From johnl@iecc.com Wed Mar 2 19:59:17 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: marf@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: marf@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E79C23A6954 for ; Wed, 2 Mar 2011 19:59:17 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -111.043 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-111.043 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.156, BAYES_00=-2.599, HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI=-4.3, RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED=-4.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id L2F3oStQNJGh for ; Wed, 2 Mar 2011 19:59:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [64.57.183.53]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34D1B3A6947 for ; Wed, 2 Mar 2011 19:59:13 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 22480 invoked from network); 3 Mar 2011 04:00:19 -0000 Received: from mail1.iecc.com (64.57.183.56) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 3 Mar 2011 04:00:19 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:cc:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:vbr-info; s=13619.4d6f1253.k1103; i=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=COAw+N4eCqwAlH5fthaAGV5a04KnZcO6mqSc8HcmTFQ=; b=rGMXivV5VxoNYPE42lNTVYJ+IuP7TvskLywp6Jqje8ieLGv5qmrzFRFIEhUMEqBNzglXt8r3K8hUVnsloOarJYRFPLYJfc4NMC5vOBxzdjHmOo/efeu3DyWe/fYYgorq+0jLa//6VNEINhMNdN1wdmeQ02Uzo4MGNAdAzCjRzc8= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:cc:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:vbr-info; s=13619.4d6f1253.k1103; olt=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=COAw+N4eCqwAlH5fthaAGV5a04KnZcO6mqSc8HcmTFQ=; b=l4fRSiNrgKiPUr69Udex8NpxMCU6m4PMeemrJSsaOD5r5oqOCPLkUtDq3kfo/eKJklFhHal9eiQMNisc7Afb8nXP4oL9oUL+vFlTRp4tdR8a9iPb0WpWl2HhDQw+uQCLPuMObCEXItJS4IA/FJFd+5EK1GyZyflhVDGV/ZN2SoM= VBR-Info: md=iecc.com; mc=all; mv=dwl.spamhaus.org Date: 3 Mar 2011 04:00:18 -0000 Message-ID: <20110303040018.79384.qmail@joyce.lan> From: John Levine To: marf@ietf.org In-Reply-To: Organization: X-Headerized: yes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [marf] Feedback Loops BCP document X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2011 03:59:18 -0000 >I would like this group to review the draft and determine how much we >agree with it and would like to have it as an IETF BCP product of >MARF. The basic contents are fine, but if this is intended to be a BCP, it needs to be recast in BCP-ese, with more explicit SHOULD and SHOULD NOT advice about specific practices. I'd also like it to note that redacting FBL reports is pointless, since in a properly operating FBL you're sending them back to someone who has already seen all of them. Nits: title of sec 3.6.1 is wrong item 5 in sec 4.1 is surely true, but seems a bit much in 4.3.1 the first line refers to commercial email, but the section is equally applicable to non-commercial mail, e.g., political or religious bulk mail R's, John From steve@blighty.com Wed Mar 2 20:10:18 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: marf@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: marf@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E71EE3A695B for ; Wed, 2 Mar 2011 20:10:18 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dmPzl11l6Zyu for ; Wed, 2 Mar 2011 20:10:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from m.wordtothewise.com (b.wordtothewise.com [208.187.80.136]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F1A23A6959 for ; Wed, 2 Mar 2011 20:10:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.80.42] (184.wordtothewise.com [208.187.80.184]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: steve) by m.wordtothewise.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F0BAF2DFD7 for ; Wed, 2 Mar 2011 20:11:24 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082.1) From: Steve Atkins In-Reply-To: <20110303040018.79384.qmail@joyce.lan> Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2011 20:11:24 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <4BD8A76B-0CD9-4561-80C1-E325AFD7E332@blighty.com> References: <20110303040018.79384.qmail@joyce.lan> To: Message Abuse Report Format working group X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082.1) Subject: Re: [marf] Feedback Loops BCP document X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2011 04:10:19 -0000 On Mar 2, 2011, at 8:00 PM, John Levine wrote: >> I would like this group to review the draft and determine how much we >> agree with it and would like to have it as an IETF BCP product of >> MARF. > > The basic contents are fine, but if this is intended to be a BCP, it > needs to be recast in BCP-ese, with more explicit SHOULD and SHOULD NOT > advice about specific practices. > > I'd also like it to note that redacting FBL reports is pointless, since > in a properly operating FBL you're sending them back to someone who has > already seen all of them. Redacting them reduces the PII leakage in those (fairly common) cases where the FBL goes to someone other than the original author of the email. That doesn't mean that redacting (or not-redacting) is necessarily a good idea, but it's not pointless. Cheers, Steve From yigang.cai@alcatel-lucent.com Wed Mar 2 20:49:20 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: marf@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: marf@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 073F13A695B for ; Wed, 2 Mar 2011 20:49:20 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LXDy913IuePI for ; Wed, 2 Mar 2011 20:49:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from ihemail3.lucent.com (ihemail3.lucent.com [135.245.0.37]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0825D3A6945 for ; Wed, 2 Mar 2011 20:49:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from usnavsmail2.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (usnavsmail2.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com [135.3.39.10]) by ihemail3.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id p234oOKC014603 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Wed, 2 Mar 2011 22:50:25 -0600 (CST) Received: from USNAVSXCHHUB01.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (usnavsxchhub01.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com [135.3.39.110]) by usnavsmail2.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/GMO) with ESMTP id p234oOYl016150 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT) for ; Wed, 2 Mar 2011 22:50:24 -0600 Received: from USNAVSXCHMBSA3.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.3.39.119]) by USNAVSXCHHUB01.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.3.39.110]) with mapi; Wed, 2 Mar 2011 22:50:24 -0600 From: "Cai, Yigang (Yigang)" To: "marf@ietf.org" Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2011 22:50:22 -0600 Thread-Topic: [marf] A New Intenet Draft to MARF - "draft-cai-marf-policy-instruction-operation-00.txt" Thread-Index: AcvS5WsKkianw0x0QH2zkfHAw9zxSQAj39tgAABHtYABehZCQA== Message-ID: <5710F82C0E73B04FA559560098BF95B1250693A4E6@USNAVSXCHMBSA3.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com> References: <5710F82C0E73B04FA559560098BF95B12506885A6D@USNAVSXCHMBSA3.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com> In-Reply-To: <5710F82C0E73B04FA559560098BF95B12506885A6D@USNAVSXCHMBSA3.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.37 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.64 on 135.3.39.10 Subject: Re: [marf] A New Intenet Draft to MARF - "draft-cai-marf-policy-instruction-operation-00.txt" X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2011 04:49:20 -0000 Dear All, Could you provide your comments/suggestion on this document? Many thanks, Yigang =20 -----Original Message----- From: marf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:marf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Cai= , Yigang (Yigang) Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2011 10:25 AM To: marf@ietf.org Subject: Re: [marf] A New Intenet Draft to MARF - "draft-cai-marf-policy-in= struction-operation-00.txt" Dear All, Please see the URL of this new internet draft: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-cai-marf-policy-instruction-operatio= n/=20 Thanks, Yigang -----Original Message----- From: Cai, Yigang (Yigang) Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2011 10:19 AM To: marf@ietf.org Subject: A New Intenet Draft to MARF - "draft-cai-marf-policy-instruction-o= peration-00.txt"=20 Dear All, See below a new internet draft submitted by Alcatel-Lucent for MARF working= group. Thanks, Yigang =20 -----Original Message----- From: IETF I-D Submission Tool [mailto:idsubmission@ietf.org] Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2011 5:08 PM To: Zeltsan, Zachary (Zachary) Cc: Cai, Yigang (Yigang); Shanker, Gyan (Gyan); Singh, Sanjeev Kumar (Sanje= ev); Torabi, Mohammad (Moh) Subject: New Version Notification for draft-cai-marf-policy-instruction-ope= ration-00=20 A new version of I-D, draft-cai-marf-policy-instruction-operation-00.txt ha= s been successfully submitted by Zachary Zeltsan and posted to the IETF rep= ository. Filename: draft-cai-marf-policy-instruction-operation Revision: 00 Title: Anti-Spam Policy Instruction/Distribution Operation Creation_date: 2011-02-23 WG ID: Independent Submission Number_of_pages: 26 Abstract: This document defines an anti-spam policy instruction and distribution oper= ation from Spam Reporting Server or Spam Reporting Client to Spam Reporting= Client or Clients. = =20 The IETF Secretariat. _______________________________________________ marf mailing list marf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf From johnl@iecc.com Thu Mar 3 05:53:19 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: marf@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: marf@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60FA53A68AD for ; Thu, 3 Mar 2011 05:53:18 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -111.051 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-111.051 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.148, BAYES_00=-2.599, HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI=-4.3, RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED=-4.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6drcfgha2yCD for ; Thu, 3 Mar 2011 05:53:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [64.57.183.53]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CD7B3A6884 for ; Thu, 3 Mar 2011 05:53:12 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 99309 invoked from network); 3 Mar 2011 13:54:19 -0000 Received: from mail1.iecc.com (64.57.183.56) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 3 Mar 2011 13:54:19 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:cc:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:vbr-info; s=3640.4d6f9d8b.k1103; i=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=T2REWtI+/q9rFVURxAgWk5NeyZydgEx0zZjPNZE4YgE=; b=D/SPXPKh8rC8rygDfGAcsLRSaGL4ifxRhgdhes6n7iZCXm2RU1k4OX/lzbiePlJS4Im41L6DU+KhMqQ9YhX1haJ84l2QQcQk9MvHU6l+FJoW3Xu4XJzfEp1Wo9Dq7BzjA+NUR6G/YjVlTDFJLDgvcOrOBAQY6kMwSLOU8sHDBJY= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:cc:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:vbr-info; s=3640.4d6f9d8b.k1103; olt=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=T2REWtI+/q9rFVURxAgWk5NeyZydgEx0zZjPNZE4YgE=; b=EN+MgbMsUBmPWxVdpeCX90l0O3FRp7wdOVHJaw10ZRVNO6donICiccXXALs18F8wabl1JXnf/qxtKKaEiSk6l2iP++T3ebXesq7MSd258KaGedrfLVlqu9VkbRQCScFwvWcPWengW7be3VaB11o8eoOMfXIgRJfnwJztOa9DPMk= VBR-Info: md=iecc.com; mc=all; mv=dwl.spamhaus.org Date: 3 Mar 2011 13:54:19 -0000 Message-ID: <20110303135419.13887.qmail@joyce.lan> From: John Levine To: marf@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <5710F82C0E73B04FA559560098BF95B1250693A4E6@USNAVSXCHMBSA3.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com> Organization: X-Headerized: yes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [marf] A New Intenet Draft to MARF - "draft-cai-marf-policy-instruction-operation-00.txt" X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2011 13:53:19 -0000 >Could you provide your comments/suggestion on this document? It's an interesting draft, but it seems totally outside the scope of the MARF group. Also, it's hard to imagine the ISPs and ESPs who are the primary users of ARF exchanging data at the level of integration and mutual trust that this draft appears to assume. I gather this is based on work in the mobile telephone industry on SMS and other phone spam. Perhaps you could tell us something about the way those organizations exchange data. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly From bmcdowell@paypal-inc.com Thu Mar 3 07:52:22 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: marf@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: marf@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E0953A67A1 for ; Thu, 3 Mar 2011 07:52:22 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -7.858 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.858 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.259, BAYES_00=-2.599, DNS_FROM_RFC_BOGUSMX=1.482, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wTkF1VOVgZXb for ; Thu, 3 Mar 2011 07:52:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from den-mipot-001.corp.ebay.com (den-mipot-001.corp.ebay.com [216.113.175.152]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4EC93A67DA for ; Thu, 3 Mar 2011 07:52:20 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: s=ppinc; d=paypal-inc.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=X-EBay-Corp:X-IronPort-AV:Received:Received:From:To:CC: Date:Subject:Thread-Topic:Thread-Index:Message-ID: References:In-Reply-To:Accept-Language:Content-Language: X-MS-Has-Attach:X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:acceptlanguage: x-ems-proccessed:x-ems-stamp:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version:X-CFilter; b=EEn/dtW5qn5pxUV10L1oQPqNiN5+XHWeGJdT0/0Z0fs8gJwtTjqCqg+V VklytG5RWdtKJ/vgz+oQofPb/8LhoHc6P51449xOfTARjYyIAsV93UMFi WvUTpsF8eMvJ+Lu; DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=paypal-inc.com; i=bmcdowell@paypal-inc.com; q=dns/txt; s=ppinc; t=1299167609; x=1330703609; h=from:to:cc:date:subject:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; z=From:=20"McDowell,=20Brett"=20 |To:=20Steve=20Atkins=20|CC:=20Message =20Abuse=20Report=20Format=20working=20group=20|Date:=20Thu,=203=20Mar=202011=2008:53:26=20-0700 |Subject:=20Re:=20[marf]=20Feedback=20Loops=20BCP=20docum ent|Message-ID:=20|References:=20<20110303040018.79384.qmail@ joyce.lan>=0D=0A=20<4BD8A76B-0CD9-4561-80C1-E325AFD7E332@ blighty.com>|In-Reply-To:=20<4BD8A76B-0CD9-4561-80C1-E325 AFD7E332@blighty.com>|Content-Transfer-Encoding:=20quoted -printable|MIME-Version:=201.0; bh=vh0cMI1gUqTAYbet91TXpFrkt4SAwfE43HQ/v0L3h9k=; b=ORRheaxTsVEQgQrxRly5HGt/WrBO2kT2XR7/+E7fZMPdMwYAikKGbn7P iJno5njgR2TDnzFki26v3r4zk80mz1ygsuZjrDSuHgZRQ1VakN0bl8PBD dGWAB4tMbeoZ4qC; X-EBay-Corp: Yes X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.62,258,1297065600"; d="scan'208";a="976644" Received: from den-vtenf-001.corp.ebay.com (HELO DEN-MEXHT-003.corp.ebay.com) ([10.101.112.212]) by den-mipot-001.corp.ebay.com with ESMTP; 03 Mar 2011 07:53:28 -0800 Received: from DEN-MEXMS-001.corp.ebay.com ([10.241.16.225]) by DEN-MEXHT-003.corp.ebay.com ([10.241.17.54]) with mapi; Thu, 3 Mar 2011 08:53:27 -0700 From: "McDowell, Brett" To: Steve Atkins Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2011 08:53:26 -0700 Thread-Topic: [marf] Feedback Loops BCP document Thread-Index: AcvZuyJIg80f8RxlR72jYS35o9aKYg== Message-ID: References: <20110303040018.79384.qmail@joyce.lan> <4BD8A76B-0CD9-4561-80C1-E325AFD7E332@blighty.com> In-Reply-To: <4BD8A76B-0CD9-4561-80C1-E325AFD7E332@blighty.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US x-ems-proccessed: 10SqDH0iR7ekR7SRpKqm5A== x-ems-stamp: CnwevfdYMvKRap2/421Qog== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter: Scanned Cc: Message Abuse Report Format working group Subject: Re: [marf] Feedback Loops BCP document X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2011 15:52:22 -0000 I agree with Steve. On Mar 2, 2011, at 11:11 PM, Steve Atkins wrote: >=20 > On Mar 2, 2011, at 8:00 PM, John Levine wrote: >=20 >>> I would like this group to review the draft and determine how much we >>> agree with it and would like to have it as an IETF BCP product of >>> MARF. >>=20 >> The basic contents are fine, but if this is intended to be a BCP, it >> needs to be recast in BCP-ese, with more explicit SHOULD and SHOULD NOT >> advice about specific practices. >>=20 >> I'd also like it to note that redacting FBL reports is pointless, since >> in a properly operating FBL you're sending them back to someone who has >> already seen all of them. >=20 > Redacting them reduces the > PII leakage in those (fairly common) cases where the FBL goes > to someone other than the original author of the email. >=20 > That doesn't mean that redacting (or not-redacting) is necessarily > a good idea, but it's not pointless. >=20 > Cheers, > Steve >=20 > _______________________________________________ > marf mailing list > marf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf From dotzero@gmail.com Thu Mar 3 08:23:45 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: marf@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: marf@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B32033A69F7 for ; Thu, 3 Mar 2011 08:23:45 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.400, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sP4gAWtePtjv for ; Thu, 3 Mar 2011 08:23:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qw0-f44.google.com (mail-qw0-f44.google.com [209.85.216.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FB973A6830 for ; Thu, 3 Mar 2011 08:23:44 -0800 (PST) Received: by qwh6 with SMTP id 6so1096560qwh.31 for ; Thu, 03 Mar 2011 08:24:52 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Th35crjniiK3bTMm6dLsDpJMYNS3wznGgD/VZSg3WIE=; b=EsyLRy7/Vkhe0Fg368pY7ns4JajbKoIPx6yhABV9xXiA89fkgxOBnXxGImWJhe92Ii X8tAP8WamQ8yNDDmiuhoGDsnxxMnItcQ99JJnq8zZm/JyH+boPd4ztOt0zTOn7PwIfT6 UCBovL0jXqecD5QKA92mIQhDZOMZYcWEgqtyk= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=opxvm0PNJKhv4rslolAG6L849KDyqEwVPOnrVdikk3XVABQB4NtCW6lI0uCPZYhabY 0egoe4KrT3oAhAymvJQIO9A3DLNOpuWiXqJYiIFblAtckTjmgwR2dVFDWX/ogaL7PbhU 1oud+1F2ifr1uo/R2CaC/nPGlgGnh9fOvzJQ8= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.229.38.140 with SMTP id b12mr1133166qce.161.1299169492155; Thu, 03 Mar 2011 08:24:52 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.229.102.7 with HTTP; Thu, 3 Mar 2011 08:24:52 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <20110303040018.79384.qmail@joyce.lan> <4BD8A76B-0CD9-4561-80C1-E325AFD7E332@blighty.com> Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2011 11:24:52 -0500 Message-ID: From: Dotzero To: Message Abuse Report Format working group Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [marf] Feedback Loops BCP document X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2011 16:23:45 -0000 I would agree with Steve as well. It can be frustrating as a sender/brand but I realize that there are potential concerns for FBL providers. We use the timestamp that we generate on the original email to allow us to match up where information has been redacted (no other use is made of this ability with the timestamp). Some FBL providers do get a little redact happy though. On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 10:53 AM, McDowell, Brett wrote: > I agree with Steve. > > On Mar 2, 2011, at 11:11 PM, Steve Atkins wrote: > >> >> On Mar 2, 2011, at 8:00 PM, John Levine wrote: >> >>>> I would like this group to review the draft and determine how much we >>>> agree with it and would like to have it as an IETF BCP product of >>>> MARF. >>> >>> The basic contents are fine, but if this is intended to be a BCP, it >>> needs to be recast in BCP-ese, with more explicit SHOULD and SHOULD NOT >>> advice about specific practices. >>> >>> I'd also like it to note that redacting FBL reports is pointless, since >>> in a properly operating FBL you're sending them back to someone who has >>> already seen all of them. >> >> Redacting them reduces the >> PII leakage in those (fairly common) cases where the FBL goes >> to someone other than the original author of the email. >> >> That doesn't mean that redacting (or not-redacting) is necessarily >> a good idea, but it's not pointless. >> >> Cheers, >> =A0Steve >> >> _______________________________________________ >> marf mailing list >> marf@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf > > _______________________________________________ > marf mailing list > marf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf > From madkins@fb.com Thu Mar 3 09:43:29 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: marf@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: marf@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D9593A6878 for ; Thu, 3 Mar 2011 09:43:29 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2zoY0w20iFTh for ; Thu, 3 Mar 2011 09:43:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx-out.facebook.com (outmail017.snc4.facebook.com [66.220.144.149]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 746BC3A6860 for ; Thu, 3 Mar 2011 09:43:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.18.212] ([192.168.18.212:26263] helo=mail.thefacebook.com) by mta007.snc4.facebook.com (envelope-from ) (ecelerity 2.2.2.45 r(37388)) with ESMTP id EB/BB-30646-E73DF6D4; Thu, 03 Mar 2011 09:44:30 -0800 Received: from SC-MBX02-4.TheFacebook.com ([fe80::e1f0:42de:c867:1385]) by sc-hub04.TheFacebook.com ([192.168.18.212]) with mapi id 14.01.0270.001; Thu, 3 Mar 2011 09:44:30 -0800 From: Michael Adkins To: John Levine , "marf@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [marf] Feedback Loops BCP document Thread-Index: AcvUKpx97/oAbxRhRU2tMdzdCEW8jwFb/PYAAAwFFwA= Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2011 17:44:28 +0000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20110303040018.79384.qmail@joyce.lan> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.0.101115 x-originating-ip: [192.168.18.252] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <56969ED81DA96949B044A4A860F5A93E@fb.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 03 Mar 2011 09:46:09 -0800 Subject: Re: [marf] Feedback Loops BCP document X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2011 17:44:57 -0000 Not all FBLs go to the organization that runs the SMTP servers. Some are sent to third party data aggregators by request of the original mail sending organization. Some are also sent to upstream network providers who want to monitor their customers or whoever their customers are reallocating space to. I don't consider either of those use cases improper. On 3/2/11 8:00 PM, "John Levine" wrote: >'d also like it to note that redacting FBL reports is pointless, since >in a properly operating FBL you're sending them back to someone who has >already seen all of them. From johnl@taugh.com Thu Mar 3 10:21:46 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: marf@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: marf@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C43863A69FE for ; Thu, 3 Mar 2011 10:21:46 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -11.059 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-11.059 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.140, BAYES_00=-2.599, HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI=-4.3, RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED=-4.3] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZwwGhqaXr1rd for ; Thu, 3 Mar 2011 10:21:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [64.57.183.53]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B3E53A69EC for ; Thu, 3 Mar 2011 10:21:44 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 92801 invoked from network); 3 Mar 2011 18:22:51 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:vbr-info:user-agent:cleverness; s=16a80.4d6fdc7b.k1103; i=johnl@submit.iecc.com; bh=TpR+XWAlstN+zp/14p8EqbBDpL3Y05KcDDw/93yKd4c=; b=fIt7oUtDVpxqqIWsjoXUX+XSGaeHuw+msO9ce2/VxKpmdxMlsZVfa9r1vj17xXC+ly9Tgd/IzXnsmEYzeJLnofijgZ759mTLOAMYGHkC8AMUxitwvp0yxH8y7KZkZXPzBwVOVzmZyYm72CqRNOOeMGI1ZryDG6AVIXIPr9SdkpI= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:vbr-info:user-agent:cleverness; s=16a80.4d6fdc7b.k1103; olt=johnl@submit.iecc.com; bh=TpR+XWAlstN+zp/14p8EqbBDpL3Y05KcDDw/93yKd4c=; b=Gc8/paIgRU1pHWxirHwi7K8tZeK8XY1tkcn909H5dIx/rjQxFjRZZLEV0BElwdZtwww2c5EmaXsMzwyFFvyyNxbCg0VFaMOfezs8BBfTnM5ynS4k9MaE6gwecMK17e//VWKwMqnfm6oHzk3MIARaD4ytPTS/gvg9LT+4gZRMFt4= VBR-Info: md=iecc.com; mc=all; mv=dwl.spamhaus.org Received: (ofmipd johnl@64.57.183.62) with (DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted) SMTP; 3 Mar 2011 18:22:29 -0000 Date: 3 Mar 2011 13:22:50 -0500 Message-ID: From: "John R Levine" To: "Michael Adkins" In-Reply-To: References: 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 Cc: "marf@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [marf] Feedback Loops BCP document X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2011 18:21:46 -0000 > Not all FBLs go to the organization that runs the SMTP servers. Some are > sent to third party data aggregators by request of the original mail > sending organization. Some are also sent to upstream network providers > who want to monitor their customers or whoever their customers are > reallocating space to. I don't consider either of those use cases > improper. Good point. "Never mind." But I do wish that places like A*L would redact consistently. It's a pain tweaking my processing scripts every time they change what they do. Regards, John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY "I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly. From steve@blighty.com Thu Mar 3 10:25:06 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: marf@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: marf@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3B9B3A6A26 for ; Thu, 3 Mar 2011 10:25:06 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.359 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.359 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.240, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2davzh5RbaLk for ; Thu, 3 Mar 2011 10:25:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from m.wordtothewise.com (b.wordtothewise.com [208.187.80.136]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB9213A69FE for ; Thu, 3 Mar 2011 10:25:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.80.43] (184.wordtothewise.com [208.187.80.184]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: steve) by m.wordtothewise.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 889442DEC3 for ; Thu, 3 Mar 2011 10:26:13 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082.1) From: Steve Atkins In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2011 10:26:10 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: To: Message Abuse Report Format working group X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082.1) Subject: Re: [marf] Feedback Loops BCP document X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2011 18:25:06 -0000 On Mar 3, 2011, at 10:22 AM, John R Levine wrote: >> Not all FBLs go to the organization that runs the SMTP servers. Some = are >> sent to third party data aggregators by request of the original mail >> sending organization. Some are also sent to upstream network = providers >> who want to monitor their customers or whoever their customers are >> reallocating space to. I don't consider either of those use cases >> improper. >=20 > Good point. "Never mind." >=20 > But I do wish that places like A*L would redact consistently. It's a = pain tweaking my processing scripts every time they change what they do. If you're automating it's rare that you should be looking at email = addresses anyway. Inject an opaque cookie header at your mlm[1] or = smarthost and rely on that. Cheers, Steve [1] Given you're about a third of the mj2 userbase you must have some = pull to get that added :)= From jdfalk-lists@cybernothing.org Thu Mar 3 11:02:38 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: marf@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: marf@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C0993A6843 for ; Thu, 3 Mar 2011 11:02:38 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 92Y9PloeOwxl for ; Thu, 3 Mar 2011 11:02:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from ocelope.disgruntled.net (ocelope.disgruntled.net [97.107.131.76]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 968BE3A67EF for ; Thu, 3 Mar 2011 11:02:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.11.32] (c-76-126-154-212.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [76.126.154.212]) (authenticated bits=0) by ocelope.disgruntled.net (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-5+lenny1) with ESMTP id p23J3etK017888 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for ; Thu, 3 Mar 2011 11:03:43 -0800 X-DKIM: Sendmail DKIM Filter v2.6.0 ocelope.disgruntled.net p23J3etK017888 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cybernothing.org; s=triac; t=1299179024; bh=1RNTTQ400IYuYjuL+b+iHvOuzD9Kjjl5Qj87Q+uuJ wY=; h=Content-Type:Mime-Version:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-Id:References:To; b=E9toxhrTqpgD YgR7ShNBXagXi5B/toaoaXOdVXV5i7+W1VnmrNYY2igPF4e0k8JLhOtO/b5hBJzTktB 2Y3dYw4EdewiOwI7+3SLjt2kZ8+Ie+nGeOmBwa0v3mb8bpP9B/ywD82VjcGfspz+GIA u/vzu1iuAgIYeZXYABsiJxpho= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082) From: "J.D. Falk" In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2011 11:03:40 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <0043C5F1-1082-4E18-BB52-AE1D6F0BB9C4@cybernothing.org> References: To: Message Abuse Report Format working group X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082) Subject: Re: [marf] Feedback Loops BCP document X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2011 19:02:38 -0000 On Mar 3, 2011, at 10:26 AM, Steve Atkins wrote: > If you're automating it's rare that you should be looking at email = addresses anyway. Inject an opaque cookie header at your mlm[1] or = smarthost and rely on that. ...which I believe is what the document says. Did you write that part? = *grin* Still not seeing many opinions for or against bringing the MAAWG = document into this WG.... -- J.D. Falk the leading purveyor of industry counter-rhetoric solutions From hfontana@ecertsystems.com Thu Mar 3 11:07:38 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: marf@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: marf@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BCE23A67EF for ; Thu, 3 Mar 2011 11:07:38 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.976 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id d+c3ps7EHFGy for ; Thu, 3 Mar 2011 11:07:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ww0-f44.google.com (mail-ww0-f44.google.com [74.125.82.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D1E63A6843 for ; Thu, 3 Mar 2011 11:07:35 -0800 (PST) Received: by wwb22 with SMTP id 22so1320435wwb.13 for ; Thu, 03 Mar 2011 11:08:43 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ecertsystems.com; s=google; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=wTWo2fXCA/xbhgXrRrNs3nSPILxLAgTdn34iOkIH2mY=; b=R4o7AaU5Lma0p3CFKXsG+Kz/pLj1MVGNC1IY0W6Idm7qG3URlIseDyHNVWOqiSXb+p gqrgf/ccpzmdaAHGL9Vbal0VO5j/8NrEzrKQ7nC/SDlwiI7ZQKq6EKfH1VMD/sf0rgRm /fA6b4mVD8kSTJQLLOGaf5XYcP0pXs54O1c3E= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=ecertsystems.com; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; b=lkdpXggMkj3UiPgnbluFrumLx2ue1FtpHJNmdOmyx1eTe2f0Z5pElsX6rQP3XOvuPZ u6j4BYTd0LPku4hizF864xURC0KUHCeraBgpl43/7Id8TnNAE5PjVr52lQnSMX2v+vde 6qYy0T7TwlvuBZTmxWPj391RglON8OWcE6juk= Received: by 10.216.171.19 with SMTP id q19mr956524wel.53.1299179321163; Thu, 03 Mar 2011 11:08:41 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.51.68 with HTTP; Thu, 3 Mar 2011 11:08:21 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20110203030448.16367.qmail@joyce.lan> References: <3C74FF9D-889D-4E93-BABE-7F569065A9DA@cybernothing.org> <20110203030448.16367.qmail@joyce.lan> From: Hilda Fontana Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2011 11:08:21 -0800 Message-ID: To: John Levine Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016e65b60fef0013a049d98c173 Cc: marf@ietf.org Subject: Re: [marf] comments on DKIM Reporting draft X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2011 19:07:38 -0000 --0016e65b60fef0013a049d98c173 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 I think John makes a good point - preference would be to 1,2,and 4 make sense in one document - I understand the politics of wanting 3 in a separate document but when looking at the overall goal for a comprehensive authentication report format it still makes sense to me to include it. thanks H On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 7:04 PM, John Levine wrote: > >>>>> 1. DKIM reporting extensions > >>>>> 2. ADSP reporting extensions > >>>>> 3. SPF reporting extensions > >>>>> 4. ARF auth-failure extensions > >>>>> 5. ARF "redaction" > > >> I think my preference given the input so far is to leave (1), (2) > >and (4) in one document since there's already one such implementation > >out there (granted it's mine; I admit to some bias there). (3) could > >go out on its own as an add-on to that one, and Scott has volunteered > >to edit that > > If all the work is going to be done at the same time, I don't see any > benefit to splitting out the SPF stuff. It may be a political issue > to refer to an experimental RFC, but unless the IESG insists, our > readers will prefer to read one document. > > As far as (5) is concerned, I'm one of the authors of 5965 so I'd be > happy to work on it with JD. This seems somewhat independent of the > rest since it's equally useful (or not) in existing ARF applications. > > R's, > John > > > _______________________________________________ > marf mailing list > marf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf > -- Hilda L Fontana VP, Technology eCert, Inc. One Market Street, Suite 3600 San Francisco, CA 94105 p: 626.676.8852 f: 415.651.8932 **eCert - Trust the MessageTM *www.ecertsystems.com* * * ---------------------------------------- CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments is CONFIDENTIAL and is intended only for the use of the addressee. Any unauthorized use, disclosure, distribution, dissemination, or copying is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you believe you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately and permanently delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts of the e-mail or attachments and any copies of such printouts. Thank you for your cooperation. --0016e65b60fef0013a049d98c173 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I think John makes a good point - preference would be to 1,2,and 4 make sen= se in one document - I understand the politics of wanting 3 in a separate d= ocument but when looking at the overall goal for a comprehensive authentica= tion report format it still makes sense to me to include it.=A0

