Received: from [192.168.0.4] (adsl-68-122-70-136.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net [68.122.70.136]) (authenticated bits=0) by sb7.songbird.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l4U5h1HN023573 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 29 May 2007 22:43:02 -0700 Message-ID: <465D0EAE.2090701@dcrocker.net> Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 22:42:06 -0700 From: Dave Crocker Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ARF mailing list Subject: Re: [feedback-report] I-D ACTION: draft-shafranovich-feedback-report-02.txt References: <20070529180048.B17233@simone.iecc.com> In-Reply-To: <20070529180048.B17233@simone.iecc.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SongbirdInformation: support@songbird.com for more information X-Songbird: Clean X-Songbird-From: dhc@dcrocker.net X-BeenThere: abuse-feedback-report@mipassoc.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net 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: Wed, 30 May 2007 05:43:06 -0000 pretty html and pdf versions are now at . d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [208.31.42.53]) by sb7.songbird.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l4U4LMfr012866 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Tue, 29 May 2007 21:21:23 -0700 Received: (qmail 8941 invoked from network); 30 May 2007 04:21:25 -0000 Received: from simone.iecc.com (208.31.42.47) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 30 May 2007 04:21:25 -0000 Date: 30 May 2007 04:21:25 -0000 Message-ID: <20070530042125.10475.qmail@simone.iecc.com> From: John Levine To: abuse-feedback-report@mipassoc.org Subject: Re: [feedback-report] New ARF internet draft In-Reply-To: Organization: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-SongbirdInformation: support@songbird.com for more information X-Songbird: Clean X-Songbird-From: prvs=johnl=0663b0c627@iecc.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: Wed, 30 May 2007 04:21:27 -0000 >We should bump the version number in 5.1 at some point. >I'm thinking to 1.0. > >In 5.3 we were assuming that Reported-URI: would include the >mailto: case. Dunno if that's worth mentioning explicitly. I'll collect the suggestions for one more pass. At next week's MAAWG meeting I hope we can get together with some of the people who are sending large numbers of ARFs. If they like it, I think we're done, and we can push it along toward an Informational RFC. R's, John Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [208.31.42.53]) by sb7.songbird.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l4TM11rM006313 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Tue, 29 May 2007 15:01:04 -0700 Received: (qmail 27088 invoked from network); 29 May 2007 22:01:05 -0000 Received: from simone.iecc.com (208.31.42.47) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 29 May 2007 22:01:05 -0000 Received: from localhost (sendmail-bs@127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 29 May 2007 22:01:05 -0000 Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 18:01:05 -0400 (EDT) From: John R Levine To: ARF mailing list Message-ID: <20070529180048.B17233@simone.iecc.com> Cleverness: None detected MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: MULTIPART/Mixed; BOUNDARY=NextPart Content-ID: <20070529175513.O16552@simone.iecc.com> X-SongbirdInformation: support@songbird.com for more information X-Songbird: Clean X-Songbird-From: prvs=johnl=06622dcf7f@taugh.com Subject: [feedback-report] I-D ACTION: draft-shafranovich-feedback-report-02.txt 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: Tue, 29 May 2007 22:01:15 -0000 This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. --NextPart Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII; FORMAT=flowed Content-ID: <20070529175513.G16552@simone.iecc.com> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 21:43:01 +0000 (UTC) From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Newsgroups: iecc.lists.ietf Subject: I-D ACTION: draft-shafranovich-feedback-report-02.txt A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. Title : An Extensible Format for Email Feedback Reports Author(s) : Y. Shafranovich, et al. Filename : draft-shafranovich-feedback-report-02.txt Pages : 21 Date : 2007-5-29 This document defines an extensible format and MIME type that may be used by network operators to report feedback about received email to other parties. This format is intended as a machine readable replacement for various existing report formats currently used in Internet email. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-shafranovich-feedback-report-02.txt To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to i-d-announce-request@ietf.org with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce to change your subscription settings. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-shafranovich-feedback-report-02.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-shafranovich-feedback-report-02.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: MULTIPART/ALTERNATIVE; BOUNDARY=OtherAccess Content-ID: <20070529175513.U16552@simone.iecc.com> Content-Description: This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. --OtherAccess Content-Type: MESSAGE/EXTERNAL-BODY; ACCESS-TYPE=mail-server; SERVER="mailserv@ietf.org" Content-ID: <20070529175513.K16552@simone.iecc.com> --OtherAccess Content-Type: MESSAGE/EXTERNAL-BODY; NAME=draft-shafranovich-feedback-report-02.txt; SITE=ftp.ietf.org; ACCESS-TYPE=anon-ftp; DIRECTORY=internet-drafts Content-ID: <20070529175513.B16552@simone.iecc.com> --OtherAccess-- --NextPart Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=us-ascii Content-ID: <20070529175513.Q16552@simone.iecc.com> Content-Description: Content-Disposition: INLINE _______________________________________________ I-D-Announce mailing list I-D-Announce@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce --NextPart-- Received: from rsmtp1.corp.yahoo.com (rsmtp1.corp.yahoo.com [207.126.228.149]) by sb7.songbird.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l4TIxNqN031598 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 29 May 2007 11:59:23 -0700 Received: from jdfalk-mac.corp.yahoo.com (jdfalk-mac.corp.yahoo.com [10.72.109.95]) (authenticated bits=0) by rsmtp1.corp.yahoo.com (8.13.8/8.13.6/y.rout) with ESMTP id l4TIxLXE075841 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 29 May 2007 11:59:24 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=serpent; d=yahoo-inc.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to: subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=hfXcEHjJEIPRRECIviX9N0PfJGR4M9rlF2lYAwnHcHQZQUKcsObRg1oI6xs2SFad Message-ID: <465C780C.2070502@yahoo-inc.com> Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 11:59:24 -0700 From: "J.D. Falk" Organization: Yahoo! User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.8.1.3) Gecko/20070326 Thunderbird/2.0.0.0 Mnenhy/0.7.5.666 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ARF mailing list Subject: Re: [feedback-report] New ARF internet draft References: <20070529161956.16983.qmail@simone.iecc.com> In-Reply-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: Clean X-Songbird-From: jdfalk@yahoo-inc.com 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: Tue, 29 May 2007 18:59:28 -0000 On 2007-05-29 09:56, Steve Atkins wrote: > In 5.3 we were assuming that Reported-URI: would include the > mailto: case. Dunno if that's worth mentioning explicitly. Probably a good idea; there's already a lot of unnecessary confusion around this thing. -- J.D. Falk, Anti-Spam Product Manager Yahoo! Mail Received: from m.wordtothewise.com (fruitbat.wordtothewise.com [208.187.80.135]) by sb7.songbird.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l4TGuEbq005044 for ; Tue, 29 May 2007 09:56:14 -0700 Received: from [10.3.2.25] (184.wordtothewise.com [208.187.80.184]) by m.wordtothewise.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 261404F8002 for ; Tue, 29 May 2007 09:56:12 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3) In-Reply-To: <20070529161956.16983.qmail@simone.iecc.com> References: <20070529161956.16983.qmail@simone.iecc.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Steve Atkins Subject: Re: [feedback-report] New ARF internet draft Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 09:56:07 -0700 To: ARF mailing list X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3) X-SongbirdInformation: support@songbird.com for more information X-Songbird: Clean X-Songbird-From: steve@word-to-the-wise.com 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: Tue, 29 May 2007 16:56:21 -0000 On May 29, 2007, at 9:19 AM, John Levine wrote: > I made one more editorial pass and few more minor text twiddles over > the weekend and sent in the -02 version of the ARF draft. Until Dave > puts it on the mipassoc site and the I-D people put it in their > respository, you can find it at http://www.taugh.com/arf. > > One of the things I looked for when I made the pass was to be sure not > to make any changes to existing practice, since I presume we all agree > that none of the outfits currently using ARF have any interest in > changing what they're doing. > > This should be published as an I-D in the next few days. Looks good. We should bump the version number in 5.1 at some point. I'm thinking to 1.0. In 5.3 we were assuming that Reported-URI: would include the mailto: case. Dunno if that's worth mentioning explicitly. Cheers, Steve Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [208.31.42.53]) by sb7.songbird.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l4TGJqC3030398 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Tue, 29 May 2007 09:19:59 -0700 Received: (qmail 44300 invoked from network); 29 May 2007 16:19:56 -0000 Received: from simone.iecc.com (208.31.42.47) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 29 May 2007 16:19:56 -0000 Date: 29 May 2007 16:19:56 -0000 Message-ID: <20070529161956.16983.qmail@simone.iecc.com> From: John Levine To: abuse-feedback-report@mipassoc.org Organization: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-SongbirdInformation: support@songbird.com for more information X-Songbird: Clean X-Songbird-From: prvs=johnl=0662ad4ea8@iecc.com Subject: [feedback-report] New ARF internet draft 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: Tue, 29 May 2007 16:20:07 -0000 I made one more editorial pass and few more minor text twiddles over the weekend and sent in the -02 version of the ARF draft. Until Dave puts it on the mipassoc site and the I-D people put it in their respository, you can find it at http://www.taugh.com/arf. One of the things I looked for when I made the pass was to be sure not to make any changes to existing practice, since I presume we all agree that none of the outfits currently using ARF have any interest in changing what they're doing. This should be published as an I-D in the next few days. R's, John Received: from py-out-1112.google.com (py-out-1112.google.com [64.233.166.177]) by sb7.songbird.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l4TFdkB3021106 for ; Tue, 29 May 2007 08:39:46 -0700 Received: by py-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id a29so3467804pyi for ; Tue, 29 May 2007 08:39:50 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; 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; b=gty4d9E6HIFrVpUzNgZrnuMWVRRcuOBkgn25uUtdUigrBE7SuQcX178syjqnlK10a1MukD/GJ4vhbLlpVPIiRdlRUjxxELa37GUC+vK0YNaJXzV7FbB+a6mcZ40Ye6/7okrjVL8zOmDxqo0ZSRmCS74VUeqIJC0GvqICaf0SdiQ= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition; b=Z7pQg9oO2M+Yn609cRTiAfKh75uv2Hm4tcm8NTkzLryJaR4vkU6mbALZ0r0heLqXRyXDJwfdNT8EPxCRAS3fVDXaCeK4HVtc7V1NQDC7FatOYepC3QYXnGujOdITOJCuuR78+bxZlAgJ5xYJobSlnDBUL2E2G4ZorrXhQORppGk= Received: by 10.35.102.1 with SMTP id e1mr7209847pym.1180453189490; Tue, 29 May 2007 08:39:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.35.17.17 with HTTP; Tue, 29 May 2007 08:39:49 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 11:39:49 -0400 From: "Damon Sauer" To: abuse-feedback-report@mipassoc.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-SongbirdInformation: support@songbird.com for more information X-Songbird: Clean X-Songbird-From: qvantvs@gmail.com Subject: [feedback-report] Opt-Out and Opt-Out-List 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: Tue, 29 May 2007 15:39:51 -0000 Just getting the ball rolling here- In my experience, both are needed. However, I would suggest a change to the nomenclature from Opt-Out to Opt-Out-Global. It is more descriptive. Situations such as a telecommunications company sending email on two or more lines of business. Cell phone, Internet, Cable TV. My cellphone provider is not with this company and I would rather not receive anymore email about it, while the email concerning ads or information about their Internet service I am still interested in because they are my ISP. I would like an Opt-Out-List. A mortgage company sending email for insurance, lower rates, and credit services. I would rather choose an Opt-Out-Global. Regards, Damon Sauer Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [208.31.42.53]) by sb7.songbird.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l4QGv7uT007830 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Sat, 26 May 2007 09:57:09 -0700 Received: (qmail 25627 invoked by uid 100); 26 May 2007 16:57:11 -0000 Date: 26 May 2007 16:57:11 -0000 Message-ID: <20070526165711.25626.qmail@gal.iecc.com> From: John Levine To: abuse-feedback-report@mipassoc.org Subject: Re: [feedback-report] New version of the ARF draft In-Reply-To: Organization: X-Headerized: yes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-SongbirdInformation: support@songbird.com for more information X-Songbird: Clean X-Songbird-From: prvs=johnl=0659338a17@iecc.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: Sat, 26 May 2007 16:57:24 -0000 > Just asking for a line to allow an ISP to include information like > this if they so choose. The report section is extensible, sort of like mail headers. People can add any info lines they want. If it turns out that ISPs do actually provide extra info, and they do it in a consistent way, it's not a big deal to add more line types in the future. R's, John Received: from balder-227.proper.com (Balder-227.Proper.COM [192.245.12.227]) by sb7.songbird.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l4Q1x5ri029009 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 25 May 2007 18:59:05 -0700 Received: from [10.20.30.108] (dsl-63-249-108-169.cruzio.com [63.249.108.169]) (authenticated bits=0) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id l4Q1x6U8005814 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 25 May 2007 18:59:07 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@domain-assurance.org) Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <46578B04.8030108@dcrocker.net> References: <20070522194403.X5548@simone.iecc.com> <46578B04.8030108@dcrocker.net> Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 18:58:55 -0700 To: dcrocker@bbiw.net, John R Levine From: Paul Hoffman Subject: Re: [feedback-report] New version of the ARF draft Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-SongbirdInformation: support@songbird.com for more information X-Songbird: Clean X-Songbird-From: paul.hoffman@domain-assurance.org Cc: ARF mailing list 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: Sat, 26 May 2007 01:59:11 -0000 At 6:19 PM -0700 5/25/07, Dave Crocker wrote: >John R Levine wrote: >>I put it here, in xml and html: http://www.taugh.com/arf/. > >just so I do not duplicate effort needlessly, is this intended to >replace the venue that's been used for public access: >? Only temporarily. It's a pre-draft asking for (and getting!) responses. It will be a real Internet Draft in a few days, and that I-D should certainly be put on the site when published. --Paul Hoffman, Director --Domain Assurance Council Received: from [192.168.0.4] (ppp-68-122-225-78.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net [68.122.225.78]) (authenticated bits=0) by sb7.songbird.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l4Q1Juk5022930 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 25 May 2007 18:19:57 -0700 Message-ID: <46578B04.8030108@dcrocker.net> Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 18:19:00 -0700 From: Dave Crocker Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John R Levine Subject: Re: [feedback-report] New version of the ARF draft References: <20070522194403.X5548@simone.iecc.com> In-Reply-To: <20070522194403.X5548@simone.iecc.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SongbirdInformation: support@songbird.com for more information X-Songbird: Clean X-Songbird-From: dhc@dcrocker.net Cc: ARF mailing list X-BeenThere: abuse-feedback-report@mipassoc.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net 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: Sat, 26 May 2007 01:20:03 -0000 John R Levine wrote: > I put it here, in xml and html: http://www.taugh.com/arf/. just so I do not duplicate effort needlessly, is this intended to replace the venue that's been used for public access: ? d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [208.31.42.53]) by sb7.songbird.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l4Q0sdbI018486 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Fri, 25 May 2007 17:54:41 -0700 Received: (qmail 96455 invoked from network); 26 May 2007 00:54:42 -0000 Received: from simone.iecc.com (208.31.42.47) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 26 May 2007 00:54:42 -0000 Date: 26 May 2007 00:54:42 -0000 Message-ID: <20070526005442.39430.qmail@simone.iecc.com> From: John Levine To: abuse-feedback-report@mipassoc.org Subject: Re: Certifier (was: [feedback-report] New version of the ARF draft) In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20070525081845.02c7bcb8@resistor.net> Organization: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-SongbirdInformation: support@songbird.com for more information X-Songbird: Clean X-Songbird-From: prvs=johnl=0659338a17@iecc.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: Sat, 26 May 2007 00:54:46 -0000 >>Will the certifier register themselves with an ISP? Or will the Sender >The ISP might have to register with the certifier to use their service. Probably not. The business models for all the certifiers I know is that they charge the people they certify, but the list is given away free to anyone who wants to use it. The more people who use it, the higher the value to the certified domain. R's, John Received: from harry.mail-abuse.org (Harry.Mail-Abuse.ORG [168.61.5.27]) by sb7.songbird.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l4Q0KJiH013706 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 25 May 2007 17:20:19 -0700 Received: from [IPv6:::1] (gateway.mail-abuse.org [168.61.5.81]) by harry.mail-abuse.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95DBA41426; Fri, 25 May 2007 17:20:22 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <46566811.2090504@solidmatrix.com> <20070525053944.59189.qmail@simone.iecc.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20070525072201.02add0a8@resistor.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <53D870E0-4F45-45F3-89E1-71C445A50704@mail-abuse.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Douglas Otis Subject: Re: [feedback-report] New version of the ARF draft Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 17:20:21 -0700 To: Damon Sauer X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.2) X-SongbirdInformation: support@songbird.com for more information X-Songbird: Clean X-Songbird-From: dotis@mail-abuse.org Cc: abuse-feedback-report@mipassoc.org 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: Sat, 26 May 2007 00:20:23 -0000 On May 25, 2007, at 8:42 AM, Damon Sauer wrote: > Agreed and since I am going to be receiving these from not just one > or two ISPs but possibly hundreds or thousands, it would be > beneficial to me, the sender, to know via the ARF if they currently > have an agreement with me. Just asking for a line to allow an ISP > to include information like this if they so choose. Call it > "General Information from ISP (optional):". Some ISP's have plenty > of information they would be willing share with the sender. An open rating scheme should include a field to indicate the Confidence Level (from 0 to 1) for the submitter before being passed back to the sender. The Confidence Level could be tabulated when resolving issues related to erroneous categorizations. To assist in this effort, these tabulation could be based upon a type of ARF that challenges an ARF. (ARF-Challenge). Such a scheme should improve the quality of the response information. At the same time, this might also help detect and defuse accounts used to game the system. -Doug Received: from balder-227.proper.com (Balder-227.Proper.COM [192.245.12.227]) by sb7.songbird.