From vesely@tana.it Tue Nov 1 02:30:40 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B94E621F8F34 for ; Tue, 1 Nov 2011 02:30:40 -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 ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id V27RNgDucEXK for ; Tue, 1 Nov 2011 02:30:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wmail.tana.it (mail.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9C3221F8F33 for ; Tue, 1 Nov 2011 02:30:39 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=test; t=1320139837; bh=kEYYpsnkINvU9zt45VJbI7MIiw+iYaf0NmgfWMIRzq4=; l=1208; h=Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=NiJ4oYiaWQEU4XMTcYg716br2qffoRFS++a65NCS2QreZykLoru2WWyYCa1PNzQqn La/ufM7QRj2pjm0/CZgS+O8Pa8bMnaDmclLzzJUrefxE3Z86Z/9pUBf4do2CopnGH4 GTeCPL6s4rNd5YYNCIroJ5v/+/ciFqvp6d7H2J0U= Received: from [193.0.27.158] (dhcp-27-158.ripemtg.ripe.net [193.0.27.158]) (AUTH: PLAIN 515, TLS: TLS1.0,256bits,RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPSA; Tue, 01 Nov 2011 10:30:37 +0100 id 00000000005DC035.000000004EAFBC3D.000040D7 Message-ID: <4EAFBC2E.7070701@tana.it> Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2011 10:30:22 +0100 From: Alessandro Vesely User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.0; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20110929 Thunderbird/7.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: marf@ietf.org References: <20111030200036.E8FA0F58113@smtp.patriot.net> <4EAEE6D3.8000400@tana.it> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [marf] draft-jdfalk-marf-redaction X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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, 01 Nov 2011 09:30:40 -0000 On 31.10.2011 21:27, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >> From: ietf.org On Behalf Of Alessandro Vesely >> >> IIRC, I was trying to make sense of >> >> 2. Identify string(s) (such as local-parts of email addresses) in a >> message that need to be redacted. Call this the "private data". >> >> It is the most difficult part of the task. Doing it too liberally may make >> the whole header unusable, and redacting each atom individually is an easy >> criterion to avoid that. (Well, it looks easy to specify, at least.) > > Possibly, but since "foo@bar.com" consists of four atoms, you end up with > something like this if you want to encode an email address: > > [redacted-encoding1][redacted-encoding2][redacted-encoding3][redacted-encoding4] Actually, I meant "redacted-encoding1" "@" "redacted-encoding2" "." "redacted-encoding3" > That seems excessive. Yes, definitely. Perhaps, step 6 could be changed so as to read 6. Replace each atom of the private data string with the characters at the corresponding positions in the encoded hash string, when generating the report. Thus "" becomes "" if the encoded hash is ABCD..., but easiness is lost. From msk@cloudmark.com Tue Nov 1 02:55:47 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9505B21F8E79 for ; Tue, 1 Nov 2011 02:55:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.796 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.796 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.197, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5lNxiLnXJai4 for ; Tue, 1 Nov 2011 02:55:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ht2-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht2-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.36]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30E5021F8DDC for ; Tue, 1 Nov 2011 02:55:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.1.74]) by spite.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.10.72]) with mapi; Tue, 1 Nov 2011 02:55:46 -0700 From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: "marf@ietf.org" Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2011 02:55:45 -0700 Thread-Topic: [marf] draft-jdfalk-marf-redaction Thread-Index: AcyYePAOfq+Y2assQxmu7O4+y7DXTQAAvxwQ Message-ID: References: <20111030200036.E8FA0F58113@smtp.patriot.net> <4EAEE6D3.8000400@tana.it> <4EAFBC2E.7070701@tana.it> In-Reply-To: <4EAFBC2E.7070701@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] draft-jdfalk-marf-redaction X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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, 01 Nov 2011 09:55:47 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: marf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:marf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of A= lessandro Vesely > Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2011 2:30 AM > To: marf@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [marf] draft-jdfalk-marf-redaction >=20 > Actually, I meant >=20 > "redacted-encoding1" "@" "redacted-encoding2" "." "redacted-encoding3" So now we have to say which atoms get encoded and which don't. It's gettin= g pretty complicated. > [...] > Thus "" becomes "" if the encoded hash is ABCD.= .., > but easiness is lost. Definitely. We also have to consider that user full-names might need redaction. "Murra= y S. Kucherawy" is six atoms, for example, and we'd have to specify rules t= here too. I think this way lies madness. As long as the redaction procedure is appli= ed consistently, both sides get what they want. I think that's as far as w= e should go. Are there any other points to cover here, or is a WGLC in order? -MSK From msk@cloudmark.com Tue Nov 1 03:45:40 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2BCC21F8F6D for ; Tue, 1 Nov 2011 03:45:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.293 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.293 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.306, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NWWuQol6Fa+I for ; Tue, 1 Nov 2011 03:45:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.35]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CC0E21F8E36 for ; Tue, 1 Nov 2011 03:45:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.1.74]) by malice.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.10.71]) with mapi; Tue, 1 Nov 2011 03:45:33 -0700 From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: "marf@ietf.org" Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2011 03:45:32 -0700 Thread-Topic: [marf] draft-jdfalk-marf-redaction Thread-Index: AcyYePAOfq+Y2assQxmu7O4+y7DXTQAAvxwQAAHaYaA= Message-ID: References: <20111030200036.E8FA0F58113@smtp.patriot.net> <4EAEE6D3.8000400@tana.it> <4EAFBC2E.7070701@tana.it> 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] draft-jdfalk-marf-redaction X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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, 01 Nov 2011 10:45:41 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: marf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:marf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of M= urray S. Kucherawy > Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2011 2:56 AM > To: marf@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [marf] draft-jdfalk-marf-redaction >=20 > We also have to consider that user full-names might need redaction. > "Murray S. Kucherawy" is six atoms, for example, and we'd have to > specify rules there too. Er, it's four atoms. But still. From shmuel+gen@patriot.net Tue Nov 1 06:32:09 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F14E21F0C6E for ; Tue, 1 Nov 2011 06:32:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.979 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.979 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.620, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QpwIV5M6t+LA for ; Tue, 1 Nov 2011 06:32:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.patriot.net (smtp.patriot.net [209.249.176.77]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 778031F0C62 for ; Tue, 1 Nov 2011 06:32:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ECS35455305 (unknown [69.72.27.60]) (Authenticated sender: shmuel@patriot.net) by smtp.patriot.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FAE6F580B2 for ; Tue, 1 Nov 2011 09:20:15 -0400 (EDT) From: Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2011 08:08:57 -0400 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: <20111101132016.7FAE6F580B2@smtp.patriot.net> Subject: Re: [marf] draft-jdfalk-marf-redaction X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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: Tue, 01 Nov 2011 13:32:09 -0000 In , on 11/01/2011 at 03:45 AM, "Murray S. Kucherawy" said: >Er, it's four atoms. But still. "Murray", "S" and "Kucherawy"; I count 3. -- 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 shmuel+gen@patriot.net Tue Nov 1 06:32:09 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C48571F0C6E for ; Tue, 1 Nov 2011 06:32:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.134 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.134 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.465, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2QNZzrEadMDf for ; Tue, 1 Nov 2011 06:32:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.patriot.net (smtp.patriot.net [209.249.176.77]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AC151F0C62 for ; Tue, 1 Nov 2011 06:32:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ECS35455305 (unknown [69.72.27.60]) (Authenticated sender: shmuel@patriot.net) by smtp.patriot.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9951F580B3 for ; Tue, 1 Nov 2011 09:20:18 -0400 (EDT) From: Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2011 08:05:28 -0400 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: <20111101132019.E9951F580B3@smtp.patriot.net> Subject: Re: [marf] draft-jdfalk-marf-redaction X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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: Tue, 01 Nov 2011 13:32:09 -0000 In , on 10/31/2011 at 01:27 PM, "Murray S. Kucherawy" said: >Possibly, but since "foo@bar.com" consists of four atoms, Three. >[redacted-encoding1][redacted-encoding2][redacted-encoding3][redacted-encoding4] [redacted-encoding1]@[redacted-encoding2].[redacted-encoding3] >That seems excessive. Yes. -- 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 Tue Nov 1 07:48:57 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17F7911E819B for ; Tue, 1 Nov 2011 07:48:57 -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 ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CrxGTbaN2Ghm for ; Tue, 1 Nov 2011 07:48:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wmail.tana.it (www.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2831811E812E for ; Tue, 1 Nov 2011 07:48:55 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=test; t=1320158931; bh=zjQieMnVDmqSmrJQNL808R4Feh8/NnL6rz3RzimeKq0=; l=2434; h=Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=AW93jPvRRRqS0Kn6LsUBfRYx/MOqsB8gz7WpQx1M21m+uaPWWTPohAyxV1WfmUEAJ +lbTIYNg3Kha0K/GCLrQ0vXvZhOSzM27aiWXFrSluw5TtZsqXD3cTSNAp0UyUqiaV5 xlf4dXtStTAOglRTYJm2bnr9bCeWkf7gyP5tN8TE= Received: from [193.0.27.158] (dhcp-27-158.ripemtg.ripe.net [193.0.27.158]) (AUTH: PLAIN 515, TLS: TLS1.0,256bits,RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPSA; Tue, 01 Nov 2011 15:48:47 +0100 id 00000000005DC035.000000004EB006D1.00007CE5 Message-ID: <4EB006C9.3030407@tana.it> Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2011 15:48:41 +0100 From: Alessandro Vesely User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.0; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20110929 Thunderbird/7.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: marf@ietf.org References: <20111030200036.E8FA0F58113@smtp.patriot.net> <4EAEE6D3.8000400@tana.it> <4EAFBC2E.7070701@tana.it> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [marf] draft-jdfalk-marf-redaction X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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, 01 Nov 2011 14:48:57 -0000 On 01.11.2011 10:55, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >> From: ietf.org On Behalf Of Alessandro Vesely >> >> Actually, I meant >> >> "redacted-encoding1" "@" "redacted-encoding2" "." "redacted-encoding3" > > So now we have to say which atoms get encoded and which don't. It's > getting pretty complicated. RFC 5322 is complicated, using its ABNF we simplify our text. > We also have to consider that user full-names might need redaction. > "Murray S. Kucherawy" is six atoms, for example, and we'd have to specify > rules there too. Not necessarily, it can be replaced by "BCDEFGHI.KLMNOPQRST", ignoring quoted strings. > I think this way lies madness. As long as the redaction procedure is > applied consistently, both sides get what they want. I think that's as > far as we should go. Consider this string: To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" and a possible redaction of it: To: "BCDEFGHI.KLMNOPQRST" Is that sufficiently protective and non-disruptive? I agree it is uselessly difficult to specify how to do something like that, but I would at least add some (possibly real) examples. > Are there any other points to cover here, or is a WGLC in order? Perhaps, it is useful to mention that An abuse-reporting policy should specify the concept of "recipient(s)" of abusive messages, clarifying how that may depend upon who signaled the abuse and relevant domain names. Usually, it is the recipient's data that needs to be concealed, not the sender's. In particular, the following header fields contain mailbox or addr-spec tokens, and hence are likely to need redaction: * To, * CC, * the "for" clause of Received, * Delivered-To, * [add to taste]. If the From: header field contains a recipient's address, it may need redaction as well. In this case, it is important to replace it consistently so that the matching can still be recognized. In addition, unstructured fields, like Subject:, and the body may be searched for strings that match the recipient's name, surname, the local-part, or other private data that the server knows and thus might appear to be leaking from it if not redacted. Finally, the I-D lacks a one-liner section for terminology, e.g. 2. Terminology The terms local-part, addr-spec, [more?], are defined in [MESSAGE]. Where [MESSAGE] would point to RFC 5322, to be added. From msk@cloudmark.com Tue Nov 1 14:14:03 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8903711E820A for ; Tue, 1 Nov 2011 14:14:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.302 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.302 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.297, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3C9p-e3gNBLV for ; Tue, 1 Nov 2011 14:14:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.35]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EF5B11E8209 for ; Tue, 1 Nov 2011 14:14:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.1.74]) by malice.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.10.71]) with mapi; Tue, 1 Nov 2011 14:10:11 -0700 From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: "marf@ietf.org" Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2011 14:10:10 -0700 Thread-Topic: [marf] draft-jdfalk-marf-redaction Thread-Index: AcyYpWYY2oNO3AqQSb6bzgsuts5WMQANGOEg Message-ID: References: <20111030200036.E8FA0F58113@smtp.patriot.net> <4EAEE6D3.8000400@tana.it> <4EAFBC2E.7070701@tana.it> <4EB006C9.3030407@tana.it> In-Reply-To: <4EB006C9.3030407@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] draft-jdfalk-marf-redaction X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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, 01 Nov 2011 21:14:03 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: marf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:marf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of A= lessandro Vesely > Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2011 7:49 AM > To: marf@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [marf] draft-jdfalk-marf-redaction >=20 > > So now we have to say which atoms get encoded and which don't. It's > > getting pretty complicated. >=20 > RFC 5322 is complicated, using its ABNF we simplify our text. I don't see how referencing RFC5322 clarifies your proposed scheme much. Y= ou seem to concur below. > > I think this way lies madness. As long as the redaction procedure is > > applied consistently, both sides get what they want. I think that's as > > far as we should go. >=20 > Consider this string: >=20 > To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" >=20 > and a possible redaction of it: >=20 > To: "BCDEFGHI.KLMNOPQRST" >=20 > Is that sufficiently protective and non-disruptive? I agree it is useles= sly > difficult to specify how to do something like that, but I would at least = add > some (possibly real) examples. There's a lot of needless complexity here. The main point is that the agen= t receiving the report doesn't need to know exactly what's been redacted. = All it cares about is that the content of the redacted From and the unredac= ted From are isomorphic, so that behavioural patterns could be detected and= reported. So these rules only really apply to the agent generating the re= port, and then the only important point is that it do so consistently. I= think the current text says that already. So rather than come up with com= plex redaction schemes including guidance on how to select redacted segment= s right down to specific atom patterns, we only need to advise that the rep= ort generator do so uniformly and consistently, and the goal is met. Let t= hose agents do so however they want. > > Are there any other points to cover here, or is a WGLC in order? >=20 > Perhaps, it is useful to mention that >=20 > An abuse-reporting policy should specify the concept of "recipient(s)" = of > abusive messages, clarifying how that may depend upon who signaled the > abuse and relevant domain names. Usually, it is the recipient's data t= hat > needs to be concealed, not the sender's. In particular, the following > header fields contain mailbox or addr-spec tokens, and hence are likely= to > need redaction: >=20 > * To, > * CC, > * the "for" clause of Received, > * Delivered-To, > * [add to taste]. >=20 > If the From: header field contains a recipient's address, it may need > redaction as well. In this case, it is important to replace it > consistently so that the matching can still be recognized. >=20 > In addition, unstructured fields, like Subject:, and the body may be > searched for strings that match the recipient's name, surname, the > local-part, or other private data that the server knows and thus might > appear to be leaking from it if not redacted. >=20 >=20 > Finally, the I-D lacks a one-liner section for terminology, e.g. >=20 > 2. Terminology >=20 > The terms local-part, addr-spec, [more?], are defined in > [MESSAGE]. >=20 > Where [MESSAGE] would point to RFC 5322, to be added. All of that sounds reasonable to me. JD? -MSK From msk@cloudmark.com Fri Nov 4 11:59:05 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1984C21F8AB0 for ; Fri, 4 Nov 2011 11:59:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.813 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.813 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.215, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NyRmjRsDY6HO for ; Fri, 4 Nov 2011 11:59:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ht2-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht2-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.36]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B147121F8AA9 for ; Fri, 4 Nov 2011 11:59:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.1.74]) by spite.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.10.72]) with mapi; Fri, 4 Nov 2011 11:59:04 -0700 From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: "marf@ietf.org" Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2011 11:59:03 -0700 Thread-Topic: Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-marf-redaction Thread-Index: AcybI9GwU+x5elZQRHWARdWg4K607w== 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_F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C6C14E6BEXCHC2corpclo_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [marf] Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-marf-redaction X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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 Nov 2011 18:59:05 -0000 --_000_F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C6C14E6BEXCHC2corpclo_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable This message starts a two-week Working Group Last Call on the redaction doc= ument, ending on 11/18. Alessandro sent some text for consideration so tho= se are already included in the WGLC. Please submit any further review comm= ents before then. Thanks! -MSK --_000_F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C6C14E6BEXCHC2corpclo_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

