > > > Regards, > > pars > > _______________________________________________ > > Rucus mailing list > > Rucus@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus > > _______________________________________________ Rucus mailing list Rucus@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus From rucus-bounces@ietf.org Thu Mar 27 04:18:40 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C760128C39E; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 04:18:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.809 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.809 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.372, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PdLDUib+kian; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 04:18:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B44DD28C88B; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 04:18:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7101E28C8BE for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 04:18:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gTxsO0iTm57t for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 04:18:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wx-out-0506.google.com (wx-out-0506.google.com [66.249.82.229]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2929C3A697F for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 04:18:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wx-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id i26so4701328wxd.31 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 04:15:53 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=u8tfQPlH6G3Do52SuGTnOW/HVNiJpp7AcKP9s0FD3sY=; b=XqvFk5JO8rMQra0SNy1utXonEJHnyV3EweV5qYdWUSgzVVVrgZA263k/M4MaYnazQy21ekk1uo2yUp2BR45qWIPJWkHf7c/oWrx+96OEoGbU4WJ3RlQvAiMWz753vpoP6pWFAAqkOXxx8Xrds7uGi1dpIuxtLIgiLlHaNdR/eiY= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=nSE/gGcIuoJKg6bd9ezrA5jzGDzkOwqf41uDK1zjLnK7p67nLaPos6L76suvgS8oW4YO0MVKNiu/cl7uihRrGkXd+4Ckch6pW4gFLpHlC5vDqhXmGor+lRXuwCAaXcXSAiIiUSdcHHJIQpb92LerNo3LCKrFy7R03iR+lAiMow8= Received: by 10.70.77.17 with SMTP id z17mr1400642wxa.88.1206616553272; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 04:15:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.70.94.8 with HTTP; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 04:15:53 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <18a603a60803270415t266407ddtf4b3756eb4bc99@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 13:15:53 +0200 From: "Pars Mutaf" To: "Dan Wing" In-Reply-To: <18a603a60803270405t5947adbfma3d745d963dabe0b@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline References: <18a603a60803261641x10f130bemca190e7c10d59a20@mail.gmail.com> <05cb01c88fa6$4136c270$c5f0200a@cisco.com> <18a603a60803270405t5947adbfma3d745d963dabe0b@mail.gmail.com> Cc: rucus@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Rucus] Lost use cases X-BeenThere: rucus@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Reducing Unwanted Communication Using SIP \(RUCUS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: rucus-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rucus-bounces@ietf.org To check if there is already a problem (without SIP) you can Google the term "Disposable phone number" , for example. With this regard, SIP even brings a solution to unwanted calls. Because it can make the design and distribution of disposable phone numbers easier and cheaper. You don't need multiple phone lines with SIP. You don't need to "buy" them. Regards, pars On 3/27/08, Pars Mutaf wrote: > On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 3:02 AM, Dan Wing wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: rucus-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rucus-bounces@ietf.org] > > > On Behalf Of Pars Mutaf > > > Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 4:42 PM > > > To: rucus@ietf.org > > > Subject: [Rucus] Lost use cases > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > What is missing IMHO is a discussion about the profits > > > of publishing phone numbers. If we can understand why > > > users would like to publish their phone numbers on the Web > > > (and why they can't today) we can better measure the > > > problem. > > > > > > Cell phone users do not publish their phone numbers > > > today because they want to avoid undesired calls. > > > > > > For example, I would very much like to leave a message > > > on a forum for selling an item or asking for help and paste my > > > cell phone number. We can invent many possible use cases of > > > cell phones. Today we do not publish our phone numbers because > > > we don't even think about it. We unconsciously fear SPIT and > > > protect our tranquility. > > My cellular phone and my home phone are not running VoIP, so I > > don't fear SPIT. > > > Excuse the bad sentence. I mean, you probably fear SPIT hence > here you are in this ML interested in the problem. > > > > Rather, I fear some whack-job person, awake > > at 2am in the morning (in my timezone), who wants to get > > information about the item I am selling. > > I would say it is the inability for me, as the owner of the > > phone number, to set policies for who can call me and when > > they can call me. Some mobile phones have such a capability > > with custom ringtones (including no ringing for unknown > > numbers), which can also be adjusted based on time. With that, > > and with the ability to prevent redirecting to voicemail, I > > > Why are you preventing redirecting to voicemail. You are > unconsciously limiting yourself. These are not solutions. > A better solution would be to use a disposable phone number. > > > > could reasonably publish my number on a public forum -- > > afterall, it isn't just EBAY and Craigslist where I might want > > to have random people call me. > > > This does not seem to be a new problem with VoIP, SIP, or > > SPIT -- or am I missing something? > > > Why are we looking for a new problem? There is already a problem. > Users have shown already that they can't want to publish their > phone numbers without SPIT. > > The problem is not even telemarketing calls. The problem is > the possibility to receive undesired calls to that device that you > carry in your pocket. The number that you paste on the web, > stays on the web. But the solution is not hiding the numbers. > This cannot be called a solution. > > Thanks, > > pars > > - Hide quoted text - > > > -d > > > > > > > > > What (i.e. which use cases of cell phones) we really lose > > > because of SPIT or "the fear of it"? This question has not been > > > answered IMO. > > > > > > Regards, > > > pars > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Rucus mailing list > > > Rucus@ietf.org > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus > > > > > _______________________________________________ Rucus mailing list Rucus@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus From rucus-bounces@ietf.org Thu Mar 27 08:30:47 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA6883A6FFC; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 08:30:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.095 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.095 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.658, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tq6O4zhoFFGh; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 08:30:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D144D3A6D05; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 08:30:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE0D728C75A for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 08:30:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QJQun7s-1W4O for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 08:30:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com (sj-iport-6.cisco.com [171.71.176.117]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A644128C103 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 08:30:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sj-dkim-7.cisco.com ([171.68.10.88]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 27 Mar 2008 08:27:41 -0700 Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (sj-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.177.237]) by sj-dkim-7.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m2RFReNV023230; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 08:27:40 -0700 Received: from dwingwxp01 ([10.32.240.197]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m2RFReFs029622; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 15:27:40 GMT From: "Dan Wing" To: "'Pars Mutaf'" References: <18a603a60803261641x10f130bemca190e7c10d59a20@mail.gmail.com> <05cb01c88fa6$4136c270$c5f0200a@cisco.com> <18a603a60803270405t5947adbfma3d745d963dabe0b@mail.gmail.com> <18a603a60803270415t266407ddtf4b3756eb4bc99@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 08:27:40 -0700 Message-ID: <07fb01c8901f$1876e490$c5f0200a@cisco.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 In-Reply-To: <18a603a60803270415t266407ddtf4b3756eb4bc99@mail.gmail.com> Thread-Index: AciP++wOQpPiu6orSiigqAYQxBQz6AAItwQg DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=4401; t=1206631661; x=1207495661; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim7002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=dwing@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Dan=20Wing=22=20 |Subject:=20RE=3A=20[Rucus]=20Lost=20use=20cases |Sender:=20; bh=IpvDxlLIv3kAi7/UMAJmxdt+yzkwuuBfGAbHEC+PbKQ=; b=r6cyru/DYkiMrEgFUwwqt9Rt1YP5xa40IKOmWomTSQtVkfP6tfVUUR5MJi tHAkfZqHSNyFRnhXX5AElB7Tml9Wyt9RHZzjztJKcBCLiB8aAHXMDZ5XTkfN LgppFz1vYV; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-7; header.From=dwing@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim7002 verified; ); Cc: rucus@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Rucus] Lost use cases X-BeenThere: rucus@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Reducing Unwanted Communication Using SIP \(RUCUS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: rucus-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rucus-bounces@ietf.org > To check if there is already a problem (without SIP) you can > Google the term "Disposable phone number" , for example. I may have poorly worded my previous email. I agree there is a problem today with receiving phone calls. Today's problem, however, is not "SPIT". The only viable approach to the problem of "which phone number should I place in my classified advertisement to sell my car", on the PSTN, is a disposable phone number. > With this regard, SIP even brings a solution to unwanted > calls. Because it can > make the design and distribution of disposable phone numbers easier > and cheaper. You don't need multiple phone lines with SIP. You don't > need to "buy" them. Yes, we can probably have have disposable URIs, and phone numbers, cheaper in SIP than we could in the PSTN. -d > Regards, > pars > > > On 3/27/08, Pars Mutaf wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 3:02 AM, Dan Wing wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: rucus-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rucus-bounces@ietf.org] > > > > On Behalf Of Pars Mutaf > > > > Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 4:42 PM > > > > To: rucus@ietf.org > > > > Subject: [Rucus] Lost use cases > > > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > What is missing IMHO is a discussion about the profits > > > > of publishing phone numbers. If we can understand why > > > > users would like to publish their phone numbers on the Web > > > > (and why they can't today) we can better measure the > > > > problem. > > > > > > > > Cell phone users do not publish their phone numbers > > > > today because they want to avoid undesired calls. > > > > > > > > For example, I would very much like to leave a message > > > > on a forum for selling an item or asking for help and paste my > > > > cell phone number. We can invent many possible use cases of > > > > cell phones. Today we do not publish our phone numbers because > > > > we don't even think about it. We unconsciously fear SPIT and > > > > protect our tranquility. > > > My cellular phone and my home phone are not running VoIP, so I > > > don't fear SPIT. > > > > > > Excuse the bad sentence. I mean, you probably fear SPIT hence > > here you are in this ML interested in the problem. > > > > > > > Rather, I fear some whack-job person, awake > > > at 2am in the morning (in my timezone), who wants to get > > > information about the item I am selling. > > > I would say it is the inability for me, as the owner of the > > > phone number, to set policies for who can call me and when > > > they can call me. Some mobile phones have such a capability > > > with custom ringtones (including no ringing for unknown > > > numbers), which can also be adjusted based on time. With that, > > > and with the ability to prevent redirecting to voicemail, I > > > > > > Why are you preventing redirecting to voicemail. You are > > unconsciously limiting yourself. These are not solutions. > > A better solution would be to use a disposable phone number. > > > > > > > could reasonably publish my number on a public forum -- > > > afterall, it isn't just EBAY and Craigslist where I might want > > > to have random people call me. > > > > > This does not seem to be a new problem with VoIP, SIP, or > > > SPIT -- or am I missing something? > > > > > > Why are we looking for a new problem? There is already a problem. > > Users have shown already that they can't want to publish their > > phone numbers without SPIT. > > > > The problem is not even telemarketing calls. The problem is > > the possibility to receive undesired calls to that device that you > > carry in your pocket. The number that you paste on the web, > > stays on the web. But the solution is not hiding the numbers. > > This cannot be called a solution. > > > > Thanks, > > > > pars > > > > - Hide quoted text - > > > > > -d > > > > > > > > > > > > > What (i.e. which use cases of cell phones) we really lose > > > > because of SPIT or "the fear of it"? This question has not been > > > > answered IMO. > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > pars > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Rucus mailing list > > > > Rucus@ietf.org > > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ Rucus mailing list Rucus@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus From rucus-bounces@ietf.org Thu Mar 27 11:28:20 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C4083A6D54; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 11:28:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.876 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.876 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.340, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2aE4Mkvrpriv; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 11:28:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE93D3A6948; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 11:28:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D55D3A6877 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 11:28:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id T4ZsGh6RTOlg for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 11:28:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from voxeo.com (mmail.voxeo.com [66.193.54.208]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DF813A6A91 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 11:28:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [75.68.245.43] (account dyork HELO [172.20.12.144]) by voxeo.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.14) with ESMTPSA id 29063550; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 18:25:49 +0000 In-Reply-To: <18a603a60803261641x10f130bemca190e7c10d59a20@mail.gmail.com> References: <18a603a60803261641x10f130bemca190e7c10d59a20@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753) Message-Id: From: Dan York Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 14:25:53 -0400 To: Pars Mutaf X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.753) Cc: rucus@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Rucus] Lost use cases X-BeenThere: rucus@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Reducing Unwanted Communication Using SIP \(RUCUS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============2119357814==" Sender: rucus-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rucus-bounces@ietf.org --===============2119357814== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-146-701886779 --Apple-Mail-146-701886779 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Pars, > What is missing IMHO is a discussion about the profits > of publishing phone numbers. If we can understand why > users would like to publish their phone numbers on the Web > (and why they can't today) we can better measure the > problem. I don't understand this point. I *do* publish my phone number on my web pages today. Thankfully I don't receive many calls. > Cell phone users do not publish their phone numbers > today because they want to avoid undesired calls. Perhaps, but I *do* see quite a few postings on the web, especially in forums selling things, that do include valid phone numbers. Maybe this is just true in North America, but I see phone numbers all the time online. > For example, I would very much like to leave a message > on a forum for selling an item or asking for help and paste my > cell phone number. We can invent many possible use cases of > cell phones. I do that today. I've posted numerous items to Craigslist.org that have included my actual phone number. > Today we do not publish our phone numbers because > we don't even think about it. We unconsciously fear SPIT and > protect our tranquility. > > What (i.e. which use cases of cell phones) we really lose > because of SPIT or "the fear of it"? This question has not been > answered IMO. Maybe I need more caffeine today but I guess I still don't understand the point you are trying to make. Are you saying that you believe people do NOT post their cell phone online because they do not want to receive "unwanted communications"? And that you believe we need to categorize *why* people do not post their phone numbers? If so, I'm not entirely clear what this precisely has to do with SPIT. I can think of many reasons not to post my phone number that have everything to do with regular communication over the PSTN and have nothing whatsoever to do with SIP. To put that another way, what is different about posting your number on the web if SIP is a transport versus PSTN? Why is this special and something we should think about? Confused, Dan -- Dan York, CISSP, Director of Emerging Communication Technology Office of the CTO Voxeo Corporation dyork@voxeo.com Phone: +1-407-455-5859 Skype: danyork http://www.voxeo.com Blogs: http://blogs.voxeo.com http://www.disruptivetelephony.com Build voice applications based on open standards. Find out how at http://www.voxeo.com/free --Apple-Mail-146-701886779 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Pars,