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l4PISQ1U011107 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 25 May 2007 11:28:26 -0700 Received: from [10.20.30.108] (dsl-63-249-108-169.cruzio.com [63.249.108.169]) (authenticated bits=0) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id l4PISSP2038365 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 25 May 2007 11:28:29 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@domain-assurance.org) Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <5981-SnapperMsg6ADB4C46C27CD275@68.247.183.97> References: <20070522194403.X5548@simone.iecc.com> <46565C1A.6090405@solidmatrix.com> <5981-SnapperMsg6ADB4C46C27CD275@68.247.183.97> Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 11:28:18 -0700 To: Yakov Shafranovich , ARF mailing list From: Paul Hoffman Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-SongbirdInformation: support@songbird.com for more information X-Songbird: Clean X-Songbird-From: paul.hoffman@domain-assurance.org Cc: Subject: [feedback-report] Re: ABNF 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, 25 May 2007 18:28:31 -0000 At 1:39 PM -0400 5/25/07, Yakov Shafranovich wrote: >...... Original Message ....... >On Fri, 25 May 2007 10:28:54 -0700 Paul Hoffman > wrote: >>At 11:46 PM -0400 5/24/07, Yakov Shafranovich wrote: >>>2. ABNF grammar will be needed at some point. >> >>Why? Have any developers found that the current description is not >>good enough? And, more to the point, do we think those developers >>would be helped by ABNF? >> >>I'm not a developer but I know how to read MIME stuff. I had no >>problem reading the technical part of the spec, and the examples >>looked exactly what I thought they would based on the spec. I don't >>think ABNF would add much, and unless we do it perfectly, will >>introduce errors. >> > >I am not a fan of ABNF unless necessary but my understanding is that the >IETF will require ABNF for a new MIME type (at least that was my experience >when I wrote RFC 4080). The current plan is to submit this as an Informational RFC, which doesn't need (or want) the IETF approval and oversight. Having said that, I'm interested in RFC 4180. Did you submit that to the IETF, or directly to the RFC Editor? And who in specific told you that you needed to add ABNF? That requirement isn't in RFC 4288. --Paul Hoffman, Director --Domain Assurance Council Received: from mout.perfora.net (mout.perfora.net [74.208.4.195]) by sb7.songbird.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l4PHojip003282 for ; Fri, 25 May 2007 10:50:45 -0700 Received: from [68.247.183.97] (helo=[68.247.183.97]) by mrelay.perfora.net (node=mrus0) with ESMTP (Nemesis), id 0MKp8S-1Hrdw232qV-0002wY; Fri, 25 May 2007 13:50:46 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: SnapperMail 2.1.0.01 by Snapperfish, www.snappermail.com To: Paul Hoffman , ARF mailing list Message-ID: <5981-SnapperMsg6ADB4C46C27CD275@68.247.183.97> In-Reply-To: References: <20070522194403.X5548@simone.iecc.com> <46565C1A.6090405@solidmatrix.com> From: Yakov Shafranovich Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 13:39 -0400 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX19EsAPepU5luKgZ71IPwwBEfVre5yRDYJ+eLUG I1rsK9QM9qfVgfEtfaQYT01wWthfSqzWGopSqx7+esfLUktB5U c9ij8aMwDJOuN5KsICjpTEbuDzWCzL/ X-SongbirdInformation: support@songbird.com for more information X-Songbird: Clean X-Songbird-From: yakovs@solidmatrix.com Cc: Subject: [feedback-report] Re: ABNF 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, 25 May 2007 17:50:48 -0000 ...... Original Message ....... On Fri, 25 May 2007 10:28:54 -0700 Paul Hoffman wrote: >At 11:46 PM -0400 5/24/07, Yakov Shafranovich wrote: >>2. ABNF grammar will be needed at some point. > >Why? Have any developers found that the current description is not >good enough? And, more to the point, do we think those developers >would be helped by ABNF? > >I'm not a developer but I know how to read MIME stuff. I had no >problem reading the technical part of the spec, and the examples >looked exactly what I thought they would based on the spec. I don't >think ABNF would add much, and unless we do it perfectly, will >introduce errors. > I am not a fan of ABNF unless necessary but my understanding is that the IETF will require ABNF for a new MIME type (at least that was my experience when I wrote RFC 4080). Received: from balder-227.proper.com (Balder-227.Proper.COM [192.245.12.227]) by sb7.songbird.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l4PHT1iB031362 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 25 May 2007 10:29:02 -0700 Received: from [10.20.30.108] (dsl-63-249-108-169.cruzio.com [63.249.108.169]) (authenticated bits=0) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id l4PHT3DJ016132 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 25 May 2007 10:29:05 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@domain-assurance.org) Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <46565C1A.6090405@solidmatrix.com> References: <20070522194403.X5548@simone.iecc.com> <46565C1A.6090405@solidmatrix.com> Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 10:28:54 -0700 To: Yakov Shafranovich , ARF mailing list From: Paul Hoffman Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-SongbirdInformation: support@songbird.com for more information X-Songbird: Clean X-Songbird-From: paul.hoffman@domain-assurance.org Cc: Subject: [feedback-report] ABNF 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, 25 May 2007 17:29:09 -0000 At 11:46 PM -0400 5/24/07, Yakov Shafranovich wrote: >2. ABNF grammar will be needed at some point. Why? Have any developers found that the current description is not good enough? And, more to the point, do we think those developers would be helped by ABNF? I'm not a developer but I know how to read MIME stuff. I had no problem reading the technical part of the spec, and the examples looked exactly what I thought they would based on the spec. I don't think ABNF would add much, and unless we do it perfectly, will introduce errors. --Paul Hoffman, Director --Domain Assurance Council Received: from py-out-1112.google.com (py-out-1112.google.com [64.233.166.177]) by sb7.songbird.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l4PFgKB9009569 for ; Fri, 25 May 2007 08:42:21 -0700 Received: by py-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id a29so1494708pyi for ; Fri, 25 May 2007 08:42:24 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; 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; b=ez/HFgX4Xqu2jH6dh81yOLQlWf1MdEoEm24A0uP6XfcZ23aJCSuV1ljhO2uGgl7cyoWV1zlJSpvYqmAMK/kNnF76HkxheSibqKHo26TsXkIXLd7FT4YKJ6kM64godw9sVkMkeP/Y7YLjM34MTlAE9Q/uncU+eVR0SnULkEQZpLQ= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=nuTdPpmEnsjbUUfwtSgiiAikEYjZTSJGg+OVZy3xab4ym0GluV99NIDd1ftMZfIo+iqOSMPhzbas6MEvy1vZzRDWJAx/XywnmQowJfXUsS1LdlVDivJlPZ3Z8RqfMlaf6mTq9uUg1PVqaFXsFqrH3mN/Dd3GJIj7zatBqErEk30= Received: by 10.35.106.1 with SMTP id i1mr2486718pym.1180107744013; Fri, 25 May 2007 08:42:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.35.17.17 with HTTP; Fri, 25 May 2007 08:42:23 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 11:42:23 -0400 From: "Damon Sauer" To: SM Subject: Re: [feedback-report] New version of the ARF draft In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20070525072201.02add0a8@resistor.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <46566811.2090504@solidmatrix.com> <20070525053944.59189.qmail@simone.iecc.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20070525072201.02add0a8@resistor.net> X-SongbirdInformation: support@songbird.com for more information X-Songbird: Clean X-Songbird-From: qvantvs@gmail.com Cc: abuse-feedback-report@mipassoc.org 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, 25 May 2007 15:42:26 -0000 On 5/25/07, SM wrote: > At 06:26 25-05-2007, Damon Sauer wrote: > >With the ARF, I was hoping that, if we can't change the root issue, > >maybe we can at least provide a space, whether it is used or not, for > >some ISP to provide further information to the sender from the > >receiver OR further insight as to our current status with ISP. I get a > >report card from AOL, why can't this same information be incorporated > >into the ARF so that other ISP's can provide similar information if > >they so chose? > > ARF standardizes the report format used for abuse reports. If the > ISP is going to use the feedback loop for each "this is spam" click, > that will only generate unnecessary reports. Still, it is not up to > the ISP to say that the particular complaint is about transactional mail. > > There are other means to make the problem manageable if the ISP and > sender agree that the message is not abuse. Agreed and since I am going to be receiving these from not just one or two ISPs but possibly hundreds or thousands, it would be benificial to me, the sender, to know via the ARF if they currently have an agreement with me. Just asking for a line to allow an ISP to include information like this if they so choose. Call it "General Information from ISP (optional):". Some ISP's have plenty of information they would be willing share with the sender. Regards, Damon Received: from ns1.qubic.net (ns1.qubic.net [208.185.248.67]) by sb7.songbird.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l4PFeRXe009036 for ; Fri, 25 May 2007 08:40:27 -0700 Received: from subman.resistor.net ([10.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by ns1.qubic.net (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id l4PFdnSp014692 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 25 May 2007 08:40:05 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1180107608; x=1180194008; bh=dhe3pAUiwtmPftCTpUItDS6+RGzpiFW4qvSJ 5RBfd08=; h=DomainKey-Signature:Message-Id:X-Mailer:Date:To:From: Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Cc; z=Dom ainKey-Signature:=20a=3Drsa-sha1=3B=20s=3Dmail=3B=20d=3Dresistor.ne t=3B=20c=3Dsimple=3B=20q=3Ddns=3B=0D=0A=09b=3Dv5/ft6JGYRUdaGl+xgTwo apVCJjFnAlxZ4ZOZReHQCNjuo49J3GDHB15bg6JKljKw=0D=0A=09+aHZML/l31aqQS WZKTsNX3MrlMWnGa1A8L/deScY3l+5qdJie+7zXh7z/I6i92AzxeB=0D=0A=09K1wtj R/iDAxFLRgKJ5IZhpCvAvAkJ+mcUQyrfnM=3D|Message-Id:=20<6.2.5.6.2.2007 0525081845.02c7bcb8@resistor.net>|X-Mailer:=20QUALCOMM=20Windows=20 Eudora=20Version=206.2.5.6|Date:=20Fri,=2025=20May=202007=2008:39:3 3=20-0700|To:=20abuse-feedback-report@mipassoc.org|From:=20SM=20|Subject:=20Certifier=20(was:=20[feedback-report]=20N ew=20version=20of=20the=20ARF=20draft)|In-Reply-To:=20<200705251352 06.GV6205@jmac.e-dialog.com>|References:=20<46566811.2090504@solidm atrix.com>=0D=0A=20<20070525053944.59189.qmail@simone.iecc.com>=0D= 0A=20<20070525135206.GV6205@jmac.e-dialog.com>|Mime-Version:=201.0| Content-Type:=20text/plain=3B=20charset=3D"us-ascii"=3B=20format=3D flowed; b=4UB2pFFMCtK1ZCTOr1kExUJAEOlmxnkDhJF3doCNUQtw0fEUwsax4jf7w /RU18aw+xr2O/1k9NKXK3asPLKw25JIsRrmz0uH8P8QyCAoVscX2Gx5nXZLEpvTOSZd sTAa9BdDHOcpXFT4q2B0QRo5QaVjBo/3sSLhNJbEwAwI7Q0= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=mail; d=resistor.net; c=simple; q=dns; b=v5/ft6JGYRUdaGl+xgTwoapVCJjFnAlxZ4ZOZReHQCNjuo49J3GDHB15bg6JKljKw +aHZML/l31aqQSWZKTsNX3MrlMWnGa1A8L/deScY3l+5qdJie+7zXh7z/I6i92AzxeB K1wtjR/iDAxFLRgKJ5IZhpCvAvAkJ+mcUQyrfnM= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20070525081845.02c7bcb8@resistor.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 08:39:33 -0700 To: abuse-feedback-report@mipassoc.org From: SM Subject: Certifier (was: [feedback-report] New version of the ARF draft) In-Reply-To: <20070525135206.GV6205@jmac.e-dialog.com> References: <46566811.2090504@solidmatrix.com> <20070525053944.59189.qmail@simone.iecc.com> <20070525135206.GV6205@jmac.e-dialog.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-SongbirdInformation: support@songbird.com for more information X-Songbird: Clean X-Songbird-From: sm@resistor.net 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, 25 May 2007 15:40:39 -0000 At 06:52 25-05-2007, Jeff Macdonald wrote: >I'm having trouble envisioning how the certifier gets into this loop. The ISP uses a service provided by the certifier to determine the reputation of the sender. >Will the certifier register themselves with an ISP? Or will the Sender The ISP might have to register with the certifier to use their service. >register two email addresses (sender and certifier) when registering >for ARF messages? I think these questions are outside the scope of ARF, >but intersting enough to ask anyway. It's easier for the sender to deal with the certifier instead of several ISPs. Regards, -sm Received: from ns1.qubic.net (ns1.qubic.net [208.185.248.67]) by sb7.songbird.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l4PFA5b3032325 for ; Fri, 25 May 2007 08:10:05 -0700 Received: from subman.resistor.net ([10.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by ns1.qubic.net (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id l4PF9SA9000381 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 25 May 2007 08:09:43 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1180105786; x=1180192186; bh=N+YkYIWatgMNhuPh+F4mg0z/8pwgyCY8witF SK1WufY=; h=DomainKey-Signature:Message-Id:X-Mailer:Date:To:From: Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Cc; z=Dom ainKey-Signature:=20a=3Drsa-sha1=3B=20s=3Dmail=3B=20d=3Dresistor.ne t=3B=20c=3Dsimple=3B=20q=3Ddns=3B=0D=0A=09b=3DvpyqgQHuHUGf7+JUGomVb D/aodqJcIEdabu49QrqVi+HCYwyz0VEzZWuglscPSdVB=0D=0A=0914+BVNO2Ga5K4j 2FxIuMYmVFXC2bMELk3YQsvfWcM6Opoq9YWcibaFAVh7+N15KJqVR=0D=0A=09KNxyl M9exxmS0WtAu8D7cibZRoSIqVrWYlbqvMM=3D|Message-Id:=20<6.2.5.6.2.2007 0525072201.02add0a8@resistor.net>|X-Mailer:=20QUALCOMM=20Windows=20 Eudora=20Version=206.2.5.6|Date:=20Fri,=2025=20May=202007=2008:09:3 0=20-0700|To:=20abuse-feedback-report@mipassoc.org|From:=20SM=20|Subject:=20Re:=20[feedback-report]=20New=20version=2 0of=20the=20ARF=20draft|In-Reply-To:=20|References:=20<46566811. 2090504@solidmatrix.com>=0D=0A=20<20070525053944.59189.qmail@simone .iecc.com>=0D=0A=20|Mime-Version:=201.0|Content-Type:=20text/plain=3B=20c harset=3D"us-ascii"=3B=20format=3Dflowed; b=lMJ+G5oALyJwqfAPFiMyQq/ 0Jy52siPbxIWfkQXP9zx6igN2ORUmOCC91NwOKsKvlx9buXAkIjEg3wO0phhZTeM+sZ JrpgrjUhRZh2sTEoesEh/DVBPyWC2OTy1sTAFifPWoxD5WqPj2dnlcwL0Q0WLlBG9/6 bg/p4SiaObCn1k= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=mail; d=resistor.net; c=simple; q=dns; b=vpyqgQHuHUGf7+JUGomVbD/aodqJcIEdabu49QrqVi+HCYwyz0VEzZWuglscPSdVB 14+BVNO2Ga5K4j2FxIuMYmVFXC2bMELk3YQsvfWcM6Opoq9YWcibaFAVh7+N15KJqVR KNxylM9exxmS0WtAu8D7cibZRoSIqVrWYlbqvMM= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20070525072201.02add0a8@resistor.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 08:09:30 -0700 To: abuse-feedback-report@mipassoc.org From: SM Subject: Re: [feedback-report] New version of the ARF draft In-Reply-To: References: <46566811.2090504@solidmatrix.com> <20070525053944.59189.qmail@simone.iecc.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-SongbirdInformation: support@songbird.com for more information X-Songbird: Clean X-Songbird-From: sm@resistor.net 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, 25 May 2007 15:10:20 -0000 At 06:26 25-05-2007, Damon Sauer wrote: >With the ARF, I was hoping that, if we can't change the root issue, >maybe we can at least provide a space, whether it is used or not, for >some ISP to provide further information to the sender from the >receiver OR further insight as to our current status with ISP. I get a >report card from AOL, why can't this same information be incorporated >into the ARF so that other ISP's can provide similar information if >they so chose? ARF standardizes the report format used for abuse reports. If the ISP is going to use the feedback loop for each "this is spam" click, that will only generate unnecessary reports. Still, it is not up to the ISP to say that the particular complaint is about transactional mail. There are other means to make the problem manageable if the ISP and sender agree that the message is not abuse. Regards, -sm Received: from corp-mail.e-dialog.com (corp-mail.e-dialog.com [64.28.75.202]) by sb7.songbird.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l4PDq4ME013572 for ; Fri, 25 May 2007 06:52:04 -0700 Received: from jmac ([10.200.6.55]) by corp-mail.e-dialog.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 25 May 2007 09:52:07 -0400 Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 09:52:06 -0400 From: Jeff Macdonald To: John Levine Subject: Re: [feedback-report] New version of the ARF draft Message-ID: <20070525135206.GV6205@jmac.e-dialog.com> References: <46566811.2090504@solidmatrix.com> <20070525053944.59189.qmail@simone.iecc.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070525053944.59189.qmail@simone.iecc.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.12-2006-07-14 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 May 2007 13:52:07.0308 (UTC) FILETIME=[E22A9CC0:01C79ED3] X-SongbirdInformation: support@songbird.com for more information X-Songbird: Clean X-Songbird-From: jmacdonald@e-dialog.com Cc: abuse-feedback-report@mipassoc.org 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, 25 May 2007 13:52:11 -0000 On Fri, May 25, 2007 at 05:39:44AM -0000, John Levine wrote: > It occurred to me early on that if a message were certified by > something like VBR and the recipient hit the spam button, you'd want > to send the exact same abuse report to the sender and to the > certifier. I'm having trouble envisioning how the certifier gets into this loop. Will the certifier register themselves with an ISP? Or will the Sender register two email addresses (sender and certifier) when registering for ARF messages? I think these questions are outside the scope of ARF, but intersting enough to ask anyway. -- :: Jeff Macdonald | Principal Engineer, Messaging Technologies :: e-Dialog | jmacdonald@e-dialog.com :: 131 Hartwell Ave. | Lexington, MA 02421 :: v: 781-372-1922 | f: 781-863-8118 :: www.e-dialog.com Received: from balder-227.proper.com (Balder-227.Proper.COM [192.245.12.227]) by sb7.songbird.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l4PDlKM9012453 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 25 May 2007 06:47:21 -0700 Received: from [10.20.30.108] (dsl-63-249-108-169.cruzio.com [63.249.108.169]) (authenticated bits=0) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id l4PDlMjY085508 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 25 May 2007 06:47:24 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@domain-assurance.org) Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20070525053421.57872.qmail@simone.iecc.com> References: <20070525053421.57872.qmail@simone.iecc.com> Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 06:47:10 -0700 To: abuse-feedback-report@mipassoc.org From: Paul Hoffman Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-SongbirdInformation: support@songbird.com for more information X-Songbird: Clean X-Songbird-From: paul.hoffman@domain-assurance.org Subject: [feedback-report] Designated Expert vs. first-come-first-served for 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, 25 May 2007 13:47:23 -0000 At 5:34 AM +0000 5/25/07, John Levine wrote: > > 1. The IANA section should be reworded from requiring an Designated >> Expert to first come, first serve. > >Paul understands IETF politics far better than I do and he tells me >that they'll never go for first come first serve. Designated expert >is as close as we'll get. I didn't say it with nearly that much force. What I (hope I) said was "informational documents that come with first-come-first-serve registries will be looked down on because it causes a lot of work for IANA for something that is not an IETF product". There may even be cases where such registries exist for non-IETF documents, but I know I have heard ADs express concern about that in the past. Do people see any downsides to Designated Expert? We can switch back to first-come-first-served at the risk of that decision delaying publication. --Paul Hoffman, Director --Domain Assurance Council Received: from py-out-1112.google.com (py-out-1112.google.com [64.233.166.177]) by sb7.songbird.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l4PDQOiC009044 for ; Fri, 25 May 2007 06:26:24 -0700 Received: by py-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id a29so1434404pyi for ; Fri, 25 May 2007 06:26:28 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; 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; b=fTYOyOE2vzPkKV4PJeZDTLPbktFNmKYDY/NDRO0IZ4LaCSskSYgxq27blE3KdIUL8F5gzyyOuqgYR0/4Xjqs2efaCkB9xMTFPG1Q7Fj55Hb8/N6VDQha7D4KNnZtJ3AWlZI0Db7jY1CS0ZUshzSLsUK7FFI+UG8GWhBMYQK/BIw= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=bsod8KB62p1BxIvspE5j0pMioRFFcJ6IqA3eHpRRUEIpbp7+n24anWjAvTL7pS5lzJdsKND/WpppL/cjCpea0dR//ZhPsZgqxN4Yqmbb5tLGgyicW2QOWuiR4yQ/ftr+bmfo30QatZ6Wgme1iHpIvRDrrbj9uIqIf0GaWhsRO9k= Received: by 10.35.61.14 with SMTP id o14mr5321099pyk.1180099587661; Fri, 25 May 2007 06:26:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.35.17.17 with HTTP; Fri, 25 May 2007 06:26:27 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 09:26:27 -0400 From: "Damon Sauer" To: "John Levine" Subject: Re: [feedback-report] New version of the ARF draft In-Reply-To: <20070525053944.59189.qmail@simone.iecc.