From perry at piermont.com Fri Sep 5 15:01:55 2003 From: perry at piermont.com (Perry E. Metzger) Date: 05 Sep 2003 18:01:55 -0400 Subject: [ih] spam In-Reply-To: <200309040817.h848HMn16882@boreas.isi.edu> References: <200309040817.h848HMn16882@boreas.isi.edu> Message-ID: <873cfa7v3g.fsf@snark.piermont.com> I've gotten precious little other than spam from this list in a while -- and it has been a significant amount of spam. Is something wrong with the spam filters? .pm "Mikell Moussa" writes: > > > > > > > >

Suppose we tell you that you could really lose up to 82% of your unwanted body > fat and keep it off in just a few months, would you be interested? We certainly > hope so!
> please visit our web site click > here

> [RANDOMIZE][RANDOMIZE][RANDOMIZE][RANDOMIZE][RANDOMIZE][RANDOMIZE] > > > > -- Perry E. Metzger perry at piermont.com From touch at ISI.EDU Fri Sep 5 16:05:37 2003 From: touch at ISI.EDU (Joe Touch) Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2003 16:05:37 -0700 Subject: [ih] spam In-Reply-To: <873cfa7v3g.fsf@snark.piermont.com> References: <200309040817.h848HMn16882@boreas.isi.edu> <873cfa7v3g.fsf@snark.piermont.com> Message-ID: <3F5916C1.4060505@isi.edu> Perry E. Metzger wrote: > I've gotten precious little other than spam from this list in a while > -- and it has been a significant amount of spam. Is something wrong > with the spam filters? Hi, Perry, The archives show exactly one message in Sept - yours. In all of August there were two posts - one spam, shown below on August 12. July had two posts, both spam. I'm not sure that N=2 is a "significant" amount of spam, though the list has indeed been largely idle for a while, and 2/3 of the messages since June have been spam (4 spams out of 6 messages total). FWIW, this list, like end2end-interest, has had zero SoBig messages or the related 'vacation' or 'spam found' posts. Personally, I'm pleased with how the spam filters are running, based on that data. Joe (list administrator) > .pm > > "Mikell Moussa" writes: > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>

Suppose we tell you that you could really lose up to 82% of your unwanted body >> fat and keep it off in just a few months, would you be interested? We certainly >> hope so!
>> please visit our web site click >> here

Remove mail

>>[RANDOMIZE][RANDOMIZE][RANDOMIZE][RANDOMIZE][RANDOMIZE][RANDOMIZE] >> >> >> >> > From gfscho at wm.edu Sat Sep 13 10:30:45 2003 From: gfscho at wm.edu (gfscho at wm.edu) Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2003 13:30:45 -0400 Subject: [ih] question re "F" in RFC 819 name/address example Message-ID: <631dbcfb.c2cce138.81dd700@m4000.it.wm.edu> Dear Internet historians: Question: In RFC 819, Jon Postel explains the difference between the ARPANET naming convention and the proposed Internet naming convention (the DNS) using this address comparison - ARPANET Convention: Fred at ISIF Internet Convention: Fred at F.ISI.ARPA What does the "F" stand for in these addresses? And, less important but also of interest to me, did "Fred" refer to anyone in particular or was Postel just using a generic name here? Many thanks if anyone can answer these questions. Best, Gretchen Schoel American Studies Program College of William and Mary Virginia From jnc at ginger.lcs.mit.edu Sat Sep 13 11:00:22 2003 From: jnc at ginger.lcs.mit.edu (J. Noel Chiappa) Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2003 14:00:22 -0400 Subject: [ih] question re "F" in RFC 819 name/address example Message-ID: <200309131800.h8DI0MHU007356@ginger.lcs.mit.edu> > From: gfscho at wm.edu > In RFC 819, Jon Postel explains the difference between the ARPANET > naming convention and the proposed Internet naming convention (the DNS) > using this address comparison - > ARPANET Convention: Fred at ISIF > Internet Convention: Fred at F.ISI.ARPA > What does the "F" stand for in these addresses? ISI had a series of PDP-10 time-sharing computers running TENEX, named, with great ingenuity and originality, ISI-A, ISI-B, etc, etc. (I think BBN had the same thing.) > And, less important but also of interest to me, did "Fred" refer to > anyone in particular or was Postel just using a generic name here? No, "Fred" was just the common meta-name back then. > Many thanks if anyone can answer these questions. Sure. Noel From braden at ISI.EDU Sat Sep 13 15:05:03 2003 From: braden at ISI.EDU (Bob Braden) Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2003 15:05:03 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ih] Re: internet-history digest, Vol 1 #141 - 2 msgs Message-ID: <200309132205.h8DM53623425@boreas.isi.edu> *> Question: *> *> In RFC 819, Jon Postel explains the difference between the *> ARPANET naming convention and the proposed Internet naming *> convention (the DNS) using this address comparison - *> *> ARPANET Convention: Fred at ISIF *> Internet Convention: Fred at F.ISI.ARPA *> *> What does the "F" stand for in these addresses? *> *> And, less important but also of interest to me, did "Fred" *> refer to anyone in particular or was Postel just using a *> generic name here? At that time, ISI (Information Sciences Institute) operated a major time-sharing service facility for the US military as well as sponsored university research. In particular, ISI operated six DEC mainframes using the TOPS20 timesharing system (derived from BBN Tenex). These machines were designated ISIA, ISIB, ... ISIF. When the DNS was introduced, their host names were changed to A.ISI.EDU, ... F.ISI.EDU. I believe FRED was generic. Bob Braden *> *> Many thanks if anyone can answer these questions. *> *> Best, *> Gretchen Schoel *> American Studies Program *> College of William and Mary *> Virginia *> *> *> --__--__-- *> *> Message: 2 *> Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2003 14:00:22 -0400 *> From: "J. Noel Chiappa" *> To: gfscho at wm.edu, internet-history at postel.org *> Subject: Re: [ih] question re "F" in RFC 819 name/address example *> Cc: jnc at ginger.lcs.mit.edu *> *> > From: gfscho at wm.edu *> *> > In RFC 819, Jon Postel explains the difference between the ARPANET *> > naming convention and the proposed Internet naming convention (the DNS) *> > using this address comparison - *> > ARPANET Convention: Fred at ISIF *> > Internet Convention: Fred at F.ISI.ARPA *> > What does the "F" stand for in these addresses? *> *> ISI had a series of PDP-10 time-sharing computers running TENEX, named, with *> great ingenuity and originality, ISI-A, ISI-B, etc, etc. (I think BBN had the *> same thing.) *> *> > And, less important but also of interest to me, did "Fred" refer to *> > anyone in particular or was Postel just using a generic name here? *> *> No, "Fred" was just the common meta-name back then. *> *> > Many thanks if anyone can answer these questions. *> *> Sure. *> *> Noel *> *> *> *> --__--__-- *> *> _______________________________________________ *> internet-history mailing list *> internet-history at postel.org *> http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history *> *> *> End of internet-history Digest *> From mills at UDel.Edu Sat Sep 13 22:09:09 2003 From: mills at UDel.Edu (David L. Mills) Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2003 05:09:09 +0000 Subject: [ih] question re "F" in RFC 819 name/address example References: <631dbcfb.c2cce138.81dd700@m4000.it.wm.edu> Message-ID: <3F63F7F5.9DDF17FF@udel.edu> Gretchen, Simple. There were several Digital Equipment Corp. PDP10/TENEX systems at Information Sciences Institute (ISI) at USC in Marina del Rey, CA. They were identified as ISIA through ISIF depending on clientele. Thus, ISIA was mostly for DARPA program managers and ISIE was for Internet scruffians such as me. Besides, ISIE had an awesome game of Zork which my kids played on weekends. There was no significance in the suffix letters, just to designate the different mainframes. The Marina del Rey Hotel had an awesome Captain's Breakfast and the Mexican restaurant on the Marina was simply awesome. Crackers never found out the root password was the name of that restaurant. Dave gfscho at wm.edu wrote: > > Dear Internet historians: > > Question: > > In RFC 819, Jon Postel explains the difference between the > ARPANET naming convention and the proposed Internet naming > convention (the DNS) using this address comparison - > > ARPANET Convention: Fred at ISIF > Internet Convention: Fred at F.ISI.ARPA > > What does the "F" stand for in these addresses? > > And, less important but also of interest to me, did "Fred" > refer to anyone in particular or was Postel just using a > generic name here? > > Many thanks if anyone can answer these questions. > > Best, > Gretchen Schoel > American Studies Program > College of William and Mary > Virginia From kevin at Dunlap.Org Sat Sep 27 10:53:01 2003 From: kevin at Dunlap.Org (Kevin J Dunlap) Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 10:53:01 -0700 Subject: [ih] Spam Message-ID: <200309271753.h8RHr1LH089550@gatekeeper.dunlap.org> Mailman, the list server used to manage the Internet-History mailing