What is missing IMHO is a = discussion about the profits
of publishing = phone numbers. If we can understand why
users = would like to publish their phone numbers on the Web
(and why they can't today) we can better measure = the
I don't understand this point. = =A0I *do* publish my phone number on my web pages today. Thankfully I = don't receive many calls.

Cell phone users do not = publish their phone numbers
today because = they want to avoid undesired calls.

Perhaps, but I *do* see quite a = few postings on the web, especially in forums selling things, that do = include valid phone numbers. Maybe this is just true in North America, = but I see phone numbers all the time online.

For = example, I would very much like to leave a message
on a forum for selling an item or asking for help = and paste my
cell phone number. We can invent = many possible use cases of
cell = phones.

I do that today. =A0I've = posted numerous items to Craigslist.org that have included my actual = phone number.

Today = we do not publish our phone numbers because
we = don't even think about it. We unconsciously fear SPIT and
protect our tranquility.

What = (i.e. which use cases of cell phones) we really lose
because of SPIT or "the fear of it"? This question = has not been
answered IMO.
=

Maybe I need more caffeine today but I guess = I still don't understand the point you are trying to make.

Are you saying that you = believe people do NOT post their cell phone online because they do not = want to receive "unwanted communications"? =A0And that you believe we = need to categorize *why* people do not post their phone = numbers?

If = so, I'm not entirely clear what this precisely has to do with SPIT. =A0I = can think of many reasons not to post my phone number that have = everything to do with regular communication over the PSTN and have = nothing whatsoever to do with SIP.

To put that another way, = what is different about posting your number on the web if SIP is a = transport versus PSTN? =A0Why is this special and something we should = think about?

Confused,
Dan
--=A0
Dan York, = CISSP, Director of Emerging Communication Technology
Office of the CTO=A0 =A0=A0Voxeo Corporation=A0=A0 =A0=A0dyork@voxeo.com
Phone: +1-407-455-5859=A0=A0Skype: danyork=A0=A0http://www.voxeo.com

Build voice applications based on open = standards.





