Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [208.31.42.53]) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n0TLvfeH019330 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 29 Jan 2009 13:57:47 -0800 Authentication-Results: sbh17.songbird.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.i=johnl@user.iecc.com Received: (qmail 45991 invoked from network); 29 Jan 2009 21:57:41 -0000 Received: from mail1.iecc.com (208.31.42.56) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 29 Jan 2009 21:57:41 -0000 Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 21:57:40 +0000 (GMT) From: "John R. Levine" To: "J.D. Falk" In-Reply-To: <4982033C.3020908@cybernothing.org> Message-ID: References: <6.2.5.6.2.20090128205254.03027dc8@elandnews.com> <20090128231343.G44925@protagonist.smi.sendmail.com> <4982033C.3020908@cybernothing.org> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23) Cleverness: None detected MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.92/8920/Thu Jan 29 10:30:26 2009 on sbh17.songbird.com X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Greylist: IP, sender and recipient auto-whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.70]); Thu, 29 Jan 2009 13:57:47 -0800 (PST) Cc: abuse-feedback-report@mipassoc.org Subject: Re: [feedback-report] draft-shafranovich-feedback-report-06 X-BeenThere: abuse-feedback-report@mipassoc.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 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, 29 Jan 2009 21:57:47 -0000 > In theory, end-user tools could use ARF. In practice, few ISPs or > certifiers (vouching services) are currently set up to accept ARF reports > from random users without prior arrangement. FYI, I've been sending all my abuse reports in ARF format for about a year. I'm surprised how well they're accepted. Occasionally insists that it's impossible or too dangerous to open attachments, or that I didn't send all the headers (either because their ticketing system smashed the message, or their MUA doesn't show them), but for the most part it works amazingly well. R's, John Received: from twinlark.arctic.org (twinlark.arctic.org [208.69.40.136]) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n0TKTwAq013506 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Thu, 29 Jan 2009 12:30:03 -0800 Received: (qmail 31645 invoked from network); 29 Jan 2009 19:27:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO rpco-jdmacbook.rpcorp.local) (AUTH jdfalk) (38.109.196.56) by 208.69.40.137 with ESMTPSA (AES256-SHA); 29 Jan 2009 19:27:56 -0000 Message-ID: <4982033C.3020908@cybernothing.org> Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 12:27:56 -0700 From: "J.D. Falk" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Macintosh/20081209) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: abuse-feedback-report@mipassoc.org References: <6.2.5.6.2.20090128205254.03027dc8@elandnews.com> <20090128231343.G44925@protagonist.smi.sendmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20090128231343.G44925@protagonist.smi.sendmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.92/8920/Thu Jan 29 10:30:26 2009 on sbh17.songbird.com X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Greylist: Delayed for 01:02:00 by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.70]); Thu, 29 Jan 2009 12:30:03 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [feedback-report] draft-shafranovich-feedback-report-06 X-BeenThere: abuse-feedback-report@mipassoc.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 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, 29 Jan 2009 20:30:04 -0000 Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > On Wed, 28 Jan 2009, SM wrote: >> Do we really want end-users to start flooding mail systems with ARF? >> Some end-user tools already do that. > > Users could, but I think it's more meant for tools at each service > provider. Others' thoughts? In theory, end-user tools could use ARF. In practice, few ISPs or certifiers (vouching services) are currently set up to accept ARF reports from random users without prior arrangement. This could change, so I wouldn't want to entirely discount the possibility...but on the other hand, most of the questions we've seen on this list have been from people who assume that the end-user case is the primary use case. So, perhaps some clarification is necessary. -- J.D. Falk Return Path Inc http://www.returnpath.net/ Received: from ladle.sendmail.com (ladle.sendmail.com [209.246.26.53]) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n0TIBZO9001222 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Thu, 29 Jan 2009 10:11:40 -0800 Authentication-Results: sbh17.songbird.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.i=@sendmail.com Received: from fife.sendmail.com (fife.sendmail.com [209.246.26.50]) by ladle.sendmail.com (Switch-3.3.1/Sentrion-3.0.0) with ESMTP id n0TIEt35026070 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 29 Jan 2009 10:14:55 -0800 Received: from protagonist.smi.sendmail.com ([10.210.202.26]) by fife.sendmail.com (Switch-3.3.1/Switch-3.3.2mp) with ESMTP id n0TIBRIm022107 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 29 Jan 2009 10:11:27 -0800 X-DKIM: Sendmail DKIM Filter v2.5.6 fife.sendmail.com n0TIBRIm022107 Received: from protagonist.smi.sendmail.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by protagonist.smi.sendmail.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n0TIBRG7018687; Thu, 29 Jan 2009 10:11:27 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from msk@sendmail.com) Received: from localhost (msk@localhost) by protagonist.smi.sendmail.