Slashdot Mirror


FTC Wants Comments on Email Authentication

An anonymous reader writes "Groklaw has the scoop. The Federal Trade Commission and National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) will co-host a two-day 'summit' November 9-10 to explore the development and deployment of technology that could reduce spam. The E-mail Authentication Summit will focus on challenges in the development, testing, evaluation, and deployment of domain-level authentication systems. The FTC will be accepting public comments until Sept. 30, 2004 via snail-mail or email (authenticationsummit at ftc.gov). The FTC has a list of 30 questions they would like answers/comments to. The list available in this PDF of the Federal Register Notice." In a related subject, reader Fortunato_NC submits this writeup of the sequence of events that led to Sender-ID's abandonment.

13 of 208 comments (clear)

  1. My comments? by cuzality · · Score: 4, Funny

    I will be sending my comments immediately by email. They'll know who I am.

    1. Re:My comments? by orthogonal · · Score: 4, Funny
      I will be sending my comments immediately by email. They'll know who I am.

      THIS AUTHENTICATED EMAIL
      HAS BEEN APPROVED
      AS CHRISTIAN AND PATRIOTIC
      BY THE
      REICHSPROTECTOR OF INFORMATION
      FOR THE UNITED HOMELAND
      by direction of
      JOHN D. ASHCROFT,
      REICHSMINISTER OF JUSTICE


      We want all your papers, please!

      And yes, we do know who you are, Citizen!

      CC: PATRIOT DATABASE, REICHSMINISTRY OF INFORMATION
  2. for all the bots... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny


    authenticationsummit@ftc.gov

  3. NOTHING but an open standard. by garcia · · Score: 4, Insightful

    From Groklaw:

    7. Whether any of the proposed authentication standards would have to be an open standard (i.e., a standard with specifications that are public).

    Of course the standard would have to be open. This shouldn't even be up for discussion. No argument can make security by obscurity work and no argument can get me to change my thinking that we should all be using closed SMTP servers.

    Spam is "horrific" and all (BTW I don't get more than 5 a year) but we certainly shouldn't even be considering ending it by choosing applications that will eliminate an open society.

    1. Re:NOTHING but an open standard. by JabberWokky · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Spam is "horrific" and all (BTW I don't get more than 5 a year)

      And I get 1800 a day. That's because I am the public contact for several companies with some of my email addresses dating back over 10 years. In conjunction with theater groups and businesses, my email appears in press releases, on fliers, ancient usenet posts, and otherwise all over the place.

      Individuals using their email account to talk to friends don't have as much a problem as people who use their email address publically for business and publicity.

      My phone number and address are also published. I don't, however, get 1,800 unsolicited calls every day and my junk physical mail is quite reasonable.

      --
      Evan "I'm not even saying Spam is bad, I'm just saying it costs me serious time"

      --
      "$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
  4. The Hardest Issue by Nos. · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Is to keep email easy to use. SPF is a nice idea, but doesn't cope with a couple issues. The first is that a lot of SPAM comes from trojan'd machines. SPF won't prevent or help mark email coming from these machines as SPAM. Secondly, its not expensive to register a domain and flood SPAM for a few days until that domain is blacklisted. Wash, rinse, repeat. I'm not saying a solution isn't out there, just nothing that I have seen really talks to these two issues.

    1. Re:The Hardest Issue by perp · · Score: 4, Informative
      The first is that a lot of SPAM comes from trojan'd machines. SPF won't prevent or help mark email coming from these machines as SPAM.

      Yes it will. Almost all of those trojanned machines send mail directly to the receiving server, not through the mail relay of the spoofed sender. If the email purports to be from jblow@someplace.com, the receiving mail server can check someplace.com's spf record and see that the ip address of the trojanned machine is not allowed to send mail. That is the very essense of what it does.

      You are correct that a spammer with a server can publish an spf record, but he is much, much easier to blackhole than a rapidly changing large selection of compromised dsl machines.

      --
      There are two kinds of sysadmins: paranoids and losers. I'm both kinds.
  5. Why not go after the merchants? by 14erCleaner · · Score: 5, Interesting

    You know, I can't figure out why we can't combat spam by making it illegal to send unsolicited ads via email (or maybe the can-spam act already does this), but then go after the companies who are actually trying to get customers. After all, they either provide valid contact information, or nobody can buy from them. If nobody can sell anything via spam any more, the reason for it would go away.