= --Apple-Mail-146-701886779-- --===============2119357814== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Rucus mailing list Rucus@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus --===============2119357814==-- From rucus-bounces@ietf.org Thu Mar 27 11:31:20 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 274923A6C77; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 11:31:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.746 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.746 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.309, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9k1-xeNK4SNw; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 11:31:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10E463A6FD2; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 11:31:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B07AB3A6827 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 11:31:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XCd9C+bxNhmq for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 11:31:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ti-out-0910.google.com (ti-out-0910.google.com [209.85.142.189]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07A623A6DE3 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 11:30:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by ti-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id i7so1913092tid.25 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 11:28:35 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=9onQslWLe9eOC4rWLNDhlIWZa19ciwZrrTg4bmTNl3k=; b=FS6AeJydj4BdyjoSIAMCWN8PB+lFaRI8VqnTXOq3auHJ+aaM59jOE2YFoPmQ1v8ZztNrzuCrOragYFMMXA7iNFtwd3Vioq0w5O4LnsqSElHxXkHxheVntj9f9ipSG0AxDAN/DAI3clVuQM0wPqKLWVZaoV+PQ6pnbPTSdq9q6PA= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=CgMc94RHk+poGjq8ei55V2LP57Ze01SCUg7jjxuCqxSOjewJhJDqOGMu5jy3L6GzXDL/R4NhB6r0edEPv8zAkfyul44a/en1a5AcoZjaUH9+L8BvpD763mWkdrxHPg7X/Eqvy3qSkVslrZjnjh0MMVk6VibDPyqR3dXem1nai6M= Received: by 10.110.3.15 with SMTP id 15mr1525065tic.30.1206642515264; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 11:28:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.70.94.8 with HTTP; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 11:28:35 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <18a603a60803271128u4c63a3baha8bde5fb80bd2557@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 20:28:35 +0200 From: "Pars Mutaf" To: "Dan Wing" , rucus@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <07e201c8901e$8af43d20$c5f0200a@cisco.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline References: <18a603a60803261641x10f130bemca190e7c10d59a20@mail.gmail.com> <05cb01c88fa6$4136c270$c5f0200a@cisco.com> <18a603a60803270049i4842922cnb58d34e7c5832cf7@mail.gmail.com> <07e201c8901e$8af43d20$c5f0200a@cisco.com> Subject: Re: [Rucus] Lost use cases X-BeenThere: rucus@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Reducing Unwanted Communication Using SIP \(RUCUS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: rucus-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rucus-bounces@ietf.org On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 5:23 PM, Dan Wing wrote: > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Pars Mutaf [mailto:pars.mutaf@gmail.com] > > Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 12:49 AM > > To: Dan Wing > > Subject: Re: [Rucus] Lost use cases > > > > On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 3:02 AM, Dan Wing wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: rucus-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rucus-bounces@ietf.org] > > > > On Behalf Of Pars Mutaf > > > > Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 4:42 PM > > > > To: rucus@ietf.org > > > > Subject: [Rucus] Lost use cases > > > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > What is missing IMHO is a discussion about the profits > > > > of publishing phone numbers. If we can understand why > > > > users would like to publish their phone numbers on the Web > > > > (and why they can't today) we can better measure the > > > > problem. > > > > > > > > Cell phone users do not publish their phone numbers > > > > today because they want to avoid undesired calls. > > > > > > > > For example, I would very much like to leave a message > > > > on a forum for selling an item or asking for help and paste my > > > > cell phone number. We can invent many possible use cases of > > > > cell phones. Today we do not publish our phone numbers because > > > > we don't even think about it. We unconsciously fear SPIT and > > > > protect our tranquility. > > > My cellular phone and my home phone are not running VoIP, so I > > > don't fear SPIT. > > > > Excuse the bad sentence. I mean, you probably fear SPIT hence > > here you are in this ML interested in the problem. > > > > > Rather, I fear some whack-job person, awake > > > at 2am in the morning (in my timezone), who wants to get > > > information about the item I am selling. > > > I would say it is the inability for me, as the owner of the > > > phone number, to set policies for who can call me and when > > > they can call me. Some mobile phones have such a capability > > > with custom ringtones (including no ringing for unknown > > > numbers), which can also be adjusted based on time. With that, > > > and with the ability to prevent redirecting to voicemail, I > > > > Why are you preventing redirecting to voicemail. You are > > unconsciously limiting yourself. These are not solutions. > > A better solution would be to use a disposable phone number. > > Yes, that is one approach. > > Or a phone number with policies attached to it. > > > > > could reasonably publish my number on a public forum -- > > > afterall, it isn't just EBAY and Craigslist where I might want > > > to have random people call me. > > > > > This does not seem to be a new problem with VoIP, SIP, or > > > SPIT -- or am I missing something? > > > > Why are we looking for a new problem? There is already a problem. > > Users have shown already that they can't want to publish their > > phone numbers without SPIT. > > > > The problem is not even telemarketing calls. The problem is > > the possibility to receive undesired calls to that device that you > > carry in your pocket. The number that you paste on the web, > > stays on the web. But the solution is not hiding the numbers. > > This cannot be called a solution. > > I agree. > > But a disposable phone number is a phone number that is published > one day and, one day later, purposefully made to not work. > > Would it not be best to publish a phone number that always worked, > and provided exactly the policies the owner desired? If we can design it, or depending on the designs, having a single phone number may be easier for the user, I agree. This is in fact possible with IPsec. Equivalent of and even better than disposable phone numbers can be made with IPsec. IPsec security associations are end-to-end hence disposable ;-) BTW I have a draft on that issue: https://www1.tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mutaf-humanresolv-00 > Policies > meaning who can call, when they can call, and even potentially > _why_ they are calling. I agree for "who" and "when". But "why" can itself be exploited for spam I guess. I can send you spam explaining you why I'll call you. But IMO the solutions must be designed for flexibility. The user's should be able to choose solutions. After all user experience will determine which solutions work best and how they work best. > And allow for exceptions if the caller > is willing to expend effort; afterall, there are exceptions today > if the caller is willing to expend effort -- today, that effort > is usually social engineering effort. IMO the caller can always be required some reasonable effort. But this also must be designed for flexibility. This may not work for lazy callers and sometimes the call may be beneficial for the callee. pars > -d > > _______________________________________________ Rucus mailing list Rucus@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus From rucus-bounces@ietf.org Thu Mar 27 12:10:13 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 980AE3A68F5; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 12:10:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.794 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.794 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.357, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4+htCniecSyX; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 12:10:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 198BC3A6827; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 12:10:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 780A73A67FE for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 12:10:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4D-kKcEILwpm for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 12:10:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wx-out-0506.google.com (wx-out-0506.google.com [66.249.82.238]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 099573A676A for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 12:09:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wx-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id i26so4919227wxd.31 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 12:07:36 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=VhMYQ5jJ9aG9a7YA6/xFRfS07C+M4vZhgBiiiZuHQaM=; b=d9kHeCbOOgPcLmlpGNAA3lckc1lhF4KzYjbCYLF9ckrl82MIMYjtgB7dd6NoDxjGNyhp2ZjsL9BXPJ/WghCKtCPh7y730/HQCuGGh5Qn16B38LrWunGqVosLLFZbQEDTOdhkTmRbzpZNVgIXc4tu7Kv75m+2wfR/VJ925n2yvjw= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=K1O75civU1POi7Un9Ktkdytl/jTLjoBRF26Y8Bcbyx6bQeC0ivHGIG+Uewu09/he4X8CSxDkwx1GUY+jT36Fw37UAUlbjjkCw0q5h1LFtqoCT8Mb2QQ1EP7oRiL2KXPQqXZCLrt2DERFZrjYRRlK6nalLU+hlrtuRgThuuSa07c= Received: by 10.70.108.18 with SMTP id g18mr2001409wxc.26.1206644855730; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 12:07:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.70.94.8 with HTTP; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 12:07:35 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <18a603a60803271207u2e43b99dg789216d763be5e9b@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 21:07:35 +0200 From: "Pars Mutaf" To: "Dan York" In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline References: <18a603a60803261641x10f130bemca190e7c10d59a20@mail.gmail.com> Cc: rucus@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Rucus] Lost use cases X-BeenThere: rucus@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Reducing Unwanted Communication Using SIP \(RUCUS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: rucus-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rucus-bounces@ietf.org On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 8:25 PM, Dan York wrote: > Pars, > > I don't understand