list, will block postings from e-mail addreses that are not subscribed to the list. Is there a policy reason for the option not being enabled for the Internet-History mailing list? Why does this list allow e-mail posted by addresses that are not subscribed to the list? This looks like an easy way to block the spam that gets posted to this list. Can the Internet-History list be configured to not allow postings from addresses not subscribed tot he list? -Kevin From perry at piermont.com Sun Sep 28 18:08:47 2003 From: perry at piermont.com (Perry E. Metzger) Date: 28 Sep 2003 21:08:47 -0400 Subject: [ih] Spam In-Reply-To: <200309271753.h8RHr1LH089550@gatekeeper.dunlap.org> References: <200309271753.h8RHr1LH089550@gatekeeper.dunlap.org> Message-ID: <87n0coqu3k.fsf@snark.piermont.com> Kevin J Dunlap writes: > Mailman, the list server used to manage the Internet-History mailing list, > will block postings from e-mail addreses that are not subscribed to the list. > > Is there a policy reason for the option not being enabled for > the Internet-History mailing list? Yes. The owner of the list insists that it is bad to restrict postings, which means we get more spam messages sent to the list than actual content. I do not understand this decision, but I don't believe he is likely to ever change his mind. -- Perry E. Metzger perry at piermont.com From touch at ISI.EDU Sun Sep 28 20:07:30 2003 From: touch at ISI.EDU (Joe Touch) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2003 20:07:30 -0700 Subject: [ih] Spam In-Reply-To: <200309271753.h8RHr1LH089550@gatekeeper.dunlap.org> References: <200309271753.h8RHr1LH089550@gatekeeper.dunlap.org> Message-ID: <3F77A1F2.1000208@isi.edu> Please see my post earlier this month regarding this question: http://www.postel.org/pipermail/internet-history/2003-September/000361.html Note that in the entire month of September there have been 3 spams, and there was only one in August. To address your specific points: Kevin J Dunlap wrote: > Mailman, the list server used to manage the Internet-History mailing list, > will block postings from e-mail addreses that are not subscribed to the list. > > Is there a policy reason for the option not being enabled for > the Internet-History mailing list? Yes. To enable legitimate posters to participate without requiring them to subscribe from every account from which they choose to post. The same policy is in effect on all lists at postel.org. > Why does this list allow e-mail posted by addresses that are not subscribed > to the list? The above. > This looks like an easy way to block the spam that gets posted to this list. Blocking spam has been balanced against raising the hurdle for legitimate posters. For lists at postel.org, we have decided that the hurdle of a 'subscriber only' policy is unacceptable. > Can the Internet-History list be configured to not allow postings from > addresses not subscribed tot he list? We have chosen not to do so, and again encourage those not satisfied with the amount of spam on this list to use filters on their end. > -Kevin > > From map at snap.org Sun Sep 28 20:07:57 2003 From: map at snap.org (Mike Padlipsky) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2003 20:07:57 -0700 Subject: [ih] Spam In-Reply-To: <87n0coqu3k.fsf@snark.piermont.com> References: <200309271753.h8RHr1LH089550@gatekeeper.dunlap.org> <200309271753.h8RHr1LH089550@gatekeeper.dunlap.org> Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.1.20030928191221.01be6188@mail.lafn.org> At 06:08 PM 9/28/2003, Perry E. Metzger wrote: > > Is there a policy reason for the option not being enabled for > > the Internet-History mailing list? > >Yes. The owner of the list insists that it is bad to restrict >postings, which means we get more spam messages sent to the list than >actual content. I do not understand this decision, but I don't believe >he is likely to ever change his mind. it happens that i don't agree w/ the decision, either; but i'll certainly understand if he continues to adhere to it after you've been ... incautious enough to've sent that to the entire list rather than just as a private aside to the sender of the first part. i'll regret it, but i'll understand it. [sent to the entire list rather than as a private aside in the probably forlorn hope that since the sender of the second part appears to believe in the power of 'naming and shaming', perhaps he's vulnerable to it himself. i mean, instead of mobilizing hostility by being cute and/or snide, if you really want to see things