This message sta= rts a two-week Working Group Last Call on the redaction document, ending on= 11/18.  Alessandro sent some text for consideration so those are alre= ady included in the WGLC.  Please submit any further review comments b= efore then.

Thanks!

 

-MSK<= /o:p>

= --_000_F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C6C14E6BEXCHC2corpclo_-- From evnikita2@gmail.com Fri Nov 4 22:15:37 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7418E11E8089 for ; Fri, 4 Nov 2011 22:15:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.349 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.349 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.051, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jXAb+Ee3inWE for ; Fri, 4 Nov 2011 22:15:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-fx0-f44.google.com (mail-fx0-f44.google.com [209.85.161.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 838ED11E8073 for ; Fri, 4 Nov 2011 22:15:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: by faas12 with SMTP id s12so3925803faa.31 for ; Fri, 04 Nov 2011 22:15:35 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type; bh=+SKjLps2CPWT4EpyiHiA1aTexh+MflNHIxr7lLZx+Pw=; b=NpnKKneou2RX7rmszTR1JQKyPJHbgH78EtLipSnWvbrZ+btNyHIFYbjez9ZrL53KqV mG7LWcnwIoAAsVPmBLb8m4xDP7YvLBUpUpp0y1kJgfwkefRO58Y0NVqe2mlKQ1R24b81 Lzd5BgsYQZZbH/C4x0mdUunsngf9jQ/bHr+yw= Received: by 10.223.61.131 with SMTP id t3mr798933fah.26.1320470135413; Fri, 04 Nov 2011 22:15:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([195.191.104.224]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id p14sm19898803faf.20.2011.11.04.22.15.33 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 04 Nov 2011 22:15:34 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4EB4C6A5.4040101@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 05 Nov 2011 07:16:21 +0200 From: =?UTF-8?B?Ik15a3l0YSBZZXZzdGlmZXlldiAo0JwuINCE0LLRgdGC0ZbRhNC10ZTQsg==?= =?UTF-8?B?KSI=?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20110929 Thunderbird/7.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: marf@ietf.org References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------010706030208080501040208" Subject: Re: [marf] Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-marf-redaction X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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, 05 Nov 2011 05:15:37 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------010706030208080501040208 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello, Some comments on draft-ietf-marf-redaction: I see this document's intended status is Informational. I wonder why it isn't BCP, since the doc. tries to establish the recommended practice. In Section 2: should it be mentioned that the 1st part of "multipart/report" message with "feedback-report" report-type should have a notice of some data being redacted? References should be split into normative and informative. I suppose [ARF] and [MIME] should go as normative and [DKIM-REPORTING] as informative. Mykyta Yevstifeyev 04.11.2011 20:59, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > > This message starts a two-week Working Group Last Call on the > redaction document, ending on 11/18. Alessandro sent some text for > consideration so those are already included in the WGLC. Please > submit any further review comments before then. > > Thanks! > > -MSK > > > > _______________________________________________ > marf mailing list > marf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf --------------010706030208080501040208 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hello,

Some comments on draft-ietf-marf-redaction:

I see this document's intended status is Informational.  I wonder why it isn't BCP, since the doc. tries to establish the recommended practice.

In Section 2: should it be mentioned that the 1st part of "multipart/report" message with "feedback-report" report-type should have a notice of some data being redacted?

References should be split into normative and informative.  I suppose [ARF] and [MIME] should go as normative and [DKIM-REPORTING] as informative.

Mykyta Yevstifeyev

04.11.2011 20:59, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:

This message starts a two-week Working Group Last Call on the redaction document, ending on 11/18.  Alessandro sent some text for consideration so those are already included in the WGLC.  Please submit any further review comments before then.

Thanks!

 

-MSK



_______________________________________________
marf mailing list
marf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf

--------------010706030208080501040208-- From msk@cloudmark.com Sat Nov 5 22:59:56 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD65A1F0C36 for ; Sat, 5 Nov 2011 22:59:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.809 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.809 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.211, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pzB08S8T2OsB for ; Sat, 5 Nov 2011 22:59:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ht2-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht2-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.36]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 326481F0C34 for ; Sat, 5 Nov 2011 22:59:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.1.74]) by spite.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.10.72]) with mapi; Sat, 5 Nov 2011 21:53:51 -0700 From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: "marf@ietf.org" Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2011 21:53:49 -0700 Thread-Topic: [marf] Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-marf-redaction Thread-Index: Acybefwi1e8kj/j8SGWGsUalFzepGQAxcPmg Message-ID: References: <4EB4C6A5.4040101@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4EB4C6A5.4040101@gmail.com> 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_F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C6C14EADEXCHC2corpclo_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [marf] Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-marf-redaction X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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, 06 Nov 2011 05:59:56 -0000 --_000_F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C6C14EADEXCHC2corpclo_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 SGVsbG8gTXlreXRrYSwNCg0KQkNQIGlzIHBvc3NpYmx5IGFwcHJvcHJpYXRlLiAgSeKAmWxsIHNl ZSB3aGF0IG91ciBBRCB0aGlua3MuDQoNClRoZXJlIGlzbuKAmXQgY3VycmVudGx5IGEgbWVjaGFu aXNtIGZvciBpbmRpY2F0aW5nIHRoZSByZXBvcnQgY29udGFpbnMgcmVkYWN0ZWQgc2VnbWVudHMu ICBTbyBmYXIsIHRoZSBzaXRlcyB0aGF0IGhhdmUgaW1wbGVtZW50ZWQgdGhpcyBkb27igJl0IGFw cGVhciB0byBoYXZlIGEgbmVlZCBmb3IgZG9pbmcgc28uICBJ4oCZbSBub3Qgc3VyZSBpdOKAmXMg bmVjZXNzYXJ5OyB0aGUgZ29hbCBpcyB0byBoYXZlIHRoZSByZWRhY3RlZCBzZWdtZW50cyBiZSBp bnZhcmlhbnQgd2hlbiB0aGUgb3JpZ2luYWwgc3RyaW5ncyBhcmUgYWxzbyBpbnZhcmlhbnQsIHdo aWNoIGlzIGFjY29tcGxpc2hlZCB3aXRob3V0IHRoZSBuZWVkIGZvciBzaWduYWxpbmcgcmVkYWN0 aW9uLiAgSeKAmWQgbGlrZSB0byBoZWFyIG90aGVyIG9waW5pb25zIG9uIHRoaXMgcG9pbnQgdGhv dWdoLg0KDQpJIGFncmVlIG9uIHRoZSByZWZlcmVuY2VzIHNwbGl0LiAgSG93ZXZlciwgQVJGIGlz IHRoZSBvbmx5IG5vcm1hdGl2ZSBvbmU7IHRoZSBvdGhlcnMgYXJlIGluZm9ybWF0aXZlLg0KDQpU aGFua3MsDQotTVNLDQoNCkZyb206IG1hcmYtYm91bmNlc0BpZXRmLm9yZyBbbWFpbHRvOm1hcmYt Ym91bmNlc0BpZXRmLm9yZ10gT24gQmVoYWxmIE9mICJNeWt5dGEgWWV2c3RpZmV5ZXYgKD8uID8/ Pz8/Pz8/PykiDQpTZW50OiBGcmlkYXksIE5vdmVtYmVyIDA0LCAyMDExIDEwOjE2IFBNDQpUbzog bWFyZkBpZXRmLm9yZw0KU3ViamVjdDogUmU6IFttYXJmXSBXb3JraW5nIEdyb3VwIExhc3QgQ2Fs bCBvbiBkcmFmdC1pZXRmLW1hcmYtcmVkYWN0aW9uDQoNCkhlbGxvLA0KDQpTb21lIGNvbW1lbnRz IG9uIGRyYWZ0LWlldGYtbWFyZi1yZWRhY3Rpb246DQoNCkkgc2VlIHRoaXMgZG9jdW1lbnQncyBp bnRlbmRlZCBzdGF0dXMgaXMgSW5mb3JtYXRpb25hbC4gIEkgd29uZGVyIHdoeSBpdCBpc24ndCBC Q1AsIHNpbmNlIHRoZSBkb2MuIHRyaWVzIHRvIGVzdGFibGlzaCB0aGUgcmVjb21tZW5kZWQgcHJh Y3RpY2UuDQoNCkluIFNlY3Rpb24gMjogc2hvdWxkIGl0IGJlIG1lbnRpb25lZCB0aGF0IHRoZSAx c3QgcGFydCBvZiAibXVsdGlwYXJ0L3JlcG9ydCIgbWVzc2FnZSB3aXRoICJmZWVkYmFjay1yZXBv cnQiIHJlcG9ydC10eXBlIHNob3VsZCBoYXZlIGEgbm90aWNlIG9mIHNvbWUgZGF0YSBiZWluZyBy ZWRhY3RlZD8NCg0KUmVmZXJlbmNlcyBzaG91bGQgYmUgc3BsaXQgaW50byBub3JtYXRpdmUgYW5k IGluZm9ybWF0aXZlLiAgSSBzdXBwb3NlIFtBUkZdIGFuZCBbTUlNRV0gc2hvdWxkIGdvIGFzIG5v cm1hdGl2ZSBhbmQgW0RLSU0tUkVQT1JUSU5HXSBhcyBpbmZvcm1hdGl2ZS4NCg0KTXlreXRhIFll dnN0aWZleWV2DQoNCjA0LjExLjIwMTEgMjA6NTksIE11cnJheSBTLiBLdWNoZXJhd3kgd3JvdGU6 DQpUaGlzIG1lc3NhZ2Ugc3RhcnRzIGEgdHdvLXdlZWsgV29ya2luZyBHcm91cCBMYXN0IENhbGwg b24gdGhlIHJlZGFjdGlvbiBkb2N1bWVudCwgZW5kaW5nIG9uIDExLzE4LiAgQWxlc3NhbmRybyBz ZW50IHNvbWUgdGV4dCBmb3IgY29uc2lkZXJhdGlvbiBzbyB0aG9zZSBhcmUgYWxyZWFkeSBpbmNs dWRlZCBpbiB0aGUgV0dMQy4gIFBsZWFzZSBzdWJtaXQgYW55IGZ1cnRoZXIgcmV2aWV3IGNvbW1l bnRzIGJlZm9yZSB0aGVuLg0KDQoNClRoYW5rcyENCg0KLU1TSw0KDQoNCg0KDQpfX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fXw0KDQptYXJmIG1haWxpbmcgbGlz dA0KDQptYXJmQGlldGYub3JnPG1haWx0bzptYXJmQGlldGYub3JnPg0KDQpodHRwczovL3d3dy5p ZXRmLm9yZy9tYWlsbWFuL2xpc3RpbmZvL21hcmYNCg0K --_000_F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C6C14EADEXCHC2corpclo_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 PGh0bWwgeG1sbnM6dj0idXJuOnNjaGVtYXMtbWljcm9zb2Z0LWNvbTp2bWwiIHhtbG5zOm89InVy bjpzY2hlbWFzLW1pY3Jvc29mdC1jb206b2ZmaWNlOm9mZmljZSIgeG1sbnM6dz0idXJuOnNjaGVt YXMtbWljcm9zb2Z0LWNvbTpvZmZpY2U6d29yZCIgeG1sbnM6bT0iaHR0cDovL3NjaGVtYXMubWlj cm9zb2Z0LmNvbS9vZmZpY2UvMjAwNC8xMi9vbW1sIiB4bWxucz0iaHR0cDovL3d3dy53My5vcmcv VFIvUkVDLWh0bWw0MCI+PGhlYWQ+PG1ldGEgaHR0cC1lcXVpdj1Db250ZW50LVR5cGUgY29udGVu dD0idGV4dC9odG1sOyBjaGFyc2V0PXV0Zi04Ij48bWV0YSBuYW1lPUdlbmVyYXRvciBjb250ZW50 PSJNaWNyb3NvZnQgV29yZCAxMiAoZmlsdGVyZWQgbWVkaXVtKSI+PHN0eWxlPjwhLS0NCi8qIEZv bnQgRGVmaW5pdGlvbnMgKi8NCkBmb250LWZhY2UNCgl7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IkNhbWJyaWEgTWF0 aCI7DQoJcGFub3NlLTE6MiA0IDUgMyA1IDQgNiAzIDIgNDt9DQpAZm9udC1mYWNlDQoJe2ZvbnQt ZmFtaWx5OkNhbGlicmk7DQoJcGFub3NlLTE6MiAxNSA1IDIgMiAyIDQgMyAyIDQ7fQ0KQGZvbnQt ZmFjZQ0KCXtmb250LWZhbWlseTpUYWhvbWE7DQoJcGFub3NlLTE6MiAxMSA2IDQgMyA1IDQgNCAy IDQ7fQ0KQGZvbnQtZmFjZQ0KCXtmb250LWZhbWlseTpDb25zb2xhczsNCglwYW5vc2UtMToyIDEx IDYgOSAyIDIgNCAzIDIgNDt9DQovKiBTdHlsZSBEZWZpbml0aW9ucyAqLw0KcC5Nc29Ob3JtYWws IGxpLk1zb05vcm1hbCwgZGl2Lk1zb05vcm1hbA0KCXttYXJnaW46MGluOw0KCW1hcmdpbi1ib3R0 b206LjAwMDFwdDsNCglmb250LXNpemU6MTEuMHB0Ow0KCWZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJDYWxpYnJpIiwi c2Fucy1zZXJpZiI7DQoJY29sb3I6YmxhY2s7fQ0KYTpsaW5rLCBzcGFuLk1zb0h5cGVybGluaw0K CXttc28tc3R5bGUtcHJpb3JpdHk6OTk7DQoJY29sb3I6Ymx1ZTsNCgl0ZXh0LWRlY29yYXRpb246 dW5kZXJsaW5lO30NCmE6dmlzaXRlZCwgc3Bhbi5Nc29IeXBlcmxpbmtGb2xsb3dlZA0KCXttc28t c3R5bGUtcHJpb3JpdHk6OTk7DQoJY29sb3I6cHVycGxlOw0KCXRleHQtZGVjb3JhdGlvbjp1bmRl cmxpbmU7fQ0KcHJlDQoJe21zby1zdHlsZS1wcmlvcml0eTo5OTsNCgltc28tc3R5bGUtbGluazoi SFRNTCBQcmVmb3JtYXR0ZWQgQ2hhciI7DQoJbWFyZ2luOjBpbjsNCgltYXJnaW4tYm90dG9tOi4w MDAxcHQ7DQoJZm9udC1zaXplOjEwLjBwdDsNCglmb250LWZhbWlseToiQ291cmllciBOZXciOw0K CWNvbG9yOmJsYWNrO30NCnNwYW4uRW1haWxTdHlsZTE3DQoJe21zby1zdHlsZS10eXBlOnBlcnNv bmFsOw0KCWZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJDYWxpYnJpIiwic2Fucy1zZXJpZiI7DQoJY29sb3I6d2luZG93 dGV4dDt9DQpzcGFuLkhUTUxQcmVmb3JtYXR0ZWRDaGFyDQoJe21zby1zdHlsZS1uYW1lOiJIVE1M IFByZWZvcm1hdHRlZCBDaGFyIjsNCgltc28tc3R5bGUtcHJpb3JpdHk6OTk7DQoJbXNvLXN0eWxl LWxpbms6IkhUTUwgUHJlZm9ybWF0dGVkIjsNCglmb250LWZhbWlseTpDb25zb2xhczsNCgljb2xv cjpibGFjazt9DQpzcGFuLkVtYWlsU3R5bGUyMA0KCXttc28tc3R5bGUtdHlwZTpwZXJzb25hbC1y ZXBseTsNCglmb250LWZhbWlseToiQ2FsaWJyaSIsInNhbnMtc2VyaWYiOw0KCWNvbG9yOiMxRjQ5 N0Q7fQ0KLk1zb0NocERlZmF1bHQNCgl7bXNvLXN0eWxlLXR5cGU6ZXhwb3J0LW9ubHk7DQoJZm9u dC1zaXplOjEwLjBwdDt9DQpAcGFnZSBXb3JkU2VjdGlvbjENCgl7c2l6ZTo4LjVpbiAxMS4waW47 DQoJbWFyZ2luOjEuMGluIDEuMGluIDEuMGluIDEuMGluO30NCmRpdi5Xb3JkU2VjdGlvbjENCgl7 cGFnZTpXb3JkU2VjdGlvbjE7fQ0KLS0+PC9zdHlsZT48IS0tW2lmIGd0ZSBtc28gOV0+PHhtbD4N CjxvOnNoYXBlZGVmYXVsdHMgdjpleHQ9ImVkaXQiIHNwaWRtYXg9IjEwMjYiIC8+DQo8L3htbD48 IVtlbmRpZl0tLT48IS0tW2lmIGd0ZSBtc28gOV0+PHhtbD4NCjxvOnNoYXBlbGF5b3V0IHY6ZXh0 PSJlZGl0Ij4NCjxvOmlkbWFwIHY6ZXh0PSJlZGl0IiBkYXRhPSIxIiAvPg0KPC9vOnNoYXBlbGF5 b3V0PjwveG1sPjwhW2VuZGlmXS0tPjwvaGVhZD48Ym9keSBiZ2NvbG9yPXdoaXRlIGxhbmc9RU4t VVMgbGluaz1ibHVlIHZsaW5rPXB1cnBsZT48ZGl2IGNsYXNzPVdvcmRTZWN0aW9uMT48cCBjbGFz cz1Nc29Ob3JtYWw+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9J2NvbG9yOiMxRjQ5N0QnPkhlbGxvIE15a3l0a2EsPG86 cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPjxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbD48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0nY29sb3I6 IzFGNDk3RCc+PG86cD4mbmJzcDs8L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPjxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbD48 c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0nY29sb3I6IzFGNDk3RCc+QkNQIGlzIHBvc3NpYmx5IGFwcHJvcHJpYXRlLsKg IEnigJlsbCBzZWUgd2hhdCBvdXIgQUQgdGhpbmtzLjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD48cCBj bGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWw+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9J2NvbG9yOiMxRjQ5N0QnPjxvOnA+Jm5ic3A7PC9v OnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD48cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWw+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9J2NvbG9yOiMxRjQ5 N0QnPlRoZXJlIGlzbuKAmXQgY3VycmVudGx5IGEgbWVjaGFuaXNtIGZvciBpbmRpY2F0aW5nIHRo ZSByZXBvcnQgY29udGFpbnMgcmVkYWN0ZWQgc2VnbWVudHMuwqAgU28gZmFyLCB0aGUgc2l0ZXMg dGhhdCBoYXZlIGltcGxlbWVudGVkIHRoaXMgZG9u4oCZdCBhcHBlYXIgdG8gaGF2ZSBhIG5lZWQg Zm9yIGRvaW5nIHNvLsKgIEnigJltIG5vdCBzdXJlIGl04oCZcyBuZWNlc3Nhcnk7IHRoZSBnb2Fs IGlzIHRvIGhhdmUgdGhlIHJlZGFjdGVkIHNlZ21lbnRzIGJlIGludmFyaWFudCB3aGVuIHRoZSBv cmlnaW5hbCBzdHJpbmdzIGFyZSBhbHNvIGludmFyaWFudCwgd2hpY2ggaXMgYWNjb21wbGlzaGVk IHdpdGhvdXQgdGhlIG5lZWQgZm9yIHNpZ25hbGluZyByZWRhY3Rpb24uwqAgSeKAmWQgbGlrZSB0 byBoZWFyIG90aGVyIG9waW5pb25zIG9uIHRoaXMgcG9pbnQgdGhvdWdoLjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9z cGFuPjwvcD48cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWw+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9J2NvbG9yOiMxRjQ5N0QnPjxv OnA+Jm5ic3A7PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD48cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWw+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9 J2NvbG9yOiMxRjQ5N0QnPkkgYWdyZWUgb24gdGhlIHJlZmVyZW5jZXMgc3BsaXQuwqAgSG93ZXZl ciwgQVJGIGlzIHRoZSBvbmx5IG5vcm1hdGl2ZSBvbmU7IHRoZSBvdGhlcnMgYXJlIGluZm9ybWF0 aXZlLjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD48cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWw+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9 J2NvbG9yOiMxRjQ5N0QnPjxvOnA+Jm5ic3A7PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD48cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29O b3JtYWw+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9J2NvbG9yOiMxRjQ5N0QnPlRoYW5rcyw8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bh bj48L3A+PHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSdjb2xvcjojMUY0OTdEJz4tTVNL PG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPjxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbD48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0nY29s b3I6IzFGNDk3RCc+PG86cD4mbmJzcDs8L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPjxkaXYgc3R5bGU9J2JvcmRl cjpub25lO2JvcmRlci1sZWZ0OnNvbGlkIGJsdWUgMS41cHQ7cGFkZGluZzowaW4gMGluIDBpbiA0 LjBwdCc+PGRpdj48ZGl2IHN0eWxlPSdib3JkZXI6bm9uZTtib3JkZXItdG9wOnNvbGlkICNCNUM0 REYgMS4wcHQ7cGFkZGluZzozLjBwdCAwaW4gMGluIDBpbic+PHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsPjxi PjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSdmb250LXNpemU6MTAuMHB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJUYWhvbWEiLCJzYW5z LXNlcmlmIjtjb2xvcjp3aW5kb3d0ZXh0Jz5Gcm9tOjwvc3Bhbj48L2I+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9J2Zv bnQtc2l6ZToxMC4wcHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IlRhaG9tYSIsInNhbnMtc2VyaWYiO2NvbG9yOndp bmRvd3RleHQnPiBtYXJmLWJvdW5jZXNAaWV0Zi5vcmcgW21haWx0bzptYXJmLWJvdW5jZXNAaWV0 Zi5vcmddIDxiPk9uIEJlaGFsZiBPZiA8L2I+JnF1b3Q7TXlreXRhIFlldnN0aWZleWV2ICg/LiA/ Pz8/Pz8/Pz8pJnF1b3Q7PGJyPjxiPlNlbnQ6PC9iPiBGcmlkYXksIE5vdmVtYmVyIDA0LCAyMDEx IDEwOjE2IFBNPGJyPjxiPlRvOjwvYj4gbWFyZkBpZXRmLm9yZzxicj48Yj5TdWJqZWN0OjwvYj4g UmU6IFttYXJmXSBXb3JraW5nIEdyb3VwIExhc3QgQ2FsbCBvbiBkcmFmdC1pZXRmLW1hcmYtcmVk YWN0aW9uPG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPjwvZGl2PjwvZGl2PjxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1h bD48bzpwPiZuYnNwOzwvbzpwPjwvcD48cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWw+SGVsbG8sPGJyPjxicj5T b21lIGNvbW1lbnRzIG9uIGRyYWZ0LWlldGYtbWFyZi1yZWRhY3Rpb246PGJyPjxicj5JIHNlZSB0 aGlzIGRvY3VtZW50J3MgaW50ZW5kZWQgc3RhdHVzIGlzIEluZm9ybWF0aW9uYWwuJm5ic3A7IEkg d29uZGVyIHdoeSBpdCBpc24ndCBCQ1AsIHNpbmNlIHRoZSBkb2MuIHRyaWVzIHRvIGVzdGFibGlz aCB0aGUgcmVjb21tZW5kZWQgcHJhY3RpY2UuPGJyPjxicj5JbiBTZWN0aW9uIDI6IHNob3VsZCBp dCBiZSBtZW50aW9uZWQgdGhhdCB0aGUgMXN0IHBhcnQgb2YgJnF1b3Q7bXVsdGlwYXJ0L3JlcG9y dCZxdW90OyBtZXNzYWdlIHdpdGggJnF1b3Q7ZmVlZGJhY2stcmVwb3J0JnF1b3Q7IHJlcG9ydC10 eXBlIHNob3VsZCBoYXZlIGEgbm90aWNlIG9mIHNvbWUgZGF0YSBiZWluZyByZWRhY3RlZD88YnI+ PGJyPlJlZmVyZW5jZXMgc2hvdWxkIGJlIHNwbGl0IGludG8gbm9ybWF0aXZlIGFuZCBpbmZvcm1h dGl2ZS4mbmJzcDsgSSBzdXBwb3NlIFtBUkZdIGFuZCBbTUlNRV0gc2hvdWxkIGdvIGFzIG5vcm1h dGl2ZSBhbmQgW0RLSU0tUkVQT1JUSU5HXSBhcyBpbmZvcm1hdGl2ZS48YnI+PGJyPk15a3l0YSBZ ZXZzdGlmZXlldjxicj48YnI+MDQuMTEuMjAxMSAyMDo1OSwgTXVycmF5IFMuIEt1Y2hlcmF3eSB3 cm90ZTogPG86cD48L286cD48L3A+PHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsPlRoaXMgbWVzc2FnZSBzdGFy dHMgYSB0d28td2VlayBXb3JraW5nIEdyb3VwIExhc3QgQ2FsbCBvbiB0aGUgcmVkYWN0aW9uIGRv Y3VtZW50LCBlbmRpbmcgb24gMTEvMTguJm5ic3A7IEFsZXNzYW5kcm8gc2VudCBzb21lIHRleHQg Zm9yIGNvbnNpZGVyYXRpb24gc28gdGhvc2UgYXJlIGFscmVhZHkgaW5jbHVkZWQgaW4gdGhlIFdH TEMuJm5ic3A7IFBsZWFzZSBzdWJtaXQgYW55IGZ1cnRoZXIgcmV2aWV3IGNvbW1lbnRzIGJlZm9y ZSB0aGVuLjxicj48YnI+PGJyPjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9wPjxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbD5UaGFu a3MhPG86cD48L286cD48L3A+PHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsPiZuYnNwOzxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9w PjxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbD4tTVNLPG86cD48L286cD48L3A+PHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFs PjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSdmb250LXNpemU6MTIuMHB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJUaW1lcyBOZXcgUm9t YW4iLCJzZXJpZiInPjxicj48YnI+PGJyPjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD48cHJlPl9fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fPG86cD48L286cD48L3By ZT48cHJlPm1hcmYgbWFpbGluZyBsaXN0PG86cD48L286cD48L3ByZT48cHJlPjxhIGhyZWY9Im1h aWx0bzptYXJmQGlldGYub3JnIj5tYXJmQGlldGYub3JnPC9hPjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9wcmU+PHBy ZT48YSBocmVmPSJodHRwczovL3d3dy5pZXRmLm9yZy9tYWlsbWFuL2xpc3RpbmZvL21hcmYiPmh0 dHBzOi8vd3d3LmlldGYub3JnL21haWxtYW4vbGlzdGluZm8vbWFyZjwvYT48bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwv cHJlPjxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbD48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0nZm9udC1zaXplOjEyLjBwdDtmb250 LWZhbWlseToiVGltZXMgTmV3IFJvbWFuIiwic2VyaWYiJz48bzpwPiZuYnNwOzwvbzpwPjwvc3Bh bj48L3A+PC9kaXY+PC9kaXY+PC9ib2R5PjwvaHRtbD4= --_000_F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C6C14EADEXCHC2corpclo_-- From vesely@tana.it Sun Nov 6 03:36:36 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 675A521F847C for ; Sun, 6 Nov 2011 03:36:36 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.552 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.552 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.167, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ne+l9TO0GEwv for ; Sun, 6 Nov 2011 03:36:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from wmail.tana.it (mail.