thanks
H


On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 a= t 7:04 PM, John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
>>>>> 1. DKIM reporting extensions
>>>>> 2. ADSP reporting extensions
>>>>> 3. SPF reporting extensions
>>>>> 4. ARF auth-failure extensions
>>>>> 5. ARF "redaction"

>> I think my preference given the input so f= ar is to leave (1), (2)
>and (4) in one document since there's already one such implementati= on
>out there (granted it's mine; I admit to some bias there). =A0(3) c= ould
>go out on its own as an add-on to that one, and Scott has volunteered >to edit that

If all the work is going to be done at the same time, I don't see= any
benefit to splitting out the SPF stuff. =A0It may be a political issue
to refer to an experimental RFC, but unless the IESG insists, our
readers will prefer to read one document.

As far as (5) is concerned, I'm one of the authors of 5965 so I'd b= e
happy to work on it with JD. =A0This seems somewhat independent of the
rest since it's equally useful (or not) in existing ARF applications.
R's,
John


_______________________________________________
marf mailing list
marf@ietf.org
ht= tps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf



--
Hilda L Fontana
VP, Technology=A0
eCert, Inc.
One Market Street, Suite 3600
San Francisco, CA 94105
p: 626.676.8852
f:=A0 415.651.8932
=A0
=A0
eCert - Trust=A0the MessageTM=A0
=A0
----------------------------------------
=A0
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
=A0
The information contained in this= =20 e-mail and any attachments is CONFIDENTIAL and is intended only for the=20 use of the addressee. Any unauthorized use, disclosure, distribution,=20 dissemination, or copying is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the=20 e-mail or attachments. If you believe you have received this e-mail in=20 error, please notify us immediately and permanently delete the e-mail,=20 any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and=20 destroy any printouts of the e-mail or attachments and any copies of=20 such printouts. Thank you for your cooperation.
=A0