this point. I *do* publish my phone number on my web > pages today. Thankfully I don't receive many calls. > I do that today. I've posted numerous items to Craigslist.org that have > included my actual phone number. ... > Perhaps, but I *do* see quite a few postings on the web, especially in > forums selling things, that do include valid phone numbers. Maybe this is > just true in North America, but I see phone numbers all the time online. My first question: do you publish your "cell" phone number? Personally, I did it and I seriously regretted. Why? Because cell phone number is different. Believe me I did research on my friends. I asked 10s of people. Everybody says that they wouldn't publish cell phone number. Cell phone number is somewhat precious, cell phone user has a different psychology probably because cell phone became an extension of the body. My second question: would you publish your phone number on a dating site? (not you nor me, I mean the user perspective) My third question: would you publish your cell phone on a phone book? Why cellular phones do not have phone books? This means that phone book is useless? We have a lot of phone books for home phones. > Are you saying that you believe people do NOT post their cell phone online > because they do not want to receive "unwanted communications"? Yes. > And that you > believe we need to categorize *why* people do not post their phone numbers? Defining use cases where users would in normal conditions publish their phone numbers look like a good idea. > If so, I'm not entirely clear what this precisely has to do with SPIT. I > can think of many reasons not to post my phone number that have everything > to do with regular communication over the PSTN and have nothing whatsoever > to do with SIP. > > To put that another way, what is different about posting your number on the > web if SIP is a transport versus PSTN? Why is this special and something we > should think about? For example, SIP URIs have "sip:" before the phone identifier and can be more easily detected by robots. But this is orthogonal to the fact that cell phone number is more precious. Maybe not. pars > Confused, > Dan > > -- > Dan York, CISSP, Director of Emerging Communication Technology > Office of the CTO Voxeo Corporation dyork@voxeo.com > Phone: +1-407-455-5859 Skype: danyork http://www.voxeo.com > Blogs: http://blogs.voxeo.com http://www.disruptivetelephony.com > > Build voice applications based on open standards. > Find out how at http://www.voxeo.com/free > > > > > > _______________________________________________ Rucus mailing list Rucus@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus From rucus-bounces@ietf.org Thu Mar 27 13:12:06 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1BC728C1EB; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 13:12:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.088 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.088 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.651, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eVxxQGzAGzpE; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 13:12:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 990DD28C923; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 13:12:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0727D3A6FD4 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 13:12:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id c4wx7GgjJ9ye for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 13:11:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sj-iport-3.cisco.com (sj-iport-3.cisco.com [171.71.176.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1241828C3B7 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 13:11:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sj-dkim-2.cisco.com ([171.71.179.186]) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 27 Mar 2008 13:08:58 -0700 Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238]) by sj-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m2RK8wBt031376; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 13:08:58 -0700 Received: from dwingwxp01 ([10.32.240.197]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m2RK8vBi022143; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 20:08:57 GMT From: "Dan Wing" To: "'Pars Mutaf'" , "'Dan York'" References: <18a603a60803261641x10f130bemca190e7c10d59a20@mail.gmail.com> <18a603a60803271207u2e43b99dg789216d763be5e9b@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 13:08:57 -0700 Message-ID: <0c5001c89046$64229e80$c5f0200a@cisco.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 In-Reply-To: <18a603a60803271207u2e43b99dg789216d763be5e9b@mail.gmail.com> Thread-Index: AciQPdwXlp0Kdd9uTtKSjtQ/44KgZAACB8NA DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=3136; t=1206648538; x=1207512538; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim2002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=dwing@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Dan=20Wing=22=20 |Subject:=20RE=3A=20[Rucus]=20Lost=20use=20cases |Sender:=20; bh=nag78JxDrBUCqg8KZIpygQlqAI4T7tfnirlIozZc76k=; b=rCCW1G6E70M/gxGmDi6UpBggRnFIp/JNl6set72bjU0KOSFs3gXrQzyOmD eeAoZH3I47Mx3KtM1kQHcCUPgUlS6F/0FRM+K8cHX4kSv4X59/ljXpKGwGmx f/RHeEmYWp; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-2; header.From=dwing@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim2002 verified; ); Cc: rucus@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Rucus] Lost use cases X-BeenThere: rucus@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Reducing Unwanted Communication Using SIP \(RUCUS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: rucus-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rucus-bounces@ietf.org > > Perhaps, but I *do* see quite a few postings on the web, > > especially in > > forums selling things, that do include valid phone numbers. > > Maybe this is > > just true in North America, but I see phone numbers all the > > time online. > > > My first question: do you publish your "cell" phone number? > Personally, I did it and I seriously regretted. > > Why? Because cell phone number is different. Believe me I did > research on my friends. I asked 10s of people. Everybody says > that they wouldn't publish cell phone number. Cell phone > number is somewhat precious, cell phone user has a > different psychology probably because cell phone became an > extension of the body. It is not just different psychology -- it is money. In the United States, it costs money to receive a cellular phone call with any of the major carriers (AT&T, Sprint, Verizon, T-Mobile, etc.). In Europe and most other GSM-centric countries, incoming calls are free. Almost everywhere in the world, incoming calls to land-line phones are free. -d > My second question: would you publish your phone number on a > dating site? > (not you nor me, I mean the user perspective) > > My third question: would you publish your cell phone on a phone book? > Why cellular phones do not have phone books? This means that phone > book is useless? We have a lot of phone books for home phones. > > > > Are you saying that you believe people do NOT post their > > cell phone online > > because they do not want to receive "unwanted communications"? > > Yes. > > > And that you > > believe we need to categorize *why* people do not post > > their phone numbers? > > > Defining use cases where users would in normal conditions publish > their phone numbers look like a good idea. > > > > If so, I'm not entirely clear what this precisely has to do > with SPIT. I > > can think of many reasons not to post my phone number that > have everything > > to do with regular communication over the PSTN and have > nothing whatsoever > > to do with SIP. > > > > To put that another way, what is different about posting > your number on the > > web if SIP is a transport versus PSTN? Why is this special > and something we > > should think about? > > > For example, SIP URIs have "sip:" before the phone identifier > and can be > more easily detected by robots. But this is orthogonal to the > fact that cell > phone number is more precious. Maybe not. > > pars > > > > Confused, > > Dan > > > > -- > > Dan York, CISSP, Director of Emerging Communication Technology > > Office of the CTO Voxeo Corporation dyork@voxeo.com > > Phone: +1-407-455-5859 Skype: danyork http://www.voxeo.com > > Blogs: http://blogs.voxeo.com http://www.disruptivetelephony.com > > > > Build voice applications based on open standards. > > Find out how at http://www.voxeo.com/free > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Rucus mailing list > Rucus@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus _______________________________________________ Rucus mailing list Rucus@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus From rucus-bounces@ietf.org Thu Mar 27 13:34:08 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCD3A28C345; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 13:34:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.669 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.669 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.232, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zupaiGLMMLT6; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 13:34:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF4D33A6FE0; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 13:34:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C39403A6FD0 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 13:34:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JA4Kte+4cXi0 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 13:34:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ti-out-0910.google.com (ti-out-0910.google.com [209.85.142.187]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CE0E28C787 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 13:33:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: by ti-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id i7so1980879tid.25 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 13:31:13 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=/HyI3yuEhtQ/eWo9UW2iTmJR870L1kjCeRfbCJ1W5WA=; b=OtQHxe7tpwwyHZmmD84GFhwyYbV/IFtksZCJxmOclZIJybZj1rPyBA/8QTVeyA+z3v2lygT8a4Ecli1tAyXkc0VhuvI6qei9+8Xdu7YbBqKy4BMEPJskiIc3fzYAihA8Zdl/Tgf49d/kBFqRRO6LsLl0w6E7MMkOC71TgFm6Vpo= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=h+gFv3oEw1ssPYSwV7uAZrXP9aCowxQyelqehx9X05IRcEe+XciSm+mCIKGC0ov/oO9FQ7Usc0F67OrXSTvXhqo+axCO57yMHyvHk/sBxjDEGi2gZUu0vW1ol+HN/oQ0L3WZF1TSMO6FKwpy1BecQjY9ZUImADvr9IUfXCyJM3Q= Received: by 10.110.60.2 with SMTP id i2mr1838087tia.11.1206649873510; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 13:31:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.70.94.8 with HTTP; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 13:31:13 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <18a603a60803271331w2d56dc23v29d0b497d98a49ea@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 22:31:13 +0200 From: "Pars Mutaf" To: "Dan Wing" In-Reply-To: <0c5001c89046$64229e80$c5f0200a@cisco.