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEDB321F8468 for ; Sun, 6 Nov 2011 03:36:34 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=test; t=1320579391; bh=5SpFBv6FDxK4tQW/ktevOzd2DbBQyPRXhkbggty5NDE=; l=667; h=Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=HrnQz+xEx2qfYtbzNUG1H5bpL2hTk1kjNxyQu3FWy5fBuBPb6dBLM8cMsv4lAX7W+ Cx34sH6adpl0A6bZq/7Okh9RrhczgAvqbNJlCxy59XS6hEE8ejVowzJ6JwjVvwtcoI r2mxsWAmrKrt9HOfmIvc/zub7x5uMnC3zYcq73gw= 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; Sun, 06 Nov 2011 12:36:31 +0100 id 00000000005DC035.000000004EB6713F.00006174 Message-ID: <4EB67139.7080200@tana.it> Date: Sun, 06 Nov 2011 12:36:25 +0100 From: Alessandro Vesely User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20110929 Thunderbird/7.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: marf@ietf.org References: <4EB4C6A5.4040101@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [marf] Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-marf-redaction X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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, 06 Nov 2011 11:36:36 -0000 On 06/Nov/11 05:53, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > > There isn’t currently a mechanism for indicating the report contains > redacted segments. So far, the sites that have implemented this don’t > appear to have a need for doing so. I’m not sure it’s necessary; the > goal is to have the redacted segments be invariant when the original > strings are also invariant, which is accomplished without the need for > signaling redaction. I’d like to hear other opinions on this point > though. Redaction obviously breaks DKIM. Sites that rely on that for telling whether a message really originated at theirs may confuse redacted messages and spoofs. From msk@cloudmark.com Sun Nov 6 23:35:04 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 645F911E8080 for ; Sun, 6 Nov 2011 23:35:04 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.807 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.807 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.208, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id at8V3xUE6zvy for ; Sun, 6 Nov 2011 23:35:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from ht2-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht2-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.36]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFD3611E807F for ; Sun, 6 Nov 2011 23:35:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.1.74]) by spite.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.10.72]) with mapi; Sun, 6 Nov 2011 23:35:03 -0800 From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: "marf@ietf.org" Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2011 23:35:01 -0800 Thread-Topic: [marf] Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-marf-redaction Thread-Index: AcyceGXEqbALq0ftRzuUtvnKXNVWMAApwXKw Message-ID: References: <4EB4C6A5.4040101@gmail.com> <4EB67139.7080200@tana.it> In-Reply-To: <4EB67139.7080200@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="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [marf] Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-marf-redaction X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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: Mon, 07 Nov 2011 07:35:04 -0000 PiAtLS0tLU9yaWdpbmFsIE1lc3NhZ2UtLS0tLQ0KPiBGcm9tOiBtYXJmLWJvdW5jZXNAaWV0Zi5v cmcgW21haWx0bzptYXJmLWJvdW5jZXNAaWV0Zi5vcmddIE9uIEJlaGFsZiBPZiBBbGVzc2FuZHJv IFZlc2VseQ0KPiBTZW50OiBTdW5kYXksIE5vdmVtYmVyIDA2LCAyMDExIDM6MzYgQU0NCj4gVG86 IG1hcmZAaWV0Zi5vcmcNCj4gU3ViamVjdDogUmU6IFttYXJmXSBXb3JraW5nIEdyb3VwIExhc3Qg Q2FsbCBvbiBkcmFmdC1pZXRmLW1hcmYtIHJlZGFjdGlvbg0KPiANCj4gUmVkYWN0aW9uIG9idmlv dXNseSBicmVha3MgREtJTS4gIFNpdGVzIHRoYXQgcmVseSBvbiB0aGF0IGZvciB0ZWxsaW5nDQo+ IHdoZXRoZXIgYSBtZXNzYWdlIHJlYWxseSBvcmlnaW5hdGVkIGF0IHRoZWlycyBtYXkgY29uZnVz ZSByZWRhY3RlZA0KPiBtZXNzYWdlcyBhbmQgc3Bvb2ZzLg0KDQpBcmUgdGhlcmUgYWN0dWFsbHkg c2l0ZXMgdGhhdCB0cnkgdG8gZG8gdGhhdCwgb3IgaXMgdGhpcyBhIHNvbHV0aW9uIGxvb2tpbmcg Zm9yIGEgcHJvYmxlbT8NCg== From vesely@tana.it Mon Nov 7 03:57:39 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB49921F8B20 for ; Mon, 7 Nov 2011 03:57:39 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.561 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.561 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.158, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VQawhD8Dyj8G for ; Mon, 7 Nov 2011 03:57:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from wmail.tana.it (mail.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DBEE21F8B15 for ; Mon, 7 Nov 2011 03:57:38 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=test; t=1320667057; bh=X4ng/U45/MlxDLUz+FOXwsxGuxP6jm2Z2ONuKWrrPYY=; l=507; h=Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=c05Acox+dmmAnNCzE4b9at9UcICNYU0yl3N9aUvjZE7zMZ0lN+3yxxShTcbc30sUe 8AG/GMzVqB4e2rfWBzHwJm5NQJAohJMheGvBii3OEqnepOiI1477txds+Tubzpm4X+ GtJV5PnQNjY0MASCpsJwttBuut5nKysgTpLlD9eA= 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; Mon, 07 Nov 2011 12:57:37 +0100 id 00000000005DC044.000000004EB7C7B1.00003863 Message-ID: <4EB7C7B0.1070205@tana.it> Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2011 12:57:36 +0100 From: Alessandro Vesely User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20110929 Thunderbird/7.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: marf@ietf.org References: <4EB4C6A5.4040101@gmail.com> <4EB67139.7080200@tana.it> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [marf] Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-marf-redaction X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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: Mon, 07 Nov 2011 11:57:39 -0000 On 07/Nov/11 08:35, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >> From: ietf.org On Behalf Of Alessandro Vesely >> >> Redaction obviously breaks DKIM. Sites that rely on that for telling >> whether a message really originated at theirs may confuse redacted >> messages and spoofs. > > Are there actually sites that try to do that, or is this a solution > looking for a problem? The latter one, AFAIK. More precisely, that is a known problem. A solution is the "hybrid approach" in Section 4.4 of the CFBL BCP. From sm@resistor.net Mon Nov 7 13:31:46 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07C3A21F84E5 for ; Mon, 7 Nov 2011 13:31:46 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.554 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.554 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.045, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id f7yQKJ33ZWE9 for ; Mon, 7 Nov 2011 13:31:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE74C21F84D8 for ; Mon, 7 Nov 2011 13:31:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.4/8.14.5) with ESMTP id pA7LVcoZ003232 for ; Mon, 7 Nov 2011 13:31:41 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1320701503; bh=nNaOTQSn6kchtJPJJnk7EaZX3PVDMcLBA5/PPxpSNJM=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type:Cc; b=NFC9yidVetwIZrvKRdkvpYH9+e+AWKQr1iSmfj9mDG3Xt0jqwt/ecf+7eKcI4gS4M fjIfyapJiDZAAUfKKOtlpVxB1PohjS0ZnI1BeNIksNs2r3Asc3rAhw2bsNf+LFF1mw EVssF585LBf/I3EbqVosNToOHLN7V1n1/OKdJi88= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1320701503; bh=nNaOTQSn6kchtJPJJnk7EaZX3PVDMcLBA5/PPxpSNJM=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type:Cc; b=VdRaXuHIOh0rEbMuVMJxKz5N+rBGyjj6mua+bA4bjFrSckQMN7AeaXanJZTQH+CVb mbPIcX97DYHAs9hWs0lpW+Ml8WxMcBBU0pp1BkBAX3hgNDCD9nObDybk9r9ou3zSPT vvscMs33YacQTepfb/fjtAXYX/2kTvPSByfLpeOU= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20111107125156.0aed1290@resistor.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2011 13:22:11 -0800 To: marf@ietf.org From: SM In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: Re: [marf] Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-marf-redaction X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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: Mon, 07 Nov 2011 21:31:46 -0000 At 10:59 04-11-2011, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >This message starts a two-week Working Group Last Call on the >redaction document, ending on 11/18. Alessandro sent some text for >consideration so those are already included in From Section 2: "4. Compute a digest of that string with any hashing/digest algorithm such as SHA1" A reference to RFC 6234 could be added for "SHA". I'll leave it to the security folks to determine which algorithm to pick. Using any hashing/digest algorithm will be viewed as unsecure. It would be better to mention the minimally acceptable one. I suggest separating Section 3 into different sections, one for security and the other for privacy. The current section only covers privacy. Does redaction (see algorithm) create any security issues? From Section 3: "If further protections are required, implementors may wish to consider establishing legal contracts or other non-technology-based agreements between the relevant entities." This is a technical specification. Legal contracts do not increase the level of privacy. It would be better to remove that sentence. I suggest focusing on the information disclosure angle if the aim is to have a privacy considerations section. BTW, the title of the draft is "Redaction of Potentially Sensitive Data from Mail Abuse Reports". My reading is that the algorithm is to only redact the local-part of an email address (message header and body). Most, if not all, the WG participants know how to circumvent that. :-) The title could be "redaction of email addresses from mail abuse reports". Regards, -sm From msk@cloudmark.com Mon Nov 7 14:00:13 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AE2311E80B4 for ; Mon, 7 Nov 2011 14:00:13 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.806 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.806 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.207, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DJDo2TS9kGAk for ; Mon, 7 Nov 2011 14:00:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from ht2-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht2-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.36]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C39811E80AF for ; Mon, 7 Nov 2011 14:00:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.1.74]) by spite.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.10.72]) with mapi; Mon, 7 Nov 2011 14:00:12 -0800 From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: "marf@ietf.org" Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2011 14:00:11 -0800 Thread-Topic: [marf] Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-marf-redaction Thread-Index: AcydlKtC9kv6K9tqRc69jDXPr+WCtgAA7vDw Message-ID: References: <6.2.5.6.2.20111107125156.0aed1290@resistor.net> In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20111107125156.0aed1290@resistor.net> 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] Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-marf-redaction X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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: Mon, 07 Nov 2011 22:00:13 -0000 Hi SM, > -----Original Message----- > From: marf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:marf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of S= M > Sent: Monday, November 07, 2011 1:22 PM > To: marf@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [marf] Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-marf- redaction >=20 > At 10:59 04-11-2011, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > >This message starts a two-week Working Group Last Call on the > >redaction document, ending on 11/18. Alessandro sent some text for > >consideration so those are already included in > [...] All of your feedback seems reasonable to me. One comment: > BTW, the title of the draft is "Redaction of Potentially Sensitive > Data from Mail Abuse Reports". My reading is that the algorithm is > to only redact the local-part of an email address (message header and > body). Most, if not all, the WG participants know how to circumvent > that. :-) The title could be "redaction of email addresses from mail > abuse reports". The algorithm presented could be used to redact anything in particular. Al= though it's certainly true that email addresses or even just their local-pa= rts are the likely targets, the presented algorithm could work equally well= to redact full names. (And if one is redacting local-parts but not email = addresses, I have to wonder "why"...) -MSK From hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com Mon Nov 7 14:12:00 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E706521F8B59 for ; Mon, 7 Nov 2011 14:12:00 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.849 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.849 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.250, BAYES_00=-2.599, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id a2Hhkm+5aZbR for ; Mon, 7 Nov 2011 14:12:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ww0-f44.google.com (mail-ww0-f44.google.com [74.125.82.