--0016e65b60fef0013a049d98c173-- From sklist@kitterman.com Thu Mar 3 11:26:23 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: marf@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: marf@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CF173A695F for ; Thu, 3 Mar 2011 11:26:23 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oyfIfkxupjOA for ; Thu, 3 Mar 2011 11:26:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailout00.controlledmail.com (mailout00.controlledmail.com [72.81.252.19]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49BFA3A685B for ; Thu, 3 Mar 2011 11:26:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailout00.controlledmail.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailout00.controlledmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B01238C15F; Thu, 3 Mar 2011 14:27:29 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=kitterman.com; s=2007-00; t=1299180449; bh=g7b5HLtSob4gqqynxTmexblllvHKQOeTyquSdzP0jXc=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:References:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-Id; b=AYEMobB+QGTi5e0gQwFh9RHkrl6SHNmGKZngvEzyl3aCUBc6N570U/RdWf+8JWj1A fHk5pzmiw2D2vHNni0T6djn8QQoJJxaA72pfEbFWsek+XeWGWJrNQxKQO+vtXEHbxO GxPPdkVKRZas3of7PZs8KoEHC4GYDGIjzd02nVHw= From: Scott Kitterman To: marf@ietf.org Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2011 14:27:27 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.5 (Linux/2.6.35-25-generic; KDE/4.5.1; i686; ; ) References: <20CD3804-8E61-4B88-A65E-ADFD41467051@eudaemon.net> <88020014-68DC-4C64-B7A5-DE5DB1F2E53E@cybernothing.org> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201103031427.28334.sklist@kitterman.com> X-AV-Checked: ClamAV using ClamSMTP Subject: Re: [marf] comments on DKIM Reporting draft X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2011 19:26:23 -0000 On Wednesday, February 02, 2011 02:05:52 pm Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: marf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:marf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > > J.D. Falk Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2011 10:28 AM > > To: Message Abuse Report Format working group > > Subject: Re: [marf] comments on DKIM Reporting draft > > > > >> 1. DKIM reporting extensions > > >> 2. ADSP reporting extensions > > >> 3. SPF reporting extensions > > >> 4. ARF auth-failure extensions > > >> 5. ARF "redaction" > > [as participant] > > I think my preference given the input so far is to leave (1), (2) and (4) > in one document since there's already one such implementation out there > (granted it's mine; I admit to some bias there). (3) could go out on its > own as an add-on to that one, and Scott has volunteered to edit that; (5) > could also go out on its own, probably as an informational or an update to > RFC5965, and I think JD is saying he could take that one. > > How does that sound, especially to those I've actually named here? :-) I'm fine with taking the lead on #3, but it seems odd to me to keep #4 in with #1 and #2. It seems to me a separate topic. 1 - 4 together or 1 with 2 and 3 and 4 as separate documents seems more logical. Scott K From yigang.cai@alcatel-lucent.com Thu Mar 3 11:36:35 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: marf@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: marf@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 387093A6847 for ; Thu, 3 Mar 2011 11:36:35 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Bl0+G08YlsAW for ; Thu, 3 Mar 2011 11:36:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from ihemail2.lucent.com (ihemail2.lucent.com [135.245.0.35]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 011C23A6844 for ; Thu, 3 Mar 2011 11:36:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from usnavsmail2.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (usnavsmail2.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com [135.3.39.10]) by ihemail2.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id p23JbfR9023342 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 3 Mar 2011 13:37:41 -0600 (CST) Received: from USNAVSXCHHUB02.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (usnavsxchhub02.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com [135.3.39.111]) by usnavsmail2.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/GMO) with ESMTP id p23JbfxQ026952 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Thu, 3 Mar 2011 13:37:41 -0600 Received: from USNAVSXCHMBSA3.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.3.39.119]) by USNAVSXCHHUB02.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.3.39.111]) with mapi; Thu, 3 Mar 2011 13:37:41 -0600 From: "Cai, Yigang (Yigang)" To: John Levine , "marf@ietf.org" Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2011 13:37:39 -0600 Thread-Topic: [marf] A New Intenet Draft to MARF - "draft-cai-marf-policy-instruction-operation-00.txt" Thread-Index: AcvZqoG7pjpk+FOYS0uo4O2CmXQmlAALj6Xg Message-ID: <5710F82C0E73B04FA559560098BF95B1250693A845@USNAVSXCHMBSA3.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com> References: <5710F82C0E73B04FA559560098BF95B1250693A4E6@USNAVSXCHMBSA3.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com> <20110303135419.13887.qmail@joyce.lan> In-Reply-To: <20110303135419.13887.qmail@joyce.lan> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.35 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.64 on 135.3.39.10 Subject: Re: [marf] A New Intenet Draft to MARF - "draft-cai-marf-policy-instruction-operation-00.txt" X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2011 19:36:35 -0000 John, Thanks for your feedback. Currently communication industry is moving to Unified Messaging Center or U= niversal Message Center solution which converged email, IM, SMS/MMS into a = single platform or messaging server for both mobile and wireline networks. = We received many RFP/RFQ/RFI from service providers worldwide requesting co= nverged messaging services. It will be new direction in next few years. So,= we consider this document reflects the interests of industry including as = well mobile telephone industry. Both IETF MARF and OMA should address this = type of issues. It is consistent with Murry's effort in accommodation of OM= A's SpamRep work into the IETF MARF. Therefore, we think it is within the s= cope of the MARF group. Best, Yigang =20 -----Original Message----- From: John Levine [mailto:johnl@taugh.com]=20 Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2011 7:54 AM To: marf@ietf.org Cc: Cai, Yigang (Yigang) Subject: Re: [marf] A New Intenet Draft to MARF - "draft-cai-marf-policy-in= struction-operation-00.txt" >Could you provide your comments/suggestion on this document? It's an interesting draft, but it seems totally outside the scope of the MA= RF group. Also, it's hard to imagine the ISPs and ESPs who are the primary= users of ARF exchanging data at the level of integration and mutual trust = that this draft appears to assume. I gather this is based on work in the mobile telephone industry on SMS and = other phone spam. Perhaps you could tell us something about the way those = organizations exchange data. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummi= es", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.= ly From johnl@iecc.com Thu Mar 3 12:03:34 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: marf@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: marf@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E953B3A688F for ; Thu, 3 Mar 2011 12:03:34 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -111.065 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-111.065 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.134, BAYES_00=-2.599, HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI=-4.3, RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED=-4.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id p6tnOClpEt-r for ; Thu, 3 Mar 2011 12:03:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [64.57.183.53]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B12E33A6843 for ; Thu, 3 Mar 2011 12:03:33 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 21955 invoked from network); 3 Mar 2011 20:04:40 -0000 Received: from mail1.iecc.com (64.57.183.56) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 3 Mar 2011 20:04:40 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:cc:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:vbr-info; s=18551.4d6ff458.k1103; i=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=LGi0aOv6D186TUDZTrHXPliFehb/XJ+OdNRLN5NwFrc=; b=TUOxetVJeR+N3WIul7QbLAY0zS1UKP/a4NJkLYGvAB3HoTrC2KzC8qr1YkbVBiNeaRjIhIfv9+ndAwXXK8stEak16+4BwJUlAmKEf1giUv/avqt3rsp9LhKVloGK8T/dMfbFbylbj0V2EHguVlln1lhj4j0A/L9CBkwWm7wNml0= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:cc:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:vbr-info; s=18551.4d6ff458.k1103; olt=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=LGi0aOv6D186TUDZTrHXPliFehb/XJ+OdNRLN5NwFrc=; b=s85aLZXa01Brl/Uo/rUu/Cn8XZsq0YyVNBqpWP1kM6fEkkhWBkKeHuIeD5RDntWtvS3X+OVOEX8DY1ObUAboQ+pzIUm8gIarTMPOMejXPaAVdz7bUGtqBi74CCYquK5Ij0xN4MZXazkRue+YZpFQhrnh7YUcDyB8Fpj+3ObdwT0= VBR-Info: md=iecc.com; mc=all; mv=dwl.spamhaus.org Date: 3 Mar 2011 20:04:40 -0000 Message-ID: <20110303200440.99664.qmail@joyce.lan> From: John Levine To: marf@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <0043C5F1-1082-4E18-BB52-AE1D6F0BB9C4@cybernothing.org> Organization: X-Headerized: yes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [marf] Feedback Loops BCP document X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2011 20:03:35 -0000 >Still not seeing many opinions for or against bringing the MAAWG document into this WG.... My opinion is that it would make a good IETF BCP, but we'd have to rewrite it, which might pose a problem for MAAWG. R's, John From barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com Fri Mar 4 13:16:41 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: marf@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: marf@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 703DF3A6862 for ; Fri, 4 Mar 2011 13:16:41 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.154 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.154 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.177, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zQxtvDveNNov for ; Fri, 4 Mar 2011 13:16:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-iw0-f172.google.com (mail-iw0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A43283A67EF for ; Fri, 4 Mar 2011 13:16:40 -0800 (PST) Received: by iwl42 with SMTP id 42so2653885iwl.31 for ; Fri, 04 Mar 2011 13:17:50 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=xAWG8jwHbJ+Onn0RhXRJJZCV7lChGpri/Y0BnbmMqIo=; b=F0Y8kOiAU4NuUGrCwOvRXbA1ziUKY4YuVDinrpyayvw/kJfAc3QlptfARMrc0RH7K+ gSZxCc7y5wbwP5eKNfTNgk2JLtzxMWvb4ztroqQQhQ7/snR7EgdwJERNL27nipCc9r8+ U55xQGDBTC67DFAuVRW9m1cLgLuqFue0/UuJg= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; b=ZYcjCYrcAbX2DwoBDui3OVIIKqWK4IROxiaBHg0SxKf5shETXXjDh/P+GSZriFKJj5 Ml28D7JOrz+hy5BvVL8UNnzHFsU5skbWKStSO1fq1DqbSXdgh8t1drrJrwotiYDlLUIS OaI5IfYIIfyWMf8G6MJeKq59SwRLE7rK2f3Sc= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.43.59.72 with SMTP id wn8mr1322274icb.48.1299273470123; Fri, 04 Mar 2011 13:17:50 -0800 (PST) Sender: barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com Received: by 10.42.223.1 with HTTP; Fri, 4 Mar 2011 13:17:50 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <5710F82C0E73B04FA559560098BF95B1250693A845@USNAVSXCHMBSA3.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com> References: <5710F82C0E73B04FA559560098BF95B1250693A4E6@USNAVSXCHMBSA3.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com> <20110303135419.13887.qmail@joyce.lan> <5710F82C0E73B04FA559560098BF95B1250693A845@USNAVSXCHMBSA3.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com> Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2011 16:17:50 -0500 X-Google-Sender-Auth: Gz712_7anG8-79c_fAV-LCiXPSE Message-ID: From: Barry Leiba To: "Cai, Yigang (Yigang)" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: "marf@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [marf] A New Intenet Draft to MARF - "draft-cai-marf-policy-instruction-operation-00.txt" X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2011 21:16:41 -0000 > Both IETF MARF and OMA should address this type of issues. It is consistent with > Murry's effort in accommodation of OMA's SpamRep work into the IETF MARF. > Therefore, we think it is within the scope of the MARF group. It is, indeed, within the conceptual scope of the MARF group, but it is absolutely *NOT* within the scope of the current charter. The MARF working group will not adopt the document under the current charter. The chairs are perfectly happy to allow discussion of the document on this mailing list, but not so that it interferes with the work the group still has to do under its current charter. And the chairs will be happy to consider proposals for an updated charter that may include this, when our current work is done -- and we're pretty close, actually. I suggest that we move aggressively to finish our current work, and then look at rechartering for follow-on stuff, which could include this document. Barry, as chair From yigang.cai@alcatel-lucent.com Fri Mar 4 14:52:37 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: marf@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: marf@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E32F3A68AB for ; Fri, 4 Mar 2011 14:52:37 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id o3I7jVLmCZoj for ; Fri, 4 Mar 2011 14:52:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from ihemail2.lucent.com (ihemail2.lucent.com [135.245.0.35]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2B513A683C for ; Fri, 4 Mar 2011 14:52:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from usnavsmail2.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (usnavsmail2.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com [135.3.39.10]) by ihemail2.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id p24MrhqP008692 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 4 Mar 2011 16:53:43 -0600 (CST) Received: from USNAVSXCHHUB02.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (usnavsxchhub02.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com [135.3.39.111]) by usnavsmail2.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/GMO) with ESMTP id p24MrhEQ012954 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Fri, 4 Mar 2011 16:53:43 -0600 Received: from USNAVSXCHMBSA3.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.3.39.119]) by USNAVSXCHHUB02.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.3.39.111]) with mapi; Fri, 4 Mar 2011 16:53:43 -0600 From: "Cai, Yigang (Yigang)" To: Barry Leiba Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2011 16:53:41 -0600 Thread-Topic: [marf] A New Intenet Draft to MARF - "draft-cai-marf-policy-instruction-operation-00.txt" Thread-Index: AcvasZ6w+KPCt0Y/SvGctgb92JeCRgADJF7g Message-ID: <5710F82C0E73B04FA559560098BF95B1250693ADF4@USNAVSXCHMBSA3.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com> References: <5710F82C0E73B04FA559560098BF95B1250693A4E6@USNAVSXCHMBSA3.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com> <20110303135419.13887.qmail@joyce.lan> <5710F82C0E73B04FA559560098BF95B1250693A845@USNAVSXCHMBSA3.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.35 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.64 on 135.3.39.10 Cc: "marf@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [marf] A New Intenet Draft to MARF - "draft-cai-marf-policy-instruction-operation-00.txt" X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2011 22:52:37 -0000 Barry, I am glad you agreed this document indeed within the conceptual scope of th= e MARF group. Alcatel-Lucent prefers to present this document briefly (5-10 minutes) in I= ETF 80 MARF WG meeting. Thanks, Yigang -----Original Message----- From: barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com [mailto:barryleiba.mailing.lists@g= mail.com] On Behalf Of Barry Leiba Sent: Friday, March 04, 2011 3:18 PM To: Cai, Yigang (Yigang) Cc: marf@ietf.org Subject: Re: [marf] A New Intenet Draft to MARF - "draft-cai-marf-policy-in= struction-operation-00.txt" > Both IETF MARF and OMA should address this type of issues. It is=20 > consistent with Murry's effort in accommodation of OMA's SpamRep work int= o the IETF MARF. > Therefore, we think it is within the scope of the MARF group. It is, indeed, within the conceptual scope of the MARF group, but it is abs= olutely *NOT* within the scope of the current charter. The MARF working gr= oup will not adopt the document under the current charter. The chairs are perfectly happy to allow discussion of the document on this = mailing list, but not so that it interferes with the work the group still h= as to do under its current charter. And the chairs will be happy to consid= er proposals for an updated charter that may include this, when our current= work is done -- and we're pretty close, actually. I suggest that we move aggressively to finish our current work, and then lo= ok at rechartering for follow-on stuff, which could include this document. Barry, as chair From jdfalk-lists@cybernothing.org Tue Mar 8 09:41:54 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: marf@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: marf@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0121C3A693A for ; Tue, 8 Mar 2011 09:41:54 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id O-lh2aeqogDd for ; Tue, 8 Mar 2011 09:41:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from ocelope.disgruntled.net (ocelope.disgruntled.net [97.107.131.76]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D97D63A6936 for ; Tue, 8 Mar 2011 09:41:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.11.32] (c-76-126-154-212.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [76.126.154.212]) (authenticated bits=0) by ocelope.disgruntled.net (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-5+lenny1) with ESMTP id p28Hh4mF009342 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for ; Tue, 8 Mar 2011 09:43:07 -0800 X-DKIM: Sendmail DKIM Filter v2.6.0 ocelope.disgruntled.net p28Hh4mF009342 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cybernothing.org; s=triac; t=1299606187; bh=LLtmSns8FAAskkCaemgg6jac56gSC/2WdY/Da5WXP +M=; h=From:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Subject:Date: Message-Id:To:Mime-Version; b=NclA96QuZbKSmi/DbbeEH36XeTwhmUKtoloU sFOwsdHmE8mZVvNYtPh6XO6F6/8dL2iRpMXpGJCDohnkHwLU5wv6CNLVOUX+2hcZQt6 A92BIXJqh7GAVZNCn1w9ZsOC159G1qSt9dmf4rjzOeBUZ80J3oJdVCUBwnHdcl72BaJ 0= From: "J.D. Falk" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 09:43:03 -0800 Message-Id: To: Message Abuse Report Format working group Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082) Subject: [marf] draft-jdfalk-marf-redaction X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2011 17:41:54 -0000 I was in the mood for xml the other day, so I took section 10 of = draft-ietf-marf-dkim-reporting and added the minimum necessary = additional text and formatting to make it a stand-alone draft: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jdfalk-marf-redaction-00 (Oops, just noticed I forgot to acknowledge the original authors. Many = apologies; that'll be fixed in the next version.) My thought is that by making this a stand-alone Informational RFC, it'll = be easy to reference from other documents. Any thoughts? -- J.D. Falk the leading purveyor of industry counter-rhetoric solutions From vesely@tana.it Tue Mar 8 10:29:18 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: marf@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: marf@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DD6F3A693F for ; Tue, 8 Mar 2011 10:29:18 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.903 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.903 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.184, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CD+5QKU3Vl4p for ; Tue, 8 Mar 2011 10:29:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from wmail.tana.it (www.