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline References: <18a603a60803261641x10f130bemca190e7c10d59a20@mail.gmail.com> <18a603a60803271207u2e43b99dg789216d763be5e9b@mail.gmail.com> <0c5001c89046$64229e80$c5f0200a@cisco.com> Cc: rucus@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Rucus] Lost use cases X-BeenThere: rucus@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Reducing Unwanted Communication Using SIP \(RUCUS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: rucus-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rucus-bounces@ietf.org On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 10:08 PM, Dan Wing wrote: > > > Perhaps, but I *do* see quite a few postings on the web, > > > especially in > > > forums selling things, that do include valid phone numbers. > > > Maybe this is > > > just true in North America, but I see phone numbers all the > > > time online. > > > > > > My first question: do you publish your "cell" phone number? > > Personally, I did it and I seriously regretted. > > > > Why? Because cell phone number is different. Believe me I did > > research on my friends. I asked 10s of people. Everybody says > > that they wouldn't publish cell phone number. Cell phone > > number is somewhat precious, cell phone user has a > > different psychology probably because cell phone became an > > extension of the body. > > It is not just different psychology -- it is money. In the United > States, it costs money to receive a cellular phone call with any > of the major carriers (AT&T, Sprint, Verizon, T-Mobile, etc.). In Thanks for the information. > Europe and most other GSM-centric countries, incoming calls are > free. Yes here incoming calls are free. pars > > Almost everywhere in the world, incoming calls to land-line phones > are free. > > -d > > > > > My second question: would you publish your phone number on a > > dating site? > > (not you nor me, I mean the user perspective) > > > > My third question: would you publish your cell phone on a phone book? > > Why cellular phones do not have phone books? This means that phone > > book is useless? We have a lot of phone books for home phones. > > > > > > > Are you saying that you believe people do NOT post their > > > cell phone online > > > because they do not want to receive "unwanted communications"? > > > > Yes. > > > > > And that you > > > believe we need to categorize *why* people do not post > > > their phone numbers? > > > > > > Defining use cases where users would in normal conditions publish > > their phone numbers look like a good idea. > > > > > > > If so, I'm not entirely clear what this precisely has to do > > with SPIT. I > > > can think of many reasons not to post my phone number that > > have everything > > > to do with regular communication over the PSTN and have > > nothing whatsoever > > > to do with SIP. > > > > > > To put that another way, what is different about posting > > your number on the > > > web if SIP is a transport versus PSTN? Why is this special > > and something we > > > should think about? > > > > > > For example, SIP URIs have "sip:" before the phone identifier > > and can be > > more easily detected by robots. But this is orthogonal to the > > fact that cell > > phone number is more precious. Maybe not. > > > > pars > > > > > > > Confused, > > > Dan > > > > > > -- > > > Dan York, CISSP, Director of Emerging Communication Technology > > > Office of the CTO Voxeo Corporation dyork@voxeo.com > > > Phone: +1-407-455-5859 Skype: danyork http://www.voxeo.com > > > Blogs: http://blogs.voxeo.com http://www.disruptivetelephony.com > > > > > > Build voice applications based on open standards. > > > Find out how at http://www.voxeo.com/free > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Rucus mailing list > > Rucus@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus > > _______________________________________________ Rucus mailing list Rucus@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus From rucus-bounces@ietf.org Fri Mar 28 05:44:47 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28F8328C208; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 05:44:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.707 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.707 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.270, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2FRKbJu8VXX4; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 05:44:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E336A3A6AF7; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 05:44:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBF903A68EE for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 05:44:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6cnO2bU3VtZT for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 05:44:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wf-out-1314.google.com (wf-out-1314.google.com [209.85.200.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A73DE3A691C for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 05:44:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wf-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id 25so242038wfa.31 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 05:44:41 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=3B/ybjDj4XGUydRGX9YKrmPnTk1M/65RvBsOQDln6vY=; b=qmycQHV4xKx5Jau8baTb5HPuJdHaBkOXntFrrVRofeA+kR+8GLpX7g1tI6r14Hmbqefv0wVSL+QFwXLG88RyKOaddpfqfuwnb+CLjVbk54fwt/CcB7D6/TJCUmV9VubN6esYU3l7BuTVO5GZIJduuvfzn3FwE1dzFkktnd39CyA= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=tBPDmdQyTJMICIMqN+Q1X89gDEnHKLFV5OrzLIhJsWj026juuiRbzIkT8VWe8GY20STz1dgIK3l83QcH2JK2HbL04uPzE7aUVcbsocnLFRcZAY0n2qQbGSjfSJ70FZBhF4sb2LPc/Kp6t88jU+q2PHiuf7TMJVwSorjc0MzB3eQ= Received: by 10.142.110.3 with SMTP id i3mr2014920wfc.203.1206708281125; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 05:44:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.70.94.8 with HTTP; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 05:44:41 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <18a603a60803280544i123d383ch3526f9ca21cc5589@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 14:44:41 +0200 From: "Pars Mutaf" To: "Dan Wing" In-Reply-To: <0c5001c89046$64229e80$c5f0200a@cisco.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline References: <18a603a60803261641x10f130bemca190e7c10d59a20@mail.gmail.com> <18a603a60803271207u2e43b99dg789216d763be5e9b@mail.gmail.com> <0c5001c89046$64229e80$c5f0200a@cisco.com> Cc: rucus@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Rucus] Lost use cases X-BeenThere: rucus@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Reducing Unwanted Communication Using SIP \(RUCUS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: rucus-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rucus-bounces@ietf.org On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 10:08 PM, Dan Wing wrote: > > > Perhaps, but I *do* see quite a few postings on the web, > > > especially in > > > forums selling things, that do include valid phone numbers. > > > Maybe this is > > > just true in North America, but I see phone numbers all the > > > time online. > > > > > > My first question: do you publish your "cell" phone number? > > Personally, I did it and I seriously regretted. > > > > Why? Because cell phone number is different. Believe me I did > > research on my friends. I asked 10s of people. Everybody says > > that they wouldn't publish cell phone number. Cell phone > > number is somewhat precious, cell phone user has a > > different psychology probably because cell phone became an > > extension of the body. > > It is not just different psychology -- it is money. In the United > States, it costs money to receive a cellular phone call with any > of the major carriers (AT&T, Sprint, Verizon, T-Mobile, etc.). In What are the incentives making the callee pay in US? Is it likely to be the same with SIP? Depends on link-layer technology? Thanks, pars > Europe and most other GSM-centric countries, incoming calls are > free. > Almost everywhere in the world, incoming calls to land-line phones > are free. > > -d > > > > > My second question: would you publish your phone number on a > > dating site? > > (not you nor me, I mean the user perspective) > > > > My third question: would you publish your cell phone on a phone book? > > Why cellular phones do not have phone books? This means that phone > > book is useless? We have a lot of phone books for home phones. > > > > > > > Are you saying that you believe people do NOT post their > > > cell phone online > > > because they do not want to receive "unwanted communications"? > > > > Yes. > > > > > And that you > > > believe we need to categorize *why* people do not post > > > their phone numbers? > > > > > > Defining use cases where users would in normal conditions publish > > their phone numbers look like a good idea. > > > > > > > If so, I'm not entirely clear what this precisely has to do > > with SPIT. I > > > can think of many reasons not to post my phone number that > > have everything > > > to do with regular communication over the PSTN and have > > nothing whatsoever > > > to do with SIP. > > > > > > To put that another way, what is different about posting > > your number on the > > > web if SIP is a transport versus PSTN? Why is this special > > and something we > > > should think about? > > > > > > For example, SIP URIs have "sip:" before the phone identifier > > and can be > > more easily detected by robots. But this is orthogonal to the > > fact that cell > > phone number is more precious. Maybe not. > > > > pars > > > > > > > Confused, > > > Dan > > > > > > -- > > > Dan York, CISSP, Director of Emerging Communication Technology > > > Office of the CTO Voxeo Corporation dyork@voxeo.com > > > Phone: +1-407-455-5859 Skype: danyork http://www.voxeo.com > > > Blogs: http://blogs.voxeo.com http://www.disruptivetelephony.com > > > > > > Build voice applications based on open standards. > > > Find out how at http://www.voxeo.com/free > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Rucus mailing list > > Rucus@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus > > _______________________________________________ Rucus mailing list Rucus@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus From rucus-bounces@ietf.org Fri Mar 28 08:26:51 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 761FF3A6FD4; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 08:26:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.478 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.478 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.941, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RCVD_IN_BSP_OTHER=-0.1, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wibbKR2IbqBr; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 