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A12D21F8B58 for ; Mon, 7 Nov 2011 14:12:00 -0800 (PST) Received: by wwi36 with SMTP id 36so5306085wwi.13 for ; Mon, 07 Nov 2011 14:11:59 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=5PqHehRTzOaEfJprhTDbEKTbxaWLIk33fsGjdS3InXA=; b=N8wQfAdIBDUX8ycdp7E+d7Uxy2AezZs3uROqjRE+Lpnk9v4dhTYfDk/uaeunDWelqJ kfhk365+f91jArcI0SUH86CPH1pVK6ba+FZ0bk5U+3cJ6FyWvYmwVn5JbOTSJDVaYvqu 1nvaFFv8QP48eaq3G8nIVfNcpXdrrPrlAPNSw= Received: by 10.216.27.211 with SMTP id e61mr3267531wea.0.1320703919292; Mon, 07 Nov 2011 14:11:59 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.184.147 with HTTP; Mon, 7 Nov 2011 14:11:18 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20111107125156.0aed1290@resistor.net> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20111107125156.0aed1290@resistor.net> From: Frank Ellermann Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2011 23:11:18 +0100 Message-ID: To: SM Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: marf@ietf.org Subject: Re: [marf] Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-marf-redaction X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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: Mon, 07 Nov 2011 22:12:01 -0000 On 7 November 2011 22:22, SM wrote: > From Section 2: >=A0"4. Compute a digest of that string with any > hashing/digest algorithm=A0such as SHA1" > A reference to RFC 6234 could be added for "SHA". IMHO any hash including I-D.eastlake-fnv and MD5 will do. The redaction I-D does not claim that SHA-1 is still considered as a "secure hash", if I understood the I-D correctly, it only suggests to use something more convoluted than "xxxxxx". > My reading is that the algorithm is to only > redact the local-part of an email address > (message header and body). NAK, the sensitive part of anything@catchall.example could be "catchall" instead of "anything". >=A0The title could be "redaction of email addresses > from mail abuse reports". For "John Doe" the private stuff could be "John Doe", "secret", and "catchall". In the EU this is anyway governed by privacy laws. Static IPs can be also private data, this is not only about email addresses. -Frank From sm@resistor.net Mon Nov 7 15:22:09 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0974121F8B43 for ; Mon, 7 Nov 2011 15:22:09 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.555 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.555 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.044, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7JHGTZjaNXQc for ; Mon, 7 Nov 2011 15:22:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB38A21F8B30 for ; Mon, 7 Nov 2011 15:22:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.4/8.14.5) with ESMTP id pA7NM2di022957 for ; Mon, 7 Nov 2011 15:22:06 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1320708127; bh=L5WNxOa5ME/TYgDTcuspiCc12eyyOxmj4hZoVeQgHRE=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type:Cc; b=J0zuFBd+h/LwHS4d0FwovJG/BU5W04i2kwZBoZsE40eSQPOIK1K20mOMkJZ+VfYdW rwB9dlGks61vgL5/E/49cAazaBzws5DbtOH+wmvHQ2IYoVx4KNsgsGGX+taFf0yjnA oZmh6VAL9d1LgYFxOFPvAbaMXghEMSWBc5LI05GM= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1320708127; bh=L5WNxOa5ME/TYgDTcuspiCc12eyyOxmj4hZoVeQgHRE=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type:Cc; b=hPm5ho6IZDGbDNaVGRA2pLo0JKYdiN45QJkRjhT1P2VmQetZnwAjqzYLfzTgrU2jy D9fdL3SbyxC2Bub8JEuKuTuyYRIyU2mGAhgV10O8tout7wljy2Oa9WzSE/4awNQI8C dCbvCtLOwR07GF3sns+vcn+fA76fqX4DPPPDrAME= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20111107141510.0ab08e10@resistor.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2011 14:53:18 -0800 To: marf@ietf.org From: SM In-Reply-To: References: <6.2.5.6.2.20111107125156.0aed1290@resistor.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: Re: [marf] Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-marf-redaction X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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: Mon, 07 Nov 2011 23:22:09 -0000 Hi Murray, At 14:00 07-11-2011, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >The algorithm presented could be used to redact anything in >particular. Although it's certainly true that email addresses or >even just their local-parts are the likely targets, the presented >algorithm could work equally well to redact full names. (And if one >is redacting local-parts but not email addresses, I have to wonder "why"...) The flippant answer is that it keeps the lawyers happy. :-) If the aim is to redact sensitive information, it is up to the sender to identify the parts of the text that contain personal identifiers and apply the algorithm. That would cover full names. The term "personally identifiable information" is generally used. I prefer not to get into that to avoid having to explain how to identify such information in a message. Regards, -sm From msk@cloudmark.com Mon Nov 7 15:36:25 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70E0821F84D3 for ; Mon, 7 Nov 2011 15:36:25 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.8 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.8 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.201, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yWUcEPPXNxpn for ; Mon, 7 Nov 2011 15:36:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from ht2-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht2-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.36]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0861221F846D for ; Mon, 7 Nov 2011 15:36:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.1.74]) by spite.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.10.72]) with mapi; Mon, 7 Nov 2011 15:36:24 -0800 From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: "marf@ietf.org" Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2011 15:36:23 -0800 Thread-Topic: [marf] Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-marf-redaction Thread-Index: AcydpCIrse/EwxVHQm2y4lE5WWEG1AAAd+5w Message-ID: References: <6.2.5.6.2.20111107125156.0aed1290@resistor.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20111107141510.0ab08e10@resistor.net> In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20111107141510.0ab08e10@resistor.net> 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] Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-marf-redaction X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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: Mon, 07 Nov 2011 23:36:25 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: marf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:marf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of S= M > Sent: Monday, November 07, 2011 2:53 PM > To: marf@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [marf] Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-marf- redaction >=20 > If the aim is to redact sensitive information, it is up to the sender > to identify the parts of the text that contain personal identifiers > and apply the algorithm. That would cover full names. The term > "personally identifiable information" is generally used. I prefer > not to get into that to avoid having to explain how to identify such > information in a message. Right, and I don't think we should either. Providing the mechanism is suff= icient. -MSK From vesely@tana.it Tue Nov 8 00:45:23 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19A3F21F8C3A for ; Tue, 8 Nov 2011 00:45:23 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.569 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.569 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DZ9mWPMgnqX1 for ; Tue, 8 Nov 2011 00:45:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from wmail.tana.it (www.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A15F21F8C34 for ; Tue, 8 Nov 2011 00:45:21 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=test; t=1320741920; bh=lmiyF3h/KYbUSbPrJzEJK6Jfi3i0kCTIuQGZL26C+GU=; l=1564; h=Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=IeEmnRiQIYnJ7JQam64VkxPJLV3mw8D0mAtABy3jADne3UFrwNKE0jHbCNKD/a+5o Sc04+oGal3ne1+DsEwDuZ2sirm25f7Nz9MiH7uxsLCMin3SCJFTxQ0Z3I7Y+Zzo7Jj gq1VFiJkHoo4XgkOJrwnjWp3cIpQ/1Hdwolbgfho= 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 Nov 2011 09:45:20 +0100 id 00000000005DC035.000000004EB8EC20.000040BB Message-ID: <4EB8EC1F.9060604@tana.it> Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2011 09:45:19 +0100 From: Alessandro Vesely User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20110929 Thunderbird/7.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: marf@ietf.org References: <6.2.5.6.2.20111107125156.0aed1290@resistor.net> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [marf] Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-marf-redaction X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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 Nov 2011 08:45:23 -0000 On 07/Nov/11 23:00, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >> From: ietf.org On Behalf Of SM >> At 10:59 04-11-2011, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >> >>> Alessandro sent some text for consideration so those are >>> already included in Wouldn't it be odd to consider that text after WGLC? >> BTW, the title of the draft is "Redaction of Potentially >> Sensitive Data from Mail Abuse Reports". My reading is that the >> algorithm is to only redact the local-part of an email address >> (message header and body). The spec says "such as" local-parts of email addresses, in parentheses. It is a way to indicate by example --apparently better than the "atomistic" wordings we tried. Some full examples of redacted messages would better the I-D. > The algorithm presented could be used to redact anything in > particular. Although it's certainly true that email addresses or > even just their local-parts are the likely targets, the presented > algorithm could work equally well to redact full names. Indeed, in the text I sent for consideration, I tried to identify further PII explicitly. > (And if one is redacting local-parts but not email addresses, I > have to wonder "why"...) Since it is not PII, it can be safely left in place. (Please note that "safely" addresses legal concerns, not security.) Having domain names is often necessary to process messages properly. Hence, leaving them alone allows treatment even without full un-redacting capabilities, which is consistent with the claim that ARF messages are also human-readable. From msk@cloudmark.com Tue Nov 8 10:47:21 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7296F1F0C3C for ; Tue, 8 Nov 2011 10:47:21 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.798 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.798 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.199, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NXu3p4s-J5mT for ; Tue, 8 Nov 2011 10:47:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from ht2-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht2-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.36]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC7291F0C35 for ; Tue, 8 Nov 2011 10:47:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.1.74]) by spite.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.10.72]) with mapi; Tue, 8 Nov 2011 10:47:20 -0800 From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: "marf@ietf.org" Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2011 10:47:18 -0800 Thread-Topic: [marf] Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-marf-redaction Thread-Index: Acyd8sWpeVHtM5gmQuSPJhjEj1DhDAAU408w Message-ID: References: <6.2.5.6.2.20111107125156.0aed1290@resistor.net> <4EB8EC1F.9060604@tana.it> In-Reply-To: <4EB8EC1F.9060604@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] Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-marf-redaction X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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 Nov 2011 18:47:21 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: marf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:marf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of A= lessandro Vesely > Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2011 12:45 AM > To: marf@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [marf] Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-marf-redaction >=20 > >>> Alessandro sent some text for consideration so those are > >>> already included in >=20 > Wouldn't it be odd to consider that text after WGLC? I don't understand that question. Your comment was made before or during W= GLC, so it's considered for the revision. I explicitly included it by sayi= ng so. > The spec says "such as" local-parts of email addresses, in > parentheses. It is a way to indicate by example --apparently better > than the "atomistic" wordings we tried. >=20 > Some full examples of redacted messages would better the I-D. Fair enough. > > (And if one is redacting local-parts but not email addresses, I > > have to wonder "why"...) >=20 > Since it is not PII, it can be safely left in place. (Please note > that "safely" addresses legal concerns, not security.) Having domain > names is often necessary to process messages properly. Hence, leaving > them alone allows treatment even without full un-redacting > capabilities, which is consistent with the claim that ARF messages are > also human-readable. If you're doing any redacting at all using the proposed method, you're alre= ady replacing some part of the message (arguably the most interesting part)= with a string of what a user will see as gibberish. I don't see how doing= it twice makes it any less human-readable than it already is. From vesely@tana.it Wed Nov 9 00:51:52 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B0C721F8B1F for ; Wed, 9 Nov 2011 00:51:52 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.576 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.576 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.143, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DpkZDWtKAwjX for ; Wed, 9 Nov 2011 00:51:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from wmail.tana.it (www.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C6BF21F8558 for ; Wed, 9 Nov 2011 00:51:51 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=test; t=1320828709; bh=qfVcyPUWfw6X71v6LNLU7rbyCv6X2ZK7T6pSsypRgL0=; l=1607; h=Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=WQJS4gbf7/Srzp3+0pJvKEcB6UXgCOoj27ZNqH8NY7/6WRtFgBXysa6801WKBqY4/ UDZDDPII3ZlYDKYd4yywPWAKKgel3ioFjYCZR3TPPP0WIT7t9tbhjEo2vGYv5icVdl J7W19+vvn5A/Zj1v0S8kPcgbbm0+01ts8zskVUZY= 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; Wed, 09 Nov 2011 09:51:49 +0100 id 00000000005DC033.000000004EBA3F25.0000709B Message-ID: <4EBA3F25.3080608@tana.it> Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2011 09:51:49 +0100 From: Alessandro Vesely User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20110929 Thunderbird/7.