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC8493A6921 for ; Tue, 8 Mar 2011 10:29:14 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=tana.it; s=test; t=1299609023; bh=ut+snRTIr85CJJ9kcf1mgBY9TnNsGy1JOZoydefeLHk=; l=540; h=Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=SbHpuDHB0cVJRtSNQSZBKJjN2CyH1B/Ia/rBu5Ji7FKDdZsduve/2zKTUZSBxOxsW glHzxYog2gE3zIWLFfpu5JekFaA6srIZg3zOhgZ3VwC+tJJkUMTxsv0bzHbLIFCkfR 7t6io5Xun33P9nHoJfFaj5uebeuc19JcZqkzDhv4= Received: from [172.25.197.158] (pcale.tana [172.25.197.158]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 515, TLS: TLS1.0,256bits,RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPSA; Tue, 08 Mar 2011 19:30:23 +0100 id 00000000005DC035.000000004D7675BF.000009C2 Message-ID: <4D7675BE.7000100@tana.it> Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2011 19:30:22 +0100 From: Alessandro Vesely User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: marf@ietf.org References: <20CD3804-8E61-4B88-A65E-ADFD41467051@eudaemon.net> <88020014-68DC-4C64-B7A5-DE5DB1F2E53E@cybernothing.org> <201103031427.28334.sklist@kitterman.com> In-Reply-To: <201103031427.28334.sklist@kitterman.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [marf] comments on DKIM Reporting draft X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2011 18:29:18 -0000 On 03/Mar/11 20:27, Scott Kitterman wrote: >>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> 1. DKIM reporting extensions >>>>> 2. ADSP reporting extensions >>>>> 3. SPF reporting extensions >>>>> 4. ARF auth-failure extensions >>>>> 5. ARF "redaction" > > I'm fine with taking the lead on #3, but it seems odd to me to keep #4 in with > #1 and #2. It seems to me a separate topic. 1 - 4 together or 1 with 2 and 3 > and 4 as separate documents seems more logical. +1 for 1-4 together, unless this prevents Scott from coauthoring it. From johnl@iecc.com Tue Mar 8 10:40:26 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: marf@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: marf@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C3853A693C for ; Tue, 8 Mar 2011 10:40:26 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -110.971 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.971 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.228, BAYES_00=-2.599, HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI=-4.3, RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED=-4.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9pu05nKe8NmM for ; Tue, 8 Mar 2011 10:40:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [64.57.183.53]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D7103A6919 for ; Tue, 8 Mar 2011 10:40:25 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 58242 invoked from network); 8 Mar 2011 18:41:40 -0000 Received: from mail1.iecc.com (64.57.183.56) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 8 Mar 2011 18:41:40 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:vbr-info; s=51e3.4d767864.k1103; i=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=BbUJ/ZJG9L+N2B8d6lzD53CzJQvN9HTo29KIgEOChGY=; b=cUBdjF4lyNKcW1xcyKAfOJKXLAhm2LIH66dSx7rXrRbVm9KaJWU0937pGn72+m+zZtw/J1Dqgd3QE/3AbaqLt3WHcknOYn9ELXbQ1fNSHv8p5WVIpBsQc0pK/+znp+FLb3EQX0NFIABIxjNnEuueZnoDPNlmlkq6F521Bik8NbQ= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:vbr-info; s=51e3.4d767864.k1103; olt=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=BbUJ/ZJG9L+N2B8d6lzD53CzJQvN9HTo29KIgEOChGY=; b=GZDDf33EYf2XCnPZxBYmkk1/DEbaAZK2Asfv4/j0gPVynv+izUjcwoCI7OVKmQAEX+54tlEgunxMuOfMfoqd23ORhnRyRWUgNJQ//Wgm9lC/PoqLU6uaA8Sj8gVGD2XhHrZP551/hooxjfrv9P4wehlCn+Fd4I0fIaOeZ1A68nU= VBR-Info: md=iecc.com; mc=all; mv=dwl.spamhaus.org Date: 8 Mar 2011 18:41:40 -0000 Message-ID: <20110308184140.20962.qmail@joyce.lan> From: John Levine To: marf@ietf.org In-Reply-To: Organization: X-Headerized: yes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [marf] draft-jdfalk-marf-redaction X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2011 18:40:26 -0000 It's a clever idea. Any chance ISPs will actually do this? R's, John From msk@cloudmark.com Tue Mar 8 11:59:55 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: marf@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: marf@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EAD63A6951 for ; Tue, 8 Mar 2011 11:59:55 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.167 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.167 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.568, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id T92q4UIt5mUK for ; Tue, 8 Mar 2011 11:59:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.35]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9238A3A6924 for ; Tue, 8 Mar 2011 11:59:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.1.74]) by malice.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.10.71]) with mapi; Tue, 8 Mar 2011 12:01:09 -0800 From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: Alessandro Vesely , "marf@ietf.org" Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 12:01:08 -0800 Thread-Topic: [marf] comments on DKIM Reporting draft Thread-Index: AcvdvurzBdjy0aj8QuODKKReHAj0VwADFTyg Message-ID: References: <20CD3804-8E61-4B88-A65E-ADFD41467051@eudaemon.net> <88020014-68DC-4C64-B7A5-DE5DB1F2E53E@cybernothing.org> <201103031427.28334.sklist@kitterman.com> <4D7675BE.7000100@tana.it> In-Reply-To: <4D7675BE.7000100@tana.it> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [marf] comments on DKIM Reporting draft X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2011 19:59:55 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: marf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:marf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of A= lessandro Vesely > Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2011 10:30 AM > To: marf@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [marf] comments on DKIM Reporting draft >=20 > On 03/Mar/11 20:27, Scott Kitterman wrote: > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>> 1. DKIM reporting extensions > >>>>> 2. ADSP reporting extensions > >>>>> 3. SPF reporting extensions > >>>>> 4. ARF auth-failure extensions > >>>>> 5. ARF "redaction" > > > > I'm fine with taking the lead on #3, but it seems odd to me to keep #4 = in with > > #1 and #2. It seems to me a separate topic. 1 - 4 together or 1 with = 2 and 3 > > and 4 as separate documents seems more logical. >=20 > +1 for 1-4 together, unless this prevents Scott from coauthoring it. [as participant] I'd prefer to do 1-4 together, and split 5 out on its own (which JD seems t= o have stepped up to tackle). I also think the material in 5 would be good to include in the BCP. From madkins@fb.com Tue Mar 8 10:47:51 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: marf@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: marf@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11C6D3A6811 for ; Tue, 8 Mar 2011 10:47:51 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.458 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.458 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.141, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4JGVWkbN+ZlI for ; Tue, 8 Mar 2011 10:47:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx-out.facebook.com (outmail007.snc4.facebook.com [66.220.144.139]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CC483A67FC for ; Tue, 8 Mar 2011 10:47:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.18.198] ([192.168.18.198:12471] helo=mail.thefacebook.com) by mta020.snc4.facebook.com (envelope-from ) (ecelerity 2.2.2.45 r(37388)) with ESMTP id 78/A9-30753-91A767D4; Tue, 08 Mar 2011 10:48:58 -0800 Received: from SC-MBX01-4.TheFacebook.com ([fe80::6c2c:b681:4e19:7b5f]) by sc-hub03.TheFacebook.com ([192.168.18.198]) with mapi id 14.01.0270.001; Tue, 8 Mar 2011 10:48:55 -0800 From: Michael Adkins To: John Levine , "marf@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [marf] draft-jdfalk-marf-redaction Thread-Index: AQHL3bhPL6jS7mCufEitHOOGepkzlpQkS5gA//975wA= Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 18:48:54 +0000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20110308184140.20962.qmail@joyce.lan> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.0.101115 x-originating-ip: [192.168.18.252] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <9D4BF85BC6463943AF3DEBAD84788A12@fb.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 08 Mar 2011 12:00:28 -0800 Subject: Re: [marf] draft-jdfalk-marf-redaction X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2011 18:47:51 -0000 Facebook already does. Granted, it's just for vendor report feeds but I doubt we'll change the redaction method for general ARF feeds once we start offering them. On 3/8/11 10:41 AM, "John Levine" wrote: >It's a clever idea. Any chance ISPs will actually do this? > >R's, >John >_______________________________________________ >marf mailing list >marf@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf From tk@abusix.org Tue Mar 8 12:14:48 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: marf@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: marf@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDAAB3A6999 for ; Tue, 8 Mar 2011 12:14:48 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UcG5S+hj+6Ru for ; Tue, 8 Mar 2011 12:14:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-fx0-f44.google.com (mail-fx0-f44.google.com [209.85.161.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B086A3A6998 for ; Tue, 8 Mar 2011 12:14:45 -0800 (PST) Received: by fxm15 with SMTP id 15so5960515fxm.31 for ; Tue, 08 Mar 2011 12:16:00 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=abusix.org; s=google; h=domainkey-signature:sender:message-id:date:from:reply-to :organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:x-enigmail-version:content-type; bh=riGiMcfFcgd9EC2UVvpNensVvB3qjBT7GkDGGf9Mr/Q=; b=ITv0QS0j5RhqCzF4DYDhxOr9Mmp1DCkztA3fYUc3RQx9b3FE/Sse2gIpFl4POskKP5 P8wQX8T6ydiJKNLNJEyY82F+OxbL73DWMI/y5SZE9Rw5r7QquziF9IZ8iLgvUWhJkFru nGkdB3MVdRH78rSCX/Bit7eAIAGJKMIjYEWaY= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=abusix.org; s=google; h=sender:message-id:date:from:reply-to:organization:user-agent :mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:x-enigmail-version :content-type; b=K/1vK/dy+VTRYpVC9UHlp1sWy+l5sZw3JP/9dKZwBCXrgqQDX67+CAjNXT7Vb9iQSD Dhe8WcYsVJu5VHRnW9AtfR1BMC7WWBmLGIFCgT+engB1OTG3RFtjcT73Tqa3p8608/Lo jZFB/QoKI+D7ztY1j1j81EtM7mq8QaLUTtGhk= Received: by 10.223.102.69 with SMTP id f5mr261991fao.22.1299614921893; Tue, 08 Mar 2011 12:08:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from imini.local (pinky.abusix.org [83.169.54.8]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id n15sm545365fam.12.2011.03.08.12.08.39 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 08 Mar 2011 12:08:40 -0800 (PST) Sender: Tobias Knecht Message-ID: <4D768CC3.2040604@abusix.com> Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2011 21:08:35 +0100 From: Tobias Knecht Organization: abusix User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; de; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: marf@ietf.org References: <20110308184140.20962.qmail@joyce.lan> In-Reply-To: <20110308184140.20962.qmail@joyce.lan> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig72CAA45BB347FCC1EC19BB7B" Subject: Re: [marf] draft-jdfalk-marf-redaction X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: tk@abusix.com List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2011 20:14:48 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig72CAA45BB347FCC1EC19BB7B Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello everybody, > It's a clever idea. Any chance ISPs will actually do this? I think that will be the biggest problem. Never the less I like the idea, but I think it's trying to solve a problem from the wrong side. Okay, I' from Germany ;-), so I fully understand that sometimes redacting is necessary, but I do not understand, why the redacting problem has to be solved by the feedbackloop offering party. I see the problem that putting the threshold higher for ISPs that already have legal trouble offering feedbackloops does not make it any better. Wouldn't it make more sense to add an encrypted ID to every single outgoing mail header? That's what some European ISPs already do. Some of them call it X-Abuse-ID. This ID contains everything that is necessary for abuse handling, unsubscribing, whatever else. Such an ID is solving the redacting problem for everybody completely and prevents feedbackloop offering ISPs to change their existing systems. Thanks, Tobias --------------enig72CAA45BB347FCC1EC19BB7B Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.16 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk12jMYACgkQX1iWbSWuwmzQ9ACggd4o1/WVqjfABit/wFRNf/1A ZWcAnRtEns0K0SEo17IZLg+lpztZFHW+ =S4h5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig72CAA45BB347FCC1EC19BB7B-- From jdfalk-lists@cybernothing.org Tue Mar 8 14:23:16 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: marf@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: marf@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C8C93A67B2 for ; Tue, 8 Mar 2011 14:23:16 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ixr9vDrF7Uqb for ; Tue, 8 Mar 2011 14:22:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from ocelope.disgruntled.net (ocelope.disgruntled.net [97.107.131.76]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6904A3A672F for ; Tue, 8 Mar 2011 14:22:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.11.32] (c-76-126-154-212.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [76.126.154.212]) (authenticated bits=0) by ocelope.disgruntled.net (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-5+lenny1) with ESMTP id p28MNHuM013884 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for ; Tue, 8 Mar 2011 14:23:21 -0800 X-DKIM: Sendmail DKIM Filter v2.6.0 ocelope.disgruntled.net p28MNHuM013884 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cybernothing.org; s=triac; t=1299623001; bh=mSto76JTRN6JeMr8GL/Q3O2CGhrcF6HvjLg8tx5w+ RQ=; h=Content-Type:Mime-Version:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-Id:References:To; b=KE/Hw18rQeU8 owg1agigNNEcHyISMVv4CBFOJOQBLzFv8p0ganlnovEuFeYNw7PeYoIMt+2CVtyUlDa KS2l7k31yIts7c1w3szXX7CGc+D0hKPiKjxUeiy2GmuALLAfPucINJiRHzxotkb+zIQ W9fJ/uACX+m5mY7Y2tR06IAPA= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082) From: "J.D. Falk" In-Reply-To: <4D768CC3.2040604@abusix.com> Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 14:23:17 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <20110308184140.20962.qmail@joyce.lan> <4D768CC3.2040604@abusix.com> To: Message Abuse Report Format working group X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082) Subject: Re: [marf] draft-jdfalk-marf-redaction X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2011 22:23:16 -0000 On Mar 8, 2011, at 12:08 PM, Tobias Knecht wrote: > Wouldn't it make more sense to add an encrypted ID to every single > outgoing mail header? That's what some European ISPs already do. Some = of > them call it X-Abuse-ID. This ID contains everything that is necessary > for abuse handling, unsubscribing, whatever else. That's common outside of Europe, too, but it doesn't address the = Feedback Generator's lawyers' requirement that potentially personally = identifying information be redacted from the feedback message. -- J.D. Falk the leading purveyor of industry counter-rhetoric solutions From jdfalk-lists@cybernothing.org Tue Mar 8 14:24:19 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: marf@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: marf@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0B0E3A672F for ; Tue, 8 Mar 2011 14:24:19 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iNBN9H9MINzX for ; Tue, 8 Mar 2011 14:24:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from ocelope.disgruntled.net (ocelope.disgruntled.net [97.107.131.76]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E35243A676A for ; Tue, 8 Mar 2011 14:24:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.11.32] (c-76-126-154-212.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [76.126.154.212]) (authenticated bits=0) by ocelope.disgruntled.net (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-5+lenny1) with ESMTP id p28MPUWH013914 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for ; Tue, 8 Mar 2011 14:25:33 -0800 X-DKIM: Sendmail DKIM Filter v2.6.0 ocelope.disgruntled.net p28MPUWH013914 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cybernothing.org; s=triac; t=1299623134; bh=SmIcCbd6d+ye9y4oYrbhleUAw+aArsi2VibGLkuEE p0=; h=Content-Type:Mime-Version:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-Id:References:To; b=VOLtN+F5waZ9 AeBc18CfXEoixBGumloxjjul7jx1sjgC/1hOxhlMKQA+OT0ZdJWP8UgxJHeyMNz1r/6 MC7DuFQ5np98f161dlkM9TMLSOv0sU8K0RyKtTjnCES/jLc0f4rtD4TolqOO5jYNH77 +CaBRzdLSofyoovsxLwINbrzQ= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082) From: "J.D. Falk" In-Reply-To: <20110308184140.20962.qmail@joyce.lan> Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 14:25:30 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <806E002A-F155-4E12-98D1-D08B2372F4E1@cybernothing.org> References: <20110308184140.20962.qmail@joyce.lan> To: Message Abuse Report Format working group X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082) Subject: Re: [marf] draft-jdfalk-marf-redaction X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2011 22:24:20 -0000 On Mar 8, 2011, at 10:41 AM, John Levine wrote: > It's a clever idea. Any chance ISPs will actually do this? Maybe. The main thing is to introduce the redaction concept in a = reference-able document, and suggest at least one alternative to = xxxxxxxx. -- J.D. Falk the leading purveyor of industry counter-rhetoric solutions From msk@cloudmark.com Tue Mar 8 15:18:19 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: marf@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: marf@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B60E93A67B7 for ; Tue, 8 Mar 2011 15:18:19 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.128 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.128 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.530, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1t5DhhTqwIEf for ; Tue, 8 Mar 2011 15:18:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.35]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D60D3A67C2 for ; Tue, 8 Mar 2011 15:18:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.1.74]) by malice.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.10.71]) with mapi; Tue, 8 Mar 2011 15:19:31 -0800 From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: "marf@ietf.org" Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 15:19:30 -0800 Thread-Topic: Draft Agenda for IETF 80 Thread-Index: Acvd50bKSbJDbZETSj6RsAU84frwew== Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F1341E7464AEXCHC2corpclo_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [marf] Draft Agenda for IETF 80 X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2011 23:18:19 -0000 --_000_F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F1341E7464AEXCHC2corpclo_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable We have a one-hour slot on Tuesday late afternoon at IETF80 in Prague (see = https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/80/agenda.html). One hour isn't much = so we're limiting the agenda to chartered work only at this time. Here's t= he proposed agenda: 00:00-00:05 Agenda bashing 00:05-00:15 draft-ietf-dkim-reporting (M. Kucherawy): overview of n= ew version and changes, discussion of possible breakup into separate docume= nts 00:15-00:30 draft-ietf-marf-reporting-discovery (JD Falk): overview= , general discussion 00:30-00:40 draft-jdfalk-marf-redaction (JD Falk): overview, discus= s incorporation into BCP 00:40-00:55 draft-jdfalk-maawg-cfblbcp (JD Falk): overview, discuss= ion of contents and next steps 00:55-01:00 SpamRep convergence (Alex Bobotek): new document presen= tation JD will be presenting remotely via Skype, or I will present his slides and = he will support them during discussion via Jabber. If any of these fall short of their allotted times, an Any Other Business s= lot will begin to form at the end of our allotted time. -MSK --_000_F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F1341E7464AEXCHC2corpclo_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