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <46566811.2090504@solidmatrix.com> <20070525053944.59189.qmail@simone.iecc.com> X-SongbirdInformation: support@songbird.com for more information X-Songbird: Clean X-Songbird-From: qvantvs@gmail.com Cc: abuse-feedback-report@mipassoc.org 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, 25 May 2007 13:26:38 -0000 The root problem really is the original process. The user opens their mailbox, puts a check mark in every email they see as spam and ALSO every email they just don't want to read or ignore. Then they hit the spam button. It is much easier than a two step process: Mark spam then mark just delete, then read mail. Because the ISP's have made it easy to get rid of the "stuff" in your box with one button, the spam button now becomes dual purpose. It concerns me that this same process is used to determine the reputation of the sender. Now as the sender, we have to try and separate those that really thought it was spam and those that were just cleaning up their mailbox. With the ARF, I was hoping that, if we can't change the root issue, maybe we can at least provide a space, whether it is used or not, for some ISP to provide further information to the sender from the receiver OR further insight as to our current status with ISP. I get a report card from AOL, why can't this same information be incorporated into the ARF so that other ISP's can provide similar information if they so chose? Just trying to share my thoughts and views, not throw monkey wrenches. I am ok with it as is, better than nothing. Regards, Damon On 25 May 2007 05:39:44 -0000, John Levine wrote: > >Another point is how far will this go. Are we just keeping this as a way > >for receivers to provide feedback to people up the sending food chain, > >or is this becoming a more general mechanism for people to exchange > >opinions about emails. I lean towards #1 since it is a more narrow goal > >rather than #2. > > I hope we agree it's #1, it's a way for a recipient (or more likely > recipient's agent) up the food chain, not for content opinion > negotiation. It occurred to me early on that if a message were > certified by something like VBR and the recipient hit the spam button, > you'd want to send the exact same abuse report to the sender and to > the certifier. > > Re the questions, it looks like your proposed answers are all the same > as mine. Unless I hear some disagreement, I'm inclined to consider > them all resolved and update the draft accordingly. > > R's, > John > > _______________________________________________ > abuse-feedback-report mailing list > abuse-feedback-report@mipassoc.org > http://mipassoc.org/mailman/listinfo/abuse-feedback-report > Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [208.31.42.53]) by sb7.songbird.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l4P5dfJ4022007 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Thu, 24 May 2007 22:39:42 -0700 Received: (qmail 58005 invoked from network); 25 May 2007 05:39:44 -0000 Received: from simone.iecc.com (208.31.42.47) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 25 May 2007 05:39:44 -0000 Date: 25 May 2007 05:39:44 -0000 Message-ID: <20070525053944.59189.qmail@simone.iecc.com> From: John Levine To: abuse-feedback-report@mipassoc.org Subject: Re: [feedback-report] New version of the ARF draft In-Reply-To: <46566811.2090504@solidmatrix.com> Organization: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-SongbirdInformation: support@songbird.com for more information X-Songbird: Clean X-Songbird-From: prvs=johnl=0658f91e4b@iecc.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, 25 May 2007 05:39:55 -0000 >Another point is how far will this go. Are we just keeping this as a way >for receivers to provide feedback to people up the sending food chain, >or is this becoming a more general mechanism for people to exchange >opinions about emails. I lean towards #1 since it is a more narrow goal >rather than #2. I hope we agree it's #1, it's a way for a recipient (or more likely recipient's agent) up the food chain, not for content opinion negotiation. It occurred to me early on that if a message were certified by something like VBR and the recipient hit the spam button, you'd want to send the exact same abuse report to the sender and to the certifier. Re the questions, it looks like your proposed answers are all the same as mine. Unless I hear some disagreement, I'm inclined to consider them all resolved and update the draft accordingly. R's, John Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [208.31.42.53]) by sb7.songbird.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l4P5YI8n021130 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Thu, 24 May 2007 22:34:20 -0700 Received: (qmail 54592 invoked from network); 25 May 2007 05:34:21 -0000 Received: from simone.iecc.com (208.31.42.47) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 25 May 2007 05:34:21 -0000 Date: 25 May 2007 05:34:21 -0000 Message-ID: <20070525053421.57872.qmail@simone.iecc.com> From: John Levine To: abuse-feedback-report@mipassoc.org Subject: Re: [feedback-report] New version of the ARF draft In-Reply-To: <46565C1A.6090405@solidmatrix.com> Organization: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-SongbirdInformation: support@songbird.com for more information X-Songbird: Clean X-Songbird-From: prvs=johnl=0658f91e4b@iecc.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, 25 May 2007 05:34:25 -0000 > 1. The IANA section should be reworded from requiring an Designated > Expert to first come, first serve. Paul understands IETF politics far better than I do and he tells me that they'll never go for first come first serve. Designated expert is as close as we'll get. >2. ABNF grammar will be needed at some point. Yeah. Anyone want to write one? R's, John Received: from mout.perfora.net (mout.perfora.net [74.208.4.194]) by sb7.songbird.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l4P4bNBO012225 for ; Thu, 24 May 2007 21:37:23 -0700 Received: from [72.85.47.49] (helo=[192.168.1.11]) by mrelay.perfora.net (node=mrus0) with ESMTP (Nemesis), id 0MKp8S-1HrRYL0HYU-0002vq; Fri, 25 May 2007 00:37:26 -0400 Message-ID: <46566811.2090504@solidmatrix.com> Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 00:37:37 -0400 From: Yakov Shafranovich Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ARF mailing list Subject: Re: [feedback-report] New version of the ARF draft References: <20070522194403.X5548@simone.iecc.com> In-Reply-To: <20070522194403.X5548@simone.iecc.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX18+Jfp+8mc8z8Nx4XQhjdF2MK6ZEz6hBIv2iAX Eky7OgBAPXc4XCTSMumGLZT2xkDvFTb32F5mLDsb06Ub1oyM6R tGYXEQoU8reVZ2+hs5N7HY3QaT0mFm0 X-SongbirdInformation: support@songbird.com for more information X-Songbird: Clean X-Songbird-From: yakovs@solidmatrix.com 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, 25 May 2007 04:37:28 -0000 John R Levine wrote: > We added these two feedback types. If people hate them, we can take > them back out: > > * miscategorized - indicates that the content categorization applied in > connection with a certification or reputation system was incorrect > > * not-spam - indicates that a message that was tagged or categorized as > spam (such as by an ISP) is not spam > > The former is intended to send back to a certifier or reputation > provider, the second to your own ISP or mail host to tune their filters. > Like every other content type, these are just assertions by whoever's > sending the report, which the receiving system is free to interpret or > not interpret any way it wants. > Originally, the ARF standard was meant as a way to the receiver to provide opinion on the message back to the sender. I see that we are now looking at a slightly wider view of it as a way for receiver to provide feedback to several parties up the email food chain (ISPs, certifiers, senders, etc). The introduction section of the draft, plus the summary should probably reflect that. Another point is how far will this go. Are we just keeping this as a way for receivers to provide feedback to people up the sending food chain, or is this becoming a more general mechanism for people to exchange opinions about emails. I lean towards #1 since it is a more narrow goal rather than #2. > > Near the end, there's a list of questions added in previous versions. > If we can agree on the answers to some or all of them we can update the > draft and take out the questions. > > 1. Whether encoding of the machine readable part should be limited > to 7-bit > This draft was originally meant to be a "son-of" RFC 3462 which is also the ancestor of DSNs and MSNs. RFC 3462 restricts encoding to 7-bit as per section 1. For 8-bit, the following is stated in the end of section 1: > When 8-bit or binary data not encoded in a 7 bit form is to be > returned, and the return path is not guaranteed to be 8-bit or binary > capable, two options are available. The original message MAY be re- > encoded into a legal 7-bit MIME message or the Text/RFC822-Headers > content-type MAY be used to return only the original message headers. To the best of my knowledge, the same approach is used in DSNs and I don't see why we should change it. Any 8-bit data can be encoded safely via MIME into something 7-bit. > 2. Whether there is a need for both "opt-out" and "opt-out-list", > and whether this format should be used for opt-outs at all. > Is there any current work on something similar in the IETF? I vaguely remember seeing something based on "List-Unsubscribe". > 3. Whether the "from" address should be required to be a human just > like other RFCs in the "message/report" family. > There is no requirement in RFC 3462 for that, it just happens to be a SHOULD in RFC 3464 (DSN). We can also suggest it as a SHOULD or leave it. I don't think either way will make any difference since people will do what they want anyway. > 4. Whether there is a need for a new header to indicate munging of > the included email message. I don't have enough operational experience to have an opinion on this, BUT if you do choose to include a header, we need to define what munging is and what fields it affects. Something along the lines of a header in DKIM which says which headers are used for signing. > > 5. Whether different type of convention should be allowed for > subject lines. > Will anyone listen? > 6. Whether there should be different types defined for > "Reported-Uri" to better indicate to the report receiver how they are > related to the email message in question. > Not sure what you mean but this. Yakov Received: from ns1.qubic.net (ns1.qubic.net [208.185.248.67]) by sb7.songbird.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l4P4BxaY008262 for ; Thu, 24 May 2007 21:11:59 -0700 Received: from subman.resistor.net ([10.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by ns1.qubic.net (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id l4P4BRo9009397 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 24 May 2007 21:11:41 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1180066304; x=1180152704; bh=7v214s/QlikWP7MxLPevYDgQEydeq9UQglTq QHtGnd0=; h=DomainKey-Signature:Message-Id:X-Mailer:Date:To:From: Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Cc; z=Dom ainKey-Signature:=20a=3Drsa-sha1=3B=20s=3Dmail=3B=20d=3Dresistor.ne t=3B=20c=3Dsimple=3B=20q=3Ddns=3B=0D=0A=09b=3DZyuk1+8ULLaZWLZ73KKtk hhi17/luKiV9MvTBpxjR3gZmamapM/y3u+5WwLxIhhCd=0D=0A=09nevWFaNX/O1H+Y /kzd4iNi/oRu13q6i6YG3EepByTm09HjQjfgou+595OKMYLT8C/4p=0D=0A=09qlok5 nf+ZZrHE0bsPZz09cLno/l0EwZtFMzTxPA=3D|Message-Id:=20<6.2.5.6.2.2007 0524205538.02daf810@resistor.net>|X-Mailer:=20QUALCOMM=20Windows=20 Eudora=20Version=206.2.5.6|Date:=20Thu,=2024=20May=202007=2021:10:4 9=20-0700|To:=20ARF=20mailing=20list=20|From:=20SM=20|Subject:=20Re:=20[taugh.com -johnl]=20Re:=20[feedback-report]=20New=20version=20of=20the=0D=0A= 20=20ARF=20draft|In-Reply-To:=20|References:=20<20070522194403.X 5548@simone.iecc.com>=0D=0A=20<4654D389.9060701@yahoo-inc.com>=0D=0 A=20<20070523225428.T908@simone.iecc.com>=0D=0A=20=0D=0A=20<4655C585.8070 409@yahoo-inc.com>=0D=0A=20|Mime-Version:=201.0|Content-Type:=20text/plai n=3B=20charset=3D"us-ascii"=3B=20format=3Dflowed; b=Jrd//m8loVNG2Zt bPRMVODp0foSuzwaxYP4q9CQa5CNQPPMphPHvRCDZ+gD5ZYSFO7HH7czJI1ZA2F4mRB Mihj7ASDRqaaPAOs/o05jdm2O1l4usOg6eHvYJ/6WwLu14e4YWN/JqJejLO9WSwT3+L /LIiKjqzgKINkj3IzjSW3E= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=mail; d=resistor.net; c=simple; q=dns; b=Zyuk1+8ULLaZWLZ73KKtkhhi17/luKiV9MvTBpxjR3gZmamapM/y3u+5WwLxIhhCd nevWFaNX/O1H+Y/kzd4iNi/oRu13q6i6YG3EepByTm09HjQjfgou+595OKMYLT8C/4p qlok5nf+ZZrHE0bsPZz09cLno/l0EwZtFMzTxPA= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20070524205538.02daf810@resistor.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 21:10:49 -0700 To: ARF mailing list From: SM Subject: Re: [taugh.com-johnl] Re: [feedback-report] New version of the ARF draft In-Reply-To: References: <20070522194403.X5548@simone.iecc.com> <4654D389.9060701@yahoo-inc.com> <20070523225428.T908@simone.iecc.com> <4655C585.8070409@yahoo-inc.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-SongbirdInformation: support@songbird.com for more information X-Songbird: Clean X-Songbird-From: sm@resistor.net 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, 25 May 2007 04:12:02 -0000 At 11:17 24-05-2007, Damon Sauer wrote: >Everyday I am inundated with people marking their credit card receipts >and shipping confirmations as spam. Since I am sending all my >transactional from a particular domain, I suppose it is possible to do >something with it.While the wording "This is not spam because it is >transactional" would need some smithing it would go a long way in >educating the user that would otherwise, for whatever reason, mark it >as spam and thereby reducing the amount of noise in the actual >reporting. I doubt that the assertion the this message is not spam because it is transactional would help. The message should be easily identified as a response to a transaction or else it will get lost in the reporting flood. Regards, -sm Received: from mout.perfora.net (mout.perfora.net [74.208.4.195]) by sb7.songbird.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l4P3kMAH003517 for ; Thu, 24 May 2007 20:46:22 -0700 Received: from [72.85.47.49] (helo=[192.168.1.11]) by mrelay.perfora.net (node=mrus1) with ESMTP (Nemesis), id 0MKpCa-1HrQkx3mHp-0001Xr; Thu, 24 May 2007 23:46:25 -0400 Message-ID: <46565C1A.6090405@solidmatrix.com> Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 23:46:34 -0400 From: Yakov Shafranovich Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ARF mailing list Subject: Re: [feedback-report] New version of the ARF draft References: <20070522194403.X5548@simone.iecc.com> In-Reply-To: <20070522194403.X5548@simone.iecc.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+Cy8tZZZDZLhrzzWKGrOBXCi5RLDtYKlZn8j5 Df1+/2dNR1TUh9rT4EL6+gBO7LBGaTXYD1wzLP1nFsrBaSGkr/ VQV9NbnvGM3fsg5eJsZDznaiuecpHpe X-SongbirdInformation: support@songbird.com for more information X-Songbird: Clean X-Songbird-From: yakovs@solidmatrix.com 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, 25 May 2007 03:46:31 -0000 John R Levine wrote: > I put it here, in xml and html: http://www.taugh.com/arf/. It would be > nice to have a new draft sent in to I-D in time for MAAWG. > > Paul and I went through and fixed a bunch of stuff that made xml2rfc > complain (if it complains, the RFC editor will complain), along with > what are intended to be minor edits for style and consistency. > Two more things we still need to do: 1. The IANA section should be reworded from requiring an Designated Expert to first come, first serve. That to have been the consensus two weeks ago on the list. One important point though - there are TWO IANA registries in the draft - one is for headers, and a second is for feedback types. We discussed the second one a few weeks ago, but should probably talk about the first one as well. 2. ABNF grammar will be needed at some point. Yakov Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [208.31.42.53]) by sb7.songbird.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l4P0tKif005340 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Thu, 24 May 2007 17:55:21 -0700 Received: (qmail 7852 invoked from network); 25 May 2007 00:55:23 -0000 Received: from simone.iecc.com (208.31.42.47) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 25 May 2007 00:55:23 -0000 Date: 25 May 2007 00:55:23 -0000 Message-ID: <20070525005523.89874.qmail@simone.iecc.com> From: John Levine To: abuse-feedback-report@mipassoc.org Subject: Re: "transactional" report type (was Re: [feedback-report] New version of the ARF draft) In-Reply-To: Organization: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-SongbirdInformation: support@songbird.com for more information X-Songbird: Clean X-Songbird-From: prvs=johnl=0658f91e4b@iecc.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, 25 May 2007 00:55:27 -0000 >Sure, I am just asking that a method be in place that would allow for >the ~possibility~ that if an ISP does do transactional tracking, that >it can be labeled as such. Hmmn. How many ISPs do this now? What incentive do they, as receivers, have to start doing it in the future? The point of ARF is to communicate the fact that a recipient had an opinion about a message. That's all you get. Sure, you'd like ISPs to do more work for you, but it ain't gonna happen. As Steve A. pointed out, if you want it badly enough you can pay them to do it, but if you pay them, you can make any kind of bilateral arrangements you want, and that's outside the scope of a standard intended for the public Internet. R's, John Received: from m.wordtothewise.com (fruitbat.wordtothewise.com [208.187.80.135]) by sb7.songbird.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l4ONsucO026913 for ; Thu, 24 May 2007 16:54:56 -0700 Received: from [10.3.2.25] (184.wordtothewise.com [208.187.80.184]) by m.wordtothewise.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7682800E0 for ; Thu, 24 May 2007 16:54:59 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3) In-Reply-To: References: <20070522194403.X5548@simone.iecc.com> <20070523225428.T908@simone.iecc.com> <4655C585.8070409@yahoo-inc.com> <4655F109.6090907@yahoo-inc.com> <46560ECE.7040006@yahoo-inc.com> <46561AA3.3090600@yahoo-inc.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <4677741D-AEEE-4F3E-B11E-42453BE2C809@word-to-the-wise.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Steve Atkins Subject: Re: "transactional" report type (was Re: [taugh.com-johnl] Re: [feedback-report] New version of the ARF draft) Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 16:54:54 -0700 To: ARF mailing list X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3) X-SongbirdInformation: support@songbird.com for more information X-Songbird: Clean X-Songbird-From: steve@word-to-the-wise.com 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: Thu, 24 May 2007 23:55:00 -0000 On May 24, 2007, at 4:37 PM, Damon Sauer wrote: > On 5/24/07, J.D. Falk wrote: > >> On 2007-05-24 15:45, Damon Sauer wrote: >> >> >> Seems to me that only the sender can know for sure whether the >> message >> >> was supposed to be transactional. >> > >> > Yes, this is true, for the first round. In which we would >> research the >> > issue via the ARF and let the ISP know that it was truely a >> > transactional message and possibly provide further information >> to the >> > ISP via a back-channel about which of our servers, IP range, >> domains, >> > etc. are used in transactional mailings. >> >> Can't you do that anyway? A report type of "spam" doesn't mean you >> can't attempt to contact the report generator with questions/ >> concerns. >> >> > Sure, I am just asking that a method be in place that would allow for > the ~possibility~ that if an ISP does do transactional tracking, that > it can be labeled as such. > > >> > 1) Diminish or absolve the scoring for mislabeled spam reports. >> >> Scoring and other spam filtering techniques are entirely up to the >> system that received the message. Adding more report types won't >> change >> that. >> > > This is where we differ in thought. I see transactional messages as an > class of email entirely on its own. Such as personal, business, > non-delivery report, domo, auto-respond, marketing, transactional and > spam. > >> >> ARF says absolutely nothing about what either the report generator or >> the report recipient is supposed to do with the report. That's >> been one >> of the primary design goals all along, because we can't predict >> how the >> best practices will evolve. >> >> > I can predict that this would be very useful. > If you already have an arrangement with the receiving ISP then they will know (via DKIM or source IP based arrangement, or similar) that you're claiming that this mail is transactional. If their user claims the mail is spam, then they're still going to send you a "spam" type ARF report. But there's no need for any additional notification in either direction, as they already know that you claim the mail is transactional. And if you and the ISP both know that you claim the mail is transactional then including that information in the ARF report will not add any information at all. From your description it sounds like you want have an ISP take every ARF report of mail sent by you that a user complained about and piggyback on top of it the (pretty much unrelated) data as to whether the ISP thinks you've told them the mail is transactional or not. There is nothing to stop you and an ISP coming to a private arrangement to do that, but it doesn't sound like something that would be of much value to most senders or recipients, so I don't see any value in standardizing the procedure. (I think there would be value in standardising the way that a sender claims something about an email to an ISP, and the ISP confirms that's the data they have, but piggybacking it on spam complaints doesn't seem to be the place). Cheers, Steve Received: from py-out-1112.google.com (py-out-1112.google.com [64.233.166.180]) by sb7.songbird.