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: marf@ietf.org References: <6.2.5.6.2.20111107125156.0aed1290@resistor.net> <4EB8EC1F.9060604@tana.it> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [marf] Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-marf-redaction X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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, 09 Nov 2011 08:51:52 -0000 On 08/Nov/11 19:47, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >> From: ietf.org On Behalf Of Alessandro Vesely >> >>>>> Alessandro sent some text for consideration so those are >>>>> already included in >> >> Wouldn't it be odd to consider that text after WGLC? > > I don't understand that question. Your comment was made before or > during WGLC, so it's considered for the revision. I explicitly > included it by saying so. Yes, but nobody commented on it. >>> (And if one is redacting local-parts but not email addresses, I >>> have to wonder "why"...) >> >> Since it is not PII, it can be safely left in place. (Please >> note that "safely" addresses legal concerns, not security.) >> Having domain names is often necessary to process messages >> properly. Hence, leaving them alone allows treatment even >> without full un-redacting capabilities, which is consistent with >> the claim that ARF messages are also human-readable. > > If you're doing any redacting at all using the proposed method, > you're already replacing some part of the message (arguably the > most interesting part) with a string of what a user will see as > gibberish. I don't see how doing it twice makes it any less > human-readable than it already is. Since the domain of a recipient address doesn't necessarily match that of the report sender, nor (part of) the Reporting-MTA, naive ESPs might be unable to understand /why/ they're receiving those overly redacted complaints. This is especially relevant when the FBL subscription was skipped, or didn't involve disclosing all the affected domain names. From wwwrun@rfc-editor.org Thu Nov 10 17:27:37 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AE401F0C65; Thu, 10 Nov 2011 17:27:37 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.029 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.029 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.028, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_93=0.6, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HmB-LtWL4h7U; Thu, 10 Nov 2011 17:27:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [IPv6:2001:1890:123a::1:2f]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B393A1F0C64; Thu, 10 Nov 2011 17:27:36 -0800 (PST) Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id D85DFB1E002; Thu, 10 Nov 2011 17:22:42 -0800 (PST) To: ietf-announce@ietf.org, rfc-dist@rfc-editor.org From: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Message-Id: <20111111012242.D85DFB1E002@rfc-editor.org> Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 17:22:42 -0800 (PST) Cc: marf@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Subject: [marf] RFC 6430 on Email Feedback Report Type Value: not-spam X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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, 11 Nov 2011 01:27:37 -0000 A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. RFC 6430 Title: Email Feedback Report Type Value: not-spam Author: K. Li, B. Leiba Status: Standards Track Stream: IETF Date: November 2011 Mailbox: likepeng@huawei.com, barryleiba@computer.org Pages: 7 Characters: 12678 Updates/Obsoletes/SeeAlso: None I-D Tag: draft-ietf-marf-not-spam-feedback-03.txt URL: http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6430.txt This document defines a new Abuse Reporting Format (ARF) feedback report type value: "not-spam". It can be used to report an email message that was mistakenly marked as spam. [STANDARDS-TRACK] This document is a product of the Messaging Abuse Reporting Format Working Group of the IETF. This is now a Proposed Standard Protocol. STANDARDS TRACK: This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the Internet community,and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the Internet Official Protocol Standards (STD 1) for the standardization state and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. This announcement is sent to the IETF-Announce and rfc-dist lists. To subscribe or unsubscribe, see http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-dist For searching the RFC series, see http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfcsearch.html. For downloading RFCs, see http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc.html. Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the author of the RFC in question, or to rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org. Unless specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for unlimited distribution. The RFC Editor Team Association Management Solutions, LLC From msk@cloudmark.com Fri Nov 11 23:46:33 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8476D21F8507 for ; Fri, 11 Nov 2011 23:46:33 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.305 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.305 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.294, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id c9bz9ADhH9H5 for ; Fri, 11 Nov 2011 23:46:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.35]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C26BC21F8500 for ; Fri, 11 Nov 2011 23:46:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.1.74]) by malice.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.10.71]) with mapi; Fri, 11 Nov 2011 23:46:32 -0800 From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: "marf@ietf.org" Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 23:46:31 -0800 Thread-Topic: [marf] RFC 6430 on Email Feedback Report Type Value: not-spam Thread-Index: AcygESXl7CrNH+6pQqSJALTpkN8UKAA4IEFw Message-ID: References: <20111111012242.D85DFB1E002@rfc-editor.org> In-Reply-To: <20111111012242.D85DFB1E002@rfc-editor.org> 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] RFC 6430 on Email Feedback Report Type Value: not-spam X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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 Nov 2011 07:46:33 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: marf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:marf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of r= fc-editor@rfc-editor.org > Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2011 5:23 PM > To: ietf-announce@ietf.org; rfc-dist@rfc-editor.org > Cc: marf@ietf.org; rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org > Subject: [marf] RFC 6430 on Email Feedback Report Type Value: not-spam >=20 > A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. >=20 > RFC 6430 >=20 > Title: Email Feedback Report Type Value: > not-spam > Author: K. Li, B. Leiba > Status: Standards Track > Stream: IETF > Date: November 2011 > Mailbox: likepeng@huawei.com, > barryleiba@computer.org > Pages: 7 > Characters: 12678 > Updates/Obsoletes/SeeAlso: None >=20 > I-D Tag: draft-ietf-marf-not-spam-feedback-03.txt >=20 > URL: http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6430.txt >=20 > This document defines a new Abuse Reporting Format (ARF) feedback > report type value: "not-spam". It can be used to report an email > message that was mistakenly marked as spam. [STANDARDS-TRACK] >=20 > This document is a product of the Messaging Abuse Reporting Format > Working Group of the IETF. >=20 > This is now a Proposed Standard Protocol. > [...] Congrats to the authors! -MSK From barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com Mon Nov 14 18:49:25 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CC5A1F0D4D for ; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 18:49:25 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.793 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.793 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.184, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bWSV+Jw-HoHQ for ; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 18:49:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-yx0-f172.google.com (mail-yx0-f172.google.com [209.85.213.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D712B1F0C69 for ; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 18:49:24 -0800 (PST) Received: by yenq4 with SMTP id q4so4217162yen.31 for ; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 18:49:18 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; 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; bh=AI1vCJ/hs6sy0eXpcLMTiCvc1+yZEjnFCXPsQLTtT1Y=; b=AUWJkvb2CD2UiScfuyQsc9kEE1NnRCZXa4nsP+tUl4I2r94ZajjHJidivL81WabXli 61Ddiy0XgngF0KK1ZXzIVuF5xfzcXRLzsihEYd5/OiSMhX9k+VrJ14c6/ztr0ddqD31C psRD94yLcvgpG0xc7VHnLKlwCt72LM+ORzXl8= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.146.91.10 with SMTP id o10mr554487yab.21.1321325358653; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 18:49:18 -0800 (PST) Sender: barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com Received: by 10.146.250.14 with HTTP; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 18:49:18 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <4EBA3F25.3080608@tana.it> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20111107125156.0aed1290@resistor.net> <4EB8EC1F.9060604@tana.it> <4EBA3F25.3080608@tana.it> Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 21:49:18 -0500 X-Google-Sender-Auth: tsvABE8Hs-qf6rgZyCa0akSz39Q Message-ID: From: Barry Leiba To: Alessandro Vesely Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: marf@ietf.org Subject: Re: [marf] Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-marf-redaction X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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, 15 Nov 2011 02:49:25 -0000 >>>>>> Alessandro sent some text for consideration so those are >>>>>> already included in >>> >>> Wouldn't it be odd to consider that text after WGLC? >> >> I don't understand that question. =A0Your comment was made before or >> during WGLC, so it's considered for the revision. =A0I explicitly >> included it by saying so. > > Yes, but nobody commented on it. Does that tell you something? Should it? Barry From msk@cloudmark.com Wed Nov 16 21:33:44 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13B6011E80B2 for ; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 21:33:44 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.809 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.809 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.210, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lOvCvaLr-L5e for ; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 21:33:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from ht2-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht2-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.36]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1885C11E8083 for ; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 21:33:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.1.74]) by spite.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.10.72]) with mapi; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 21:33:42 -0800 From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: "marf@ietf.org" Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 21:33:39 -0800 Thread-Topic: RFC 6449 on Complaint Feedback Loop Operational Recommendations Thread-Index: Acyk5moWJYnfWWsyQiuf5FX1zzKaQgABAmIQ Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="_002_F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C6C150D3EXCHC2corpclo_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [marf] FW: RFC 6449 on Complaint Feedback Loop Operational Recommendations X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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, 17 Nov 2011 05:33:44 -0000 --_002_F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C6C150D3EXCHC2corpclo_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable --_002_F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C6C150D3EXCHC2corpclo_ Content-Type: message/rfc822 Received: from mail.cloudmark.com (208.83.136.59) by ht2.cloudmark.com (172.22.10.79) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.3.213.0; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 21:04:37 -0800 Received: from mail.ietf.org ?(mail.ietf.org [12.22.58.30]) by mail.cloudmark.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id pAH54bGE016037 for ; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 21:04:37 -0800 (envelope-from ietf-announce-bounces@ietf.org) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A16941F0C56; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 21:04:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4A481F0C44 for ; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 21:04:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5wJMReS5U1WP for ; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 21:04:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [IPv6:2001:1890:123a::1:2f]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AD651F0C42 for ; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 21:04:17 -0800 (PST) Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 117E6B1E003; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 20:58:54 -0800 (PST) From: "rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org" To: "ietf-announce@ietf.org" , "rfc-dist@rfc-editor.org" CC: "rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org" Sender: "ietf-announce-bounces@ietf.org" Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 20:58:54 -0800 Subject: RFC 6449 on Complaint Feedback Loop Operational Recommendations Thread-Topic: RFC 6449 on Complaint Feedback Loop Operational Recommendations Thread-Index: Acyk5moWJYnfWWsyQiuf5FX1zzKaQg== Message-ID: <20111117045856.117E6B1E003@rfc-editor.org> List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , X-MS-Exchange-Organization-AuthAs: Anonymous X-MS-Exchange-Organization-AuthSource: spite.corp.cloudmark.com X-MS-Has-Attach: X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All X-MS-Exchange-Organization-SenderIdResult: Pass X-MS-Exchange-Organization-SCL: -1 X-MS-Exchange-Organization-PRD: ietf.org X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: received-spf: Pass (spite.corp.cloudmark.com: domain of ietf-announce-bounces@ietf.org designates 12.22.58.30 as permitted sender) receiver=spite.corp.cloudmark.com; client-ip=12.22.58.30; helo=mail.cloudmark.com; dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1321506259; bh=fdDqA0+6j41AR4BpA2K/8gjUK8i/+cCbglnSSeiyO0c=; h=To:Subject:From:Message-Id:Date:Cc:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Sender; b=SldlpdSkudRxLT4nPpZsqbPXU02+T0Gs7k62W26/JMrb+QyAR3r2T2TYXUvgPaxWA iTIi0tQWB3fXVGVj7lONIWR18s1UeoU/waxNEAyl6EizKYUoemHWzCG+oAEdVvp7wc lOn6De8C+lr+QR8LReH0awLXbv7tuWogzlD4G9I8= errors-to: ietf-announce-bounces@ietf.org delivered-to: ietf-announce@ietfa.amsl.com x-spam-flag: NO x-virus-scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com x-spam-score: -102.511 x-spam-level: x-spam-status: No, score=-102.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.089, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] x-original-to: ietf-announce@ietfa.amsl.com x-beenthere: ietf-announce@ietf.org x-mailman-version: 2.1.12 list-id: "IETF announcement list. No discussions." list-archive: list-post: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. =20 RFC 6449 Title: Complaint Feedback Loop Operational Recommendations=20 Author: J. Falk, Ed. Status: Informational Stream: IETF Date: November 2011 Mailbox: ietf@cybernothing.org Pages: 31 Characters: 75139 Updates/Obsoletes/SeeAlso: None I-D Tag: draft-jdfalk-maawg-cfblbcp-03.txt URL: http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6449.txt Complaint Feedback Loops similar to those described herein have existed for more than a decade, resulting in many de facto standards and best practices. This document is an attempt to codify, and thus clarify, the ways that both providers and consumers of these feedback mechanisms intend to use the feedback, describing some already common industry practices. This document is the result of cooperative efforts within the Messaging Anti-Abuse Working Group, a trade organization separate from the IETF. The original MAAWG document upon which this document is based was published in April, 2010. This document does not represent the consensus of the IETF; rather it is being published as an Informational RFC to make it widely available to the Internet community and simplify reference to this material from IETF work. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes. INFORMATIONAL: This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. This announcement is sent to the IETF-Announce and rfc-dist lists. To subscribe or unsubscribe, see http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-dist For searching the RFC series, see http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfcsearch.html. For downloading RFCs, see http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc.html. Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the author of the RFC in question, or to rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org. Unless specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for unlimited distribution. The RFC Editor Team Association Management Solutions, LLC _______________________________________________ IETF-Announce mailing list IETF-Announce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce --_002_F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C6C150D3EXCHC2corpclo_-- From msk@cloudmark.com Wed Nov 16 23:28:34 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F8611F0CD7 for ; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 23:28:34 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.812 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.812 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.213, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lJlXHZ3+YJPh for ; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 23:28:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from ht2-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht2-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.36]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C319D1F0CD4 for ; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 23:28:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.1.74]) by spite.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.10.72]) with mapi; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 23:28:33 -0800 From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: "marf@ietf.org" Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 23:28:31 -0800 Thread-Topic: [apps-discuss] Fwd: RFC 6449 on Complaint Feedback Loop Operational Recommendations Thread-Index: Acyk8I/KgEDKto9fT3ChlROc1b5r5gAAMzzAAADq0KAAAV0uAA== Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="_002_F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C6C150DFEXCHC2corpclo_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [marf] FW: [apps-discuss] Fwd: RFC 6449 on Complaint Feedback Loop Operational Recommendations X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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, 17 Nov 2011 07:28:34 -0000 --_002_F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C6C150DFEXCHC2corpclo_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable --_002_F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C6C150DFEXCHC2corpclo_ Content-Type: message/rfc822 Received: from mail.cloudmark.com (208.83.136.59) by ht1.cloudmark.com (172.22.10.78) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.3.213.0; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 22:52:43 -0800 Received: from mail.ietf.org ?(mail.ietf.org [12.22.58.30]) by mail.cloudmark.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id pAH6qhe7001185 for ; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 22:52:43 -0800 (envelope-from apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5778921F97F4; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 22:52:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84D4C21F97F0 for ; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 22:52:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id buIZZN8bnzlS for ; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 22:52:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.35]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1408121F97EF for ; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 22:52:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.1.74]) by malice.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.10.71]) with mapi; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 22:52:35 -0800 From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: apps-discuss Discuss Sender: "apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org" Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 22:52:34 -0800 Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Fwd: RFC 6449 on Complaint Feedback Loop Operational Recommendations Thread-Topic: [apps-discuss] Fwd: RFC 6449 on Complaint Feedback Loop Operational Recommendations Thread-Index: Acyk8I/KgEDKto9fT3ChlROc1b5r5gAAMzzAAADq0KA= Message-ID: References: <20111117045856.117E6B1E003@rfc-editor.org> <4EC4A6E0.6000503@stpeter.im> List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Exchange-Organization-AuthAs: Anonymous X-MS-Exchange-Organization-AuthSource: malice.corp.cloudmark.com X-MS-Has-Attach: X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All X-MS-Exchange-Organization-SenderIdResult: Pass X-MS-Exchange-Organization-SCL: -1 X-MS-Exchange-Organization-PRD: ietf.org X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US received-spf: Pass (malice.corp.cloudmark.com: domain of apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org designates 12.22.58.30 as permitted sender) receiver=malice.corp.cloudmark.com; client-ip=12.22.58.30; helo=mail.cloudmark.com; dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1321512762; bh=vRCUUWOXhi/1Bru6e6fgXZFGAGlfylcHwD7Ly0Ov+5o=; h=From:To:Date:Message-ID:References:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version: Subject:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help: List-Subscribe:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Sender; b=uRhAPDLcteQ/gqh0wHdozQKNrBkoXrhuwYvTwNowgD3r8dOaJueVHW6Ovn9zOIu8F I12z7oXjxAfR4o/3K+avuNwp/abCJbpsOuLqwdxEK/HkEmSCHveufEa5E2qh5VAGbB Yx3rr9opjev9gsS+ohl4dgv441X8jcnANQSF5/nk= errors-to: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org delivered-to: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com x-spam-flag: NO x-virus-scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com x-spam-score: -103.309 x-spam-level: x-spam-status: No, score=-103.309 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.290, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] x-original-to: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com x-beenthere: apps-discuss@ietf.org x-mailman-version: 2.1.12 list-id: General discussion of application-layer protocols list-archive: list-post: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 > > Good work. Congratulations to all involved. >=20 > +1. And that's perhaps the biggest "+1" I've ever dropped. ...and now, to explain why: The author of RFC6449 has been battling illness for much of this year. As = his illness suddenly became quite grave, we asked for the support of MARF's= Area Director and the RFC Editor team to help advance his document to publ= ication hoping he would enjoy seeing it published. The staff's effort to expedite publication was extraordinary. There's quit= e a bit of work to the process and it normally would have taken another mon= th or two. The technical editor Stateside stayed up all night to complete = her part of the process. The publication announcement came about 20 minutes before his passing. I f= orwarded it, and it was read into his room moments before he left us. My heartfelt thanks, and those of his myriad friends and family back home, = go to those who helped to make this happen. _______________________________________________ apps-discuss mailing list apps-discuss@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss --_002_F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C6C150DFEXCHC2corpclo_-- From sm@resistor.net Thu Nov 17 00:02:48 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9A8221F95BF for ; Thu, 17 Nov 2011 00:02:48 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.562 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.562 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.037, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dIRQiFsZx2jF for ; Thu, 17 Nov 2011 00:02:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F8601F0CE8 for ; Thu, 17 Nov 2011 00:02:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from sm-THINK.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.4/8.14.5) with ESMTP id pAH82g5S020852 for ; Thu, 17 Nov 2011 00:02:45 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1321516965; bh=SMDRWGlpoKU9gpxdgy17e5OLgGEq24r/OZzXQkd6ezM=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type:Cc; b=Rx7aWZ+YBmdrbprYalVs0lSuIF16wGtAlv9PmBc4+Udg6P1b09PdBdIWO0wroj+qa Jzrjbag8juI616vGVpX6F+a0EcEqmtOJx/6W8rJbl+Q1WVwBNZ+MCP52B0YTqAiLzi BUOvZfX15newMhDxgfHoV86DCvEFCD/JiW0Bqs+8= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1321516965; bh=SMDRWGlpoKU9gpxdgy17e5OLgGEq24r/OZzXQkd6ezM=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type:Cc; b=jklegSqzlcUBjcEouZjr7dKqeXUbxnXL2sNnNLSHeXV+lajXnP/2oaz9N9EGtck9R vqtywNVi2ZZX7dkNA06V6yM7natW0GvMRo7qtzEn+arL7Z8AnNwv1pJ8jlZzopYr5z xwpmB9mTqSmXEZrWabmxadhf2GEQylpX6hrV4Hfo= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20111116235409.08895380@resistor.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 23:59:49 -0800 To: marf@ietf.org From: SM In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: Re: [marf] FW: [apps-discuss] Fwd: RFC 6449 on Complaint Feedback Loop Operational Recommendations X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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, 17 Nov 2011 08:02:48 -0000 At 11:28 PM 11/16/2011, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >...and now, to explain why: > >The author of RFC6449 has been battling illness for much of this >year. As his illness suddenly became quite grave, we asked for the >support of MARF's Area Director and the RFC Editor team to help >advance his document to publication hoping he would enjoy seeing it published. Thanks to everyone who helped with the publication of the RFC. Regards, -sm From shmuel+gen@patriot.net Thu Nov 17 11:02:22 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D2AF21F999E for ; Thu, 17 Nov 2011 11:02:22 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.227 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.227 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.372, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1cCrb78H3Xg4 for ; Thu, 17 Nov 2011 11:02:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.patriot.net (smtp.patriot.net [209.249.176.77]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6932B21F985E for ; Thu, 17 Nov 2011 11:02:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from ECS35455305 (unknown [69.72.27.5]) (Authenticated sender: shmuel@patriot.net) by smtp.patriot.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BD4CF58095 for ; Thu, 17 Nov 2011 13:50:01 -0500 (EST) From: Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 14:01:57 -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: <20111117185002.4BD4CF58095@smtp.patriot.net> Subject: Re: [marf] FW: [apps-discuss] Fwd: RFC 6449 on Complaint Feedback Loop Operational Recommendations X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 19:02:22 -0000 In , on 11/16/2011 at 11:28 PM, "Murray S. Kucherawy" said: >The publication announcement came about 20 minutes before his >passing. I forwarded it, and it was read into his room moments >before he left us. Thanks for telling us. I wish the outcome had been different. z"l. -- 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 msk@cloudmark.com Thu Nov 17 19:13:43 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92A2E1F0C81 for ; Thu, 17 Nov 2011 19:13:43 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.806 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.806 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.208, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VNvJuYyMooqR for ; Thu, 17 Nov 2011 19:13:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from ht2-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht2-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.36]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CAAE1F0C80 for ; Thu, 17 Nov 2011 19:13:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.1.74]) by spite.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.10.72]) with mapi; Thu, 17 Nov 2011 19:13:38 -0800 From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: "marf@ietf.org" Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 19:13:35 -0800 Thread-Topic: draft-ietf-marf-redaction Thread-Index: AcyloA9ZBMluJiBNSMKowOISL9Go0A== 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_F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C6C15137EXCHC2corpclo_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [marf] draft-ietf-marf-redaction X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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, 18 Nov 2011 03:13:43 -0000 --_000_F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C6C15137EXCHC2corpclo_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello all, Given yesterday's news, and since it is so close to completion, I will be m= aking the final edits on the above draft as well as shepherding it through = to the IESG. My name will appear as a co-author on the draft even though J= D was editing it. This is temporary and simply enables me to "own" the doc= ument through the datatracker. An RFC Editor note has been added to reques= t that they remove me prior to actual publication. WGLC on it ends in about 24 hours, after which I will post a new version ba= sed on the feedback received so far. I'm replying to those postings now an= d making those edits, as they are largely minor. If anyone else wishes to = weigh in, please do so within that time. Thanks, -MSK --_000_F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C6C15137EXCHC2corpclo_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hello all,<= /o:p>