We have a one-ho= ur slot on Tuesday late afternoon at IETF80 in Prague (see https://datatracker.ietf.or= g/meeting/80/agenda.html).  One hour isn’t much so we’= re limiting the agenda to chartered work only at this time.  Here̵= 7;s the proposed agenda:

 

00:00-00:05      &= nbsp;  Agenda bashing

00:05-00:15&n= bsp;        draft-ietf-dkim-reporting (M= . Kucherawy): overview of new version and changes, discussion of possible b= reakup into separate documents

00:15-00:= 30         draft-ietf-marf-reportin= g-discovery (JD Falk): overview, general discussion

00:30-00:40         dr= aft-jdfalk-marf-redaction (JD Falk): overview, discuss incorporation into B= CP

00:40-00:55    &n= bsp;    draft-jdfalk-maawg-cfblbcp (JD Falk): overview, disc= ussion of contents and next steps

00:55-= 01:00         SpamRep convergence (= Alex Bobotek): new document presentation

 

JD will be presenting remotely v= ia Skype, or I will present his slides and he will support them during disc= ussion via Jabber.

 

=

If any of these fall short of their allotted times, an= Any Other Business slot will begin to form at the end of our allotted time= .

 

-MSK

 

= --_000_F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F1341E7464AEXCHC2corpclo_-- From shmuel+gen@patriot.net Wed Mar 9 04:57:36 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: marf@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: marf@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE7273A6983 for ; Wed, 9 Mar 2011 04:57:36 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Yy4pUyauJPB8 for ; Wed, 9 Mar 2011 04:57:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.patriot.net (smtp.patriot.net [209.249.176.77]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD32A3A695E for ; Wed, 9 Mar 2011 04:57:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from ECS35455305 (unknown [69.72.27.12]) (Authenticated sender: shmuel@patriot.net) by smtp.patriot.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BFA0F5809C for ; Wed, 9 Mar 2011 07:53:45 -0500 (EST) From: Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2011 07:57:56 -0500 To: marf@ietf.org In-Reply-To: Mail-Copies-To: nobody Mail-Followup-To: Message Abuse Report Format working group Organization: Atid/2 X-CompuServe-Customer: Yes X-Coriate: NCAE@NewAmerica.org X-Coriate: Mark Griffith X-Punge: Micro$oft X-Terminate: SPA(GIS) X-Treme: C&C,DWS X-Mailer: MR/2 Internet Cruiser Edition for OS/2 v3.00.11.18 BETA/60 Message-Id: <20110309125346.1BFA0F5809C@smtp.patriot.net> Subject: Re: [marf] comments on DKIM Reporting draft X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: Message Abuse Report Format working group List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2011 12:57:36 -0000 In , on 03/08/2011 at 12:01 PM, "Murray S. Kucherawy" said: >I'd prefer to do 1-4 together, and split 5 out on its own (which JD >seems to have stepped up to tackle). That seems reasonable. Redaction should be the odd man out. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT Atid/2 We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress. (S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003) From vesely@tana.it Sat Mar 12 04:27:28 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: marf@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: marf@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF4C63A68B5 for ; Sat, 12 Mar 2011 04:27:28 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.866 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.866 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.147, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Eb3dL7lNy+4T for ; Sat, 12 Mar 2011 04:27:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from wmail.tana.it (www.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9E633A689A for ; Sat, 12 Mar 2011 04:27:26 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=tana.it; s=test; t=1299932923; bh=Bj2OY6UriiMb25Wcu5ZoQtNq/5BpQo27yktpn308MkA=; l=1625; h=Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=YBPsF4N5OF3PxwsSKdc6fR5p3ruV+mSOLpBUt1TM20cmZxIKHLminX4kj0E4bXN6B 9gEQTMdIIYAQV40ybmbGx2fjzR+ID825+O8eh38GLCGzlT9X1eEi4rreeWH/u2Nl6h HexNtdMUsJ2zZuv8em6brv2GXDEU7GlpH/+e+8NU= Received: from [172.25.197.158] (pcale.tana [172.25.197.158]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 515, TLS: TLS1.0,256bits,RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPSA; Sat, 12 Mar 2011 13:28:43 +0100 id 00000000005DC046.000000004D7B66FB.00001B7F Message-ID: <4D7B66FB.3040202@tana.it> Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2011 13:28:43 +0100 From: Alessandro Vesely User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: marf@ietf.org References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [marf] draft-jdfalk-marf-redaction X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2011 12:27:29 -0000 On 08/Mar/11 18:43, J.D. Falk wrote: > I was in the mood for xml the other day, so I took section 10 of > draft-ietf-marf-dkim-reporting and added the minimum necessary > additional text and formatting to make it a stand-alone draft: > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jdfalk-marf-redaction-00 What strings should be identified as private data? I'd suggest to redact atoms, rather than strings that contain special characters. How do consumers identify redacted parts? Are they expected to be able to verify DKIM signatures after replacing the redacted parts? (Don't they need the redaction key to check they identified each part correctly?) What about line length limits? Should the encoded hash be truncated to the length of the redacted token? After private data has been identified, should it be redacted in the whole message, that is, including the body? For example, I think I can hide some text . Should we standardize such practice, since we are at it? We should explicitly say what parts should never be redacted. This includes header fields names, boundaries, and most parts of /some/ fields, for example DKIM signatures possibly except z=, Received fields possibly except "for" clauses. As a security consideration, I'd mention that the scope of redaction is limited to casual eavesdropper, including low-privileged abuse teams staffers. Using logs or purposely added opaque fields, one can learn who were the original recipients, which is the reason why abuse messages are sent in the first place. Just mumbling... From jacqui.caren@ntlworld.com Sun Mar 13 03:26:53 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: marf@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: marf@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1891A3A6B32 for ; Sun, 13 Mar 2011 03:26:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Q1u-hjfpX2yw for ; Sun, 13 Mar 2011 03:26:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mtaout03-winn.ispmail.ntl.com (mtaout03-winn.ispmail.ntl.com [81.103.221.49]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 814F13A6A08 for ; Sun, 13 Mar 2011 03:26:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from aamtaout04-winn.ispmail.ntl.com ([81.103.221.35]) by mtaout03-winn.ispmail.ntl.com (InterMail vM.7.08.04.00 201-2186-134-20080326) with ESMTP id <20110313102808.CDFS13167.mtaout03-winn.ispmail.ntl.com@aamtaout04-winn.ispmail.ntl.com> for ; Sun, 13 Mar 2011 10:28:08 +0000 Received: from [10.0.0.253] (really [86.19.61.126]) by aamtaout04-winn.ispmail.ntl.com (InterMail vG.3.00.04.00 201-2196-133-20080908) with ESMTP id <20110313102808.TLGF25656.aamtaout04-winn.ispmail.ntl.com@[10.0.0.253]> for ; Sun, 13 Mar 2011 10:28:08 +0000 Message-ID: <4D7C9CAB.5080101@ntlworld.com> Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2011 10:30:03 +0000 From: Jacqui Caren-home Organization: Home User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.9.2.8) Gecko/20100802 Thunderbird/3.1.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: marf@ietf.org References: <4D7B66FB.3040202@tana.it> In-Reply-To: <4D7B66FB.3040202@tana.it> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Cloudmark-Analysis: v=1.1 cv=R50lirqlHffDPPkwUlkuVa99MrvKdVWo//yz83qex8g= c=1 sm=0 a=5mZsxChJAJIA:10 a=9YlaCzn6_68A:10 a=8nJEP1OIZ-IA:10 a=O-rrIn4-AAAA:8 a=UFkdV1sV0B7Xsug9HHsA:9 a=5aer_fTJF4syDboOfE4A:7 a=Sg1AQ0IqahLMq3nD_b_-VTvIdlIA:4 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10 a=KHvd-GLGelwA:10 a=pPAneSiT0kIA:10 a=drf7mawB0_utd1Xv:21 a=QycJyEpAPV3rHouf:21 a=HpAAvcLHHh0Zw7uRqdWCyQ==:117 Subject: Re: [marf] draft-jdfalk-marf-redaction X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: jacqui.caren@ntlworld.com List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2011 10:26:53 -0000 On 12/03/2011 12:28, Alessandro Vesely wrote: > As a security consideration, I'd mention that the scope of redaction > is limited to casual eavesdropper, including low-privileged abuse > teams staffers. Using logs or purposely added opaque fields, one can > learn who were the original recipients, which is the reason why abuse > messages are sent in the first place. The below discusses the case of hitting a spamtrap of email being rejected internally by AVAS systems. I disagree - I report spam to the MSP so that they can take action aginst the spammer or at least ask the spammer to prove they are not spamming by providng COI details for a random number of recently send email recipients. They should NOT need my (spamtrap) details to confirm a customer is breaking the MSP's TOS. I would recommend that redaction be based upon the anti-spam score the orginal message gets and what level of trust you place in the MSP. > Just mumbling... Given the fiasco while trying to report abusive (inline image heavy to botnet/scraper spamtraps) spam to messagelabs I would recommend redaction of all identifying marks when dealing with a spamtrap of obvious spam. This includes the "name" part of the recipent which is being used by some commercial spammers (including the said ML spammer) as a unique "tag" back into thier list. Such tricks are being used by spammers and some bulk MSP's who buy in lists and wish to detect the spamtraps hit. Even worse are the list cleanse businesses who are using said tricks to generate lists of know spamtraps for resale or reuse to cleanse commercial list data. I am afraid that detecting spamtraps is big business and people like ML seem to be quite happy to help paying "customers" detect them. http://caren.ddns.me.uk/index.php/spam/2-messagelabs.html Jacqui From tanguy@ortolo.eu Mon Mar 14 10:24:17 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: marf@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: marf@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42A363A6D6C for ; Mon, 14 Mar 2011 10:24:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BT+0rzJubeSx for ; Mon, 14 Mar 2011 10:24:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dick.ortolo.eu (dick.ortolo.eu [78.232.240.21]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 965423A6D37 for ; Mon, 14 Mar 2011 10:24:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: by dick.ortolo.eu (Postfix, from userid 1000) id C8D708B7C; Mon, 14 Mar 2011 18:25:34 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=ortolo.eu; s=default; t=1300123534; bh=qVpqyNe3MNzeLHz38aTlil2R4Qw7Oxj9htVIuCcCLdI=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:Message-ID:Reply-To:MIME-Version: Content-Type; b=SyAkmA7ldFDdLoj+9CDSviYw6v10NnBzWHcM7NM6oH643XizPbwSOZMWqjTmszpcw cpnuTG4pVfKoGmKL2x3FBDFgNBhMlUBt9xjub/oT9R2fn2n6/3Aao7rNgpv7sUtE6+ sIbIbrjVLUNpLuqg56BPWx5wR8P3eh/EXtY7p+n0= Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 18:25:34 +0100 From: Tanguy Ortolo To: marf@ietf.org Message-ID: <20110314172534.GA14740@ortolo.eu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="wRRV7LY7NUeQGEoC" Content-Disposition: inline X-Number-Alpha: Douuuze X-Number-Arabic: 12 X-Number-Roman: XII X-Demagogie-Level: Pas trop =?utf-8?B?ZMOpY2V2YW50?= User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 11:26:18 -0700 Subject: [marf] Comments about draft-ietf-marf-reporting-discovery X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: Tanguy Ortolo , marf@ietf.org List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 17:24:17 -0000 --wRRV7LY7NUeQGEoC Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello, I have just read the Internet draft about discovery of willingness to provide or receive ARF reports. Here are some comments about it. Section 5, =C2=A74: > In the case of a feedback generator, to inquire whether or not an ADMD > wishes to receive feedback reports, the DNS domain to which the > report should be sent is determined (using a mechanism at the > discretion of the generator) The goal of this draft being to correct the lack of defined methods in [MARf-BASE] (cf. section 1, =C2=A71), I think it would be appropriate to define the method for determining the responsible domain name. In the section 7 this draft refers to [AUTH-METHODS] in way that I do not understand clearly, but that I interpret as, well, a definition of such a method. Thus I suggest either: * to define this method in section 5, refering to [AUTH-METHOD], and to remove section 7; * to replace =E2=80=9C(using a mechanism at thediscretion of the generator)= =E2=80=9D by =E2=80=9C(using the method defined at Section 7)=E2=80=9D and to clarify = section 7. Section 5.2, =C2=A72: > gf the format of reports offered; [=E2=80=A6] Feedback reports being an agreement between a producer and a consumer, it would be impossible to use if both require a different format (though there is currently only one such format defined). I suggest that the producer could offer several formats, making this tag a colon-separated list. Maybe consumers could offer the choice between several formats too, but I think it would be less relevant, though I would not be able to argument it. And finally, I think that this draft could cover the case where several entities under a same domain name would require separated reports. In fact, this would be the same use case as DKIM selectors: example.net has two entities, admin and marketing, that operate separately and would like to receive feedback separately. The use of such reporting selectors could be defined for authentication methods that allow such selectors (currently only DKIM, I think), and implemented in the exact same way as DKIM selectors: in my example, that would lead to the DNS records admin._report.example.net and marketing._report.example.net. Regads, --=20 Tanguy Ortolo --wRRV7LY7NUeQGEoC Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJNfk+NAAoJEOryzVHFAGgZ3AIP/jY3Vq+VNvxFsGEIkKUXUcs8 /yqTmQzcGBcgHRCz3YYgFXgWScBHFFBoDfLrWWwKv3vg4nqp55YQ/WMVnEk2ol1e A/D/Y+kNvaGEtDYcUDWpZzW2XC7Z2tUN+Bex9cKebdxn/kiHH71sxMM7zNt16y0e NigyBWHztA2PU/dIKEC8yEQuUbatMDvrTd8s1prSCWRqpDL16xJ0ujIBzjBE7Z9r w7Ag0u+WBvVb312Wwe/OEIapwESYVbDje0ioTdBznS6tTceQK+ldDUDcS0Etuqdt AqYGNxPNxlA2oFEGK7eonbgD9XCQq1QQ6h26Y3UsjtsDidUuuhApJB6bko61UBLK H9lPpC6Zy9pTmbzgQ7G8vW8CxpXW6ULiIGVasBVyl9IZMARYsn2hb9Ad9orsfh7C hMYCILucw4vVx9vN+EUzxLObW1USBpT+pP8nDADg5Bp+QukMOESQmP67ToS27zuY 1y2wS33CY2TdJEgugZud5J3d7DFkEdUtsGgYyDCadkjNQsy+Qc8ZxeV70u510Evb pWCKM6zZB1J9nU7mZ4GNC/byHM3hqUf0FB+/So4UXud3kkkPtrn8is7m+FPj2AVG f7EqFY5cJAJ+IcZb1Y7PnsM8yB53As6RqsJVuLu7npOdvFqKN/5uJ2JMhQPupHpm YyrJZYXYwMXHLp/ry3FE =hjN3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --wRRV7LY7NUeQGEoC-- From vesely@tana.it Sun Mar 20 08:04:39 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: marf@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: marf@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF2A63A6BC5 for ; Sun, 20 Mar 2011 08:04:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.719 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.719 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gUMSvvgNE7ND for ; Sun, 20 Mar 2011 08:04:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wmail.tana.it (www.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB3F43A6BBC for ; Sun, 20 Mar 2011 08:04:38 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=tana.it; s=test; t=1300633568; bh=qZXZakY753/TOpGuHmnukQGXRnEB9qUYAtLh8JztBI0=; l=3596; h=Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=HebSVsX0PZraHnHEKZeUPhq9jx07PBbLBuG6P5FWD8IBtITw3/M0D5ZnXGFwZhy+d B6iZKlIBcN4NOZtlb/Q00XRyhualTI9B4tw5codXJRqmqjGxD5LkOPjorWWaqbOHnz o19FA8oW6O/kycKWV7KcyR1XzHwNXzjzcVOWJ2gk= Received: from [192.168.1.19] ([41.141.200.2]) (AUTH: PLAIN 515, TLS: TLS1.0,256bits,RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPSA; Sun, 20 Mar 2011 16:06:07 +0100 id 00000000005DC039.000000004D8617DF.0000037B Message-ID: <4D8617D6.4070306@tana.it> Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 16:05:58 +0100 From: Alessandro Vesely User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101207 Thunderbird/3.1.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tanguy Ortolo , marf@ietf.org References: <20110314172534.GA14740@ortolo.eu> In-Reply-To: <20110314172534.GA14740@ortolo.eu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [marf] Comments about draft-ietf-marf-reporting-discovery X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 15:04:40 -0000 On 14.03.2011 18:25, Tanguy Ortolo wrote: > Section 5, §4: >> In the case of a feedback generator, to inquire whether or not an ADMD >> wishes to receive feedback reports, the DNS domain to which the >> report should be sent is determined (using a mechanism at the >> discretion of the generator) > > The goal of this draft being to correct the lack of defined methods in > [MARf-BASE] (cf. section 1, §1), I think it would be appropriate to > define the method for determining the responsible domain name. > > In the section 7 this draft refers to [AUTH-METHODS] in way that I > do not understand clearly, but that I interpret as, well, a definition > of such a method. Thus I suggest either: > * to define this method in section 5, refering to [AUTH-METHOD], and to > remove section 7; > * to replace “(using a mechanism at thediscretion of the generator)” by > “(using the method defined at Section 7)” and to clarify section 7. +1 for the second option. In facts, since section 7 says what a generator MUST do, the degrees of "discretion" are somewhat constrained. As a further alternative for the parenthesized text, I'd propose (choosing, at the discretion of the generator, among the methods defined at Section 7) However, section 7 seems to be overly restrictive. A generator should be allowed to send a report to a different domain in some circumstances. For example, a RIR might provide a generic reporting address for (some of) its addresses. > Section 5.2, §2: >> gf the format of reports offered; […] > > Feedback reports being an agreement between a producer and a consumer, > it would be impossible to use if both require a different format (though > there is currently only one such format defined). I suggest that the > producer could offer several formats, making this tag a colon-separated > list. Maybe consumers could offer the choice between several formats > too, but I think it would be less relevant, though I would not be able > to argument it. The problem here is that different formats may provide for different report types. I think we should order them from most generic to most specialized, and urge specialized consumers to also accept generic formats, for the sake of interoperability. For example, an operator may find it convenient to send ARF reports, but, if they happen to be involved in IODEF exchanged for specific cases, they may want to discover the possibility to send that kind of report to a given consumer. > And finally, I think that this draft could cover the case where several > entities under a same domain name would require separated reports. In > fact, this would be the same use case as DKIM selectors: example.net has > two entities, admin and marketing, that operate separately and would > like to receive feedback separately. The use of such reporting selectors > could be defined for authentication methods that allow such selectors > (currently only DKIM, I think), and implemented in the exact same way as > DKIM selectors: in my example, that would lead to the DNS records > admin._report.example.net and marketing._report.example.net. While it may be possible to define per-selector abuse addresses, abuse reporting does not depend on DKIM in general. In addition, the exemplified use case could be arranged by forwarding reports to the marketing department based on their DKIM signature. Such arrangement would still leave to the admins the possibility to keep an eye on what those guys are actually doing with their delegation. jm2c From barryleiba@gmail.com Wed Mar 30 03:37:20 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: marf@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: marf@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFFD128C101 for ; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 03:37:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.137 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.137 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.160, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id u8CMsVCozhsy for ; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 03:37:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-iy0-f172.google.com (mail-iy0-f172.google.com [209.85.210.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 593163A6B32 for ; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 03:37:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: by iye19 with SMTP id 19so1284348iye.31 for ; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 03:38:57 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:date:x-google-sender-auth :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=D5SlCXZv45DnVvUnKiCAjpAJeXA8T0TFTEiZ0vOakgI=; b=Swn8uym9SQ2R8HIR+E5dNFpCsvepWL5awMGnkgXhY3Q5gCYwXGeN6NfDeg2GuR/+2c Htn5JioS1bJZp47AJQjkDQ5XnG0x0y8Wo74hwcko/OTYTjFAAF3ZC0/VzzK+Qcc9/cyx eRM0xuxzuapX4+Pha4rYtY30CHaxxIHJxJ6yU= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type; b=k/5wpk1nRdwmwbygHwnK+invDbnfB/MLCfgYlyjXPXS8bcSdPMPHAwEwRSJMRPX1Yq HosJv1EQHlSmjNMLUGD+PUhGTcBCswvIhShuIVhTyoPJtzy6tO/OxHkfnteiiIvzJV5a lolmbmUgKJiO15GQLLev/ZlvhG3MXEmDDknNc= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.42.220.72 with SMTP id hx8mr900217icb.239.1301481537032; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 03:38:57 -0700 (PDT) Sender: barryleiba@gmail.com Received: by 10.231.19.193 with HTTP; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 03:38:56 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 06:38:56 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: KhS-xJtc_pbPwyjXCoP1uepLrQQ Message-ID: From: Barry Leiba To: Message Abuse Report Format working group Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Subject: [marf] Minutes from IETF 80 X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 10:37:21 -0000 I have posted the following minutes to the IETF 80 meeting materials page. https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/80/materials.html Barry, as chair -------------------------------------------------------- MARF working group session, IETF 80 (Prague), Tuesday, 29 March 2011. Begin at 17:13. draft-ietf-marf-dkim-reporting: - added SPF, Sender-ID as well - added "redaction" proposal - some minor SPF-related issues - discussion of IODEF (RFC 5070) and RID (RFC 6045) - comments from document editor for RID - proposed document split -- consensus to split into four or five pieces -- redaction already separated out (JD Falk) draft-ietf-marf-reporting-discovery - overview of document - no current issues, but more review/iteration needed draft-jdfalk-marf-redaction - overview of document - seeking additional descriptions of currently existing practices - continue to review; WG adoption draft-jdfalk-maawg-cfblbcp - overview of MAAWG, ARF history - overview of document - fulfills item in MARF charter - MAAWG not turning over change control so far - WG will feed back comments to MAAWG - probably publish document through Independent Stream - probably produce a small MARF document pointing to this one - Area Director is satisfied with that approach draft-cai-marf-policy-instruction-operation - proposal for future work, outside of charter - server-to-client "policy" push, abuse-detection information - WG may consider this during re-charter Adjourn at 18:03. --- Documents: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/marf/draft-ietf-marf-dkim-reporting/ http://tools.ietf.org/wg/marf/draft-ietf-marf-reporting-discovery/ http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-jdfalk-marf-redaction-00.txt http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-jdfalk-maawg-cfblbcp-00.txt http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-cai-marf-policy-instruction-operation-00.txt -------------------------------------------------------- From msk@cloudmark.com Wed Mar 30 03:50:46 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: marf@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: marf@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 045FB28C0F0 for ; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 03:50:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.949 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.949 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.351, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 56QX1L2P4ddE for ; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 03:50:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.35]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A79928C0DB for ; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 03:50:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.1.74]) by malice.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.10.71]) with mapi; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 03:52:20 -0700 From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: "marf@ietf.org" Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 03:52:19 -0700 Thread-Topic: Split of dkim-reporting draft Thread-Index: AcvuyIpY+f7jSu5PT/qtisKL4qBtOw== Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F1343319B4EEXCHC2corpclo_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [marf] Split of dkim-reporting draft X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 10:50:46 -0000 --_000_F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F1343319B4EEXCHC2corpclo_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The consensus at our IETF 80 meeting was to divide the DKIM reporting draft= into smaller documents. I believe the split should go as follows: - Defining the auth-failure report type (someone besides me should= take up authorship of this, but I'll do it if nobody steps up) - DKIM/ADSP extensions (I'll keep this one unless there's objectio= n) - SPF extensions (Scott Kitterman volunteered) - Redaction BCP (JD Falk volunteered; this may be a new document o= r could become a chapter of the BCP document) I'll start work on the first two until someone takes the first one away fro= m me. Scott, please start working on a draft and post something when you'r= e ready; let us know if you need help with xml2rfc or suchlike. JD (and others), what's your view on the best location for the redaction te= xt? -MSK --_000_F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F1343319B4EEXCHC2corpclo_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