changed, why in the world didn't you use the question as an excuse to ask for a poll of the membership on the issue rather than being cute and/or snide and almost guaranteeing joe'll dig his heels in even harder?] speaking of naming and shaming, tho, and just for the novelty value of seeing at least part of an [ih] 'posting' actually have something to do w/ internet history, perhaps somebody whose familiarity w/ the origins of 'network solutions inc.' is greater than mine [*] would care to comment on them, now that nsi's current owner is gathering so much well-deserved bad press for its antics in re tacky manipulations of the domain name system. all i recall is what i recounted in an article a certain self-satisfied 'publisher' of a certain somewhat widely circulated 'net-related 'journal' was too ... self-satisfied to publish, namely: Granted that it's unknowable whether Jon's life was materially shortened by the stresses attendant to his attempts to elevate the tastes of his governmental sponsors/patrons, but I must confess to an emotional conviction that it was. This almost certainly stems from my lingering sense of guilt over not having argued harder with him when he told me that "the Government just gave the Name Server contract to some little Subsection 8 company in Washington" (almost certainly not verbatim, but I believe pretty close). I replied, "Well, I hope _they_ have the sense to demand that whoever asks for the 'Coke' domain at least sent the request in on a sincere-looking company letterhead" (probably even closer to verbatim), alluding to an earlier-discussed topic, but he merely said "Well, it's _their_ contract and _their_ problem now" (or words very much to that effect) and we let it go at that. Not that I have any reason to believe I would've won the argument. Just that I'd feel better now for having tried harder then('92 or '93 it must have been, if the putative histories of the DNS, IANA, ICANN, et al. can of snakes I've glanced at in the last year or two are correct as to when the NIC contract was "re-competed" ... and if memory doesn't serve a fault). [excerpted from "pipers' rights", unpublished e-ms, copyright 2003 by m.a. padlipsky, w/ permission of, and for that matter by, The Author. the piece as a whole, b/t/w, took the position that it was inappropriate to have criticized jon postel in a book on the stated grounds that 'he who pays the piper calls the tune', after pointing out that jon's funding came mainly from the federal government, because pipers have/should have rights w/r/t attempting to elevate the tastes of the payers/would-be tune callers.] discussing how said 'little subsection 8 company' [and for all i know i've even forgotten the exact designation of the term used to designate nominally 'minority'-owned companies that were given preferential treatment in certain contract competitions by the federal government, in the early '90s, anyway] not only was allowed to make as much money as it did before it was acquired, much less how its subsequent acquirer is getting away w/ the games its playing w/r/t the dns [much less, as i'm given to believe, w/r/t encryption 'technology', out of the other side of its array of heads and/or mouths], would be, i submit, a far better use of [ih] bandwidth than fussing about spam. or, at any rate, than fussing about spam's getting thru to [ih]. certainly, if anybody wanted to make some history and use this list as a sounding board for polishing an anti-spam approach that'd actually work, i'd be glad to see it [tho i can't speak for the list owner, of c.]. [*] make that for smallish values of 'somebody'. i.e., preferably not the ... self-satisfied twit who horned in on the discussion of the "pipers' rights" piece after it was rejected by the ... self-satisfied 'publisher', in still another blatant, self-serving attempt to show that his familiarity with everything to do w/ the 'net is better than anybody else's [and/or to show that he was far better at sucking up to 'net-related 'publishers' than i -- tho of c. i don't have to be good at it, since i no longer make my living off the 'net, unlike said twit]. cheers, map [whose shoulder problems caused him to break down some time ago and create a 'signature' file to apologize for the lack of his formerly customary e-volubility -- and who's been employing shiftless typing for a long time now to spare his wristsnfingers, in case you didn't know ... and who's further broken down and done http://www.lafn.org/~ba213/mapstuff.html , rather grudgingly]