Internet and e-mail policy and practice including Notes on Internet E-mail

←2010→ Months Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Click the comments link on any story to see comments or add your own. Subscribe to this blog RSS feed Join my blog network on Facebook Blog Networks

Home :: Email 01 Sep 2010 ARF is now an IETF standard Email When a user of a large mail system such as AOL, Yahoo, or Hotmail reports a message as junk or spam, one of the things the system does is to look at the source of the message and see if the source is one that has a feedback loop (FBL) agreement with the mail system. If so, it sends a copy of the message back to the source, so they can take appropriate action, for some version of appropriate. For several years, ARF, Abuse Reporting Format, has been the de-facto standard form that large mail systems use to exchange FBL reports about user mail complaints. Until now, the only documentation for ARF was a draft spec originally written Yakov Shafranovich in 2005, and occasionally updated originally by him and later by other people including myself. Earlier this year, the IETF chartered a working group called MARF which took that draft, brought the references up to date, stripped out a lot of options that seemed useful five years ago but in practice nobody ever used, and this week it was finally published as RFC 5965. See more ... posted at: 11:06 :: permanent link to this entry :: 0 comments Trackback link is http://weblog.johnlevine.com/Email/arfstd.trackback 29 Aug 2010 Truth in spamming Email Here's the body of a phish purporting to tell me about a $386 refund from the Canada Revenue Agency. Even disregarding the signature that says Internal Revenue Service, check out that alt text and file name for the image. After the last annual calculations of your fiscal activity we have determined that you are eligible to receive a tax refund of $386.00 Please submit the tax refund request and allow us 6-9 days in order to process it. <br /> <br /> A refund can be delayed for a variety of reasons. For example submitting invalid records or applying after the deadline. <br /> <img height="340" alt="Fake CRA site" src="http://video.itworldcanada.com/ITBUimages/Jan19/fake_cra.jpg" width="450" /><br /> To access the form for your tax refund, please <U><a href="URL of phish site">click here</a></U> <br /> <br /> Regards, <br /> Internal Revenue Service posted at: 18:55 :: permanent link to this entry :: 0 comments Trackback link is http://weblog.johnlevine.com/Email/truespam.trackback 09 Aug 2010 Google and Verizon offer a gift to spammers Email Earlier today, Google and Verizon offered a widely publicized "Proposal for an Open Internet." There's been extensive comment with lots of reasons not to like it, but one I haven't seen is that the proposal would make it much harder to filter so-called "mainsleaze" spam. See more ... posted at: 23:48 :: permanent link to this entry :: 1 comments Trackback link is http://weblog.johnlevine.com/Email/googvz.trackback 14 Jul 2010 One more round in E360 Insight vs. Spamhaus Email Back in 2007, the Seventh Circuit sent the case back to the trial court and it's been moving very, very, very slowly, mostly because E360 repeatedly failed to respond when they were supposed to. On June 11, Judge Korcoras made his decision. He found plaintiff David Linhardt's estimates of his losses rather unpersuasive, and awarded him $1 on claims of tortious interference with prospective economic advantage, and $1 for defamation. But he also awarded $27,000 for interference with E360's existing contracts, based on one month's revenue from his three customers Smart Bargains, Vendare, and Optinbig. A few days ago, Spamhaus' lawyers filed a very clever motion to reconsider. See more ... posted at: 23:37 :: permanent link to this entry :: 4 comments Trackback link is http://weblog.johnlevine.com/Email/she360again.trackback 12 Jul 2010 Does the First Amendment forbid spam filtering? Email A friend of mine wrote to ask: The Supreme Court overturned the Jaynes conviction on First Amendment grounds, yes? I'm wondering what that could mean from the spam filtering perspective. Spam filters, and in particular DNS blacklists are intended to prevent e-mail from being delivered. Doesn't the First Amendment make it illegal to block speech? The short answer is no, but of course it's slightly more complicated than that in practice. See more ... posted at: 03:07 :: permanent link to this entry :: 0 comments Trackback link is http://weblog.johnlevine.com/Email/filter1st.trackback

Topics Copyright Law - 13 Email - 147 ICANN - 72 Money - 8 My other sites Who is this guy? Airline ticket info Taughannock Networks Other blogs Spam resource (Al Iverson) The Spam Diaries (Ed Falk) Word to the Wise (Laura Atkins) Related sites IRTF Anti-Spam Research Group Network Abuse Clearinghouse Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail

© 2005-2009 John R. Levine.
CAN SPAM address harvesting notice: the operator of this website will not give, sell, or otherwise transfer addresses maintained by this website to any other party for the purposes of initiating, or enabling others to initiate, electronic mail messages.