08:26:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DC1328C2C0; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 08:26:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C72F3A6D5F for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 08:26:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HNx7xFbYCffq for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 08:26:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [208.31.42.53]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 406653A6BB9 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 08:26:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 27003 invoked from network); 28 Mar 2008 15:26:16 -0000 Received: from simone.iecc.com (208.31.42.47) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 28 Mar 2008 15:26:16 -0000 Date: 28 Mar 2008 15:26:16 -0000 Message-ID: <20080328152616.86713.qmail@simone.iecc.com> From: John Levine To: rucus@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <18a603a60803280544i123d383ch3526f9ca21cc5589@mail.gmail.com> Organization: X-Headerized: yes Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Rucus] who pays, was Lost use cases X-BeenThere: rucus@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Reducing Unwanted Communication Using SIP \(RUCUS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: rucus-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rucus-bounces@ietf.org >> It is not just different psychology -- it is money. In the United >> States, it costs money to receive a cellular phone call with any >> of the major carriers (AT&T, Sprint, Verizon, T-Mobile, etc.). In > >What are the incentives making the callee pay in US? To considerably summarize and oversimplify, in North America we have the world's largest integrated numbering area, with all phone numbers in a fixed length 3+3+4 format where the first three digits are an area code assigned to a particular geographic area. It now covers the U.S., Canada, all of the remote island parts of the U.S., and many of the islands in the Caribbean.* When cellular phone service was invented in the early 1980s, there weren't enough spare area codes to overlay a separate set for mobile phones, so they integrated mobile phones into the standard numbering and dialing plan. They also integrated them physically; many early cell switches attached to the network like large PBXes. Since you could not and cannot tell from the number dialed whether you're calling a fixed or mobile phone, the rule has always been that the cost to the caller depends only on the rate center of the number called. Back in the 1980s the rates were distance sensitive, these days for landlines they're typically free for local calls and a flat rate elsewhere in the country, for mobiles they're all flat rated. This means that the mobile user pays whatever extra cost his carrier charges for mobile service. There were a few experiments with caller pays mobile, all of which were complete failures for both technical reasons (no way to pass the charge through on inbound long distance calls) and the practical reason that nobody was willing to call them. This has a couple of advantages relative to caller pays. One is that since the mobile customer is aware of all of the per minute costs, we have robust price competition for all mobile calls, and the average per minute cost (overall, not just outbound) is about half here what it is in Europe. The latest round in the price wars is $99/mo flat rate for unlimited inbound and outbound calling, a price that is certain to drop in the next couple of years. Another advantage is that we have number portability between mobile and landline, with most of the action being people porting their old landline numbers to mobile. People used to hide their mobile numbers for fear of getting unwanted calls they'd have to pay for. These days we all have bundle plans that include more monthly minutes than we ever use, so people who hide their phone numbers do it either out of habit, or because their phone is always on and they don't want it to ring at inconvenient times unless it's someone they know they want to talk to. >Is it likely to be the same with SIP? It's certainly going to be the same that no North American caller would put up with extra charges to call some numbers. The only surcharged numbers here are in the special purpose 900 area code which is very disreputable and is widely blocked from business phones. We already see call management features on VoIP phones that e.g. divert off-hours calls to voicemail except from numbers on a whitelist. Even without spit, this is useful to avoid the annoyance factor of callers on the other side of the country who can't figure out that it may be 9 AM where they are, but it's 6 AM where you are. R's, John * - If anyone's wondering why we don't do it the ITU way, it's because AT&T offered their plan to the ITU about 50 years ago and the ITU turned it down and invented a plan that protected PTT fiefdoms. _______________________________________________ Rucus mailing list Rucus@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus From rucus-bounces@ietf.org Fri Mar 28 09:03:23 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B14B43A6896; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 09:03:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.464 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.464 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.027, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yaaK8OvstGy7; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 09:03:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FEB43A6ABC; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 09:03:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0464C3A68FC for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 09:03:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZAV6-Uwov7rx for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 09:03:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com (sj-iport-6.cisco.com [171.71.176.117]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA5A53A6ABC for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 09:03:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sj-dkim-4.cisco.com ([171.71.179.196]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 28 Mar 2008 09:03:15 -0700 Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238]) by sj-dkim-4.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m2SG3EoJ012482; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 09:03:14 -0700 Received: from dwingwxp01 ([10.32.240.197]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m2SG3DE6026042; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 16:03:14 GMT From: "Dan Wing" To: "'Pars Mutaf'" References: <18a603a60803261641x10f130bemca190e7c10d59a20@mail.gmail.com> <18a603a60803271207u2e43b99dg789216d763be5e9b@mail.gmail.com> <0c5001c89046$64229e80$c5f0200a@cisco.com> <18a603a60803280544i123d383ch3526f9ca21cc5589@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 09:03:13 -0700 Message-ID: <022501c890ed$3a176600$c5f0200a@cisco.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 In-Reply-To: <18a603a60803280544i123d383ch3526f9ca21cc5589@mail.gmail.com> Thread-Index: AciQ0X40htMB3G5iSaCuPwcKfu3K+wAGwXEQ DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1102; t=1206720194; x=1207584194; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim4002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=dwing@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Dan=20Wing=22=20 |Subject:=20RE=3A=20[Rucus]=20Lost=20use=20cases |Sender:=20; bh=OT1eZFFzoFaScSw9mWkzfccqzBlqcXqdRjsW1qBSPxI=; b=XaouMuYro4mc1uHO2DF951pLu8zeVGbYL6vFnOGPTLnIAv5pc3D5bq+oew 9t5MC9sc3gH8Ry5tWT8WvonH8iKC4BMi5VZ88iYYeDBTJDSfWP9qd/r5sEyh EVRJNq4qvh; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-4; header.From=dwing@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim4002 verified; ); Cc: rucus@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Rucus] Lost use cases X-BeenThere: rucus@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Reducing Unwanted Communication Using SIP \(RUCUS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: rucus-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rucus-bounces@ietf.org > > It is not just different psychology -- it is money. In the United > > States, it costs money to receive a cellular phone call with any > > of the major carriers (AT&T, Sprint, Verizon, T-Mobile, etc.). In > > What are the incentives making the callee pay in US? That way, carriers get money in both directions. It has just always been set up this way -- since the dawn of the US's closed cellular system. Blame it on Craig McCaw, founder of McCaw Cellular. The US system was designed for in-car cellular phones with more powerful transmitters; this saves money over handheld units which require more ground stations. It took a decade for this trend to finally reverse itself. The carriers have little incentive to give up their revenue for incoming minutes. > Is it likely to be the same with SIP? I don't know; that is a business decision. Certainly things like the iPhone and gPhone (Android) could well cause the existing revenue model to be adjusted. > Depends on link-layer technology? I would say it depends more on what the market will bear. -d _______________________________________________ Rucus mailing list Rucus@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus From rucus-bounces@ietf.org Fri Mar 28 10:10:45 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D86B28C536; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 10:10:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.707 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.707 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.270, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1KW+fwPLPhG0; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 10:10:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C10E628C4B3; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 10:10:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7814828C49A for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 10:10:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YpeJwZrQwvUX for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 10:10:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ti-out-0910.google.com (ti-out-0910.google.com [209.85.142.191]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAF7C28C356 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 10:10:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: by ti-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id i7so162376tid.25 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 10:10:35 