    --
    Have you read my blog lately?
  6. No Free Software radicals allowed by sphealey · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I would be willing to wager a small sum that the only invitees to this meeting will be representative of large, commercial, for-profit software vendors and ISPs. That there will be no representation of/by the Free Software community. And that the FTC will reject any comment not from a commercial software vendor/ISP as having "no standing".

    Just a guess.

    sPh

  7. A stopgap measure by grasshoppa · · Score: 4, Interesting

    An effective stop gap measure would be for ISPs to block port 25 ( along with a number of others ) outbound by default, and open it up only on customer requests.

    This way, zombie'd machines wouldn't have a chance to spew their virus/spam emails to everyone, I could still run my home email server, and the ISPs would save on bandwidth.

    I wonder why this ISN'T yet in place, to be honest.

    --
    Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
  8. Publish SPF now, be the 126519th... by pjrc · · Score: 4, Insightful
    If you want to advocate SPF, publish a SPF record for your domain, and then register it. Already, 126518 domains have published SPF records (at the time of this writing).

    By the time the FTC's summit comes around, it's looking like SPF is going to be pretty well established.

    1. Re:Publish SPF now, be the 126519th... by wayne · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Actually, I have a list of around 650,000 domains in .COM, .NET and .ORG that have SPF records. These should show up in the SPF Adoption Roll Real Soon Now. Surveys of the .DE and .FR TLDs have also been done, but I don't have the results of those.

      I'd like to know how many of those domaines actually are applying effective policies.

      In the survey of the .COM domains, I found the top ten SPF records to be:

      159416 "v=spf1 mx -all"
      147883 "v=spf1 -all"
      51245 "v=spf1 ip4:10.0.0.0/24 ip4:10.0.0.0/24 ?all"
      28206 "v=spf1 a:smtp.example.net -all"
      21437 "v=spf1 mx ip4:10.0.0.0/19 ~all" ""
      19733 "v=spf1 mx ~all"
      15245 "v=spf1 a:smtp.example.com ~all"
      9488 "v=spf1 ip4:10.0.0.0/24 mx -all"
      6371 "v=spf1 ip:10.0.0.0/24 ip:10.0.0.0/27 ip:10.0.0.0/24 ip:10.0.0.0/27 ip:10.0.0.0/27 ip:10.0.0.0/27 ip:10.0.0.0/27 ip:10.0.0.0/27 ?all"
      5842 "v=spf1 ip4:10.0.0.0/24 -all"
      (I have munged the domain names and IP addresses for privacy reasons.)

      As you can see, it is very common to define strict SPF record with the "-all" at the end. Those domains that use the softfail option of "~all" are somewhat more lax, but still moving in the right direction.

      The complete survey results are available to people who follow the IETF MARID list and/or the SPF discuss list. I'm not going to post a link to them here 'cause I don't want to be slashdotted.

      --
      SPF support for most open source mail servers can be found at libspf2.
  9. Re:Email's role on the net by praedor · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yeah, right. IM. Pa-leeze. IM requires that the person you seek to contact has their fat ass planted 4-square in front of their computer or leaves it on 24/7. Email is very nice. It works no regardless of the type of client you have. It will sit there waiting for you to check it, perhaps after a vacation, after actually getting off your ass and away from the computer to exercise, or whenever you decide to either fire up the computer or turn on your email client. Oh...IM also requires that your contactee be somewhat in the same timezone (besides sitting on their ass forever awaiting IM messages). Try to IM from California to NYC late in the afternoon. Try to IM someone on the opposite side of the globe.


    IM is cute, it is a nice way to reduce your productivity at work and waste time "chatting" back and forth about unimportant nonsense (movies, your new pants, the hot chick from apartment A, etc). Email ain't going away, and it most assuredly wont be replaced by IM, Jabber, IRC, ICQ, Yahoo Messenger, etc. Email works regardless of software/hardware platform, has not propriatory hooks in it (Microsnot tried with their SenderID scheme to add a proprietory hook into email). Nothing beats email for convenience and easy time-shifing.

    --
    In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.