The consensus at= our IETF 80 meeting was to divide the DKIM reporting draft into smaller do= cuments.  I believe the split should go as follows:

 

- &= nbsp;        Def= ining the auth-failure report type (someone besides me should take up autho= rship of this, but I’ll do it if nobody steps up)

-        &n= bsp; DKIM/ADSP extensions (I’ll keep this one= unless there’s objection)

<= span style=3D'mso-list:Ignore'>--         = ; Redaction BCP (JD Falk volunteered; this may be a= new document or could become a chapter of the BCP document)

=

 

I’ll s= tart work on the first two until someone takes the first one away from me. =  Scott, please start working on a draft and post something when you= 217;re ready; let us know if you need help with xml2rfc or suchlike.

 

JD (= and others), what’s your view on the best location for the redaction = text?

 

-MSK

= --_000_F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F1343319B4EEXCHC2corpclo_-- From barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com Wed Mar 30 04:41:08 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: marf@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: marf@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9A2528C157 for ; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 04:41:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.977 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TNm83tq8qeoK for ; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 04:41:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ww0-f44.google.com (mail-ww0-f44.google.com [74.125.82.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C12FD28C0F9 for ; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 04:41:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wwa36 with SMTP id 36so958425wwa.13 for ; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 04:42:46 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=VnLSxvwe8JziDrnkq+H4NTgcOnz5WwtcCgtLT38PHwg=; b=oLCtaODfDW/mJ68XCQazayGN3y4REXQPEaA43rcbTbvdDJjid3+ZBbTyw9yzksoPEs fuw9lHIwsraHNU+z21Bd8MTYzkbyRHXJK05EOiRNMU6peQNmm4Li0bxuNT1bv7YCk5KA nHiwUoiz5V0SEhw2vsk4ulPWjLT0Xg1SOUs7M= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=sqmRWLXeQYMgp9oEIHuyAiw6vhwbn1j2qE8JdPvQfAuRMG1YABASDl2asL7JNWJIyd mWUPeN8Koa4JHXVEE0EmHjUBy68K7c5iTm7Vuohi67046pNdqc9B8RDmjEdk8ybLl0fP c1tedFOvKWCGw0vTc+DjHYQfhTyH1iz/0WvO0= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.227.148.144 with SMTP id p16mr1135167wbv.223.1301485365879; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 04:42:45 -0700 (PDT) Sender: barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com Received: by 10.227.160.129 with HTTP; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 04:42:45 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 07:42:45 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 1VYqtavi68-Sfw19PTcC3VE5Kpk Message-ID: From: Barry Leiba To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: "marf@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [marf] Split of dkim-reporting draft X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 11:41:08 -0000 The chairs will authorize "draft-ietf-marf-" names for these drafts after the WG has reviewed and decided to accept them. The first versions should be posted with names that begin with "draft-AUTHORNAME-marf-", so they're tracked as related documents. Below are the ultimate WG names I suggest for these drafts: > -=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Defining the auth-failure report type (someo= ne besides me should > take up authorship of this, but I=92ll do it if nobody steps up) draft-ietf-marf-authfailure-report > -=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 DKIM/ADSP extensions (I=92ll keep this one u= nless there=92s > objection) draft-ietf-marf-dkim-reporting (already there; keep using it) > -=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 SPF extensions (Scott Kitterman volunteered) draft-ietf-marf-spf-reporting > -=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Redaction BCP (JD Falk volunteered; this may= be a new document or > could become a chapter of the BCP document) draft-ietf-marf-redaction -- Barry, as chair From jdfalk-lists@cybernothing.org Wed Mar 30 17:28:04 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: marf@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: marf@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23CF33A6A8F for ; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 17:28:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id j-GYpSsW3Gcr for ; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 17:28:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ocelope.disgruntled.net (ocelope.disgruntled.net [97.107.131.76]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1544C3A6BE4 for ; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 17:28:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.11.36] (c-76-126-154-212.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [76.126.154.212]) (authenticated bits=0) by ocelope.disgruntled.net (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-5+lenny1) with ESMTP id p2V0TdH3029884 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for ; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 17:29:41 -0700 X-DKIM: Sendmail DKIM Filter v2.6.0 ocelope.disgruntled.net p2V0TdH3029884 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cybernothing.org; s=triac; t=1301531381; bh=AbNKFWZ85isve1Y6217kFWwTxkBjYZn8z0EheFkca sk=; h=Content-Type:Mime-Version:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-Id:References:To; b=XIVBo/1n2p5C Z+5MTF8H4QN9PAuek9MSeX+vbWiVUVnlCqWDJ43NV/ghCsLvPWDm9WFWZG7Xkru67PL TC7Unhq+nmf48WJe9z7bQAuuERv9SDorAqNd8zhr2zJY4JS/pFDF/DdnsW+Xsk4Z4R4 O6gOAQxCfjKVwMTe3byg9Tfgk= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082) From: "J.D. Falk" In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 17:29:38 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: To: Message Abuse Report Format working group X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082) Subject: Re: [marf] Split of dkim-reporting draft X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 00:28:04 -0000 On Mar 30, 2011, at 3:52 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > JD (and others), what=92s your view on the best location for the = redaction text? I'm thinking it should remain as a standalone document to ease = references from other documents, but I wouldn't object to pulling it = into a BCP if this WG writes one. -- J.D. Falk the leading purveyor of industry counter-rhetoric solutions From msk@cloudmark.com Wed Mar 30 23:59:17 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: marf@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: marf@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8E123A680E for ; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 23:59:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.939 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.939 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.340, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tf6ahRuBnYM6 for ; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 23:59:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.35]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0698B28B23E for ; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 23:59:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.1.74]) by malice.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.10.71]) with mapi; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 00:00:49 -0700 From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: Message Abuse Report Format working group Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 00:00:45 -0700 Thread-Topic: [marf] Split of dkim-reporting draft Thread-Index: AcvvOrx0GGw71l/ySZmoNg8quxvyMgANoC6w Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [marf] Split of dkim-reporting draft X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 06:59:17 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: marf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:marf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of J= .D. Falk > Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2011 5:30 PM > To: Message Abuse Report Format working group > Subject: Re: [marf] Split of dkim-reporting draft >=20 > > JD (and others), what's your view on the best location for the > > redaction text? >=20 > I'm thinking it should remain as a standalone document to ease > references from other documents, but I wouldn't object to pulling it > into a BCP if this WG writes one. [as participant] This might be a reasonable course of action because the MAAWG BCP doesn't t= alk about redaction, or at least not in the same way, so we may as well not= mix them up. From hfontana@ecertsystems.com Thu Mar 31 00:02:14 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: marf@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: marf@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FF9128C1C1 for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 00:02:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.976 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZMdaq3qdNOSK for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 00:02:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ww0-f42.google.com (mail-ww0-f42.google.com [74.125.82.42]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E6153A6B00 for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 00:02:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wwk4 with SMTP id 4so4862465wwk.1 for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 00:03:51 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ecertsystems.com; s=google; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=hy8zW5uUlrNGZ43JC+jxaaPoGqhRXXUc1YmrCcHQmi0=; b=OswMAHlYDCVa+C7wUczJQVudKYQzETInFgBYwioQSV4DKGoE/APOaDCAF4/5dKGRkp mCNWcBRz/HDfiYLliL/ypmuZqD3AtrsjWY4aVN5vTC4mv4NV1G6x57XYc2rI4+ZeAAQs IIbB6QF/GB5AzHbl+S+xA4ZUc8perKnO+72js= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=ecertsystems.com; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; b=UKjM4oOuPD5J/kiFP+NA59JtY2UYN7aDhtKGTZ4XBDS7bctZX9K0mG2GKvpNMICE9+ 2VhmvcdxzzFzud1VqH43yqJBGRKSHNvlIqoquGGXfsRGbByDaCRRGx5tRHaoCnP5y0qu KDaetEDs5p7jETnm+lhHZzdLAQ0i/qaEcEAk8= Received: by 10.216.142.230 with SMTP id i80mr2262232wej.1.1301555030114; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 00:03:50 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.244.196 with HTTP; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 00:03:30 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Hilda Fontana Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 00:03:30 -0700 Message-ID: To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016e6dab6e439c22f049fc1e555 Cc: "marf@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [marf] Split of dkim-reporting draft X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 07:02:14 -0000 --0016e6dab6e439c22f049fc1e555 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable what does it mean "Defining the auth-failure report type" with DKIM, SPF an= d Redaction not included? On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 3:52 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wro= te: > The consensus at our IETF 80 meeting was to divide the DKIM reporting dra= ft > into smaller documents. I believe the split should go as follows: > > > > - Defining the auth-failure report type (someone besides me > should take up authorship of this, but I=92ll do it if nobody steps up) > > - DKIM/ADSP extensions (I=92ll keep this one unless there=92s > objection) > > - SPF extensions (Scott Kitterman volunteered) > > - Redaction BCP (JD Falk volunteered; this may be a new document > or could become a chapter of the BCP document) > > > > I=92ll start work on the first two until someone takes the first one away > from me. Scott, please start working on a draft and post something when > you=92re ready; let us know if you need help with xml2rfc or suchlike. > > > > JD (and others), what=92s your view on the best location for the redactio= n > text? > > > > -MSK > > _______________________________________________ > marf mailing list > marf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf > > --=20 Hilda L Fontana VP, Technology eCert, Inc. One Market Street, Suite 3600 San Francisco, CA 94105 p: 626.676.8852 f: 415.651.8932 **eCert - Trust the MessageTM *www.ecertsystems.com* * * ---------------------------------------- CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments is CONFIDENTIA= L and is intended only for the use of the addressee. Any unauthorized use, disclosure, distribution, dissemination, or copying is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or fro= m making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you believe you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately and permanently delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts of the e-mail or attachments and an= y copies of such printouts. Thank you for your cooperation. --0016e6dab6e439c22f049fc1e555 Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable what does it mean "Defining the auth-failure report type" with DK= IM, SPF and Redaction not included?

On We= d, Mar 30, 2011 at 3:52 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy <msk@cloudmark.com> wrote:

The consensus= at our IETF 80 meeting was to divide the DKIM reporting draft into smaller= documents.=A0 I believe the split should go as follows:

=A0

-=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Defining the = auth-failure report type (someone besides me should take up authorship of t= his, but I=92ll do it if nobody steps up)

-=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 DKIM/ADSP extensions (I=92ll keep this one= unless there=92s objection)

-=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 SPF extensi= ons (Scott Kitterman volunteered)

-=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Redaction BCP (JD Falk volunteered; this m= ay be a new document or could become a chapter of the BCP document)

=A0

I=92ll start work on the first two until some= one takes the first one away from me. =A0Scott, please start working on a d= raft and post something when you=92re ready; let us know if you need help w= ith xml2rfc or suchlike.

=A0

JD (and others), what= =92s your view on the best location for the redaction text?

=A0

-MSK


_______________________________________________
marf mailing list
marf@ietf.org
ht= tps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf




--
Hilda L Fontana
VP, Technology=A0
eCert, Inc.
One Market Street, Suite 3600
San Francisco, CA 94105
p: 626.676.8852
f:=A0 415.651.8932
=A0
=A0
eCert - Trust=A0the MessageTM=A0
=A0
----------------------------------------
=A0
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
=A0
The information contained in this= =20 e-mail and any attachments is CONFIDENTIAL and is intended only for the=20 use of the addressee. Any unauthorized use, disclosure, distribution,=20 dissemination, or copying is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the=20 e-mail or attachments. If you believe you have received this e-mail in=20 error, please notify us immediately and permanently delete the e-mail,=20 any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and=20 destroy any printouts of the e-mail or attachments and any copies of=20 such printouts. Thank you for your cooperation.
=A0

--0016e6dab6e439c22f049fc1e555-- From msk@cloudmark.com Thu Mar 31 00:08:22 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: marf@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: marf@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 435233A6837 for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 00:08:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.429 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.429 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.831, BAYES_00=-2.599, EXTRA_MPART_TYPE=1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id joGsOo5zj5-x for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 00:08:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.35]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1EB83A680E for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 00:08:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.1.74]) by malice.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.10.71]) with mapi; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 00:09:55 -0700 From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: Hilda Fontana Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 00:09:52 -0700 Thread-Topic: [marf] Split of dkim-reporting draft Thread-Index: Acvvccv1uAzVnec1TZKbXfSvV9UVHwAAMC2g Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="_004_F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F1343319B76EXCHC2corpclo_"; type="multipart/alternative" MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "marf@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [marf] Split of dkim-reporting draft X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 07:08:22 -0000 --_004_F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F1343319B76EXCHC2corpclo_ Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F1343319B76EXCHC2corpclo_" --_000_F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F1343319B76EXCHC2corpclo_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable One document would register the changes to DKIM and ADSP (i.e. the updates = to the registered lists of tags and values) and one would register the new = ARF report type. The two documents can be published simultaneously and ref= er to each other. From: Hilda Fontana [mailto:hfontana@ecertsystems.com] Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2011 12:04 AM To: Murray S. Kucherawy Cc: marf@ietf.org Subject: Re: [marf] Split of dkim-reporting draft what does it mean "Defining the auth-failure report type" with DKIM, SPF an= d Redaction not included? On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 3:52 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy > wrote: The consensus at our IETF 80 meeting was to divide the DKIM reporting draft= into smaller documents. I believe the split should go as follows: - Defining the auth-failure report type (someone besides me should= take up authorship of this, but I'll do it if nobody steps up) - DKIM/ADSP extensions (I'll keep this one unless there's objectio= n) - SPF extensions (Scott Kitterman volunteered) - Redaction BCP (JD Falk volunteered; this may be a new document o= r could become a chapter of the BCP document) I'll start work on the first two until someone takes the first one away fro= m me. Scott, please start working on a draft and post something when you'r= e ready; let us know if you need help with xml2rfc or suchlike. JD (and others), what's your view on the best location for the redaction te= xt? -MSK _______________________________________________ marf mailing list marf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf -- Hilda L Fontana VP, Technology eCert, Inc. One Market Street, Suite 3600 San Francisco, CA 94105 p: 626.676.8852 f: 415.651.8932 [cid:image001.jpg@01CBEF37.F54A5440] eCert - Trust the MessageTM www.ecertsystems.com ---------------------------------------- CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments is CONFIDENTIA= L and is intended only for the use of the addressee. Any unauthorized use, = disclosure, distribution, dissemination, or copying is strictly prohibited = and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, you are prohibi= ted from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from makin= g any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you believe you have received th= is e-mail in error, please notify us immediately and permanently delete the= e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media a= nd destroy any printouts of the e-mail or attachments and any copies of suc= h printouts. Thank you for your cooperation. --_000_F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F1343319B76EXCHC2corpclo_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

One docum= ent would register the changes to DKIM and ADSP (i.e. the updates to the re= gistered lists of tags and values) and one would register the new ARF repor= t type.  The two documents can be published simultaneously and refer t= o each other.