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l4ONb6dU023159 for ; Thu, 24 May 2007 16:37:06 -0700 Received: by py-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id a29so1139022pyi for ; Thu, 24 May 2007 16:37:09 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; 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; b=m9gh+CE+Y7db+g26dijN5d70BhNWr0YHnyZCJRyrWom052Urg7jaxPp0R5BVxg5E25S1HPjJt+f882YNJ5BztHyVHxQRhIW/Jzhp+91gDBwzJew/NMNpz0Wp7wfiIUDkBuUgopUCWgjv+OrMQtoJNksuPd0pZCT0r983L5WJyOE= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=qNoKqlIo7iZC71CmifTX2Qyn2I1UO/6qa25tmy8JmxN7KaLUeCSgXWY2Hymg7Ab/oNsc50FWQFWE1ykEFKSlRoSMG0WmN/151tl2geQTnXdy5NJYCI1efrCQizaMEjPYXe255w+r+3z5KFixnCTDkuMo5FfokhPHH4VK5mQgEyI= Received: by 10.35.52.18 with SMTP id e18mr4073343pyk.1180049829794; Thu, 24 May 2007 16:37:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.35.17.17 with HTTP; Thu, 24 May 2007 16:37:09 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 19:37:09 -0400 From: "Damon Sauer" To: "J.D. Falk" Subject: Re: "transactional" report type (was Re: [taugh.com-johnl] Re: [feedback-report] New version of the ARF draft) In-Reply-To: <46561AA3.3090600@yahoo-inc.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20070522194403.X5548@simone.iecc.com> <20070523225428.T908@simone.iecc.com> <4655C585.8070409@yahoo-inc.com> <4655F109.6090907@yahoo-inc.com> <46560ECE.7040006@yahoo-inc.com> <46561AA3.3090600@yahoo-inc.com> X-SongbirdInformation: support@songbird.com for more information X-Songbird: Clean X-Songbird-From: qvantvs@gmail.com Cc: ARF mailing list 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: Thu, 24 May 2007 23:37:13 -0000 On 5/24/07, J.D. Falk wrote: > On 2007-05-24 15:45, Damon Sauer wrote: > > >> Seems to me that only the sender can know for sure whether the message > >> was supposed to be transactional. > > > > Yes, this is true, for the first round. In which we would research the > > issue via the ARF and let the ISP know that it was truely a > > transactional message and possibly provide further information to the > > ISP via a back-channel about which of our servers, IP range, domains, > > etc. are used in transactional mailings. > > Can't you do that anyway? A report type of "spam" doesn't mean you > can't attempt to contact the report generator with questions/concerns. > Sure, I am just asking that a method be in place that would allow for the ~possibility~ that if an ISP does do transactional tracking, that it can be labeled as such. > > 1) Diminish or absolve the scoring for mislabeled spam reports. > > Scoring and other spam filtering techniques are entirely up to the > system that received the message. Adding more report types won't change > that. This is where we differ in thought. I see transactional messages as an class of email entirely on its own. Such as personal, business, non-delivery report, domo, auto-respond, marketing, transactional and spam. > > ARF says absolutely nothing about what either the report generator or > the report recipient is supposed to do with the report. That's been one > of the primary design goals all along, because we can't predict how the > best practices will evolve. > I can predict that this would be very useful. Regards, Damon Received: from rsmtp1.corp.yahoo.com (rsmtp1.corp.yahoo.com [207.126.228.149]) by sb7.songbird.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l4ON7Iwd018700 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 24 May 2007 16:07:18 -0700 Received: from jdfalk-mac-corp-yahoo-com.local (snvvpn1-10-72-72-c54.corp.yahoo.com [10.72.72.54]) (authenticated bits=0) by rsmtp1.corp.yahoo.com (8.13.8/8.13.6/y.rout) with ESMTP id l4ON7G3G058244 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 24 May 2007 16:07:16 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=serpent; d=yahoo-inc.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to: subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=2h7lZy4Gi2NTZLDWhyzhhfF+zFbpoIq3Wryp4/hrwPjS++HlmQdTxKs6qOcrFHM5 Message-ID: <46561AA3.3090600@yahoo-inc.com> Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 16:07:15 -0700 From: "J.D. Falk" Organization: Yahoo! User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.8.1.3) Gecko/20070326 Thunderbird/2.0.0.0 Mnenhy/0.7.5.666 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ARF mailing list Subject: Re: "transactional" report type (was Re: [taugh.com-johnl] Re: [feedback-report] New version of the ARF draft) References: <20070522194403.X5548@simone.iecc.com> <4654D389.9060701@yahoo-inc.com> <20070523225428.T908@simone.iecc.com> <4655C585.8070409@yahoo-inc.com> <4655F109.6090907@yahoo-inc.com> <46560ECE.7040006@yahoo-inc.com> In-Reply-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: Clean X-Songbird-From: jdfalk@yahoo-inc.com 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: Thu, 24 May 2007 23:07:27 -0000 On 2007-05-24 15:45, Damon Sauer wrote: >> Seems to me that only the sender can know for sure whether the message >> was supposed to be transactional. > > Yes, this is true, for the first round. In which we would research the > issue via the ARF and let the ISP know that it was truely a > transactional message and possibly provide further information to the > ISP via a back-channel about which of our servers, IP range, domains, > etc. are used in transactional mailings. Can't you do that anyway? A report type of "spam" doesn't mean you can't attempt to contact the report generator with questions/concerns. > 1) Diminish or absolve the scoring for mislabeled spam reports. Scoring and other spam filtering techniques are entirely up to the system that received the message. Adding more report types won't change that. ARF says absolutely nothing about what either the report generator or the report recipient is supposed to do with the report. That's been one of the primary design goals all along, because we can't predict how the best practices will evolve. -- J.D. Falk, Anti-Spam Product Manager Yahoo! Mail Received: from py-out-1112.google.com (py-out-1112.google.com [64.233.166.179]) by sb7.songbird.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l4OMjHBk014737 for ; Thu, 24 May 2007 15:45:18 -0700 Received: by py-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id a29so1120909pyi for ; Thu, 24 May 2007 15:45:21 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; 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; b=PJxVCsZJ15TV7aciRWjaEzUaaCJqCejfRYfDUziu4vNWDpa99DDqKXPO5p7hBYr5rboqcqH/9QEFn6TwC98WBF+T1KNLXx0X4QsWeoRpbwQwMOQafTelK38yLMyg9Mnr9w1FLRERu+clvlw4HHfeP2UmnOo2v0AdJioc+IUBSZM= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=cecmwN72ZlZKCqwwgwqGMqt+uPjzzp0IFtSdGz6/cswhy6VJxvTdKtB4O4xEwJBG/arkfGsGv8nOuOpU0uUX12Kz0pysg3nhfrlXgbH1VEHb/tMN//2j77Fhwp7TheptHpC5EXY9y5j/1XmM/nJv3LINEoSSlObDttqzyBu8n18= Received: by 10.35.45.14 with SMTP id x14mr1028605pyj.1180046721111; Thu, 24 May 2007 15:45:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.35.17.17 with HTTP; Thu, 24 May 2007 15:45:21 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 18:45:21 -0400 From: "Damon Sauer" To: "J.D. Falk" Subject: Re: "transactional" report type (was Re: [taugh.com-johnl] Re: [feedback-report] New version of the ARF draft) In-Reply-To: <46560ECE.7040006@yahoo-inc.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20070522194403.X5548@simone.iecc.com> <4654D389.9060701@yahoo-inc.com> <20070523225428.T908@simone.iecc.com> <4655C585.8070409@yahoo-inc.com> <4655F109.6090907@yahoo-inc.com> <46560ECE.7040006@yahoo-inc.com> X-SongbirdInformation: support@songbird.com for more information X-Songbird: Clean X-Songbird-From: qvantvs@gmail.com Cc: ARF mailing list 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: Thu, 24 May 2007 22:45:26 -0000 On 5/24/07, J.D. Falk wrote: > On 2007-05-24 14:21, Damon Sauer wrote: > > > I would like to continue to participate in this forum, but please, if > > you think I am off-base, or just plain loco, please direct those > > comments to me (even publicly) but not my employer whom is innocent of > > the slander here. > > The only part of this conversation where I think you're acting loco is > in thinking that I'm attacking you or your employer. > > The use case that I thought you were describing is one that's been > proposed before, so I wasn't exaggerating much -- but I'm glad to hear > that you're asking for something entirely different. > > > I am not asking that the ~user~ further classify the messages they are > > marking, but that the format allow for a section that could contain > > information saying that the ISP's internal systems have checked > > against their known transactional sending IPs, domains, whitelists, > > etc. and that the email in question either matched or did not match. > > So, hopefully understanding a little better now, the use case you have > in mind is: > > 1. [the sender] sends message to a user > 2. the user reports it as spam to their ISP, via whatever mechanism > 3. the ISP checks their own systems to determine if the message was > likely to be transactional > 4. the ISP reports it to [the sender], using ARF with a report type of > "transactional" > > Right? > > Seems to me that only the sender can know for sure whether the message > was supposed to be transactional. Yes, this is true, for the first round. In which we would research the issue via the ARF and let the ISP know that it was truely a transactional message and possibly provide further information to the ISP via a back-channel about which of our servers, IP range, domains, etc. are used in transactional mailings. Which the ISP could then use in consideration of the next spam report. Which could then be reflected in the next ARF report that the ISP has matched the email to our known transactional messaging systems, IP's, etc etc. I have a few goals here: 1) Diminish or absolve the scoring for mislabeled spam reports. 2) Take corrective actions on the appropriate systems. 3) Inform ISP's as to the content and/or intent of the mailings. 4) Have evidence to report to management that scoring is diminished or absolved 5) Keep a good reputation by ensuring that transactionals are truely transactional. 6) Diminish or absolve the scoring for mislabeled spam reports :) Regards, Damon Received: from srve-v64.srve.com (smtp.senderpays.com [208.185.247.233]) by sb7.songbird.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l4OMbw3A013526 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Thu, 24 May 2007 15:37:58 -0700 Received: from localhost (www.hunneypocketed.emsvr.com [203.206.137.129] (may be forged)) by srve-v64.srve.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/CWT/DCE) with ESMTP id l4OMZCJQ021946 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 24 May 2007 22:35:18 GMT Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 08:38:02 +1000 From: Chris Drake X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <939848718.20070525083802@pobox.com> To: ARF mailing list Subject: Re[2]: "transactional" report type (was Re: [taugh.com-johnl] Re: [feedback-report] New version of the ARF draft) In-Reply-To: <46560ECE.7040006@yahoo-inc.com> References: <20070522194403.X5548@simone.iecc.com> <4654D389.9060701@yahoo-inc.com> <20070523225428.T908@simone.iecc.com> <4655C585.8070409@yahoo-inc.com> <4655F109.6090907@yahoo-inc.com> <46560ECE.7040006@yahoo-inc.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SongbirdInformation: support@songbird.com for more information X-Songbird: Clean X-Songbird-From: christopher@pobox.com 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: Thu, 24 May 2007 22:38:08 -0000 Hi All, Since there's probably a few folks unaware - spam report handling is not automatable: 99% of all spam reports (if you're a legit ISP and not a spammer :-) are just dumb-users (mostly AOL) hitting the spam button when they *meant* to hit the trash button beside it. Of the last 1000 or so ARF spam reports I've waded through over 12 months, 100.0% of them were legit messages - asking users why they report them as spam always yields a "Oh - did I? Sorry" response. If spam reporting is to be made automatic - users who report spam need to be given more choices, so robots can handle it properly: (x) I just want to delete this email (x) This email came from my ex (x) I don't like what this email says (x) This email is an unsolicited bulk advertisement etc etc - with a second question: (x) Yes - I want to send this email to several administrators, all of whom are going to read it and take action to block the sender It might sound stupid, but loads of AOL folks would no doubt be mortified if they realized that their personal nudie pics, office affair emails, business contracts etc are getting broadcast to ISP admins when they hit "spam" instead of "trash" by mistake - a *serious* privacy problem. Kind Regards, Chris Drake Friday, May 25, 2007, 8:16:46 AM, you wrote: JDF> On 2007-05-24 14:21, Damon Sauer wrote: >> I would like to continue to participate in this forum, but please, if >> you think I am off-base, or just plain loco, please direct those >> comments to me (even publicly) but not my employer whom is innocent of >> the slander here. JDF> The only part of this conversation where I think you're acting loco is JDF> in thinking that I'm attacking you or your employer. JDF> The use case that I thought you were describing is one that's been JDF> proposed before, so I wasn't exaggerating much -- but I'm glad to hear JDF> that you're asking for something entirely different. >> I am not asking that the ~user~ further classify the messages they are >> marking, but that the format allow for a section that could contain >> information saying that the ISP's internal systems have checked >> against their known transactional sending IPs, domains, whitelists, >> etc. and that the email in question either matched or did not match. JDF> So, hopefully understanding a little better now, the use case you have JDF> in mind is: JDF> 1. [the sender] sends message to a user JDF> 2. the user reports it as spam to their ISP, via whatever mechanism JDF> 3. the ISP checks their own systems to determine if the message was JDF> likely to be transactional JDF> 4. the ISP reports it to [the sender], using ARF with a report type of JDF> "transactional" JDF> Right? JDF> Seems to me that only the sender can know for sure whether the message JDF> was supposed to be transactional. Received: from rsmtp2.corp.yahoo.com (rsmtp2.corp.yahoo.com [207.126.228.150]) by sb7.songbird.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l4OMGxoX010374 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 24 May 2007 15:16:59 -0700 Received: from jdfalk-mac-corp-yahoo-com.local (snvvpn1-10-72-72-c54.corp.yahoo.com [10.72.72.54]) (authenticated bits=0) by rsmtp2.corp.yahoo.com (8.13.8/8.13.6/y.rout) with ESMTP id l4OMGlex068530 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 24 May 2007 15:16:47 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=serpent; d=yahoo-inc.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to: subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=eVQ9Tz3s74FOWxedKMMr1V+lvq+DgE1CJHNnFinHLieeabPsPeG/cTydsTYv+l8O Message-ID: <46560ECE.7040006@yahoo-inc.com> Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 15:16:46 -0700 From: "J.D. Falk" Organization: Yahoo! User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.8.1.3) Gecko/20070326 Thunderbird/2.0.0.0 Mnenhy/0.7.5.666 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ARF mailing list Subject: Re: "transactional" report type (was Re: [taugh.com-johnl] Re: [feedback-report] New version of the ARF draft) References: <20070522194403.X5548@simone.iecc.com> <4654D389.9060701@yahoo-inc.com> <20070523225428.T908@simone.iecc.com> <4655C585.8070409@yahoo-inc.com> <4655F109.6090907@yahoo-inc.com> In-Reply-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: Clean X-Songbird-From: jdfalk@yahoo-inc.com 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: Thu, 24 May 2007 22:17:13 -0000 On 2007-05-24 14:21, Damon Sauer wrote: > I would like to continue to participate in this forum, but please, if > you think I am off-base, or just plain loco, please direct those > comments to me (even publicly) but not my employer whom is innocent of > the slander here. The only part of this conversation where I think you're acting loco is in thinking that I'm attacking you or your employer. The use case that I thought you were describing is one that's been proposed before, so I wasn't exaggerating much -- but I'm glad to hear that you're asking for something entirely different. > I am not asking that the ~user~ further classify the messages they are > marking, but that the format allow for a section that could contain > information saying that the ISP's internal systems have checked > against their known transactional sending IPs, domains, whitelists, > etc. and that the email in question either matched or did not match. So, hopefully understanding a little better now, the use case you have in mind is: 1. [the sender] sends message to a user 2. the user reports it as spam to their ISP, via whatever mechanism 3. the ISP checks their own systems to determine if the message was likely to be transactional 4. the ISP reports it to [the sender], using ARF with a report type of "transactional" Right? Seems to me that only the sender can know for sure whether the message was supposed to be transactional. -- J.D. Falk, Anti-Spam Product Manager Yahoo! Mail Received: from py-out-1112.google.com (py-out-1112.google.com [64.233.166.179]) by sb7.songbird.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l4OLbMEP004087 for ; Thu, 24 May 2007 14:37:22 -0700 Received: by py-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id a29so1096418pyi for ; Thu, 24 May 2007 14:37:25 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; 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; b=CC1d8SmmVwcUK8ZWH3NkMgfS6sinVfxOYeKVw2u5jtED1chOKBes6u9RC1/LSI1ODJGuPIM0Uyd1dAaG6170ONohNmf3kLYdjrOqt/tEQFltwhvP2r++ados9jzvgATD4hGL7DlWgPD5hOvlKI370mlVaoTZ9pJciaz/BeWNvjI= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=OEhH7juK3Yq17w6+jWrXVysg+Gi1K8RcnhCWWJtlfEQvudZA4bbQhnDY37eLCI4Qxm8kXRpl6fbmGVzCyUIHKsyIZtbJVa+6OdTD4AbTG3HjKLIwXYxkl3IssINfIbqesFQo7d4Mf1TuqxkwnVFIo5ezTGRZA1JYSAiDifxTOhk= Received: by 10.35.99.14 with SMTP id b14mr1028537pym.1180042645615; Thu, 24 May 2007 14:37:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.35.17.17 with HTTP; Thu, 24 May 2007 14:37:25 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 17:37:25 -0400 From: "Damon Sauer" To: "J.D. Falk" Subject: Re: "transactional" report type (was Re: [taugh.com-johnl] Re:[feedback-report] New version of the ARF draft) In-Reply-To: <4655FBBD.2080202@yahoo-inc.