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) with ESMTP id n0TIBQ9l018684; Thu, 29 Jan 2009 10:11:26 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from msk@sendmail.com) X-Authentication-Warning: protagonist.smi.sendmail.com: msk owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 10:11:26 -0800 (PST) From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" X-X-Sender: msk@protagonist.smi.sendmail.com To: "John R. Levine" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20090129101042.U44925@protagonist.smi.sendmail.com> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20090128205254.03027dc8@elandnews.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-MM-Ex-RefId: 149371::090129101128-164D0B90-39BF3A46/0-0/0-1 X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.92/8919/Thu Jan 29 05:05:38 2009 on sbh17.songbird.com X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Greylist: IP, sender and recipient auto-whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.70]); Thu, 29 Jan 2009 10:11:40 -0800 (PST) Cc: abuse-feedback-report@mipassoc.org Subject: Re: [feedback-report] draft-shafranovich-feedback-report-06 X-BeenThere: abuse-feedback-report@mipassoc.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 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, 29 Jan 2009 18:11:41 -0000 On Thu, 29 Jan 2009, John R. Levine wrote: > The example we had in mind is VBR, in which certifiers can say they only > vouch for, e.g. transactional mail, and senders can assert what kind each > message is. Perhaps we should be explicit about that, making at least an informative reference to it. How's its status on the publication track? Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [208.31.42.53]) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n0TGHrDO025778 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 29 Jan 2009 08:17:59 -0800 Authentication-Results: sbh17.songbird.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.i=johnl@user.iecc.com Received: (qmail 71300 invoked from network); 29 Jan 2009 16:17:50 -0000 Received: from mail1.iecc.com (208.31.42.56) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 29 Jan 2009 16:17:50 -0000 Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 16:17:49 +0000 (GMT) From: "John R. Levine" To: SM In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20090129060102.02ce3b78@resistor.net> Message-ID: References: <6.2.5.6.2.20090128205254.03027dc8@elandnews.com> <20090128231343.G44925@protagonist.smi.sendmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20090129060102.02ce3b78@resistor.net> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23) Cleverness: None detected MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.92/8919/Thu Jan 29 05:05:38 2009 on sbh17.songbird.com X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Greylist: IP, sender and recipient auto-whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.70]); Thu, 29 Jan 2009 08:17:59 -0800 (PST) Cc: abuse-feedback-report@mipassoc.org Subject: Re: [feedback-report] draft-shafranovich-feedback-report-06 X-BeenThere: abuse-feedback-report@mipassoc.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 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, 29 Jan 2009 16:17:59 -0000 >> To provide a method for recipients to advise providers that >> they disagree with the provider's certifications or other >> assertions about the message. > > How about: > > To provide feedback to third parties affixing assertions about the message. No, that's not quite it. Certifier A vouches for mail from domain B, which asserts in each message what kind of message it is. The ARF report alerts A that B is lying about what they're sending. R's, John Received: from ns1.qubic.net (ns1.qubic.net [208.69.177.116]) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n0TFMj0r020056 for ; Thu, 29 Jan 2009 07:22:50 -0800 Authentication-Results: sbh17.songbird.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.i=@resistor.net Received: from subman.resistor.net ([10.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by ns1.qubic.net (8.14.4.Alpha0/8.14.4.Alpha0) with ESMTP id n0TFMVgW021820 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 29 Jan 2009 07:22:39 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20090129060102.02ce3b78@resistor.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 07:22:19 -0800 To: abuse-feedback-report@mipassoc.org From: SM In-Reply-To: <20090128231343.G44925@protagonist.smi.sendmail.com> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20090128205254.03027dc8@elandnews.com> <20090128231343.G44925@protagonist.smi.sendmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.92/8919/Thu Jan 29 05:05:38 2009 on sbh17.songbird.com X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Greylist: IP, sender and recipient auto-whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.70]); Thu, 29 Jan 2009 07:22:50 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [feedback-report] draft-shafranovich-feedback-report-06 X-BeenThere: abuse-feedback-report@mipassoc.