 <= /o:p>

From: Hilda Fontana= [mailto:hfontana@ecertsystems.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 20= 11 12:04 AM
To: Murray S. Kucherawy
Cc: marf@ietf.orgSubject: Re: [marf] Split of dkim-reporting draft

 

what does it mean "Defining the au= th-failure report type" with DKIM, SPF and Redaction not included?

On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 3:52 AM, Murra= y S. Kucherawy <msk@cloudmark.com> wrote:

The consensus at our IETF 80 m= eeting was to divide the DKIM reporting draft into smaller documents. = I believe the split should go as follows:

 =

-     = ;     Defining the auth-failure report type (som= eone besides me should take up authorship of this, but I’ll do it if = nobody steps up)

- &n= bsp;        DKIM/ADSP extensions = (I’ll keep this one unless there’s objection)

= -       =    SPF extensions (Scott Kitterman volunteered)=

-      = ;    Redaction BCP (JD Falk volunteered; this may be = a new document or could become a chapter of the BCP document)

 

I’ll start work on the first two = until someone takes the first one away from me.  Scott, please start w= orking on a draft and post something when you’re ready; let us know i= f you need help with xml2rfc or suchlike.

 <= /o:p>

JD (and others), what’s your view on the best locatio= n for the redaction text?

 

= -MSK


__________________________= _____________________
marf mailing list
marf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf<= /o:p>




-- <= /p>

Hilda L Fontana

VP, Technology 

eCert, Inc.

One Market Street, Suite 3600

San Francisco, CA 94105

p: 626.676.8852

f: = ; 415.651.8932

 <= o:p>

=3D"Image

 

eCert - Trust the MessageTM 

 

<= div>

----------------------= ------------------

 

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTIC= E

 

The information contai= ned in this e-mail and any attachments is CONFIDENTIAL and is intended only= for the use of the addressee. Any unauthorized use, disclosure, distributi= on, dissemination, or copying is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. I= f you are not the intended recipient, you are prohibited from any further v= iewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mai= l or attachments. If you believe you have received this e-mail in error, pl= ease notify us immediately and permanently delete the e-mail, any attachmen= ts, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printou= ts of the e-mail or attachments and any copies of such printouts. Thank you= for your cooperation.

 

 

= --_000_F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F1343319B76EXCHC2corpclo_-- --_004_F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F1343319B76EXCHC2corpclo_ Content-Type: image/jpeg; name="image001.jpg" Content-Description: image001.jpg Content-Disposition: inline; filename="image001.jpg"; size=377; creation-date="Thu, 31 Mar 2011 00:09:53 GMT"; modification-date="Thu, 31 Mar 2011 00:09:53 GMT" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 /9j/4AAQSkZJRgABAQEAYABgAAD/2wBDAAoHBwgHBgoICAgLCgoLDhgQDg0NDh0VFhEYIx8lJCIf IiEmKzcvJik0KSEiMEExNDk7Pj4+JS5ESUM8SDc9Pjv/wAALCAAnAGABAREA/8QAHwAAAQUBAQEB AQEAAAAAAAAAAAECAwQFBgcICQoL/8QAtRAAAgEDAwIEAwUFBAQAAAF9AQIDAAQRBRIhMUEGE1Fh ByJxFDKBkaEII0KxwRVS0fAkM2JyggkKFhcYGRolJicoKSo0NTY3ODk6Q0RFRkdISUpTVFVWV1hZ WmNkZWZnaGlqc3R1dnd4eXqDhIWGh4iJipKTlJWWl5iZmqKjpKWmp6ipqrKztLW2t7i5usLDxMXG x8jJytLT1NXW19jZ2uHi4+Tl5ufo6erx8vP09fb3+Pn6/9oACAEBAAA/APZqKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK//9k= --_004_F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F1343319B76EXCHC2corpclo_-- From hfontana@ecertsystems.com Thu Mar 31 00:12:09 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: marf@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: marf@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65DB328C1E4 for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 00:12:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.976 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id beIJ0jcmAJPX for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 00:12:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ww0-f44.google.com (mail-ww0-f44.google.com [74.125.82.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6446C3A6AFA for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 00:12:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wwa36 with SMTP id 36so1713037wwa.13 for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 00:13:45 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ecertsystems.com; s=google; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=lN1hMiXNbnvQYKF52OEmTyPAW3fGY6NfFK6Iy1ks8C4=; b=Z1IqROwk8OeCkrZLhirJkrtwjQXNHTM+Ssj+VoVqD/PkRb+dkvceNMd81FbIB0WPF/ 1FjaZUerQ5Ojdk1PIJi4ezd10qO8+DOwindozWQMTkHK8CENlwZxiWyX5l4oUGus0Chc qUDDrHpeq/rujv9lLUZ6j4dCPDqk4QXVWqPK8= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=ecertsystems.com; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; b=fr72p52GQsmZ+5XlB1g+JYO1uM+HjHaU/Zk7fYkdUC+PqFp6dG4NzSKHByKPesVHP2 e85Pg9Xf1aaE+9RmlLEghyBYxqIfIlnDyQjEKJ8p9ImXiygskClxgTuqX4qap0+aiSXl pCl/RTJnudADNDDPp+lQE4nGKB3Z3/LV1h0q8= Received: by 10.216.136.91 with SMTP id v69mr1751806wei.16.1301555625105; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 00:13:45 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.244.196 with HTTP; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 00:13:25 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Hilda Fontana Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 00:13:25 -0700 Message-ID: To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary=0016e6dedddfb09b68049fc2089d Cc: "marf@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [marf] Split of dkim-reporting draft X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 07:12:09 -0000 --0016e6dedddfb09b68049fc2089d Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016e6dedddfb09b64049fc2089c --0016e6dedddfb09b64049fc2089c Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I can have a go at the ARF report type On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 12:09 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wr= ote: > One document would register the changes to DKIM and ADSP (i.e. the update= s > to the registered lists of tags and values) and one would register the ne= w > ARF report type. The two documents can be published simultaneously and > refer to each other. > > > > *From:* Hilda Fontana [mailto:hfontana@ecertsystems.com] > *Sent:* Thursday, March 31, 2011 12:04 AM > *To:* Murray S. Kucherawy > *Cc:* marf@ietf.org > > *Subject:* Re: [marf] Split of dkim-reporting draft > > > > what does it mean "Defining the auth-failure report type" with DKIM, SPF > and Redaction not included? > > On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 3:52 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy > wrote: > > The consensus at our IETF 80 meeting was to divide the DKIM reporting dra= ft > into smaller documents. I believe the split should go as follows: > > > > - Defining the auth-failure report type (someone besides me > should take up authorship of this, but I=92ll do it if nobody steps up) > > - DKIM/ADSP extensions (I=92ll keep this one unless there=92s > objection) > > - SPF extensions (Scott Kitterman volunteered) > > - Redaction BCP (JD Falk volunteered; this may be a new document > or could become a chapter of the BCP document) > > > > I=92ll start work on the first two until someone takes the first one away > from me. Scott, please start working on a draft and post something when > you=92re ready; let us know if you need help with xml2rfc or suchlike. > > > > JD (and others), what=92s your view on the best location for the redactio= n > text? > > > > -MSK > > > _______________________________________________ > marf mailing list > marf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf > > > > > -- > > Hilda L Fontana > > VP, Technology > > eCert, Inc. > > One Market Street, Suite 3600 > > San Francisco, CA 94105 > > p: 626.676.8852 > > f: 415.651.8932 > > > > [image: Image removed by sender.] > > > > eCert - Trust the MessageTM > > *www.ecertsystems.com* > > * * > > ---------------------------------------- > > > > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE > > > > The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments is > CONFIDENTIAL and is intended only for the use of the addressee. Any > unauthorized use, disclosure, distribution, dissemination, or copying is > strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended > recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or a= ny > attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you > believe you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediat= ely > and permanently delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from a= ny > drives or storage media and destroy any printouts of the e-mail or > attachments and any copies of such printouts. Thank you for your > cooperation. > > > > > --=20 Hilda L Fontana VP, Technology eCert, Inc. One Market Street, Suite 3600 San Francisco, CA 94105 p: 626.676.8852 f: 415.651.8932 **eCert - Trust the MessageTM *www.ecertsystems.com* * * ---------------------------------------- CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments is CONFIDENTIA= L and is intended only for the use of the addressee. Any unauthorized use, disclosure, distribution, dissemination, or copying is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or fro= m making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you believe you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately and permanently delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts of the e-mail or attachments and an= y copies of such printouts. Thank you for your cooperation. --0016e6dedddfb09b64049fc2089c Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I can have a go at the ARF report type

O= n Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 12:09 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy <= msk@cloudmark.com> wrote= :

One document would register = the changes to DKIM and ADSP (i.e. the updates to the registered lists of t= ags and values) and one would register the new ARF report type.=A0 The two = documents can be published simultaneously and refer to each other.

=A0

From: Hilda Fonta= na [mailto:h= fontana@ecertsystems.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2011 12:04 AM
To: Murray S. Kuch= erawy
Cc: marf= @ietf.org


Subject: Re: [marf] Split of dkim= -reporting draft

=A0

what does it mean "Defining the auth-f= ailure report type" with DKIM, SPF and Redaction not included?

On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 3:52 AM, Murray S. Kuch= erawy <msk@cloudm= ark.com> wrote:

The consensus at= our IETF 80 meeting was to divide the DKIM reporting draft into smaller do= cuments.=A0 I believe the split should go as follows:

=A0

-=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Defining the auth-failure report type (someone be= sides me should take up authorship of this, but I=92ll do it if nobody step= s up)

-=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 DKIM/ADSP extensions (I=92ll keep this one unless there=92s objection)=

-=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 SPF = extensions (Scott Kitterman volunteered)

-=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Redaction BCP (JD Falk volunteered;= this may be a new document or could become a chapter of the BCP document)<= /p>

=A0

I=92ll start work on t= he first two until someone takes the first one away from me. =A0Scott, plea= se start working on a draft and post something when you=92re ready; let us = know if you need help with xml2rfc or suchlike.

=A0

JD (and others), what= =92s your view on the best location for the redaction text?

=A0

-MSK


_____= __________________________________________
marf mailing list
marf@ietf.org
https://www.= ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf




--

Hilda L Fontana

VP, Technology= =A0

eCert, Inc.=

One Market Street, Suite 3600<= /p>

San Francisco, CA 94105

=

p: 626.676.8852

f:=A0 415.651.8932

<= /div>

=A0

3D"Image

=A0

eCert - Trust=A0the Message= TM= =A0

=A0

=

----------------------= ------------------

=A0

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE

=A0

The information contained in this e-mail and an= y attachments is CONFIDENTIAL and is intended only for the use of the addre= ssee. Any unauthorized use, disclosure, distribution, dissemination, or cop= ying is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intende= d recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or a= ny attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you = believe you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediatel= y and permanently delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from a= ny drives or storage media and destroy any printouts of the e-mail or attac= hments and any copies of such printouts. Thank you for your cooperation.

=A0

=A0




-- <= br>
Hilda L Fontana
VP, Technology=A0
eCert, Inc.
One Market Street, Suite 3600
San Francisco, CA 94105
p: 626.676.8852
f:=A0 415.651.8932
=A0
=A0
eCert - Trust=A0the MessageTM=A0
=A0
----------------------------------------
=A0
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
=A0
The information contained in this= =20 e-mail and any attachments is CONFIDENTIAL and is intended only for the=20 use of the addressee. Any unauthorized use, disclosure, distribution,=20 dissemination, or copying is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the=20 e-mail or attachments. If you believe you have received this e-mail in=20 error, please notify us immediately and permanently delete the e-mail,=20 any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and=20 destroy any printouts of the e-mail or attachments and any copies of=20 such printouts. Thank you for your cooperation.
=A0

--0016e6dedddfb09b64049fc2089c-- --0016e6dedddfb09b68049fc2089d Content-Type: image/jpeg; name="image001.jpg" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-ID: X-Attachment-Id: 7b54fca1b7bc695f_0.1 /9j/4AAQSkZJRgABAQEAYABgAAD/2wBDAAoHBwgHBgoICAgLCgoLDhgQDg0NDh0VFhEYIx8lJCIf IiEmKzcvJik0KSEiMEExNDk7Pj4+JS5ESUM8SDc9Pjv/wAALCAAnAGABAREA/8QAHwAAAQUBAQEB AQEAAAAAAAAAAAECAwQFBgcICQoL/8QAtRAAAgEDAwIEAwUFBAQAAAF9AQIDAAQRBRIhMUEGE1Fh ByJxFDKBkaEII0KxwRVS0fAkM2JyggkKFhcYGRolJicoKSo0NTY3ODk6Q0RFRkdISUpTVFVWV1hZ WmNkZWZnaGlqc3R1dnd4eXqDhIWGh4iJipKTlJWWl5iZmqKjpKWmp6ipqrKztLW2t7i5usLDxMXG x8jJytLT1NXW19jZ2uHi4+Tl5ufo6erx8vP09fb3+Pn6/9oACAEBAAA/APZqKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK//9k= --0016e6dedddfb09b68049fc2089d-- From msk@cloudmark.com Thu Mar 31 00:14:45 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: marf@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: marf@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81E823A6B2E for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 00:14:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.438 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.438 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.840, BAYES_00=-2.599, EXTRA_MPART_TYPE=1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Sn9d+8HPzj0Q for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 00:14:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.35]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF74E3A6C10 for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 00:14:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.1.74]) by malice.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.10.71]) with mapi; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 00:16:17 -0700 From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: "marf@ietf.org" Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 00:16:15 -0700 Thread-Topic: [marf] Split of dkim-reporting draft Thread-Index: Acvvcy3VpekWTZVzRwGweoms8uvO7QAAEGSQ Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="_004_F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F1343319B78EXCHC2corpclo_"; type="multipart/alternative" MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [marf] Split of dkim-reporting draft X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 07:14:45 -0000 --_004_F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F1343319B78EXCHC2corpclo_ Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F1343319B78EXCHC2corpclo_" --_000_F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F1343319B78EXCHC2corpclo_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Tony Hansen volunteered as well. I'm happy to hand it off to either or bot= h of you. From: Hilda Fontana [mailto:hfontana@ecertsystems.com] Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2011 12:13 AM To: Murray S. Kucherawy Cc: marf@ietf.org Subject: Re: [marf] Split of dkim-reporting draft I can have a go at the ARF report type On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 12:09 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy > wrote: One document would register the changes to DKIM and ADSP (i.e. the updates = to the registered lists of tags and values) and one would register the new = ARF report type. The two documents can be published simultaneously and ref= er to each other. From: Hilda Fontana [mailto:hfontana@ecertsystems.com] Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2011 12:04 AM To: Murray S. Kucherawy Cc: marf@ietf.org Subject: Re: [marf] Split of dkim-reporting draft what does it mean "Defining the auth-failure report type" with DKIM, SPF an= d Redaction not included? On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 3:52 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy > wrote: The consensus at our IETF 80 meeting was to divide the DKIM reporting draft= into smaller documents. I believe the split should go as follows: - Defining the auth-failure report type (someone besides me should= take up authorship of this, but I'll do it if nobody steps up) - DKIM/ADSP extensions (I'll keep this one unless there's objectio= n) - SPF extensions (Scott Kitterman volunteered) - Redaction BCP (JD Falk volunteered; this may be a new document o= r could become a chapter of the BCP document) I'll start work on the first two until someone takes the first one away fro= m me. Scott, please start working on a draft and post something when you'r= e ready; let us know if you need help with xml2rfc or suchlike. JD (and others), what's your view on the best location for the redaction te= xt? -MSK _______________________________________________ marf mailing list marf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf -- Hilda L Fontana VP, Technology eCert, Inc. One Market Street, Suite 3600 San Francisco, CA 94105 p: 626.676.8852 f: 415.651.8932 [cid:image001.jpg@01CBEF38.D9218210] eCert - Trust the MessageTM www.ecertsystems.com ---------------------------------------- CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments is CONFIDENTIA= L and is intended only for the use of the addressee. Any unauthorized use, = disclosure, distribution, dissemination, or copying is strictly prohibited = and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, you are prohibi= ted from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from makin= g any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you believe you have received th= is e-mail in error, please notify us immediately and permanently delete the= e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media a= nd destroy any printouts of the e-mail or attachments and any copies of suc= h printouts. Thank you for your cooperation. -- Hilda L Fontana VP, Technology eCert, Inc. One Market Street, Suite 3600 San Francisco, CA 94105 p: 626.676.8852 f: 415.651.8932 [http://ecertsystems.com/internal/email/logo/EC_gold_black_RGB_tag_CLEAR.jp= g] eCert - Trust the MessageTM www.ecertsystems.com ---------------------------------------- CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments is CONFIDENTIA= L and is intended only for the use of the addressee. Any unauthorized use, = disclosure, distribution, dissemination, or copying is strictly prohibited = and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, you are prohibi= ted from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from makin= g any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you believe you have received th= is e-mail in error, please notify us immediately and permanently delete the= e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media a= nd destroy any printouts of the e-mail or attachments and any copies of suc= h printouts. Thank you for your cooperation. --_000_F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F1343319B78EXCHC2corpclo_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Tony Hans= en volunteered as well.  I’m happy to hand it off to either or b= oth of you.

 

From: Hilda Fontana [= mailto:hfontana@ecertsystems.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2011= 12:13 AM
To: Murray S. Kucherawy
Cc: marf@ietf.org
= Subject: Re: [marf] Split of dkim-reporting draft<= /p>

 

I can have a go at the ARF report type

On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 12:09 AM, Mu= rray S. Kucherawy <msk@cloudmark.co= m> wrote:

One document would register the changes to DKIM and ADS= P (i.e. the updates to the registered lists of tags and values) and one wou= ld register the new ARF report type.  The two documents can be publish= ed simultaneously and refer to each other.

 

From: Hilda Fontana [mailto:hfontana@ecertsystems.com]
Se= nt: Thursday, March 31, 2011 12:04 AM
To: Murray S. Kucherawy=
Cc: marf@ietf= .org


Subject: Re: [marf] Split of dkim-reporting draft<= o:p>

 

what do= es it mean "Defining the auth-failure report type" with DKIM, SPF= and Redaction not included?