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20070522194403.X5548@simone.iecc.com> <4654D389.9060701@yahoo-inc.com> <20070523225428.T908@simone.iecc.com> <4655C585.8070409@yahoo-inc.com> <4655F109.6090907@yahoo-inc.com> <0106A9A8C9515D43AC4DEE5FF416F6010870BF0A@OS-EXCHANGEI101.wsod.local> <4655FBBD.2080202@yahoo-inc.com> X-SongbirdInformation: support@songbird.com for more information X-Songbird: Clean X-Songbird-From: qvantvs@gmail.com Cc: ARF mailing list 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: Thu, 24 May 2007 21:37:25 -0000 I was admittedly not clear in my first post that started all of this. I am not asking that the ~user~ further classify the messages they are marking, but that the format allow for a section that could contain information saying that the ISP's internal systems have checked against their known transactional sending IPs, domains, whitelists, etc. and that the email in question either matched or did not match. This would help the sender do a number of things (off the top of my head) Request whitelisting, verify the message is actually theirs, look on the proper systems for which database the receipent address resides as transactional email addresses and marketing addresses more often than not live on separate databases or systems, etc. We are genuinely interested in knowing how our reputation is with a particular ISP and if by marking them as known transactionals means that our reputation score is not diminished, it would help. If I am getting too far out in the woods here... let me know. Regards, Damon On 5/24/07, J.D. Falk wrote: > On 2007-05-24 13:30, John Marlin wrote: > > > Is there any hope that users and ISPs would be willing to allow (or > > require) the user to break out the spam designation further. > > You're right that this isn't related to the format, so I'll just quickly > point you towards this study: > > http://www.returnpath.biz/resources/archives/2007/01/consumers_want.php > > -- > J.D. Falk, Anti-Spam Product Manager > Yahoo! Mail > _______________________________________________ > abuse-feedback-report mailing list > abuse-feedback-report@mipassoc.org > http://mipassoc.org/mailman/listinfo/abuse-feedback-report > Received: from py-out-1112.google.com (py-out-1112.google.com [64.233.166.180]) by sb7.songbird.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l4OLLEfP000460 for ; Thu, 24 May 2007 14:21:14 -0700 Received: by py-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id a29so1090188pyi for ; Thu, 24 May 2007 14:21:17 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; 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; b=iN1tSXOhJbWqbkDNz9ThQ+9bkoEZHLcqvLtw5CFPGFyR9DBB37rEalSquecCdbvUpDsNg8dmXjb2eCHC8VjEzJa0HoUMOnOcD4bBgFbIyGxYPfVba/TaBNpGGUBCn1B8ygx18hAgCAGBxas9kpOmdLwQ/xsns8wJRQYKegmQHtk= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=drCVI9wC1NUNolcU2xdYCfCxjpsA7MU3bJ5S/RS3KncmVelAzXbJMeFxFSN67QmknPNMSS6DJEtqsYAjzW+ymBZv1mGnKBxzfqJpzXbf+FtteFusWJulZ6UtcbXvP47Sf5tAVTNr/pRgkjF/T5pVLmpsD/Z6Via4PIo3nbTFlt4= Received: by 10.35.78.9 with SMTP id f9mr993202pyl.1180041677325; Thu, 24 May 2007 14:21:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.35.17.17 with HTTP; Thu, 24 May 2007 14:21:17 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 17:21:17 -0400 From: "Damon Sauer" To: "J.D. Falk" Subject: Re: "transactional" report type (was Re: [taugh.com-johnl] Re: [feedback-report] New version of the ARF draft) In-Reply-To: <4655F109.6090907@yahoo-inc.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20070522194403.X5548@simone.iecc.com> <4654D389.9060701@yahoo-inc.com> <20070523225428.T908@simone.iecc.com> <4655C585.8070409@yahoo-inc.com> <4655F109.6090907@yahoo-inc.com> X-SongbirdInformation: support@songbird.com for more information X-Songbird: Clean X-Songbird-From: qvantvs@gmail.com Cc: ARF mailing list 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: Thu, 24 May 2007 21:21:18 -0000 > If I'm understanding this correctly, your use case is: > > 1. Macy's sends (what they consider to be) a transactional message to a user > 2. the user reports it as spam to their ISP, via whatever mechanism > 3. the ISP reports it to Macy's, using ARF with a report type of "spam" > (which really just means "this user complained") > 4. now Macy's replies somehow to the ISP, using ARF with a report type > of "transactional" (which really means "the user had no right to > complain, tell them to suck it up") > 5. Macy's assumes that the ISP will smack their user for mis-reporting > the message as spam > > Correct? > > Has any ISP (or other likely report generator) expressed any interest in > smacking their users? Have any users expressed any interest in being > smacked? Holy Smokes! Not what I thinking or said at all! Quite frankly, before even considering this type of reply, I would have hoped you would have been more professional and sent it to me directly rather than sullying my employer's excellent worldwide reputation in a public forum. 1) What we consider to be a transactional message is what the CAN-SPAM ACT also considers a transactional message. 2,3) Given 4) We would reply to the ISP that this is a transactional message (if allowed to do so, which I ~thought~ was the basis of this conversation). Which I would hope would mean to the ISP, that a good corporate citizen has received the complaint and has actually done something with it rather than send to /dev/null. 5) And being good and trusted corporate citizens the ISP in question would not diminish our reputation scores over a misclassified email. Our excellent reputation IS what I am worried about keeping and promoting. I have ALWAYS supported the fine and excellent work done in this group as well as the others you and I have both participated in. In every company I have worked for, I have asked for and have received the highest level of support for implementing protocols such as SPF, DKIM, and adherence to the CAN-SPAM Act and I completely and utterly reject your notion that something less than an actual care and loyalty to our customers and their experience is our goal. I would like to continue to participate in this forum, but please, if you think I am off-base, or just plain loco, please direct those comments to me (even publicly) but not my employer whom is innocent of the slander here. Regards, Damon Sauer Received: from rsmtp1.corp.yahoo.com (rsmtp1.corp.yahoo.com [207.126.228.149]) by sb7.songbird.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l4OKtQd1028366 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 24 May 2007 13:55:26 -0700 Received: from jdfalk-mac-corp-yahoo-com.local (snvvpn1-10-72-72-c54.corp.yahoo.com [10.72.72.54]) (authenticated bits=0) by rsmtp1.corp.yahoo.com (8.13.8/8.13.6/y.rout) with ESMTP id l4OKtNx4044989 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 24 May 2007 13:55:23 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=serpent; d=yahoo-inc.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to: subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=LQXOY7W5iCXPMJSnr/AakUpsIweYTbC9KF0xcP981sy7BINoy142T4YFmsIqXg4p Message-ID: <4655FBBD.2080202@yahoo-inc.com> Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 13:55:25 -0700 From: "J.D. Falk" Organization: Yahoo! User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.8.1.3) Gecko/20070326 Thunderbird/2.0.0.0 Mnenhy/0.7.5.666 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ARF mailing list Subject: Re: "transactional" report type (was Re: [taugh.com-johnl] Re:[feedback-report] New version of the ARF draft) References: <20070522194403.X5548@simone.iecc.com> <4654D389.9060701@yahoo-inc.com><20070523225428.T908@simone.iecc.com> <4655C585.8070409@yahoo-inc.com> <4655F109.6090907@yahoo-inc.com> <0106A9A8C9515D43AC4DEE5FF416F6010870BF0A@OS-EXCHANGEI101.wsod.local> In-Reply-To: <0106A9A8C9515D43AC4DEE5FF416F6010870BF0A@OS-EXCHANGEI101.wsod.local> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SongbirdInformation: support@songbird.com for more information X-Songbird: Clean X-Songbird-From: jdfalk@yahoo-inc.com 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: Thu, 24 May 2007 20:55:37 -0000 On 2007-05-24 13:30, John Marlin wrote: > Is there any hope that users and ISPs would be willing to allow (or > require) the user to break out the spam designation further. You're right that this isn't related to the format, so I'll just quickly point you towards this study: http://www.returnpath.biz/resources/archives/2007/01/consumers_want.php -- J.D. Falk, Anti-Spam Product Manager Yahoo! Mail Received: from mail-gw.wallst.com (mail-gw.wallst.com [209.234.229.50]) by sb7.songbird.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l4OKUPCm023351 for ; Thu, 24 May 2007 13:30:25 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: RE: "transactional" report type (was Re: [taugh.com-johnl] Re:[feedback-report] New version of the ARF draft) Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 14:30:28 -0600 Message-ID: <0106A9A8C9515D43AC4DEE5FF416F6010870BF0A@OS-EXCHANGEI101.wsod.local> In-Reply-To: <4655F109.6090907@yahoo-inc.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: "transactional" report type (was Re: [taugh.com-johnl] Re:[feedback-report] New version of the ARF draft) Thread-Index: AceeQEPTWax5dksmQque3yqGHIZkEAAAE4LA References: <20070522194403.X5548@simone.iecc.com> <4654D389.9060701@yahoo-inc.com><20070523225428.T908@simone.iecc.com> <4655C585.8070409@yahoo-inc.com> <4655F109.6090907@yahoo-inc.com> From: "John Marlin" To: "ARF mailing list" X-SongbirdInformation: support@songbird.com for more information X-Songbird: Clean X-Songbird-From: john.marlin@wallst.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sb7.songbird.com id l4OKUPCm023351 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: Thu, 24 May 2007 20:30:35 -0000 Is there any hope that users and ISPs would be willing to allow (or require) the user to break out the spam designation further. I recall that GoodMail was (is?) doing something like this, where the user flagging an unwanted message would then be prompted to indicate whether this message is: A) truly spam from an unrelated party, B) an unwanted message from a company that I still otherwise do business with, C) something that I signed up for but no longer wish to receive, and some other categories that I can't seem to dredge up from my biological memory stick. Perhaps this doesn't really fit in this ARF discussion, but it seems like this could be a really useful distinction to be able to feed back through the system. Of course, in an ideal world, users would always choose the "Unsubscribe" link in the email, but in practice we know that users routinely hit the SPAM button instead, even when those users are our clients, have signed up for the messages in the first place, and often have happily been receiving these messages for months or years. > -----Original Message----- > From: abuse-feedback-report-bounces@mipassoc.org > [mailto:abuse-feedback-report-bounces@mipassoc.org] On Behalf > Of J.D. Falk > Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 14:10 2PM > To: ARF mailing list > Subject: "transactional" report type (was Re: > [taugh.com-johnl] Re:[feedback-report] New version of the ARF draft) > > On 2007-05-24 11:17, Damon Sauer wrote: > > > Everyday I am inundated with people marking their credit > card receipts > > and shipping confirmations as spam. Since I am sending all my > > transactional from a particular domain, I suppose it is > possible to do > > something with it.While the wording "This is not spam because it is > > transactional" would need some smithing it would go a long way in > > educating the user that would otherwise, for whatever > reason, mark it > > as spam and thereby reducing the amount of noise in the actual > > reporting. > > If I'm understanding this correctly, your use case is: > > 1. Macy's sends (what they consider to be) a transactional > message to a user 2. the user reports it as spam to their > ISP, via whatever mechanism 3. the ISP reports it to Macy's, > using ARF with a report type of "spam" > (which really just means "this user complained") 4. now > Macy's replies somehow to the ISP, using ARF with a report > type of "transactional" (which really means "the user had no > right to complain, tell them to suck it up") 5. Macy's > assumes that the ISP will smack their user for mis-reporting > the message as spam > > Correct? > > Has any ISP (or other likely report generator) expressed any > interest in smacking their users? Have any users expressed > any interest in being smacked? > > -- > J.D. Falk, Anti-Spam Product Manager > Yahoo! Mail > _______________________________________________ > abuse-feedback-report mailing list > abuse-feedback-report@mipassoc.org > http://mipassoc.org/mailman/listinfo/abuse-feedback-report > Received: from rsmtp2.corp.yahoo.com (rsmtp2.corp.yahoo.com [207.126.228.150]) by sb7.songbird.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l4OK9vv2018217 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 24 May 2007 13:09:57 -0700 Received: from jdfalk-mac-corp-yahoo-com.local (snvvpn1-10-72-72-c54.corp.yahoo.com [10.72.72.54]) (authenticated bits=0) by rsmtp2.corp.yahoo.com (8.13.8/8.13.6/y.rout) with ESMTP id l4OK9hUt054575 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 24 May 2007 13:09:43 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=serpent; d=yahoo-inc.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to: subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=hs1R03ZyiJdTB/rma9kpHOWkMPJajXttSmc9yQxyaXtZlk+KWzXM7TjvRkx06U5U Message-ID: <4655F109.6090907@yahoo-inc.com> Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 13:09:45 -0700 From: "J.D. Falk" Organization: Yahoo! User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.8.1.3) Gecko/20070326 Thunderbird/2.0.0.0 Mnenhy/0.7.5.666 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ARF mailing list Subject: "transactional" report type (was Re: [taugh.com-johnl] Re: [feedback-report] New version of the ARF draft) References: <20070522194403.X5548@simone.iecc.com> <4654D389.9060701@yahoo-inc.com> <20070523225428.T908@simone.iecc.com> <4655C585.8070409@yahoo-inc.com> In-Reply-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: Clean X-Songbird-From: jdfalk@yahoo-inc.com 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: Thu, 24 May 2007 20:10:12 -0000 On 2007-05-24 11:17, Damon Sauer wrote: > Everyday I am inundated with people marking their credit card receipts > and shipping confirmations as spam. Since I am sending all my > transactional from a particular domain, I suppose it is possible to do > something with it.While the wording "This is not spam because it is > transactional" would need some smithing it would go a long way in > educating the user that would otherwise, for whatever reason, mark it > as spam and thereby reducing the amount of noise in the actual > reporting. If I'm understanding this correctly, your use case is: 1. Macy's sends (what they consider to be) a transactional message to a user 2. the user reports it as spam to their ISP, via whatever mechanism 3. the ISP reports it to Macy's, using ARF with a report type of "spam" (which really just means "this user complained") 4. now Macy's replies somehow to the ISP, using ARF with a report type of "transactional" (which really means "the user had no right to complain, tell them to suck it up") 5. Macy's assumes that the ISP will smack their user for mis-reporting the message as spam Correct? Has any ISP (or other likely report generator) expressed any interest in smacking their users? Have any users expressed any interest in being smacked? -- J.D. Falk, Anti-Spam Product Manager Yahoo! Mail Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [208.31.42.53]) by sb7.songbird.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l4OJpaZv014346 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Thu, 24 May 2007 12:51:37 -0700 Received: (qmail 23000 invoked from network); 24 May 2007 19:51:39 -0000 Received: from simone.iecc.com (208.31.42.47) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 24 May 2007 19:51:39 -0000 Message-ID: <20070524195138.15801.qmail@simone.iecc.com> From: John Levine Newsgroups: iecc.abuse Subject: Re: [feedback-report] New version of the ARF draft Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 18:43:01 +0000 (UTC) Organization: Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: abuse-feedback-report@mipassoc.org In-Reply-To: X-SongbirdInformation: support@songbird.com for more information X-Songbird: Clean X-Songbird-From: prvs=johnl=06578613c3@iecc.com 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: Thu, 24 May 2007 19:51:43 -0000 > Everyday I am inundated with people marking their credit card > receipts and shipping confirmations as spam. Since I am sending all > my transactional from a particular domain, I suppose it is possible > to do something with it.While the wording "This is not spam because > it is transactional" would need some smithing it would go a long way > in educating the user that would otherwise, for whatever reason, > mark it as spam and thereby reducing the amount of noise in the > actual reporting. ARF is the wrong end of the hose for this. It makes tons of sense for you to mark your outgoing transactional mail (and for people to certify it so your marks are credible*), but ARF is what happens after someone pushes the spam button, too late to mark it there. R's, John * - so come talk to me about DAC and VBR, ok? --=154311=---- Received: from py-out-1112.google.com (py-out-1112.google.com [64.233.166.179]) by sb7.songbird.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l4OIHpQI027264 for ; Thu, 24 May 2007 11:17:51 -0700 Received: by py-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id a29so1019771pyi for ; Thu, 24 May 2007 11:17:54 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; 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; b=s3Z4ioEs4N7zthAbfTcUGM/3GPnaLxskNdJGY4zEdq18qKuhAkhZ/XnKrirnzRdqDlEpWfGia6T4LSuwUGeZa4TqxyjS8Hw9mKD0IChlf40xYItIOfGvNfxvFuZHKTUGZeLSt6jbFgaG1Wq9nuVTtt6Wk4YcOrtEnCqX/UztNEo= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=mobgXEWUh1Ywb5x0WCK+fXB0CSSqcbyWlMevJdXr0tKssd4staC3yy3AeujYTjBuKWRGA5mkYwX8/UfhqFryZV3VFSHbjfbwKvgQuVlvf8ONY9QY+ihuPrCkVf8F+aFj+wGXfb5yc3XyOVCb8uLStpbsY/GGQUKfDIRlFBlNrys= Received: by 10.35.17.12 with SMTP id u12mr3618231pyi.1180030674042; Thu, 24 May 2007 11:17:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.35.17.17 with HTTP; Thu, 24 May 2007 11:17:48 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 14:17:48 -0400 From: "Damon Sauer" To: "J.D. Falk" Subject: Re: [taugh.com-johnl] Re: [feedback-report] New version of the ARF draft In-Reply-To: <4655C585.8070409@yahoo-inc.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20070522194403.X5548@simone.iecc.com> <4654D389.9060701@yahoo-inc.com> <20070523225428.T908@simone.iecc.com> <4655C585.8070409@yahoo-inc.com> X-SongbirdInformation: support@songbird.com for more information X-Songbird: Clean X-Songbird-From: qvantvs@gmail.com Cc: ARF mailing list 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: Thu, 24 May 2007 18:17:55 -0000 On 5/24/07, J.D. Falk wrote: > On 2007-05-24 06:49, Damon Sauer wrote: > > > How about adding one more: > > I know a big one for me is * transactional. Where a user is part of a > > group or system that sends messages regarding status or account > > changes, billing, receipts, etc. > > I think this would cover a great deal of the *not-spam reports and > > would help catagorize them better. > > How would this be used? Would users be shown "this is not spam" and > "this is not spam because it is transactional" options when reporting > miscategorization? Or, would the report generator use some sort of > content matching? > > Also, is this the CAN-SPAM definition of "transactional," or the > Goodmail definition, or...? > > -- > J.D. Falk, Anti-Spam Product Manager > Yahoo! Mail Of course the legal definition is the one I would choose :-) I am now wearing the hat of postmaster at Macy's. (And contrary to a recent report in USAToday, I added DKIM sigs to all our Macys.com transactional email 6 months ago.) Everyday I am inundated with people marking their credit card receipts and shipping confirmations as spam. Since I am sending all my transactional from a particular domain, I suppose it is possible to do something with it.While the wording "This is not spam because it is transactional" would need some smithing it would go a long way in educating the user that would otherwise, for whatever reason, mark it as spam and thereby reducing the amount of noise in the actual reporting. I am certainly not standing on the soapbox shouting. Just offering suggestions from the responsible neighbor (corporate) viewpoint and letting you guys poke holes. Damon Received: from rsmtp2.corp.yahoo.com (rsmtp2.corp.yahoo.com [207.126.228.150]) by sb7.songbird.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l4OH4GLj005934 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 24 May 2007 10:04:16 -0700 Received: from jdfalk-mac-corp-yahoo-com.local (snvvpn1-10-72-72-c54.corp.yahoo.com [10.72.72.54]) (authenticated bits=0) by rsmtp2.corp.yahoo.com (8.13.8/8.13.6/y.rout) with ESMTP id l4OH43FG034470 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 24 May 2007 10:04:03 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=serpent; d=yahoo-inc.