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition; bh=kVzpDgoFf4PBl4EprzvGa03iRpJo5jYLTkRspNYtpEY=; b=QPCnyP+f/n6XMjRsY6hmz6YvfHVIN5dkMqJOMh6zK2PnaUxc0/stWWy+jLBdwhHf35XOVlO4/9eGTv2RLqypaNbxK/h9yp/EUVI21d/RwJZBYQKZ4iEMnbUqPE182j3zPR+xLTE7XAFsKV+Y/hxedzqNEkWyuYR/Eh6wFJ28lug= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition; b=AiQ/TCQA/HSiEsXMjF6qgRUYeSCB7IzC/LbYUYn4YndTZSPPvL2JM13/XXa9gfuJ/Xt8R5Y51ohOrVOFXmXWYAG4qGeH60N9p8vxMKTkYZHgZR4Nq3hAxyMnsITl9uGch01UqWUlUhPsumRMTWsQZLzsHW5SrK5gMSXZWmwFTCM= Received: by 10.110.31.5 with SMTP id e5mr2384640tie.38.1206724235095; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 10:10:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.70.94.8 with HTTP; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 10:10:29 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <18a603a60803281010h53801dabmf4f3329bd450b0e8@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 19:10:29 +0200 From: "Pars Mutaf" To: "Dan Wing" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Cc: rucus@ietf.org Subject: [Rucus] Risks of publishing phone numbers (was Re: Lost use cases) X-BeenThere: rucus@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Reducing Unwanted Communication Using SIP \(RUCUS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: rucus-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rucus-bounces@ietf.org Hello, Here is a tentative classification of the risks of publishing phone numbers. The possible consequences are annoyance and economical. The benefits of the useful incoming calls may outweigh these risks or not. Publishing phone numbers may lead to some undesired side-effects. Or, some users may not publish their phone numbers at all because of these possible side effects. = Prank calls = Receiving annoying out-of-context phone calls. This may happen when the user publishes his/her phone number on a dating site for example. This may also happen in young Internet communities where a large number of users subscribe to a forum. = Too many calls = Popularity may lead too many incoming calls. In some communities some "popular" users may wish to publish a phone number to a subset of the community, but receive calls from the whole community. = Useless calls = A user may publish a phone number to sell an item or ask for help. When done the user may keep receiving calls. = Commercial calls = The user may receive advertisements. = Calls from different time zones = The user may receive calls from different time zones when available for urgent calls only. (or I misunderstand the problem??) _______________________________________________ Rucus mailing list Rucus@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus From rucus-bounces@ietf.org Fri Mar 28 10:24:39 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B419A3A6D3F; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 10:24:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.464 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.464 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.027, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wLFEj4HOFpy3; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 10:24:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2EF428C992; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 10:21:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07DC428C3E0 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 10:21:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ltn05WEuc1y4 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 10:21:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sj-iport-2.cisco.com (sj-iport-2.cisco.com [171.71.176.71]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A89CD28C38F for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 10:17:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sj-dkim-8.cisco.com ([171.68.10.93]) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 28 Mar 2008 10:17:53 -0700 Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238]) by sj-dkim-8.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m2SHHrXB003165; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 10:17:53 -0700 Received: from dwingwxp01 ([10.32.240.197]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m2SHHq62005757; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 17:17:52 GMT From: "Dan Wing" To: "'Pars Mutaf'" References: <18a603a60803281010h53801dabmf4f3329bd450b0e8@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 10:17:53 -0700 Message-ID: <027a01c890f7$a8f26980$c5f0200a@cisco.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 In-Reply-To: <18a603a60803281010h53801dabmf4f3329bd450b0e8@mail.gmail.com> Thread-Index: AciQ9qtH+nwN8NChSPqEqmEpkpWMUwAAPZBQ DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1609; t=1206724673; x=1207588673; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim8002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=dwing@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Dan=20Wing=22=20 |Subject:=20RE=3A=20Risks=20of=20publishing=20phone=20numbe rs=20(was=20Re=3A=20Lost=20use=20cases) |Sender:=20; bh=/KA4DJcZvTBia2b7uH5xu5AYqt01An707ZlgdV3oHlk=; b=JnmFibQ2Q9bB7lqO/lSOl9E/1QHtfnZqyFxF4ptnMGDPIgw64sVBv40coc axV/UUTflQjOxCJecdnS4xcti2fpR2d7qiIJJAeHxJs6UZWZ3kS2V3YAfzhi zdsxknCpkQ; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-8; header.From=dwing@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim8002 verified; ); Cc: rucus@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Rucus] Risks of publishing phone numbers (was Re: Lost use cases) X-BeenThere: rucus@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Reducing Unwanted Communication Using SIP \(RUCUS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: rucus-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rucus-bounces@ietf.org That is a reasonable classification. -d > -----Original Message----- > From: Pars Mutaf [mailto:pars.mutaf@gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 10:10 AM > To: Dan Wing > Cc: Dan York; rucus@ietf.org > Subject: Risks of publishing phone numbers (was Re: Lost use cases) > > Hello, > > Here is a tentative classification of the risks of publishing phone > numbers. The possible consequences are annoyance and economical. > The benefits of the useful incoming calls may outweigh these risks or > not. Publishing phone numbers may lead to some undesired side-effects. > Or, some users may not publish their phone numbers at all because of > these possible side effects. > > = Prank calls = > > Receiving annoying out-of-context phone calls. This may happen > when the user publishes his/her phone number on a dating site > for example. This may also happen in young Internet communities > where a large number of users subscribe to a forum. > > = Too many calls = > > Popularity may lead too many incoming calls. In some communities > some "popular" users may wish to publish a phone number to a > subset of the community, but receive calls from the whole community. > > = Useless calls = > > A user may publish a phone number to sell an item or ask for help. > When done the user may keep receiving calls. > > = Commercial calls = > > The user may receive advertisements. > > = Calls from different time zones = > > The user may receive calls from different time zones when > available for urgent calls only. (or I misunderstand the problem??) _______________________________________________ Rucus mailing list Rucus@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus From rucus-bounces@ietf.org Mon Mar 31 22:18:52 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rucus-archive@ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BA0828C0F5; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 22:18:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CD6C3A6CF7 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 22:18:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MDhCoui5S-d6 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 22:18:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wa-out-1112.google.com (wa-out-1112.google.com [209.85.146.183]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A40A3A6AAB for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 22:18:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wa-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id k40so2748778wah.25 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 22:18:29 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; bh=bLQIsvkt1+oYejAnuQyXfs6a7r4v5Q+TniIXaPf1UYk=; b=l8mYy/dnXt6xk/0jG05hvttzdJH5+GcD7X6ooN1cdwDdFggeZAcLHz4PEpCy3sYZP/Wy7SyMTb9RQasKXVDE+Omv8RxvdfYeNGnRopX+CnrSa35colKJ2/2g535AYVBU0XKUHUgXlO67cpl/SwLydY8NGpNsN67+f31wiCXtWlc= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=Q8i2vtEWR9ERe2DOtOher5O4pjxjiIdhKyja91LIH2VIjZ2yyubK6XQ9bxUrL5upNCpLyBOvbbb3/9lJC1dSXmBXdI6o/R27+0v+u/7qM8vO+PBIPHvHOa1SAH7YniWIokjJncHGZ76pWJ9cflSJfOuyebhmmtMNO4kDEyTinaQ= Received: by 10.114.14.1 with SMTP id 1mr11698573wan.9.1207027109604; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 22:18:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.114.76.11 with HTTP; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 22:18:29 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <66cd252f0803312218h1e342cb1v689b10d0ec910fbc@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2008 16:18:29 +1100 From: "Hisham Khartabil" To: "Dan Wing" In-Reply-To: <01bf01c88b67$50273be0$c5f0200a@cisco.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <18a603a60803210206h7d0d3077q6c07a5062c182624@mail.gmail.com> <20080321094128.GA3087@bofh.priv.at> <18a603a60803210516g749a0e1av98de7acf627d15a9@mail.gmail.com> <01bf01c88b67$50273be0$c5f0200a@cisco.com> Cc: rucus@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Rucus] Maybe we should use the keyword: please X-BeenThere: rucus@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Reducing Unwanted Communication Using SIP \(RUCUS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0753408111==" Sender: rucus-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rucus-bounces@ietf.org --===============0753408111== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_23249_32102361.1207027109596" ------=_Part_23249_32102361.1207027109596 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Well, it's useful in that it legalises SPAM. It allows the spammer to put junk in your inbox because you didn't explicitly put the "No junk mail, please" sticker on your inbox :) Hisham On 22/03/2008, Dan Wing wrote: > > > > My problem is rather technical. Would such separation of SIP URIs be > > feasable technically. > > As in, > > sip:+14085551234@cisco.com;spam=no > > No, I don't see that being useful. > > -d > > _______________________________________________ > Rucus mailing list > Rucus@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus > ------=_Part_23249_32102361.1207027109596 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline
Well, it's useful in that it legalises SPAM. It allows the spammer to put junk in your inbox because you didn't explicitly put the "No junk mail, please" sticker on your inbox :)
 