On Wed, Mar 30,= 2011 at 3:52 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy <msk@cloudmark.com> wrote:

<= div>

The consensus at our IETF 80 meeting was to divide the DKIM repo= rting draft into smaller documents.  I believe the split should go as = follows:

 

-          D= efining the auth-failure report type (someone besides me should take up aut= horship of this, but I’ll do it if nobody steps up)

= -       =    DKIM/ADSP extensions (I’ll keep this one unless t= here’s objection)

-&= nbsp;         SPF extensions= (Scott Kitterman volunteered)

-          Redacti= on BCP (JD Falk volunteered; this may be a new document or could become a c= hapter of the BCP document)

 

I’ll start work on the first two until someone takes the first one = away from me.  Scott, please start working on a draft and post somethi= ng when you’re ready; let us know if you need help with xml2rfc or su= chlike.

 

JD (and others), w= hat’s your view on the best location for the redaction text?

 

-MSK=


____________________________________= ___________
marf mailing list
marf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf




--

Hilda L Fontana

<= /div>

VP, Technology 

eCert, Inc.

One Market Street, Suite 3600=

San Francisco, CA 94105

p: 626.676.8852

<= div>

f:  415.651.8932

3D"Image

 

------------------------= ----------------

 

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE

=

 <= /o:p>

The = information contained in this e-mail and any attachments is CONFIDENTIAL an= d is intended only for the use of the addressee. Any unauthorized use, disc= losure, distribution, dissemination, or copying is strictly prohibited and = may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, you are prohibited = from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making an= y use of the e-mail or attachments. If you believe you have received this e= -mail in error, please notify us immediately and permanently delete the e-m= ail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and d= estroy any printouts of the e-mail or attachments and any copies of such pr= intouts. Thank you for your cooperation.

 

 




-- <= /p>

Hilda L Fontana

VP, Technology 

eCert, Inc.

One Market Street, Suite 3600

San Francisco, CA 94105

p: 626.676.8852

f: = ; 415.651.8932

 <= o:p>

 

eCert - Trust = the MessageTM = ;

 

----------------------------------------=

 

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE

 

The information contained in this e-mail and any attachmen= ts is CONFIDENTIAL and is intended only for the use of the addressee. Any u= nauthorized use, disclosure, distribution, dissemination, or copying is str= ictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient= , you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachme= nts or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you believe you= have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately and perma= nently delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives o= r storage media and destroy any printouts of the e-mail or attachments and = any copies of such printouts. Thank you for your cooperation.

 

 

= --_000_F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F1343319B78EXCHC2corpclo_-- --_004_F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F1343319B78EXCHC2corpclo_ Content-Type: image/jpeg; name="image001.jpg" Content-Description: image001.jpg Content-Disposition: inline; filename="image001.jpg"; size=377; creation-date="Thu, 31 Mar 2011 00:16:15 GMT"; modification-date="Thu, 31 Mar 2011 00:16:15 GMT" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 /9j/4AAQSkZJRgABAQEAYABgAAD/2wBDAAoHBwgHBgoICAgLCgoLDhgQDg0NDh0VFhEYIx8lJCIf IiEmKzcvJik0KSEiMEExNDk7Pj4+JS5ESUM8SDc9Pjv/wAALCAAnAGABAREA/8QAHwAAAQUBAQEB AQEAAAAAAAAAAAECAwQFBgcICQoL/8QAtRAAAgEDAwIEAwUFBAQAAAF9AQIDAAQRBRIhMUEGE1Fh ByJxFDKBkaEII0KxwRVS0fAkM2JyggkKFhcYGRolJicoKSo0NTY3ODk6Q0RFRkdISUpTVFVWV1hZ WmNkZWZnaGlqc3R1dnd4eXqDhIWGh4iJipKTlJWWl5iZmqKjpKWmp6ipqrKztLW2t7i5usLDxMXG x8jJytLT1NXW19jZ2uHi4+Tl5ufo6erx8vP09fb3+Pn6/9oACAEBAAA/APZqKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK//9k= --_004_F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F1343319B78EXCHC2corpclo_-- From hfontana@ecertsystems.com Thu Mar 31 00:16:17 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: marf@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: marf@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70A5F28C1D6 for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 00:16:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.976 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GyXsMQbMhx11 for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 00:16:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wy0-f172.google.com (mail-wy0-f172.google.com [74.125.82.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46AE63A6A46 for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 00:16:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wyb29 with SMTP id 29so1961976wyb.31 for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 00:17:54 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ecertsystems.com; s=google; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=qZDmjuUKcyeL6lM0sWTvH4HOp+hAFn2KN6jSK5FTbrs=; b=AxLh3l2TQ8LG6WRKCnNoeHgsYkOC7p8D8E+svH2ph6yBR0pHU8yLVLweEdFgdGQ9wW fjtT66+zx6XcdrsK6r4TE3EWoFR4qQHrAow3YYncWfOHZKddL+esdHfBgqbQ2S9WphsQ 7lcpEZa7WFO+JIue9dSmiRuyjL2NPqRJrJYMA= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=ecertsystems.com; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; b=eBvIypkfzZfdI4EdonXmnEy3ZU5g22gecBaBt0uU2EMypLdKDemYwU/zblm0eo532B WXMkdDlRhc4Y3Z0gLrSdWjZX/Cda40IcVg8RZH+B+Myfp5I8EBaqE1r0AufL4+/Y4crN lGu/Ojr0UF4iJhvjyaL4pCpEJ9Bz4ZMciBwSA= Received: by 10.216.64.139 with SMTP id c11mr1742554wed.46.1301555869230; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 00:17:49 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.244.196 with HTTP; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 00:17:29 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Hilda Fontana Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 00:17:29 -0700 Message-ID: To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary=000e0cd56c5a3da952049fc21798 Cc: "marf@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [marf] Split of dkim-reporting draft X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 07:16:17 -0000 --000e0cd56c5a3da952049fc21798 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=000e0cd56c5a3da94d049fc21797 --000e0cd56c5a3da94d049fc21797 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable either way just happy to help On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 12:16 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wr= ote: > Tony Hansen volunteered as well. I=92m happy to hand it off to either or > both of you. > > > > *From:* Hilda Fontana [mailto:hfontana@ecertsystems.com] > *Sent:* Thursday, March 31, 2011 12:13 AM > > *To:* Murray S. Kucherawy > *Cc:* marf@ietf.org > *Subject:* Re: [marf] Split of dkim-reporting draft > > > > I can have a go at the ARF report type > > On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 12:09 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy > wrote: > > One document would register the changes to DKIM and ADSP (i.e. the update= s > to the registered lists of tags and values) and one would register the ne= w > ARF report type. The two documents can be published simultaneously and > refer to each other. > > > > *From:* Hilda Fontana [mailto:hfontana@ecertsystems.com] > *Sent:* Thursday, March 31, 2011 12:04 AM > *To:* Murray S. Kucherawy > *Cc:* marf@ietf.org > > > *Subject:* Re: [marf] Split of dkim-reporting draft > > > > what does it mean "Defining the auth-failure report type" with DKIM, SPF > and Redaction not included? > > On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 3:52 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy > wrote: > > The consensus at our IETF 80 meeting was to divide the DKIM reporting dra= ft > into smaller documents. I believe the split should go as follows: > > > > - Defining the auth-failure report type (someone besides me > should take up authorship of this, but I=92ll do it if nobody steps up) > > - DKIM/ADSP extensions (I=92ll keep this one unless there=92s > objection) > > - SPF extensions (Scott Kitterman volunteered) > > - Redaction BCP (JD Falk volunteered; this may be a new document > or could become a chapter of the BCP document) > > > > I=92ll start work on the first two until someone takes the first one away > from me. Scott, please start working on a draft and post something when > you=92re ready; let us know if you need help with xml2rfc or suchlike. > > > > JD (and others), what=92s your view on the best location for the redactio= n > text? > > > > -MSK > > > _______________________________________________ > marf mailing list > marf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf > > > > > -- > > Hilda L Fontana > > VP, Technology > > eCert, Inc. > > One Market Street, Suite 3600 > > San Francisco, CA 94105 > > p: 626.676.8852 > > f: 415.651.8932 > > > > [image: Image removed by sender.] > > > > eCert - Trust the MessageTM > > *www.ecertsystems.com* > > * * > > ---------------------------------------- > > > > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE > > > > The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments is > CONFIDENTIAL and is intended only for the use of the addressee. Any > unauthorized use, disclosure, distribution, dissemination, or copying is > strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended > recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or a= ny > attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you > believe you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediat= ely > and permanently delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from a= ny > drives or storage media and destroy any printouts of the e-mail or > attachments and any copies of such printouts. Thank you for your > cooperation. > > > > > > > > > -- > > Hilda L Fontana > > VP, Technology > > eCert, Inc. > > One Market Street, Suite 3600 > > San Francisco, CA 94105 > > p: 626.676.8852 > > f: 415.651.8932 > > > > > > eCert - Trust the MessageTM > > *www.ecertsystems.com* > > * * > > ---------------------------------------- > > > > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE > > > > The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments is > CONFIDENTIAL and is intended only for the use of the addressee. Any > unauthorized use, disclosure, distribution, dissemination, or copying is > strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended > recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or a= ny > attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you > believe you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediat= ely > and permanently delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from a= ny > drives or storage media and destroy any printouts of the e-mail or > attachments and any copies of such printouts. Thank you for your > cooperation. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > marf mailing list > marf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf > > --=20 Hilda L Fontana VP, Technology eCert, Inc. One Market Street, Suite 3600 San Francisco, CA 94105 p: 626.676.8852 f: 415.651.8932 **eCert - Trust the MessageTM *www.ecertsystems.com* * * ---------------------------------------- CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments is CONFIDENTIA= L and is intended only for the use of the addressee. Any unauthorized use, disclosure, distribution, dissemination, or copying is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or fro= m making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you believe you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately and permanently delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts of the e-mail or attachments and an= y copies of such printouts. Thank you for your cooperation. --000e0cd56c5a3da94d049fc21797 Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable either way just happy to help

On Thu, Mar= 31, 2011 at 12:16 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy <msk@cloudmark.com> wrote:

Tony Hansen v= olunteered as well.=A0 I=92m happy to hand it off to either or both of you.=

=A0

From: Hilda Fonta= na [mailto:h= fontana@ecertsystems.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2011 12:13 AM


To: Murray S. Kucherawy
Cc: marf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [mar= f] Split of dkim-reporting draft

=A0

I c= an have a go at the ARF report type

On Thu,= Mar 31, 2011 at 12:09 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy <msk@cloudmark.com> wrote:

One document would register the changes to DKIM and ADSP (i= .e. the updates to the registered lists of tags and values) and one would r= egister the new ARF report type.=A0 The two documents can be published simu= ltaneously and refer to each other.

=A0

From: Hilda Fontana [mailto:hfontana@ecertsystems.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2011 12:04 AM
To: Murray S. Kuch= erawy
Cc: marf= @ietf.org


Subject: Re: [marf] Split of dkim-reporting draft

=A0

what does it mean "Defining the auth-failure report= type" with DKIM, SPF and Redaction not included?

On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 3:52 AM, Murray S.= Kucherawy <msk@c= loudmark.com> wrote:

The consens= us at our IETF 80 meeting was to divide the DKIM reporting draft into small= er documents.=A0 I believe the split should go as follows:

=A0

-=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Defining the auth-failure report type (someone be= sides me should take up authorship of this, but I=92ll do it if nobody step= s up)

-=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 DKIM/ADSP extensions (I=92ll keep this one unless there=92s objection)=

-=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 SPF = extensions (Scott Kitterman volunteered)

-=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Redaction BCP (JD Falk volunteered;= this may be a new document or could become a chapter of the BCP document)<= /p>

=A0

I=92ll start work on t= he first two until someone takes the first one away from me. =A0Scott, plea= se start working on a draft and post something when you=92re ready; let us = know if you need help with xml2rfc or suchlike.

=A0

JD (and others), what= =92s your view on the best location for the redaction text?

=A0

-MSK


_____= __________________________________________
marf mailing list
marf@ietf.org
https://www.= ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf




--

Hilda L Fontana

VP, Technology= =A0

eCert, Inc.=

One Market Street, Suite 3600<= /p>

San Francisco, CA 94105

=

p: 626.676.8852

f:=A0 415.651.8932

<= /div>

=A0

3D"Image

=A0

eCert - Trust=A0the Message<= span style=3D"font-size: 7.5pt; color: black;">TM=A0

=A0

=

----------------------= ------------------

=A0

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE

=A0

The information contained in this e-mail and an= y attachments is CONFIDENTIAL and is intended only for the use of the addre= ssee. Any unauthorized use, disclosure, distribution, dissemination, or cop= ying is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intende= d recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or a= ny attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you = believe you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediatel= y and permanently delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies from a= ny drives or storage media and destroy any printouts of the e-mail or attac= hments and any copies of such printouts. Thank you for your cooperation.

=A0

=A0




--

Hild= a L Fontana

VP, Technol= ogy=A0

eCert, Inc.

One Market S= treet, Suite 3600

San Francisco, CA 94105

p: 626.676.8852

f:=A0 415.= 651.8932

=A0

=

=A0

eCert - Trust=A0the MessageTM=A0

=A0

--------------------------------------= --

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE

<= span style=3D"font-size: 7.5pt; color: black;">=A0

The information contained i= n this e-mail and any attachments is CONFIDENTIAL and is intended only for = the use of the addressee. Any unauthorized use, disclosure, distribution, d= issemination, or copying is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you= are not the intended recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewin= g of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or = attachments. If you believe you have received this e-mail in error, please = notify us immediately and permanently delete the e-mail, any attachments, a= nd all copies from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts of= the e-mail or attachments and any copies of such printouts. Thank you for = your cooperation.

=A0

=A0


_______________________________________= ________
marf mailing list
marf@ietf.org
ht= tps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf




--
Hilda L Fontana
VP, Technology=A0
eCert, Inc.
One Market Street, Suite 3600
San Francisco, CA 94105
p: 626.676.8852
f:=A0 415.651.8932
=A0
=A0
eCert - Trust=A0the MessageTM=A0
=A0
----------------------------------------
=A0
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
=A0
The information contained in this= =20 e-mail and any attachments is CONFIDENTIAL and is intended only for the=20 use of the addressee. Any unauthorized use, disclosure, distribution,=20 dissemination, or copying is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the=20 e-mail or attachments. If you believe you have received this e-mail in=20 error, please notify us immediately and permanently delete the e-mail,=20 any attachments, and all copies from any drives or storage media and=20 destroy any printouts of the e-mail or attachments and any copies of=20 such printouts. Thank you for your cooperation.
=A0

--000e0cd56c5a3da94d049fc21797-- --000e0cd56c5a3da952049fc21798 Content-Type: image/jpeg; name="image001.jpg" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-ID: X-Attachment-Id: a7cceed13fe4627a_0.0.1 /9j/4AAQSkZJRgABAQEAYABgAAD/2wBDAAoHBwgHBgoICAgLCgoLDhgQDg0NDh0VFhEYIx8lJCIf IiEmKzcvJik0KSEiMEExNDk7Pj4+JS5ESUM8SDc9Pjv/wAALCAAnAGABAREA/8QAHwAAAQUBAQEB AQEAAAAAAAAAAAECAwQFBgcICQoL/8QAtRAAAgEDAwIEAwUFBAQAAAF9AQIDAAQRBRIhMUEGE1Fh ByJxFDKBkaEII0KxwRVS0fAkM2JyggkKFhcYGRolJicoKSo0NTY3ODk6Q0RFRkdISUpTVFVWV1hZ WmNkZWZnaGlqc3R1dnd4eXqDhIWGh4iJipKTlJWWl5iZmqKjpKWmp6ipqrKztLW2t7i5usLDxMXG x8jJytLT1NXW19jZ2uHi4+Tl5ufo6erx8vP09fb3+Pn6/9oACAEBAAA/APZqKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK//9k= --000e0cd56c5a3da952049fc21798-- From barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com Thu Mar 31 02:24:03 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: marf@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: marf@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 289E228C248 for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 02:24:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.966 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.966 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.011, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id e4LIoDbPcQ9B for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 02:23:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ww0-f44.google.com (mail-ww0-f44.google.com [74.125.82.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0E9328C242 for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 02:22:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wwa36 with SMTP id 36so1794228wwa.13 for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 02:24:14 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=hvsJ591LSYpccKEA28rRAHXcgA560Pmo6L9g32pi3e4=; b=sR4OyeXPKTF67htJaRA6AI/K5kWw2zQg89FLXUbCpZ/b0YYGYQJkxZoT5e0Jddv1DV OjiC8Lmusa7M1PwNsdQa9PaxySt38WShSlol6NI9I5gztx6JrcOG+aO2BSGu1AKReZk/ oEyuolooxkzpMPYnNO2nwujb7rqtyZKe52bCs= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; b=XclJzgmavfXqKrPLRWeWtnERFndj+SQK3Ggl3S6d9I24I0J9YL6kaxnWeWFAnprTdt LMiNEuo1B5xeITqmrjpGZRvk6MXFfdudOw3hYlBcNQdEY11sAh7hgmlN3F7p4uTyasIh kyFknF7thlLJLtA/t6iKCLptweJVSaCsjKXPY= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.227.101.2 with SMTP id a2mr2539061wbo.20.1301563454071; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 02:24:14 -0700 (PDT) Sender: barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com Received: by 10.227.160.129 with HTTP; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 02:24:14 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 05:24:14 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: LdmMUuqInMIvL9tXwO12H5kbvHY Message-ID: From: Barry Leiba To: Message Abuse Report Format working group Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Subject: Re: [marf] Minutes from IETF 80 X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 09:24:03 -0000 > I have posted the following minutes to the IETF 80 meeting materials page. > https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/80/materials.html Updated to add a small item: > draft-jdfalk-maawg-cfblbcp > - overview of MAAWG, ARF history > - overview of document > - fulfills item in MARF charter - fulfills item in MARF charter -- AD to change milestone deadline to Sep 2011 (from Sep 2010) Barry, as chair