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to: subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=GFjtAJ2Lmz60Hx3EieCcpow8qGKXQHBWBbh0SuGDpVywXj+HmICcIJHRW4mtrYhy Message-ID: <4655C585.8070409@yahoo-inc.com> Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 10:04:05 -0700 From: "J.D. Falk" Organization: Yahoo! User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.8.1.3) Gecko/20070326 Thunderbird/2.0.0.0 Mnenhy/0.7.5.666 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ARF mailing list Subject: Re: [taugh.com-johnl] Re: [feedback-report] New version of the ARF draft References: <20070522194403.X5548@simone.iecc.com> <4654D389.9060701@yahoo-inc.com> <20070523225428.T908@simone.iecc.com> In-Reply-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: Clean X-Songbird-From: jdfalk@yahoo-inc.com 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: Thu, 24 May 2007 17:04:22 -0000 On 2007-05-24 06:49, Damon Sauer wrote: > How about adding one more: > I know a big one for me is * transactional. Where a user is part of a > group or system that sends messages regarding status or account > changes, billing, receipts, etc. > I think this would cover a great deal of the *not-spam reports and > would help catagorize them better. How would this be used? Would users be shown "this is not spam" and "this is not spam because it is transactional" options when reporting miscategorization? Or, would the report generator use some sort of content matching? Also, is this the CAN-SPAM definition of "transactional," or the Goodmail definition, or...? -- J.D. Falk, Anti-Spam Product Manager Yahoo! Mail Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [208.31.42.53]) by sb7.songbird.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l4OGcwav027656 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Thu, 24 May 2007 09:39:01 -0700 Received: (qmail 25961 invoked from network); 24 May 2007 16:39:01 -0000 Received: from simone.iecc.com (208.31.42.47) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 24 May 2007 16:39:01 -0000 Received: from localhost (sendmail-bs@127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 24 May 2007 16:39:01 -0000 Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 12:39:01 -0400 (EDT) From: John R Levine To: Damon Sauer Subject: Re: [feedback-report] New version of the ARF draft In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20070524114043.T85741@simone.iecc.com> References: <20070522194403.X5548@simone.iecc.com> <4654D389.9060701@yahoo-inc.com> <20070523225428.T908@simone.iecc.com> Cleverness: None detected MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-SongbirdInformation: support@songbird.com for more information X-Songbird: Clean X-Songbird-From: prvs=johnl=0657ad3ee1@taugh.com Cc: ARF mailing list 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: Thu, 24 May 2007 16:39:07 -0000 >> * miscategorized - indicates that the content categorization applied in >> connection with a certification or reputation system was incorrect >> * not-spam - indicates that a message that was tagged or categorized as >> spam (such as by an ISP) is not spam > How about adding one more: > I know a big one for me is * transactional. Where a user is part of a > group or system that sends messages regarding status or account > changes, billing, receipts, etc. > I think this would cover a great deal of the *not-spam reports and > would help catagorize them better. While we presumably all agree that we generally want to treat transactional mail better than most other mail from large senders*, I don't think this is a good way to do it. We know that users won't distinguish between spam and opt-out, they don't even understand the difference between opt-out and opt-out-list, they just want whatever it is to stop. Similarly, people seem somewhat willing to press a not-spam button, but it seems equally implausible that they will tell us why it's not spam. If certification a la VBR gets any traction, a lot of mail will have assertions in a header about whether a message is a transaction, something that senders have plenty of incentive to add, so if you want to treat them more favorably, there's your tag. I'm not opposed to adding subcategories at some point in the future, but I'd rather experiment first, add to the spec later. Incidentally, if you're wondering why I think "miscategorized" is OK, it's because it's orthogonal to spam/not-spam. It's entirely possible that I would get mail from a bank, and I would see that it's not a transaction, but it's not spam, either. Regards, John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY "I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly. * - note all the hedging and qualification Received: from py-out-1112.google.com (py-out-1112.google.com [64.233.166.179]) by sb7.songbird.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l4ODnpFM015576 for ; Thu, 24 May 2007 06:49:52 -0700 Received: by py-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id a29so908189pyi for ; Thu, 24 May 2007 06:49:54 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; 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; b=QbR7g6AIh3y3/PBVmIT7edaIa4mAHio5l7qW6RgGCTTl+92rOUQlm7IFqzVe5qGVLOu4LSHW5SW0ymZBZ0JhfEBdTok6v7WsZJk9tdkSWX+SIkZdKRGV3uYPCCLETPz8bMuVi5uSGuAZWDS4Am3/F1PBmqAuqzHM0WhEGRWvg0E= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=P/YaIpEb0rA2757jsbWZUCPAYdjJo8STopLhz6SYONhKFKbFdC/HZYdIuAffoW5Ma1EAxiRscXai68dryhKRAaGtOoZUq1Gd2ojxEqVWPnHwsg2SM12wlMv4ywPRBkcFVwEGnJjAMizK06fNh6fJ1vG7+3AndBgL2xmCLaX+bGc= Received: by 10.35.82.15 with SMTP id j15mr327527pyl.1180014594763; Thu, 24 May 2007 06:49:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.35.17.17 with HTTP; Thu, 24 May 2007 06:49:54 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 09:49:54 -0400 From: "Damon Sauer" To: "John R Levine" Subject: Re: [taugh.com-johnl] Re: [feedback-report] New version of the ARF draft In-Reply-To: <20070523225428.T908@simone.iecc.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20070522194403.X5548@simone.iecc.com> <4654D389.9060701@yahoo-inc.com> <20070523225428.T908@simone.iecc.com> X-SongbirdInformation: support@songbird.com for more information X-Songbird: Clean X-Songbird-From: qvantvs@gmail.com Cc: ARF mailing list 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: Thu, 24 May 2007 13:50:04 -0000 On 5/23/07, John R Levine wrote: > >> * miscategorized - indicates that the content categorization applied in > >> connection with a certification or reputation system was incorrect > > > > What'll this be used for? > > I added it for VBR but it's intended to be more general. We observe that > certification or reputation systems will probably have different opinions > about different kinds of mail, e.g., a bank regulator would vouch for the > banks' transactions but not their ads. Lacking A.I. to tell mechanically > what category a message falls into, we expect senders to put assertions > into a header (VBR, for example), that this is a transaction, this is an > ad, etc. This code means they lied, it claimed to be one thing but was > really another. > > >> * not-spam - indicates that a message that was tagged or categorized as > >> spam (such as by an ISP) is not spam > >> > >> The former is intended to send back to a certifier or reputation provider, > >> the second to your own ISP or mail host to tune their filters. > > > > Doh, I should've thought of that. *grin* How about adding one more: I know a big one for me is * transactional. Where a user is part of a group or system that sends messages regarding status or account changes, billing, receipts, etc. I think this would cover a great deal of the *not-spam reports and would help catagorize them better. Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [208.31.42.53]) by sb7.songbird.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l4O3bTiU018881 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Wed, 23 May 2007 20:37:32 -0700 Received: (qmail 30725 invoked from network); 24 May 2007 03:37:32 -0000 Received: from simone.iecc.com (208.31.42.47) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 24 May 2007 03:37:32 -0000 Received: from localhost (sendmail-bs@127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 24 May 2007 03:37:32 -0000 Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 23:37:32 -0400 (EDT) From: John R Levine To: "J.D. Falk" Subject: Re: [taugh.com-johnl] Re: [feedback-report] New version of the ARF draft In-Reply-To: <4654D389.9060701@yahoo-inc.com> Message-ID: <20070523225428.T908@simone.iecc.com> References: <20070522194403.X5548@simone.iecc.com> <4654D389.9060701@yahoo-inc.com> Cleverness: None detected MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-SongbirdInformation: support@songbird.com for more information X-Songbird: Clean X-Songbird-From: prvs=johnl=0657ad3ee1@taugh.com Cc: ARF mailing list 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: Thu, 24 May 2007 03:37:46 -0000 >> * miscategorized - indicates that the content categorization applied in >> connection with a certification or reputation system was incorrect > > What'll this be used for? I added it for VBR but it's intended to be more general. We observe that certification or reputation systems will probably have different opinions about different kinds of mail, e.g., a bank regulator would vouch for the banks' transactions but not their ads. Lacking A.I. to tell mechanically what category a message falls into, we expect senders to put assertions into a header (VBR, for example), that this is a transaction, this is an ad, etc. This code means they lied, it claimed to be one thing but was really another. >> * not-spam - indicates that a message that was tagged or categorized as >> spam (such as by an ISP) is not spam >> >> The former is intended to send back to a certifier or reputation provider, >> the second to your own ISP or mail host to tune their filters. > > Doh, I should've thought of that. *grin* Yeah, the hope is to put together the pieces to enable add-ins to regular MUAs with a spam/not-spam button that actually works like the ones AOL and Yahoo have. This is one piece, it also needs something in the mail to say "we delivered this to you and we thought it was/wasn't spam". It occurs to me that this is only a small step beyond Murray's draft about authentication results. >> 1. Whether encoding of the machine readable part should be limited to 7-bit > It should follow the same convention as email addresses and URIs, whatever > that is these days. The scenario is that you have a spam in hand where some characters have the high bit set, probably because some piece of Korean spamware blatted it out that way. Since SMTP is usually only 7 bit, how do you send back the copy of the spam. The he-man approach is to use 8BITMIME, do content negotiation for each SMTP hop, and downcode if need be. The wimpy approach is just to use base64 on the way out. Since everyone in the world speaks base64, and downcoding on the way has all sorts of problems such as breaking any signature on the ARF message, I vote for the latter. >> 2. Whether there is a need for both "opt-out" and "opt-out-list", >> and whether this format should be used for opt-outs at all. > I say change it to "unsubscribe" Remember that we're supposed to reflect existing practice. Has anyone ever seen an opt-out or opt-out-list in the wild? If so, we gotta leave them in, if not, change is fine. >> 3. Whether the "from" address should be required to be a human just >> like other RFCs in the "message/report" family. > > No, but the address SHOULD accept messages (vs. bouncing 'em) -- Well, keeping in mind actual practice, the actual ARF messages I see mostly come from scomp@aol.net and fbl@abuse.earthlink.net. I haven't tried writing to those addresses. Anyone know who or what answers? > If there were such an indicator, would the mungers in the room use it? Good question. > Now for the draft itself (I may have submitted the same comments on previous > drafts, not sure.) I'll collect comments for another day or so and do another version. I'd like to send it off to I-D on Monday to give it a week to get into the I-D archive. Regards, John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY "I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly. Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [208.31.42.53]) by sb7.songbird.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l4O2mVjT011371 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Wed, 23 May 2007 19:48:32 -0700 Received: (qmail 86852 invoked from network); 24 May 2007 02:48:35 -0000 Received: from simone.iecc.com (208.31.42.47) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 24 May 2007 02:48:35 -0000 Received: from localhost (sendmail-bs@127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 24 May 2007 02:48:35 -0000 Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 22:48:35 -0400 (EDT) From: John R Levine To: ARF mailing list Subject: Re: [feedback-report] Defintion of "Received-Date: " Message-ID: <20070523224822.F99226@simone.iecc.com> Cleverness: None detected MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-SongbirdInformation: support@songbird.com for more information X-Songbird: Clean X-Songbird-From: prvs=johnl=0657ad3ee1@taugh.com 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: Thu, 24 May 2007 02:48:36 -0000 > "Received-Date:" - indicates the date the original message was received by > the report generator. This field MUST BE formatted as per section 3.3 of > RFC 2822 [RFC2822]. ... > Perhaps a better definition would be "..received in the final destination > inbox" or something along these lines? Good suggestion, I'll reword it. I think we all agree that the intention is to log the time that the offending message arrived at the reporting system. so the recipient of the report can use the timestamp to find the offending message in their outbound logs. R's, John Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [208.31.42.53]) by sb7.songbird.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l4O29KSQ006505 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Wed, 23 May 2007 19:09:21 -0700 Received: (qmail 50503 invoked from network); 24 May 2007 02:09:23 -0000 Received: from simone.iecc.com (208.31.42.47) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 24 May 2007 02:09:23 -0000 Received: from localhost (sendmail-bs@127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 24 May 2007 02:09:23 -0000 Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 22:09:23 -0400 (EDT) From: John R Levine To: ARF mailing list Subject: Re: [feedback-report] Defintion of "Received-Date: " Message-ID: <20070523220911.W76697@simone.iecc.com> Cleverness: None detected MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-SongbirdInformation: support@songbird.com for more information X-Songbird: Clean X-Songbird-From: prvs=johnl=0657ad3ee1@taugh.com 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: Thu, 24 May 2007 02:09:38 -0000 > "Received-Date:" - indicates the date the original message was received by > the report generator. This field MUST BE formatted as per section 3.3 of > RFC 2822 [RFC2822]. ... > Perhaps a better definition would be "..received in the final destination > inbox" or something along these lines? Good suggestion, I'll reword it. I think we all agree that the intention is to log the time that the offending message arrived at the reporting system. so the recipient of the report can use the timestamp to find the offending message in their outbound logs. R's, John Received: from rsmtp2.corp.yahoo.com (rsmtp2.corp.yahoo.com [207.126.228.150]) by sb7.songbird.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l4NNpj5V018901 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 23 May 2007 16:51:45 -0700 Received: from jdfalk-mac.corp.yahoo.com (jdfalk-mac.corp.yahoo.com [10.72.109.95]) (authenticated bits=0) by rsmtp2.corp.yahoo.com (8.13.8/8.13.6/y.rout) with ESMTP id l4NNpaWC078825 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 23 May 2007 16:51:37 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=serpent; d=yahoo-inc.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc: subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=ChST3vJNaFng2xbCghI6XTKDwZyMPDKmX/B9JuxLEBTmG4VjNnPruIEsCMgDuzaK Message-ID: <4654D389.9060701@yahoo-inc.com> Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 16:51:37 -0700 From: "J.D. Falk" Organization: Yahoo! User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.8.1.3) Gecko/20070326 Thunderbird/2.0.0.0 Mnenhy/0.7.5.666 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John R Levine Subject: Re: [feedback-report] New version of the ARF draft References: <20070522194403.X5548@simone.iecc.com> In-Reply-To: <20070522194403.X5548@simone.iecc.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SongbirdInformation: support@songbird.com for more information X-Songbird: Clean X-Songbird-From: jdfalk@yahoo-inc.com Cc: ARF mailing list 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: Wed, 23 May 2007 23:51:50 -0000 On 2007-05-22 16:44, John R Levine wrote: > * miscategorized - indicates that the content categorization applied in > connection with a certification or reputation system was incorrect What'll this be used for? > * not-spam - indicates that a message that was tagged or categorized as > spam (such as by an ISP) is not spam > > The former is intended to send back to a certifier or reputation provider, the > second to your own ISP or mail host to tune their filters. Doh, I should've thought of that. *grin* > Near the end, there's a list of questions added in previous versions. If we > can agree on the answers to some or all of them we can update the draft and > take out the questions. > > 1. Whether encoding of the machine readable part should be limited > to 7-bit It should follow the same convention as email addresses and URIs, whatever that is these days. > 2. Whether there is a need for both "opt-out" and "opt-out-list", > and whether this format should be used for opt-outs at all. I say change it to "unsubscribe" (to comply with the usage in the List-Unsubscribe header) and include a warning that most mailing list management software doesn't understand ARF and possibly never will. > 3. Whether the "from" address should be required to be a human just > like other RFCs in the "message/report" family. No, but the address SHOULD accept messages (vs. bouncing 'em) -- and if the address is one which is not read (devnull, etc) there SHOULD be a way to contact a responsible party for the report generator, either described in the human-readable portion or negotiated out-of-band beforehand. > 4. Whether there is a need for a new header to indicate munging of > the included email message. I don't see the need, but I don't really care as long as it's optional. If there were such an indicator, would the mungers in the room use it? > 5. Whether different type of convention should be allowed for > subject lines. I doubt this will get much compliance. > 6. Whether there should be different types defined for > "Reported-Uri" to better indicate to the report receiver how they are > related to the email message in question. There are so many edge cases here that I suspect our brains would explode if we attempted to categorize even the 100 most common. (The #1 most common is "you own the IP and signed up to receive these reports," obviously, but from there it gets complicated.) Now for the draft itself (I may have submitted the same comments on previous drafts, not sure.) > 1. Introduction > > As the spam problem has grown in the past few years, network > operators have begun to exchange abuse reports among themselves and > other parties to combat this problem. However, different operators > define their own formats and the receivers are forced to write custom > software to interpret the many types of them. In addition, many > operators use various other report formats to provide non-abuse > feedback about processed email. As the spam problem continues to expand and potential solutions evolve, network operators are increasingly exchanging abuse reports among themselves and other parties. However, different operators have defined their own formats, and thus the receivers of these reports are forced to write custom software to interpret each. In addition, many operators use various other report formats to provide non-abuse-related feedback about processed email. [ . . . ] > This format is intended primarily as an Abuse Reporting Format (ARF) > for reporting email abuse but also includes support for feedback > loops, virus reports and other similar activities. This format is intended primarily as an Abuse Reporting Format (ARF) for reporting email abuse but also includes support for direct feedback via end user mail clients, reports of some types of virus activity, and some similar issues. > This document only defines the format and content type to be used for > these reports. Determination of where these reports should be sent, > how trust among report senders and receivers is established, and > reports related to more than one message are outside the scope of > this document. This document only defines the format and content type to be used for these reports. Determination of where these reports should be sent, how trust among report generators and