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 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, 29 Jan 2009 15:22:50 -0000 At 23:16 28-01-2009, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >It could perhaps be worded better, but you can flip it around to get >the meaning: > > To provide a method for recipients to advise providers that > they disagree with the provider's certifications or other > assertions about the message. How about: To provide feedback to third parties affixing assertions about the message. >It's my understanding that Standards Track is appropriate because >the draft contains a specification that is used across >administrative boundaries. Thus, for example, SMTP is standards >track, but LMTP doesn't need to be. In my opinion, the document is appropriate for the Standards Track. The Security Considerations section may require some more work. One of the considerations for a Standards Track document is that it requires the consensus of the IETF community. That shouldn't be a problem if this draft is non-controversial. I suggest narrowing down the specifications to the feedback report format and having the DKIM extension in a separate document . At 02:22 29-01-2009, John R. Levine wrote: >The example we had in mind is VBR, in which certifiers can say they >only vouch for, e.g. transactional mail, and senders can assert what >kind each message is. Please see whether the text I suggested covers that example. Regards, -sm Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [208.31.42.53]) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n0TBMpnK006966 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 29 Jan 2009 03:22:57 -0800 Authentication-Results: sbh17.songbird.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.i=johnl@user.iecc.com Received: (qmail 93510 invoked from network); 29 Jan 2009 10:22:50 -0000 Received: from mail1.iecc.com (208.31.42.56) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 29 Jan 2009 10:22:50 -0000 Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 10:22:50 +0000 (GMT) From: "John R. Levine" To: SM In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20090128205254.03027dc8@elandnews.com> Message-ID: References: <6.2.5.6.2.20090128205254.03027dc8@elandnews.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23) Cleverness: None detected MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.92/8917/Wed Jan 28 21:38:54 2009 on sbh17.songbird.com X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Greylist: Delayed for 00:59:58 by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.70]); Thu, 29 Jan 2009 03:22:58 -0800 (PST) Cc: abuse-feedback-report@mipassoc.org Subject: Re: [feedback-report] draft-shafranovich-feedback-report-06 X-BeenThere: abuse-feedback-report@mipassoc.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 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, 29 Jan 2009 11:22:58 -0000 > Do we really want end-users to start flooding mail systems with > ARF? Some end-user tools already do that. Given a choice between random unformatted flames and ARF formatted flames, I suspect that most mail systems would prefer the ARF so they can at least sort them faster. > What does the following mean: > > "To advise providers that certify or otherwise make assertions > about mail of recipient disagreement with the assertions." The example we had in mind is VBR, in which certifiers can say they only vouch for, e.g. transactional mail, and senders can assert what kind each message is. R's, John Received: from ladle.sendmail.com (ladle.sendmail.com [209.246.26.53]) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n0T7n1Rf029234 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Wed, 28 Jan 2009 23:49:06 -0800 Authentication-Results: sbh17.songbird.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.i=@sendmail.com Received: from spork.sendmail.com (tls.sendmail.com [209.246.26.41]) by ladle.sendmail.com (Switch-3.3.1/Sentrion-3.0.0) with ESMTP id n0T7KF3p026662 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 28 Jan 2009 23:20:15 -0800 Received: from protagonist.smi.sendmail.com ([10.210.202.26]) by spork.sendmail.com (Switch-3.3.3mp/Switch-3.3.2mp) with ESMTP id n0T7GnBm018520 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 28 Jan 2009 23:16:50 -0800 X-DKIM: Sendmail DKIM Filter v2.5.6 spork.sendmail.com n0T7GnBm018520 Received: from protagonist.smi.sendmail.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by protagonist.smi.sendmail.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n0T7GnWK017848; Wed, 28 Jan 2009 23:16:49 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from msk@sendmail.com) Received: from localhost (msk@localhost) by protagonist.smi.sendmail.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) with ESMTP id n0T7Gm2L017845; Wed, 28 Jan 2009 23:16:49 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from msk@sendmail.com) X-Authentication-Warning: protagonist.smi.sendmail.com: msk owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 23:16:48 -0800 (PST) From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" X-X-Sender: msk@protagonist.smi.sendmail.com To: SM In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20090128205254.03027dc8@elandnews.com> Message-ID: <20090128231343.G44925@protagonist.smi.sendmail.com> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20090128205254.03027dc8@elandnews.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-MM-Ex-RefId: 149371::090128231650-11127B90-66F480F8/0-0/0-1 X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.92/8917/Wed Jan 28 21:38:54 2009 on sbh17.songbird.com X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Greylist: Delayed for 00:32:07 by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.70]); Wed, 28 Jan 2009 23:49:06 -0800 (PST) Cc: abuse-feedback-report@mipassoc.org Subject: Re: [feedback-report] draft-shafranovich-feedback-report-06 X-BeenThere: abuse-feedback-report@mipassoc.