Hisham

 
On 22/03/2008, Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com> wrote:

> My problem is rather technical. Would such separation of SIP URIs be
> feasable technically.

As in,

sip:+14085551234@cisco.com;spam=no

No, I don't see that being useful.

-d

_______________________________________________
Rucus mailing list
Rucus@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus

------=_Part_23249_32102361.1207027109596-- --===============0753408111== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Rucus mailing list Rucus@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus --===============0753408111==-- From rucus-bounces@ietf.org Mon Mar 31 22:28:30 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rucus-archive@ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD3853A6985; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 22:28:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45D133A6985 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 22:28:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.251 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.251 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.348, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gG+p3NsyS1-c for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 22:28:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com (sj-iport-6.cisco.com [171.71.176.117]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 514103A6870 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 22:28:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sj-dkim-3.cisco.com ([171.71.179.195]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 31 Mar 2008 22:28:27 -0700 Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238]) by sj-dkim-3.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m315SRrO001453; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 22:28:27 -0700 Received: from dwingwxp01 ([10.32.240.197]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m315SQIQ009096; Tue, 1 Apr 2008 05:28:27 GMT From: "Dan Wing" To: "'Hisham Khartabil'" References: <18a603a60803210206h7d0d3077q6c07a5062c182624@mail.gmail.com> <20080321094128.GA3087@bofh.priv.at> <18a603a60803210516g749a0e1av98de7acf627d15a9@mail.gmail.com> <01bf01c88b67$50273be0$c5f0200a@cisco.com> <66cd252f0803312218h1e342cb1v689b10d0ec910fbc@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 22:28:26 -0700 Message-ID: <0f4e01c893b9$36a8e3d0$c5f0200a@cisco.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: <66cd252f0803312218h1e342cb1v689b10d0ec910fbc@mail.gmail.com> X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 Thread-Index: AciTt+Fn9Ki3yafyRQONSSUNdJ6ODwAAMf8A DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1021; t=1207027707; x=1207891707; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim3002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=dwing@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Dan=20Wing=22=20 |Subject:=20RE=3A=20[Rucus]=20Maybe=20we=20should=20use=20t he=20keyword=3A=20please |Sender:=20; bh=pZ7WMykgZhaQeuWRXO6Vb90pr0WgHZyEnEjJUTilR3s=; b=vIEN2Vwmk6rXWgRLoGp5UMO6DtaQPSVeXi6ojRg1fEu88B7MGJNuiQwqVw OKFg+JiW4SPY9oxk9ybUZg/B7NkKFMN2/K44uUOSHQlsKztbqfP0g+J/dL+v LyZw2m844/; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-3; header.From=dwing@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim3002 verified; ); Cc: rucus@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Rucus] Maybe we should use the keyword: please X-BeenThere: rucus@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Reducing Unwanted Communication Using SIP \(RUCUS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: rucus-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rucus-bounces@ietf.org SMTP tried that, http://www.tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hoffman-legis-smtp-banner-03 -d > -----Original Message----- > From: Hisham Khartabil [mailto:hisham.khartabil@gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 10:18 PM > To: Dan Wing > Cc: Pars Mutaf; Otmar Lendl; rucus@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Rucus] Maybe we should use the keyword: please > > Well, it's useful in that it legalises SPAM. It allows the > spammer to put junk in your inbox because you didn't > explicitly put the "No junk mail, please" sticker on your inbox :) > > Hisham > > > On 22/03/2008, Dan Wing wrote: > > > > My problem is rather technical. Would such separation > of SIP URIs be > > feasable technically. > > As in, > > sip:+14085551234@cisco.com;spam=no > > No, I don't see that being useful. > > -d > > _______________________________________________ > Rucus mailing list > Rucus@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus > > > > _______________________________________________ Rucus mailing list Rucus@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus From rucus-bounces@ietf.org Mon Mar 31 22:35:55 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rucus-archive@ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-rucus-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B63203A6970; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 22:35:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 504733A684A for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 22:35:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tNOR0A6GtFrd for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 22:35:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hs-out-0708.google.com (hs-out-0708.google.com [64.233.178.243]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05F6D28C19C for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 22:35:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: by hs-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id 4so1570070hsl.5 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 22:35:47 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; bh=XQMMfl6GvjVL0lpHv2N2igTXWDs3+AgEeVn9LWxpsCY=; b=SgUHSk3Zdl59rLZZTufqQryJ6T6vE9GP2rZUAz0172zuUJdRG+adOC9TB4mv6Kax+0MaiynmeJ12DqeTXqlxK3u26AOf8WaTSl0rylFA6o1fXSVZxZTKvuqu/ywiCAUjbPstfTJVHyKOozadaCm6p3RLr9lcnWSNmgUzdD3WTQg= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=US3W283evTXwfV3CBRvkdwKVoaEaP+JgtVWq2VR2kZYTolGOXNWVRHN73V+yZZnMUPMO3f2k+/s+qS7OJTGjHDUtMSZUZAUnhwHg9HfvkTpRuGmysylpr2EbJXOoRwHfOTz+YKYlvozTkTczHnMAfnTTyH8e3aTpm6+sqAluCZE= Received: by 10.114.57.1 with SMTP id f1mr11656905waa.78.1207028146105; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 22:35:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.114.76.11 with HTTP; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 22:35:46 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <66cd252f0803312235t3f1e45f1v9f2f3a95e4ddd3ef@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2008 16:35:46 +1100 From: "Hisham Khartabil" To: "Dan Wing" In-Reply-To: <0f4e01c893b9$36a8e3d0$c5f0200a@cisco.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <18a603a60803210206h7d0d3077q6c07a5062c182624@mail.gmail.com> <20080321094128.GA3087@bofh.priv.at> <18a603a60803210516g749a0e1av98de7acf627d15a9@mail.gmail.com> <01bf01c88b67$50273be0$c5f0200a@cisco.com> <66cd252f0803312218h1e342cb1v689b10d0ec910fbc@mail.gmail.com> <0f4e01c893b9$36a8e3d0$c5f0200a@cisco.com> Cc: rucus@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Rucus] Maybe we should use the keyword: please X-BeenThere: rucus@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Reducing Unwanted Communication Using SIP \(RUCUS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0178521086==" Sender: rucus-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rucus-bounces@ietf.org --===============0178521086== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_23297_11513647.1207028146099" ------=_Part_23297_11513647.1207028146099 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Once the spammer get his/her 1,000,000,000 receivers willing to receive spam, s/he might leave the other 4 billion alone. Anyway, I agree its not the best solution. Hisham On 01/04/2008, Dan Wing wrote: > > SMTP tried that, > http://www.tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hoffman-legis-smtp-banner-03 > > -d > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Hisham Khartabil [mailto:hisham.khartabil@gmail.com] > > Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 10:18 PM > > To: Dan Wing > > Cc: Pars Mutaf; Otmar Lendl; rucus@ietf.org > > Subject: Re: [Rucus] Maybe we should use the keyword: please > > > > Well, it's useful in that it legalises SPAM. It allows the > > spammer to put junk in your inbox because you didn't > > explicitly put the "No junk mail, please" sticker on your inbox :) > > > > Hisham > > > > > > On 22/03/2008, Dan Wing wrote: > > > > > > > My problem is rather technical. Would such separation > > of SIP URIs be > > > feasable technically. > > > > As in, > > > > sip:+14085551234@cisco.com;spam=no > > > > No, I don't see that being useful. > > > > -d > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Rucus mailing list > > Rucus@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus > > > > > > > > > > ------=_Part_23297_11513647.1207028146099 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline
Once the spammer get his/her 1,000,000,000 receivers willing to receive spam, s/he might leave the other 4 billion alone.
 
Anyway, I agree its not the best solution.
 
Hisham

 
On 01/04/2008, Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com> wrote:
SMTP tried that,
http://www.tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hoffman-legis-smtp-banner-03

-d

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hisham Khartabil [mailto:hisham.khartabil@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 10:18 PM
> To: Dan Wing
> Cc: Pars Mutaf; Otmar Lendl; rucus@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Rucus] Maybe we should use the keyword: please
>
> Well, it's useful in that it legalises SPAM. It allows the
> spammer to put junk in your inbox because you didn't
> explicitly put the "No junk mail, please" sticker on your inbox :)
>
> Hisham
>
>
> On 22/03/2008, Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com> wrote:
>
>
>       > My problem is rather technical. Would such separation
> of SIP URIs be
>       > feasable technically.
>
>       As in,
>
>       sip:+14085551234@cisco.com;spam=no
>
>       No, I don't see that being useful.
>
>       -d
>
>       _______________________________________________
>       Rucus mailing list
>       Rucus@ietf.org
>       https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus
>
>
>
>


------=_Part_23297_11513647.1207028146099-- --===============0178521086== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Rucus mailing list Rucus@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus --===============0178521086==--