report recipients is established, and reports related to more than one message are outside the scope of this document. It is assumed that best practices will evolve over time, and will be codified in future documents. [ . . . ] > 2. Intent > > The reports defined in this document are intended for several > purposes: > > o To inform ISPs about email abuse originating from or related to > their networks > > o To provide feedback about abuse complaints to email service > providers and relevant third parties (such as reputation > providers) [ . . . ] > o To inform email service provides about opt-out requests o To inform email service providers or other primarily outbound senders that there may be issues regarding their mail. These issues include (but are not limited to) reports that the mail may be considered to be "spam" by a recipient of the message. Need a statement about certification & reputation systems. [ . . . ] > 5. Format of 'message/feedback-report' Content Type > > This content type provides a machine-readable section intended to let > the report generator convey metadata to the report receiver. The > intent of this section is it allow report generators to convey > metadata to report receivers that may not available or may not be > readily available from the originating email message or headers. This content type provides a machine-readable section intended to let the report generator convey metadata to the report receiver. The intent of this section is to convey information which may not be obvious or may not be easily extracted from the originating email message or headers. > The body of this content type consists of multiple "fields" formatted > according to the ABNF of RFC 822 [RFC0822] header "fields". This > section defines the initial set of fields provided by this > specification. Additional fields maybe registered according to the > procedure described later on in this document. These fields SHOULD NOT be repeated in the header area of the message containing this report. > Note that these > fields represent information that the receiver is asserting about the > report in question, but are not necessarily verifiable. Report > receivers MUST NOT assume that these assertions are always true. Maybe change "true" to "accurate?" [ . . . ] > 5.1. Required Fields [ . . . ] > o "User-Agent:" - indicates the name and version of the software > program that generated the report. The format of this field MUST > follow section 14.43 of RFC 2616 [RFC2616]. A report receiver MUST NOT assume that the set of potential User-Agents is finite. [ . . . ] > o "Version" - indicates the version of specification that the report > generator is using to generate the report. The version number in > this specification is set to "0.1". Will we change that to 1.0 upon publication? > o "Received-Date:" - indicates the date the original message was > received by the report generator. This field MUST BE formatted as > per section 3.3 of RFC 2822 [RFC2822]. Likely edge case: what if the report generator isn't the user's ISP? [ . . . ] > o "Authentication-Results:" - indicates the result of an > authentication check run by the report generator. The format of > this field is is defined in draft-kucherawy-sender-auth-header > [AUTH-HEADER]. Report receivers should note that this field only > indicates an assertion made by the report generator. Murray told me that he's hoping to have a new draft ready shortly. [ . . . ] > 8.2. Initial values for the "Feedback-Type" registry [ . . . ] > o miscategorized - indicates that the content categorization applied > in connection with a certification or reputation system was > incorrect [ . . . ] > o not-spam - indicates that a message that was tagged or categorized > as spam (such as by an ISP) is not spam Looks like these two could overlap a lot. Where's the line? -- J.D. Falk, Anti-Spam Product Manager Yahoo! Mail Received: from mx1.goodmailsystems.com (mx1.goodmailsystems.com [67.110.227.25]) by sb7.songbird.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l4NJP3w3004302 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Wed, 23 May 2007 12:25:03 -0700 Received: (qmail 2135 invoked by uid 1028); 23 May 2007 19:25:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO justint41) (authenticated:justin@[10.34.2.106]) (envelope-sender ) by mx1.goodmailsystems.com (qmail-ldap-1.03) with RC4-MD5 encrypted SMTP for ; 23 May 2007 19:25:06 -0000 From: "Justin Rietz" To: References: <200705231900.l4NJ02jP031243@sb7.songbird.com> Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 12:25:10 -0700 Message-ID: <004b01c79d70$140cf540$f303220a@justint41> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Thread-Index: Acedbh4UWMUQ19LxQ+K7+xVzzOSo/wAAI2qQ X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028 In-Reply-To: <200705231900.l4NJ02jP031243@sb7.songbird.com> X-SongbirdInformation: support@songbird.com for more information X-Songbird: Clean X-Songbird-From: justin@goodmailsystems.com Subject: [feedback-report] Defintion of "Received-Date:" WAS abuse-feedback-report Digest, Vol 16, Issue 6 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: Wed, 23 May 2007 19:25:07 -0000 Sorry for the late comment. I have been working both with internal and external engineers on implementing various systems using ARF. Inevitably there is confusion over the defintion of the "Received-Date:" field. "Received-Date:" - indicates the date the original message was received by the report generator. This field MUST BE formatted as per section 3.3 of RFC 2822 [RFC2822]. The confusion comes from the words "Report Generator". Some take this to mean the recipient of the original email (i.e. the end user) and some take this to mean the application / process at the ISP that generates the ARF message after a user clicks a "spam" button.. Obviously the field values would differ based upon which definitions is followed Perhaps a better definition would be "..received in the final destination inbox" or something along these lines? Justin Justin Rietz Goodmail Systems -----Original Message----- From: abuse-feedback-report-bounces@mipassoc.org [mailto:abuse-feedback-report-bounces@mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of abuse-feedback-report-request@mipassoc.org Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 12:00 PM To: abuse-feedback-report@mipassoc.org Subject: abuse-feedback-report Digest, Vol 16, Issue 6 Send abuse-feedback-report mailing list submissions to abuse-feedback-report@mipassoc.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://mipassoc.org/mailman/listinfo/abuse-feedback-report or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to abuse-feedback-report-request@mipassoc.org You can reach the person managing the list at abuse-feedback-report-owner@mipassoc.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of abuse-feedback-report digest..." Today's Topics: 1. New version of the ARF draft (John R Levine) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 19:44:17 -0400 (EDT) From: John R Levine Subject: [feedback-report] New version of the ARF draft To: ARF mailing list Message-ID: <20070522194403.X5548@simone.iecc.com> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed I put it here, in xml and html: http://www.taugh.com/arf/. It would be nice to have a new draft sent in to I-D in time for MAAWG. Paul and I went through and fixed a bunch of stuff that made xml2rfc complain (if it complains, the RFC editor will complain), along with what are intended to be minor edits for style and consistency. We added these two feedback types. If people hate them, we can take them back out: * miscategorized - indicates that the content categorization applied in connection with a certification or reputation system was incorrect * not-spam - indicates that a message that was tagged or categorized as spam (such as by an ISP) is not spam The former is intended to send back to a certifier or reputation provider, the second to your own ISP or mail host to tune their filters. Like every other content type, these are just assertions by whoever's sending the report, which the receiving system is free to interpret or not interpret any way it wants. Near the end, there's a list of questions added in previous versions. If we can agree on the answers to some or all of them we can update the draft and take out the questions. 1. Whether encoding of the machine readable part should be limited to 7-bit 2. Whether there is a need for both "opt-out" and "opt-out-list", and whether this format should be used for opt-outs at all. 3. Whether the "from" address should be required to be a human just like other RFCs in the "message/report" family. 4. Whether there is a need for a new header to indicate munging of the included email message. 5. Whether different type of convention should be allowed for subject lines. 6. Whether there should be different types defined for "Reported-Uri" to better indicate to the report receiver how they are related to the email message in question. Suggested answers: 1. yes, everyone can decode base64 and it avoids issues of silent munging by intermediate systems 3, 5, and 6. no, current practice is that they are whatever the reporting party wants them to be 4. no, current practice doesn't, "it's munged" doesn't tell you anything of use that you couldn't guess anyway, and if you ask people to tell you exactly how it's munged, they won't. R's, John 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. ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ abuse-feedback-report mailing list abuse-feedback-report@mipassoc.org http://mipassoc.org/mailman/listinfo/abuse-feedback-report End of abuse-feedback-report Digest, Vol 16, Issue 6 **************************************************** Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [208.31.42.53]) by sb7.songbird.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l4MNiHr2020560 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Tue, 22 May 2007 16:44:23 -0700 Received: (qmail 83161 invoked from network); 22 May 2007 23:44:17 -0000 Received: from simone.iecc.com (208.31.42.47) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 22 May 2007 23:44:17 -0000 Received: from localhost (sendmail-bs@127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 22 May 2007 23:44:17 -0000 Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 19:44:17 -0400 (EDT) From: John R Levine To: ARF mailing list Message-ID: <20070522194403.X5548@simone.iecc.com> Cleverness: None detected MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-SongbirdInformation: support@songbird.com for more information X-Songbird: Clean X-Songbird-From: prvs=johnl=06558aa751@taugh.com Subject: [feedback-report] New version of the ARF draft 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: Tue, 22 May 2007 23:44:27 -0000 I put it here, in xml and html: http://www.taugh.com/arf/. It would be nice to have a new draft sent in to I-D in time for MAAWG. Paul and I went through and fixed a bunch of stuff that made xml2rfc complain (if it complains, the RFC editor will complain), along with what are intended to be minor edits for style and consistency. We added these two feedback types. If people hate them, we can take them back out: * miscategorized - indicates that the content categorization applied in connection with a certification or reputation system was incorrect * not-spam - indicates that a message that was tagged or categorized as spam (such as by an ISP) is not spam The former is intended to send back to a certifier or reputation provider, the second to your own ISP or mail host to tune their filters. Like every other content type, these are just assertions by whoever's sending the report, which the receiving system is free to interpret or not interpret any way it wants. Near the end, there's a list of questions added in previous versions. If we can agree on the answers to some or all of them we can update the draft and take out the questions. 1. Whether encoding of the machine readable part should be limited to 7-bit 2. Whether there is a need for both "opt-out" and "opt-out-list", and whether this format should be used for opt-outs at all. 3. Whether the "from" address should be required to be a human just like other RFCs in the "message/report" family. 4. Whether there is a need for a new header to indicate munging of the included email message. 5. Whether different type of convention should be allowed for subject lines. 6. Whether there should be different types defined for "Reported-Uri" to better indicate to the report receiver how they are related to the email message in question. Suggested answers: 1. yes, everyone can decode base64 and it avoids issues of silent munging by intermediate systems 3, 5, and 6. no, current practice is that they are whatever the reporting party wants them to be 4. no, current practice doesn't, "it's munged" doesn't tell you anything of use that you couldn't guess anyway, and if you ask people to tell you exactly how it's munged, they won't. R's, John 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. Received: from mout.perfora.net (mout.perfora.net [74.208.4.194]) by sb7.songbird.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l4F32CGD014415 for ; Mon, 14 May 2007 20:02:12 -0700 Received: from [72.85.47.49] (helo=[192.168.1.11]) by mrelay.perfora.net (node=mrus1) with ESMTP (Nemesis), id 0MKpCa-1HnnIh0kJN-0001Z3; Mon, 14 May 2007 23:02:12 -0400 Message-ID: <464922B8.9060902@solidmatrix.com> Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 23:02:16 -0400 From: Yakov Shafranovich Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326) MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: ARF mailing list Subject: Re: [feedback-report] Revised ARF draft References: <20070514223410.N34113@simone.iecc.com> In-Reply-To: <20070514223410.N34113@simone.iecc.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX19vr9+TbrTzCayvk3dBm+Up4N0Xq1b9c3s/WML ozr6ThpzrvdG2y5LtKFy1etV64SIj0Lt70UUcoOrS7KrX67ISI A7cpIWrWZXxOTruE96/eFAibIQH5cJA X-SongbirdInformation: support@songbird.com for more information X-Songbird: Clean X-Songbird-From: yakovs@solidmatrix.com 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: Tue, 15 May 2007 03:02:17 -0000 John R Levine wrote: > It'd be nice to have a live draft to work on by the time of the MAAWG > meeting. So please send me your suggestions and I will bash something > together. > > Based on last week's messages, I hear a consensus that we will not add > any more report types, but will put in language asking IANA to establish > a registry for them. > That language is already in the last draft I did: http://www.shaftek.org/publications/drafts/abuse-report/draft-shafranovich-feedback-report-01.html#anchor11 You just have to change it from expert managed. Yakov Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [208.31.42.53]) by sb7.songbird.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l4F2YSOL009684 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Mon, 14 May 2007 19:34:30 -0700 Received: (qmail 20989 invoked from network); 15 May 2007 02:34:31 -0000 Received: from simone.iecc.com (208.31.42.47) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 15 May 2007 02:34:31 -0000 Received: from localhost (sendmail-bs@127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 15 May 2007 02:34:31 -0000 Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 22:34:31 -0400 (EDT) From: John R Levine To: ARF mailing list Message-ID: <20070514223410.N34113@simone.iecc.com> Cleverness: None detected MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-SongbirdInformation: support@songbird.com for more information X-Songbird: Clean X-Songbird-From: prvs=johnl=0648c47ae2@taugh.com Subject: [feedback-report] Revised ARF draft 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: Tue, 15 May 2007 02:34:43 -0000 It'd be nice to have a live draft to work on by the time of the MAAWG meeting. So please send me your suggestions and I will bash something together. Based on last week's messages, I hear a consensus that we will not add any more report types, but will put in language asking IANA to establish a registry for them. 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. Received: from mout.perfora.net (mout.perfora.net [74.208.4.195]) by sb7.songbird.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l4841slT007249 for ; Mon, 7 May 2007 21:01:55 -0700 Received: from [72.85.6.94] (helo=[192.168.1.11]) by mrelay.perfora.net (node=mrus1) with ESMTP (Nemesis), id 0MKpCa-1HlGtf1kdJ-0007gd; Tue, 08 May 2007 00:01:56 -0400 Message-ID: <463FF647.60605@solidmatrix.com> Date: Tue, 08 May 2007 00:02:15 -0400 From: Yakov Shafranovich Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: abuse-feedback-report@mipassoc.org Subject: Re: [taugh.com-johnl] Re: [feedback-report] How's that revised ARF draft coming along? References: <20070504225622.M40014@simone.iecc.com> <463D5C3C.2050207@solidmatrix.com> <20070506005116.U14381@simone.iecc.com> In-Reply-To: <20070506005116.U14381@simone.iecc.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/sQnNZooRgiUP+vpoLFXj0dbyWginfsupfT0/ 1l6g0jotYsurOYjqVgHoaT7FKg2rK2flrivBdp41WLhJW2nqxb CQcJzeod2mbqHG+4/8QugXb8o3C9rog X-SongbirdInformation: support@songbird.com for more information X-Songbird: Clean X-Songbird-From: yakovs@solidmatrix.com 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: Tue, 08 May 2007 04:02:11 -0000 John R Levine wrote: >> Any idea on what is left to do for it, aside for editing, etc? Where >> there any features that need to be added? > > As far as I know, it's just editing. I might want to add another couple > of report types for use in spam/not-spam feedback to one's own ISP, but > it's not urgent. > You can go right ahead. Unfortunatly, I don't have the time to do it properly myself. Yakov Received: from [192.168.0.4] (adsl-68-122-40-222.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net [68.122.40.222]) (authenticated bits=0) by sb7.songbird.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l482dMu6027704 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 7 May 2007 19:39:22 -0700 Message-ID: <463FE2B3.8060009@dcrocker.net> Date: Mon, 07 May 2007 19:38:43 -0700 From: Dave Crocker Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: abuse-feedback-report@mipassoc.org Subject: Re: [taugh.com-johnl] Re: [feedback-report] How's that revised ARF draft coming along? References: <20070504225622.M40014@simone.iecc.com> <463D5C3C.2050207@solidmatrix.com> <20070506005116.U14381@simone.iecc.com> <463F693E.1070205@yahoo-inc.com> <463F7A8F.9040806@dcrocker.net> <20070507161943.E83611@simone.iecc.com> <463FAEAE.8060902@solidmatrix.com> <463FBD80.1030901@dcrocker.net> <20070507205201.D48908@simone.iecc.com> In-Reply-To: <20070507205201.D48908@simone.iecc.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SongbirdInformation: support@songbird.com for more information X-Songbird: Clean X-Songbird-From: dhc@dcrocker.net X-BeenThere: abuse-feedback-report@mipassoc.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net 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: Tue, 08 May 2007 02:39:28 -0000 John R Levine wrote: >> Whether registry entries need policing enforcement, rather than simple >> bookkeeping rules, is a basic question to decide now. > > I'm with you, so long as the proposed entry has a description of what it > does that is reasonably coherent, add it in. We're talking about > strings here, it's not like we're going to run out of namespace. My own bias is towards requiring RFC publication of a spec for the behaviors associated with the registered name. That's a high bar, but does not require formal standardization. I'm not religiously opposed to simple FCFS, but I really do think that creating a public, formal registration ought to require an archival version of a spec to explain it. If we believe there will be lots of private experimentation, with some of it migrating to more general use, then FCFS is probably the better choice. I doubt it will be that wild and active a time for ARF... d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net Received: from m.wordtothewise.com (fruitbat.wordtothewise.com [208.187.80.135]) by sb7.songbird.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l481Oh2V015844 for ; Mon, 7 May 2007 18:24:43 -0700 Received: from [10.3.2.25] (184.word-to-the-wise.com [208.187.80.184]) by m.wordtothewise.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FEEC800C8 for ; Mon, 7 May 2007 18:24:45 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3) In-Reply-To: <463FCEE4.9060702@solidmatrix.com> References: <20070504225622.M40014@simone.iecc.com> <463D5C3C.2050207@solidmatrix.com> <20070506005116.U14381@simone.iecc.com> <463F693E.1070205@yahoo-inc.com> <463F7A8F.9040806@dcrocker.net> <20070507161943.E83611@simone.iecc.com> <463FAEAE.8060902@solidmatrix.com> <463FBD80.1030901@dcrocker.net> <20070507205201.D48908@simone.iecc.com> <463FCEE4.9060702@solidmatrix.