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 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, 29 Jan 2009 07:49:06 -0000 On Wed, 28 Jan 2009, SM wrote: > Do we really want end-users to start flooding mail systems with ARF? > Some end-user tools already do that. Users could, but I think it's more meant for tools at each service provider. Others' thoughts? > Do we want end-users to use the report format for opting out? That could work. Are there any MUA implementations? > What does the following mean: > > "To advise providers that certify or otherwise make assertions > about mail of recipient disagreement with the assertions." It could perhaps be worded better, but you can flip it around to get the meaning: To provide a method for recipients to advise providers that they disagree with the provider's certifications or other assertions about the message. > The new version of the document has a Standards Track intended > status. The proposed specification may be subject to changes on that > track instead of documenting what is currently in use. It's my understanding that Standards Track is appropriate because the draft contains a specification that is used across administrative boundaries. Thus, for example, SMTP is standards track, but LMTP doesn't need to be. Received: from ns1.qubic.net (ns1.qubic.net [208.69.177.116]) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n0T70014025108 for ; Wed, 28 Jan 2009 23:00:05 -0800 Authentication-Results: sbh17.songbird.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.i=@resistor.net Received: from subman.resistor.net ([10.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by ns1.qubic.net (8.14.4.Alpha0/8.14.4.Alpha0) with ESMTP id n0T6JHuf021651 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 28 Jan 2009 22:19:24 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20090128205254.03027dc8@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 21:29:01 -0800 To: abuse-feedback-report@mipassoc.org From: SM Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.92/8917/Wed Jan 28 21:38:54 2009 on sbh17.songbird.com X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Greylist: Delayed for 00:40:32 by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.70]); Wed, 28 Jan 2009 23:00:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: [feedback-report] draft-shafranovich-feedback-report-06 X-BeenThere: abuse-feedback-report@mipassoc.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 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, 29 Jan 2009 07:00:06 -0000 Hello, These comments are about draft-shafranovich-feedback-report-06. The Introduction Section says: "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." Do we really want end-users to start flooding mail systems with ARF? Some end-user tools already do that. Do we want end-users to use the report format for opting out? What does the following mean: "To advise providers that certify or otherwise make assertions about mail of recipient disagreement with the assertions." The new version of the document has a Standards Track intended status. The proposed specification may be subject to changes on that track instead of documenting what is currently in use. Regards, -sm Received: from ladle.sendmail.com (ladle.sendmail.com [209.246.26.53]) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n030kAqN004980 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Fri, 2 Jan 2009 16:46:15 -0800 Authentication-Results: sbh17.songbird.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.i=@sendmail.com Received: from fife.sendmail.com (fife.sendmail.com [209.246.26.50]) by ladle.sendmail.com (Switch-3.3.1/Sentrion-3.0.0) with ESMTP id n030HCUv016641 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Fri, 2 Jan 2009 16:17:12 -0800 Received: from protagonist.smi.sendmail.com ([10.210.202.26]) by fife.sendmail.com (Switch-3.3.1/Switch-3.3.2mp) with ESMTP id n030ERqv026783 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 2 Jan 2009 16:14:27 -0800 X-DKIM: Sendmail DKIM Filter v2.5.6 fife.sendmail.com n030ERqv026783 Received: from protagonist.smi.sendmail.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by protagonist.smi.sendmail.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n030ERTN046171 for ; Fri, 2 Jan 2009 16:14:27 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from msk@sendmail.com) Received: from localhost (msk@localhost) by protagonist.smi.sendmail.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) with ESMTP id n030EQRR046168 for ; Fri, 2 Jan 2009 16:14:27 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from msk@sendmail.com) X-Authentication-Warning: protagonist.smi.sendmail.com: msk owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2009 16:14:26 -0800 (PST) From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" X-X-Sender: msk@protagonist.smi.sendmail.com To: abuse-feedback-report@mipassoc.org Message-ID: <20090102161312.O44925@protagonist.smi.sendmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-MM-Ex-RefId: 149371::090102161428-0C956B90-5DC46C6B/0-0/0-1 X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.92/8830/Fri Jan 2 08:01:42 2009 on sbh17.songbird.com X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Greylist: Delayed for 00:31:38 by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.70]); Fri, 02 Jan 2009 16:46:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: [feedback-report] -06 draft posted X-BeenThere: abuse-feedback-report@mipassoc.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 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, 03 Jan 2009 00:46:15 -0000 Since -05 had expired, I've posted -06 as it appeared here. We can post a -07 after the current discussions have resolved, probably after the upcoming MAAWG conference. If it seems stable at that point, I can start shopping around for a document shepherd and sponsoring area director for its IETF journey.