Received: from manet.hmdnsgroup.com (manet.hmdnsgroup.com [63.247.133.3]) by sb7.songbird.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j3TMgmhs023918 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 29 Apr 2005 15:42:49 -0700 Received: from pool-68-161-170-4.ny325.east.verizon.net ([68.161.170.4] helo=[192.168.0.7]) by manet.hmdnsgroup.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.50) id 1DReBI-0006im-3u; Fri, 29 Apr 2005 18:41:56 -0400 Message-ID: <4272B82C.8070500@solidmatrix.com> Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 18:41:48 -0400 From: Yakov Shafranovich Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (X11/20041206) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Matthew Elvey , abuse-feedback-report@mipassoc.org Subject: Re: [feedback-report] misc comments (on draft-shafranovich-feedback-report-00(pre I-D)) References: <427134DC.8010208@elvey.com> <4272ADF5.7020506@elvey.com> In-Reply-To: <4272ADF5.7020506@elvey.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-HMDNSGroup-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-HMDNSGroup-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: yakovs@solidmatrix.com X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - manet.hmdnsgroup.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - mipassoc.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - solidmatrix.com X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: X-SongbirdInformation: support@songbird.com for more information X-Songbird: Found to be clean X-Songbird-From: yakovs@solidmatrix.com Cc: X-BeenThere: abuse-feedback-report@mipassoc.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Public forum for discussion on the feedback-report draft List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 22:42:53 -0000 Matthew Elvey wrote: > Is this intended to obsolete RFCs 1982 or 3462? > Nope. I guess I should clarify the intent better in the next draft but this format intended as a child of 3462 just like DSNs and return receipts are. The intent of this specific format is a format for providing feedback between network operators and organizations regarding abuse issues primarly and related matters like opt-outs, "virus detected" messages, etc. > Should we add to 2 Intent: > d To inform reputation service providers about email abuse by > entities* they vouch for. > Also, what about ISPs providing hosting or dns for spamvertized email or > website addresses? > *(by this I mean IPs or (HELO or 282[1|2].FrOM or Sender: or even PRA) > domains or perhaps something else) > I intended to cover all of these and will clarify so in the next draft. > =-=-= > Change 3 b and 4 g to be more explicit about whether the headers and > body must always be included (folks reading 3 b might (wrongly) assume > that headers are not part of the message). Why not say that they MUST > be included? Will do. > =-=-= > Re. 4 f: s/x.x.x.x/[IP]/ and s/YYYY.ZZZZ/example.com/? IPs could be > IPv6 IPs, and example.com is clearer, IMO. K. > =-=-= > Big picture issues: > One issue I see with this draft is that it's impossible to send such > reports without specialized tools; normal MUAs can't send this mime type. > Is that a feature or a bug? Another issue is that it implies that a > reporter must craft a separate email for each reportee. > Both are features: 1st issue - its intended for ISP to ISP communications primarly (i.e. their abuse systems and things like AOL's scomp). 2nd issue - this format is intended to cover the use case of one report/message. Summaries and aggregate formats will follow as a separate standard. ISP feedback affected both of these points. Regarding the first point once more, I would really really really like to write a Thunderbird/Mozilla Mail extension to generate these reports but don't have the time to do so. > This thread outlines the task before us well, IMO: > > I don't have the time to read through it right now but I will do so either Sunday night or early next week. However, a quick look through it seems to talk about parsing issues. I will get back on this as soon as I read the whole thing in detail. > > =-=-= > > Oh, and Yakov, you may post anything from our private email on this > topic. (Please post what you will or may I?) Thrilled to hear that J is > on board. > Please go ahead. Yakov P.S. I am currently working on the -01 draft, I will post a list of planned changes over the weekend or early next week for feedback. Received: from out1.smtp.messagingengine.com (out1.smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) by sb7.songbird.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j3TLx9tY020503 for ; Fri, 29 Apr 2005 14:59:10 -0700 Received: from frontend3.messagingengine.com (frontend3.internal [10.202.2.152]) by frontend1.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EF4BC87319 for ; Fri, 29 Apr 2005 17:58:17 -0400 (EDT) X-Sasl-enc: 3X/5TuXiEFEHGdvg4HPsIJ7ZANjrw8AT1EsW3O8plBoN 1114811897 Received: from [192.168.1.250] (pix.nextbus.com [64.142.39.201]) by frontend3.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8496A66; Fri, 29 Apr 2005 17:58:16 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4272ADF5.7020506@elvey.com> Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 14:58:13 -0700 From: Matthew Elvey User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: abuse-feedback-report@mipassoc.org References: <427134DC.8010208@elvey.com> In-Reply-To: <427134DC.8010208@elvey.com> X-Habeas-SWE-1: winter into spring X-Habeas-SWE-2: brightly anticipated X-Habeas-SWE-3: like Habeas SWE (tm) X-Habeas-SWE-4: Copyright 2002 Habeas (tm) X-Habeas-SWE-5: Sender Warranted Email (SWE) (tm). The sender of this X-Habeas-SWE-6: email in exchange for a license for this Habeas X-Habeas-SWE-7: warrant mark warrants that this is a Habeas Compliant X-Habeas-SWE-8: Message (HCM) and not spam. Please report use of this X-Habeas-SWE-9: mark in spam to . Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SongbirdInformation: support@songbird.com for more information X-Songbird: Found to be clean X-Songbird-From: matthew@elvey.com Subject: [feedback-report] misc comments (on draft-shafranovich-feedback-report-00(pre I-D)) X-BeenThere: abuse-feedback-report@mipassoc.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Public forum for discussion on the feedback-report draft List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 21:59:22 -0000 Is this intended to obsolete RFCs 1982 or 3462? Should we add to 2 Intent: d To inform reputation service providers about email abuse by entities* they vouch for. Also, what about ISPs providing hosting or dns for spamvertized email or website addresses? *(by this I mean IPs or (HELO or 282[1|2].FrOM or Sender: or even PRA) domains or perhaps something else) =-=-= Change 3 b and 4 g to be more explicit about whether the headers and body must always be included (folks reading 3 b might (wrongly) assume that headers are not part of the message). Why not say that they MUST be included? =-=-= Re. 4 f: s/x.x.x.x/[IP]/ and s/YYYY.ZZZZ/example.com/? IPs could be IPv6 IPs, and example.com is clearer, IMO. =-=-= Big picture issues: One issue I see with this draft is that it's impossible to send such reports without specialized tools; normal MUAs can't send this mime type. Is that a feature or a bug? Another issue is that it implies that a reporter must craft a separate email for each reportee. This thread outlines the task before us well, IMO: =-=-= Oh, and Yakov, you may post anything from our private email on this topic. (Please post what you will or may I?) Thrilled to hear that J is on board.