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <5F791E80-B9EF-499C-8C18-C9359E1F10DF@word-to-the-wise.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Steve Atkins Subject: Re: [taugh.com-johnl] Re: [feedback-report] How's that revised ARF draft coming along? Date: Mon, 7 May 2007 18:24:43 -0700 To: abuse-feedback-report@mipassoc.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3) X-SongbirdInformation: support@songbird.com for more information X-Songbird: Clean X-Songbird-From: steve@word-to-the-wise.com 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: Tue, 08 May 2007 01:24:47 -0000 On May 7, 2007, at 6:14 PM, Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > John R Levine wrote: > >>> Whether registry entries need policing enforcement, rather than >>> simple >>> bookkeeping rules, is a basic question to decide now. >>> >> >> I'm with you, so long as the proposed entry has a description of >> what it >> does that is reasonably coherent, add it in. We're talking about >> strings here, it's not like we're going to run out of namespace. >> >> > > Fine with me then. Here is the relevant option from IANA rfc: > > >> First Come First Served - Anyone can obtain an assigned number, so >> long as they provide a point of contact and a brief >> description of what the value would be used for. For >> numbers, the exact value is generally assigned by the >> IANA; >> with names, specific names are usually requested. >> >> Examples: vnd. (vendor assigned) MIME types [MIME-REG], >> TCP >> and UDP port numbers. >> Works for me. It's not actually going to be used as reference by anyone developing software to parse ARF reports, but if it gets ARF senders who have the same needs to work together so they're using the same approach then a simple registry should work nicely. Cheers, Steve Received: from mout.perfora.net (mout.perfora.net [74.208.4.195]) by sb7.songbird.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l481Dl2o013746 for ; Mon, 7 May 2007 18:13:48 -0700 Received: from [72.85.6.94] (helo=[192.168.1.11]) by mrelay.perfora.net (node=mrus0) with ESMTP (Nemesis), id 0MKp8S-1HlEGy224e-0002yB; Mon, 07 May 2007 21:13:49 -0400 Message-ID: <463FCEE4.9060702@solidmatrix.com> Date: Mon, 07 May 2007 21:14:12 -0400 From: Yakov Shafranovich Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: abuse-feedback-report@mipassoc.org Subject: Re: [taugh.com-johnl] Re: [feedback-report] How's that revised ARF draft coming along? References: <20070504225622.M40014@simone.iecc.com> <463D5C3C.2050207@solidmatrix.com> <20070506005116.U14381@simone.iecc.com> <463F693E.1070205@yahoo-inc.com> <463F7A8F.9040806@dcrocker.net> <20070507161943.E83611@simone.iecc.com> <463FAEAE.8060902@solidmatrix.com> <463FBD80.1030901@dcrocker.net> <20070507205201.D48908@simone.iecc.com> In-Reply-To: <20070507205201.D48908@simone.iecc.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX18IGfoyhT14AZkI2fLy6r9/N338UZyneLvFWxf aFxrhs42j3HQ4bxbUIKSCIOUpOkdlvsQB5W4EbzYdG0hmI3eCq Da8KxBp7vLrREKUKbmwtI4lNbj7DBZk X-SongbirdInformation: support@songbird.com for more information X-Songbird: Clean X-Songbird-From: yakovs@solidmatrix.com 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: Tue, 08 May 2007 01:13:51 -0000 John R Levine wrote: >> Whether registry entries need policing enforcement, rather than simple >> bookkeeping rules, is a basic question to decide now. > > I'm with you, so long as the proposed entry has a description of what it > does that is reasonably coherent, add it in. We're talking about > strings here, it's not like we're going to run out of namespace. > Fine with me then. Here is the relevant option from IANA rfc: > First Come First Served - Anyone can obtain an assigned number, so > long as they provide a point of contact and a brief > description of what the value would be used for. For > numbers, the exact value is generally assigned by the IANA; > with names, specific names are usually requested. > > Examples: vnd. (vendor assigned) MIME types [MIME-REG], TCP > and UDP port numbers. Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [208.31.42.53]) by sb7.songbird.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l480r1UF008592 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Mon, 7 May 2007 17:53:04 -0700 Received: (qmail 99654 invoked from network); 8 May 2007 00:53:02 -0000 Received: from simone.iecc.com (208.31.42.47) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 8 May 2007 00:53:02 -0000 Received: from localhost (sendmail-bs@127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 8 May 2007 00:53:02 -0000 Date: Mon, 7 May 2007 20:53:02 -0400 (EDT) From: John R Levine To: dcrocker@bbiw.net Subject: Re: [taugh.com-johnl] Re: [feedback-report] How's that revised ARF draft coming along? In-Reply-To: <463FBD80.1030901@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: <20070507205201.D48908@simone.iecc.com> References: <20070504225622.M40014@simone.iecc.com> <463D5C3C.2050207@solidmatrix.com> <20070506005116.U14381@simone.iecc.com> <463F693E.1070205@yahoo-inc.com> <463F7A8F.9040806@dcrocker.net> <20070507161943.E83611@simone.iecc.com> <463FAEAE.8060902@solidmatrix.com> <463FBD80.1030901@dcrocker.net> Cleverness: None detected MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-SongbirdInformation: support@songbird.com for more information X-Songbird: Clean X-Songbird-From: prvs=johnl=0641d6404a@taugh.com Cc: abuse-feedback-report@mipassoc.org 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: Tue, 08 May 2007 00:53:24 -0000 > Whether registry entries need policing enforcement, rather than simple > bookkeeping rules, is a basic question to decide now. I'm with you, so long as the proposed entry has a description of what it does that is reasonably coherent, add it in. We're talking about strings here, it's not like we're going to run out of namespace. Regards, John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY "I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly. Received: from [192.168.0.4] (adsl-68-122-40-222.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net [68.122.40.222]) (authenticated bits=0) by sb7.songbird.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l4800dn6000672 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 7 May 2007 17:00:40 -0700 Message-ID: <463FBD80.1030901@dcrocker.net> Date: Mon, 07 May 2007 17:00:00 -0700 From: Dave Crocker Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [feedback-report] How's that revised ARF draft coming along? References: <20070504225622.M40014@simone.iecc.com> <463D5C3C.2050207@solidmatrix.com> <20070506005116.U14381@simone.iecc.com> <463F693E.1070205@yahoo-inc.com> <463F7A8F.9040806@dcrocker.net> <20070507161943.E83611@simone.iecc.com> <463FAEAE.8060902@solidmatrix.com> In-Reply-To: <463FAEAE.8060902@solidmatrix.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SongbirdInformation: support@songbird.com for more information X-Songbird: Clean X-Songbird-From: dhc@dcrocker.net Cc: abuse-feedback-report@mipassoc.org X-BeenThere: abuse-feedback-report@mipassoc.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net 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: Tue, 08 May 2007 00:00:45 -0000 Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > According to RFC 2434, it shouldn't be a problem. I think we are looking > at an "expert" registry where the IESG assigns one expert to be in > charge of it and it takes about 4-6 weeks to make changes. Or not even that. Whether registry entries need policing enforcement, rather than simple bookkeeping rules, is a basic question to decide now. Personally, I'm fine with registering entries that are useless. If they are bad, no one will use them. (I'm also a fan of minimal overhead registration...) d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net Received: from mout.perfora.net (mout.perfora.net [74.208.4.195]) by sb7.songbird.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l47MuNbH023486 for ; Mon, 7 May 2007 15:56:23 -0700 Received: from [72.85.6.94] (helo=[192.168.1.11]) by mrelay.perfora.net (node=mrus0) with ESMTP (Nemesis), id 0MKp8S-1HlC7x3xI4-0002xf; Mon, 07 May 2007 18:56:23 -0400 Message-ID: <463FAEAE.8060902@solidmatrix.com> Date: Mon, 07 May 2007 18:56:46 -0400 From: Yakov Shafranovich Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: abuse-feedback-report@mipassoc.org Subject: Re: [feedback-report] How's that revised ARF draft coming along? References: <20070504225622.M40014@simone.iecc.com> <463D5C3C.2050207@solidmatrix.com> <20070506005116.U14381@simone.iecc.com> <463F693E.1070205@yahoo-inc.com> <463F7A8F.9040806@dcrocker.net> <20070507161943.E83611@simone.iecc.com> In-Reply-To: <20070507161943.E83611@simone.iecc.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/dwqgYYLA6vOB9IJDqlMcBYWSsmRb1zBdAyko KnKqad2zeQ0i5/++vGpQOHq2CXgr7/rPtkIhNvLj7ZZYNxdVFL u6VnP1za40xo6O171DL7cmtTrs+2D31 X-SongbirdInformation: support@songbird.com for more information X-Songbird: Clean X-Songbird-From: yakovs@solidmatrix.com 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: Mon, 07 May 2007 22:56:41 -0000 John R Levine wrote: >> I'm inclined to suggest request publishing this as an Informational >> RFC, to avoid the hassles of standardization. If ARF gains a wide >> enough base, it's easy to revisit this. > > Can informational RFCs set up IANA registries? Or would we have to do > it ourselves? > According to RFC 2434, it shouldn't be a problem. I think we are looking at an "expert" registry where the IESG assigns one expert to be in charge of it and it takes about 4-6 weeks to make changes. Yakov Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [208.31.42.53]) by sb7.songbird.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l47KKUYc030037 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Mon, 7 May 2007 13:20:32 -0700 Received: (qmail 19943 invoked from network); 7 May 2007 20:20:32 -0000 Received: from simone.iecc.com (208.31.42.47) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 7 May 2007 20:20:32 -0000 Received: from localhost (sendmail-bs@127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 7 May 2007 20:20:32 -0000 Date: Mon, 7 May 2007 16:20:32 -0400 (EDT) From: John R Levine To: dcrocker@bbiw.net Subject: Re: [feedback-report] How's that revised ARF draft coming along? In-Reply-To: <463F7A8F.9040806@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: <20070507161943.E83611@simone.iecc.com> References: <20070504225622.M40014@simone.iecc.com> <463D5C3C.2050207@solidmatrix.com> <20070506005116.U14381@simone.iecc.com> <463F693E.1070205@yahoo-inc.com> <463F7A8F.9040806@dcrocker.net> Cleverness: None detected MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-SongbirdInformation: support@songbird.com for more information X-Songbird: Clean X-Songbird-From: prvs=johnl=064081d74a@taugh.com Cc: abuse-feedback-report@mipassoc.org 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: Mon, 07 May 2007 20:20:38 -0000 > I suggest NOT adding anything for which there is not an already demonstrated > strong need. Instead, report types can be a registry, so that other values > can be added as needed. That's fine with me, except ... > I'm inclined to suggest request publishing this as an Informational RFC, to > avoid the hassles of standardization. If ARF gains a wide enough base, it's > easy to revisit this. Can informational RFCs set up IANA registries? Or would we have to do it ourselves? Regards, John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY "I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly. Received: from [192.168.0.4] (adsl-68-122-40-222.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net [68.122.40.222]) (authenticated bits=0) by sb7.songbird.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l47JF1ka018157 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 7 May 2007 12:15:02 -0700 Message-ID: <463F7A8F.9040806@dcrocker.net> Date: Mon, 07 May 2007 12:14:23 -0700 From: Dave Crocker Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "J.D. Falk" Subject: Re: [taugh.com-johnl] Re: [feedback-report] How's that revised ARF draft coming along? References: <20070504225622.M40014@simone.iecc.com> <463D5C3C.2050207@solidmatrix.com> <20070506005116.U14381@simone.iecc.com> <463F693E.1070205@yahoo-inc.com> In-Reply-To: <463F693E.1070205@yahoo-inc.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SongbirdInformation: support@songbird.com for more information X-Songbird: Clean X-Songbird-From: dhc@dcrocker.net Cc: abuse-feedback-report@mipassoc.org X-BeenThere: abuse-feedback-report@mipassoc.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net 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: Mon, 07 May 2007 19:15:07 -0000 J.D. Falk wrote: > On 2007-05-05 21:52, John R Levine wrote: > >>> Any idea on what is left to do for it, aside for editing, etc? Where >>> there any features that need to be added? >> >> As far as I know, it's just editing. I might want to add another >> couple of report types for use in spam/not-spam feedback to one's own >> ISP, but it's not urgent. I suggest NOT adding anything for which there is not an already demonstrated strong need. Instead, report types can be a registry, so that other values can be added as needed. > Seems like the part of the story which fits into an RFC has been > complete for a while, and any future efforts will revolve around > explaining everything else. I'm inclined to suggest request publishing this as an Informational RFC, to avoid the hassles of standardization. If ARF gains a wide enough base, it's easy to revisit this. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net Received: from rsmtp2.corp.yahoo.com (rsmtp2.corp.yahoo.com [207.126.228.150]) by sb7.songbird.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l47I0d2e001869 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 7 May 2007 11:00:39 -0700 Received: from jdfalk-mac.corp.yahoo.com (jdfalk-mac.corp.yahoo.com [10.72.109.95]) (authenticated bits=0) by rsmtp2.corp.yahoo.com (8.13.8/8.13.6/y.rout) with ESMTP id l47I0T3h024254 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 7 May 2007 11:00:30 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=serpent; d=yahoo-inc.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to: subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=RoeXz6abAIoEH2VPRllRnQ41boMU5o+H+1Mk/j+XLdQNEEMHkB2NN8RkSSZrDdR4 Message-ID: <463F693E.1070205@yahoo-inc.com> Date: Mon, 07 May 2007 11:00:30 -0700 From: "J.D. Falk" Organization: Yahoo! User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.8.1.3) Gecko/20070326 Thunderbird/2.0.0.0 Mnenhy/0.7.5.666 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: abuse-feedback-report@mipassoc.org Subject: Re: [taugh.com-johnl] Re: [feedback-report] How's that revised ARF draft coming along? References: <20070504225622.M40014@simone.iecc.com> <463D5C3C.2050207@solidmatrix.com> <20070506005116.U14381@simone.iecc.com> In-Reply-To: <20070506005116.U14381@simone.iecc.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SongbirdInformation: support@songbird.com for more information X-Songbird: Clean X-Songbird-From: jdfalk@yahoo-inc.com 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: Mon, 07 May 2007 18:00:44 -0000 On 2007-05-05 21:52, John R Levine wrote: >> Any idea on what is left to do for it, aside for editing, etc? Where >> there any features that need to be added? > > As far as I know, it's just editing. I might want to add another couple > of report types for use in spam/not-spam feedback to one's own ISP, but > it's not urgent. Seems like the part of the story which fits into an RFC has been complete for a while, and any future efforts will revolve around explaining everything else. Anyone on this list who's still interested in the topic and is planning on attending MAAWG in June should come to the small working session we've got planned, Tuesday afternoon. -- J.D. Falk, Anti-Spam Product Manager Yahoo! Mail Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [208.31.42.53]) by sb7.songbird.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l464qCL4020200 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Sat, 5 May 2007 21:52:13 -0700 Received: (qmail 3203 invoked from network); 6 May 2007 04:52:13 -0000 Received: from simone.iecc.com (208.31.42.47) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 6 May 2007 04:52:13 -0000 Received: from localhost (sendmail-bs@127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 6 May 2007 04:52:13 -0000 Date: Sun, 6 May 2007 00:52:12 -0400 (EDT) From: John R Levine To: Yakov Shafranovich Subject: Re: [taugh.com-johnl] Re: [feedback-report] How's that revised ARF draft coming along? In-Reply-To: <463D5C3C.2050207@solidmatrix.com> Message-ID: <20070506005116.U14381@simone.iecc.com> References: <20070504225622.M40014@simone.iecc.com> <463D5C3C.2050207@solidmatrix.com> Cleverness: None detected MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-SongbirdInformation: support@songbird.com for more information X-Songbird: Clean X-Songbird-From: prvs=johnl=06396d5a9b@taugh.com Cc: abuse-feedback-report@mipassoc.org 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: Sun, 06 May 2007 04:52:34 -0000 > Any idea on what is left to do for it, aside for editing, etc? Where > there any features that need to be added? As far as I know, it's just editing. I might want to add another couple of report types for use in spam/not-spam feedback to one's own ISP, but it's not urgent. Regards, John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY "I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly. Received: from mout.perfora.net (mout.perfora.net [74.208.4.194]) by sb7.songbird.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l464e2ou018915 for ; Sat, 5 May 2007 21:40:03 -0700 Received: from [72.85.6.94] (helo=[192.168.1.11]) by mrelay.perfora.net (node=mrus0) with ESMTP (Nemesis), id 0MKp8S-1HkYXT25hQ-0002z4; Sun, 06 May 2007 00:40:04 -0400 Message-ID: <463D5C3C.2050207@solidmatrix.com> Date: Sun, 06 May 2007 00:40:28 -0400 From: Yakov Shafranovich Organization: SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: abuse-feedback-report@mipassoc.org Subject: Re: [feedback-report] How's that revised ARF draft coming along? References: <20070504225622.M40014@simone.iecc.com> In-Reply-To: <20070504225622.M40014@simone.iecc.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+WHx6gOYa9rEMhUJvzCUoELZaXU2t+MJqmX+y bppZlNOYIxIMKQFCgN4JN4n3HmCcLOK/rAXi94NIVqhzmzs0hD 8enb3aRm66iZiv8ZfxijkzsKMPmsAi9 X-SongbirdInformation: support@songbird.com for more information X-Songbird: Clean X-Songbird-From: yakovs@solidmatrix.com 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: Sun, 06 May 2007 04:40:10 -0000 Any idea on what is left to do for it, aside for editing, etc? Where there any features that need to be added? Yakov John R Levine wrote: > Wasn't someone going to tidy up the 2005 ARF draft and resubmit it, so > it's alive again and we can possible send it along to be an independent > RFC? If nobody else is working on it, I'd be happy to pick it up. > > I have a fair amount of interest from mail certifiers in getting reports > saying "you said this mail was good, but it wasn't" which would > naturally be in ARF format. This doesn't conflict at all with the > current primary use in direct feedback loops, and it would help if the > spec didn't appear to be abandoned. > Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [208.31.42.53]) by sb7.songbird.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l452ude3021013 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Fri, 4 May 2007 19:56:40 -0700 Received: (qmail 12374 invoked from network); 5 May 2007 02:56:41 -0000 Received: from mail1.iecc.com (208.31.42.56) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 5 May 2007 02:56:41 -0000 Received: from localhost (sendmail-bs@127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 5 May 2007 02:56:41 -0000 Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 22:56:41 -0400 (EDT) From: John R Levine To: abuse-feedback-report@mipassoc.org Message-ID: <20070504225622.M40014@simone.iecc.com> Cleverness: None detected MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-SongbirdInformation: support@songbird.com for more information X-Songbird: Clean X-Songbird-From: prvs=johnl=063813bf4e@taugh.com Subject: [feedback-report] How's that revised ARF draft coming along? 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: Sat, 05 May 2007 02:56:55 -0000 Wasn't someone going to tidy up the 2005 ARF draft and resubmit it, so it's alive again and we can possible send it along to be an independent RFC? If nobody else is working on it, I'd be happy to pick it up. I have a fair amount of interest from mail certifiers in getting reports saying "you said this mail was good, but it wasn't" which would naturally be in ARF format. This doesn't conflict at all with the current primary use in direct feedback loops, and it would help if the spec didn't appear to be abandoned. 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.