Given yesterday’s news, and since i= t is so close to completion, I will be making the final edits on the above = draft as well as shepherding it through to the IESG.  My name will app= ear as a co-author on the draft even though JD was editing it.  This i= s temporary and simply enables me to “own” the document through= the datatracker.  An RFC Editor note has been added to request that t= hey remove me prior to actual publication.

 

WGLC on it ends in about 24 ho= urs, after which I will post a new version based on the feedback received s= o far.  I’m replying to those postings now and making those edit= s, as they are largely minor.  If anyone else wishes to weigh in, plea= se do so within that time.

 

Thanks,

-MS= K

= --_000_F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C6C15137EXCHC2corpclo_-- From msk@cloudmark.com Thu Nov 17 19:14:43 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDF9611E80B9 for ; Thu, 17 Nov 2011 19:14:43 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.805 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.805 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.206, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YK0EZ7rjyylA for ; Thu, 17 Nov 2011 19:14:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from ht2-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht2-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.36]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 726091F0C80 for ; Thu, 17 Nov 2011 19:14:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.1.74]) by spite.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.10.72]) with mapi; Thu, 17 Nov 2011 19:14:43 -0800 From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: "marf@ietf.org" Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 19:14:40 -0800 Thread-Topic: [marf] Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-marf-redaction Thread-Index: AcydlKtC9kv6K9tqRc69jDXPr+WCtgIBilfQ Message-ID: References: <6.2.5.6.2.20111107125156.0aed1290@resistor.net> In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20111107125156.0aed1290@resistor.net> 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] Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-marf-redaction X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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, 18 Nov 2011 03:14:44 -0000 Hi SM, thanks for providing some feedback. > -----Original Message----- > From: marf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:marf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of S= M > Sent: Monday, November 07, 2011 1:22 PM > To: marf@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [marf] Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-marf-redaction >=20 > From Section 2: >=20 > "4. Compute a digest of that string with any hashing/digest algorithm > such as SHA1" >=20 > A reference to RFC 6234 could be added for "SHA". I'll leave it to the > security folks to determine which algorithm to pick. Using any > hashing/digest algorithm will be viewed as unsecure. It would be > better to mention the minimally acceptable one. Rather than RFC6234, I'm changing this to "such as one defined in FIPS-180-= 3-2008", since that's the SHA reference DKIM used. I've copied the actual = reference information over. > I suggest separating Section 3 into different sections, one for > security and the other for privacy. The current section only covers > privacy. Does redaction (see algorithm) create any security issues? Yes, your suggested split is appropriate, I think. The IESG might find the= current section name a little unusual. The most common issue brought up when using message digests in a protocol i= s the impact of collisions. I've added a paragraph about that post-split. > From Section 3: >=20 > "If further protections are required, implementors may wish to > consider establishing legal contracts or other non-technology-based > agreements between the relevant entities." >=20 > This is a technical specification. Legal contracts do not increase the > level of privacy. It would be better to remove that sentence. I > suggest focusing on the information disclosure angle if the aim is to > have a privacy considerations section. I've changed it to "establishing out-of-band arrangements between the relev= ant entities." > BTW, the title of the draft is "Redaction of Potentially Sensitive Data > from Mail Abuse Reports". My reading is that the algorithm is to only > redact the local-part of an email address (message header and body). > Most, if not all, the WG participants know how to circumvent that. :-) > The title could be "redaction of email addresses from mail abuse > reports". The algorithm can redact anything, though the local-part is the obvious and= most common target. In that sense, I think the present title is more appr= opriate. Are there other opinions about that? -MSK From internet-drafts@ietf.org Sat Nov 19 22:48:46 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F88321F84CC; Sat, 19 Nov 2011 22:48:46 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.582 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.582 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.017, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 62U8A-uGVgob; Sat, 19 Nov 2011 22:48:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B49E321F84C5; Sat, 19 Nov 2011 22:48:45 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 3.64 Message-ID: <20111120064845.4867.5675.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2011 22:48:45 -0800 Cc: marf@ietf.org Subject: [marf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-marf-redaction-02.txt X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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 Nov 2011 06:48:46 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Messaging Abuse Reporting Format Work= ing Group of the IETF. Title : Redaction of Potentially Sensitive Data from Mail Abuse = Reports Author(s) : J.D. Falk M. Kucherawy Filename : draft-ietf-marf-redaction-02.txt Pages : 7 Date : 2011-11-19 Email messages often contain information which might be considered private or sensitive, per either regulation or social norms. When such a message becomes the subject of a report intended to be shared with other entities, the report generator may wish to redact or elide the sensitive portions of the message. This memo suggests one method for doing so effectively. [NOTE TO EDITOR: Murray Kucherawy is listed as an author only to enable him to complete the publication process on behalf of J.D. Falk. Please remove Murray from the author list prior to publication.] A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-marf-redaction-02.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-marf-redaction-02.txt From evnikita2@gmail.com Sat Nov 19 22:52:34 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EBC221F84DD for ; Sat, 19 Nov 2011 22:52:34 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.314 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.314 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.015, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7QGAnBpE4O19 for ; Sat, 19 Nov 2011 22:52:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-bw0-f44.google.com (mail-bw0-f44.google.com [209.85.214.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0F2221F84D2 for ; Sat, 19 Nov 2011 22:52:33 -0800 (PST) Received: by bkbzv15 with SMTP id zv15so5976037bkb.31 for ; Sat, 19 Nov 2011 22:52:32 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=7uveo9STxY3Mx+g/rjHtXjUhpWAoCFTSTMIi9+7ImVY=; b=Q3sgt7qJZdvulX+Iisc7hihfw4+dJuTzp4KIX8xBT8+kyR/VS7nkKM/YzcyPqBrijm SovyYImyFnVwT4klgFkcxLfmi2eBcNTJPPkyMinRTFz7HoO8YgItiPcigeCWsxdaJBlX rPBQ9PsDnMzTvaScRDZIO8geRVKsjq+y+leqY= Received: by 10.205.135.129 with SMTP id ig1mr9681180bkc.106.1321771952667; Sat, 19 Nov 2011 22:52:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([195.191.104.224]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id a21sm11207600fao.18.2011.11.19.22.52.30 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sat, 19 Nov 2011 22:52:31 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4EC8A3E2.1040102@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2011 08:53:22 +0200 From: =?UTF-8?B?Ik15a3l0YSBZZXZzdGlmZXlldiAo0JwuINCE0LLRgdGC0ZbRhNC10ZTQsg==?= =?UTF-8?B?KSI=?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: marf@ietf.org References: <20111120064845.4867.5675.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20111120064845.4867.5675.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [marf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-marf-redaction-02.txt X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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 Nov 2011 06:52:34 -0000 A typo in my name: s/Mykytka Yevstifeyev/Mykyta Yevstifeyev/ ... otherwise looks fine :-) Mykyta Yevstifeyev 20.11.2011 8:48, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote: > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Messaging Abuse Reporting Format Working Group of the IETF. > > Title : Redaction of Potentially Sensitive Data from Mail Abuse Reports > Author(s) : J.D. Falk > M. Kucherawy > Filename : draft-ietf-marf-redaction-02.txt > Pages : 7 > Date : 2011-11-19 > From msk@cloudmark.com Sat Nov 19 22:52:35 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 725C821F84DD for ; Sat, 19 Nov 2011 22:52:35 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.306 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.306 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.292, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ROl9vSjkANwa for ; Sat, 19 Nov 2011 22:52:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.35]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72B9B21F84D2 for ; Sat, 19 Nov 2011 22:52:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.1.74]) by malice.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.10.71]) with mapi; Sat, 19 Nov 2011 22:52:34 -0800 From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: "marf@ietf.org" Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2011 22:52:33 -0800 Thread-Topic: draft-ietf-marf-redaction Thread-Index: AcyloA9ZBMluJiBNSMKowOISL9Go0ABsLNgA 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: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C6C1518AEXCHC2corpclo_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [marf] draft-ietf-marf-redaction X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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 Nov 2011 06:52:35 -0000 --_000_F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C6C1518AEXCHC2corpclo_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The updated version has been posted. Please review it (or at least its dif= fs) soon for correctness based on WGLC input as I'd like to get it on its w= ay to the IESG. Thanks, -MSK From: marf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:marf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Mur= ray S. Kucherawy Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2011 7:14 PM To: marf@ietf.org Subject: [marf] draft-ietf-marf-redaction Hello all, Given yesterday's news, and since it is so close to completion, I will be m= aking the final edits on the above draft as well as shepherding it through = to the IESG. My name will appear as a co-author on the draft even though J= D was editing it. This is temporary and simply enables me to "own" the doc= ument through the datatracker. An RFC Editor note has been added to reques= t that they remove me prior to actual publication. WGLC on it ends in about 24 hours, after which I will post a new version ba= sed on the feedback received so far. I'm replying to those postings now an= d making those edits, as they are largely minor. If anyone else wishes to = weigh in, please do so within that time. Thanks, -MSK --_000_F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C6C1518AEXCHC2corpclo_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

The updated version has been posted.  Please review it (= or at least its diffs) soon for correctness based on WGLC input as I’= d like to get it on its way to the IESG.

 

Thanks,

-MSK

<= p class=3DMsoNormal> <= /p>

From: marf-bounces@ietf.org [mai= lto:marf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Murray S. Kucherawy
Se= nt: Thursday, November 17, 2011 7:14 PM
To: marf@ietf.org
= Subject: [marf] draft-ietf-marf-redaction

 

Hello= all,


Given yesterday’s news, = and since it is so close to completion, I will be making the final edits on= the above draft as well as shepherding it through to the IESG.  My na= me will appear as a co-author on the draft even though JD was editing it.&n= bsp; This is temporary and simply enables me to “own” the docum= ent through the datatracker.  An RFC Editor note has been added to req= uest that they remove me prior to actual publication.

 

WGLC on it ends in = about 24 hours, after which I will post a new version based on the feedback= received so far.  I’m replying to those postings now and making= those edits, as they are largely minor.  If anyone else wishes to wei= gh in, please do so within that time.

 

Thanks,

-MSK

= --_000_F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C6C1518AEXCHC2corpclo_-- From msk@cloudmark.com Sat Nov 19 23:22:04 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F05C21F84CE for ; Sat, 19 Nov 2011 23:22:04 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.808 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.808 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.209, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wCaI4N5BG0Dw for ; Sat, 19 Nov 2011 23:22:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from ht2-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht2-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.36]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3389221F84B5 for ; Sat, 19 Nov 2011 23:22:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.1.74]) by spite.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.10.72]) with mapi; Sat, 19 Nov 2011 23:22:03 -0800 From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: "marf@ietf.org" Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2011 23:22:01 -0800 Thread-Topic: [marf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-marf-redaction-02.txt Thread-Index: AcynUP0Rgr0/DV/aSFG8gtjVzgU3sgABBHGw Message-ID: References: <20111120064845.4867.5675.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4EC8A3E2.1040102@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4EC8A3E2.1040102@gmail.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 Subject: Re: [marf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-marf-redaction-02.txt X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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 Nov 2011 07:22:04 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: marf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:marf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of "= Mykyta Yevstifeyev (?. ?????????)" > Sent: Saturday, November 19, 2011 10:53 PM > To: marf@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [marf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-marf-redaction-02.txt >=20 > A typo in my name: >=20 > s/Mykytka Yevstifeyev/Mykyta Yevstifeyev/ >=20 > ... otherwise looks fine :-) Sorry; I'll fix that before I send it to the IESG. -MSK From vesely@tana.it Mon Nov 21 12:02:06 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5EEC1F0C79 for ; Mon, 21 Nov 2011 12:02:06 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.594 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.594 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.125, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id G9N0auMJkM-D for ; Mon, 21 Nov 2011 12:02:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from wmail.tana.it (wmail.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6EBD1F0C62 for ; Mon, 21 Nov 2011 12:02:01 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=test; t=1321905720; bh=Hu2b8n8B+/mRWTA76ynfp6yjjI1a+R6LlkL6t236CLA=; l=869; h=Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=eohK/orPpjtAlKLOGCFvNWRBJIVxNy+8HB/bayA07jfPLPjCIh0cpYQj2FI9tzc0D T+Ee5cC2hiuODAgVAdfNxGwv04eQmpxEue/GPa6rUp6Lmvdkb1QVoMGeEIthfrzWv/ 9iqO0Pqnj7PYLqoQ5i8HDAtiSXcOtyYk+dBOnRSw= 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; Mon, 21 Nov 2011 21:02:00 +0100 id 00000000005DC044.000000004ECAAE38.00003ECD Message-ID: <4ECAAE38.4000201@tana.it> Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2011 21:02:00 +0100 From: Alessandro Vesely User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: marf@ietf.org References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [marf] draft-ietf-marf-redaction X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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: Mon, 21 Nov 2011 20:02:07 -0000 On 20/Nov/11 07:52, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > The updated version has been posted. Please review it (or at least > its diffs) soon for correctness based on WGLC input as I’d like to get > it on its way to the IESG. Three quick notes: * Section 3.3, 1st paragraph I'd s/could be used/can be used/. I'm not sure on the exact meaning of "incumbent"; as that concept is better explained in the last paragraph of Appendix A, the second sentence here may be redundant. * Section 3.3, 2nd paragraph The reference seems incorrect. Isn't it RFC 6449 that describes the establishment of bilateral agreements between report producers and consumers? This I-D expands section 8.5 of RFC 5965. A reverse-reference should be written as such, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COMEFROM :-) * Appendix A Please s/email service provider/mailbox provider/. From msk@cloudmark.com Mon Nov 21 14:57:10 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07CB711E8125 for ; Mon, 21 Nov 2011 14:57:10 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.309 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.309 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.290, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qh7s8n2P4mOC for ; Mon, 21 Nov 2011 14:57:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.35]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B015211E811A for ; Mon, 21 Nov 2011 14:57:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.1.74]) by malice.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.10.71]) with mapi; Mon, 21 Nov 2011 14:57:05 -0800 From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: "marf@ietf.org" Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2011 14:57:03 -0800 Thread-Topic: [marf] draft-ietf-marf-redaction Thread-Index: AcyoiHPqLeHHgiI6QNKe31WCLUGilAAFzOMw Message-ID: References: <4ECAAE38.4000201@tana.it> In-Reply-To: <4ECAAE38.4000201@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="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [marf] draft-ietf-marf-redaction X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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: Mon, 21 Nov 2011 22:57:10 -0000 PiAtLS0tLU9yaWdpbmFsIE1lc3NhZ2UtLS0tLQ0KPiBGcm9tOiBtYXJmLWJvdW5jZXNAaWV0Zi5v cmcgW21haWx0bzptYXJmLWJvdW5jZXNAaWV0Zi5vcmddIE9uIEJlaGFsZiBPZg0KPiBBbGVzc2Fu ZHJvIFZlc2VseQ0KPiBTZW50OiBNb25kYXksIE5vdmVtYmVyIDIxLCAyMDExIDEyOjAyIFBNDQo+ IFRvOiBtYXJmQGlldGYub3JnDQo+IFN1YmplY3Q6IFJlOiBbbWFyZl0gZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1tYXJm LXJlZGFjdGlvbg0KPiANCj4gKiBTZWN0aW9uIDMuMywgMXN0IHBhcmFncmFwaA0KPiBJJ2Qgcy9j b3VsZCBiZSB1c2VkL2NhbiBiZSB1c2VkLy4gIEknbSBub3Qgc3VyZSBvbiB0aGUgZXhhY3QgbWVh bmluZyBvZg0KPiAiaW5jdW1iZW50IjsgYXMgdGhhdCBjb25jZXB0IGlzIGJldHRlciBleHBsYWlu ZWQgaW4gdGhlIGxhc3QgcGFyYWdyYXBoDQo+IG9mIEFwcGVuZGl4IEEsIHRoZSBzZWNvbmQgc2Vu dGVuY2UgaGVyZSBtYXkgYmUgcmVkdW5kYW50Lg0KDQpJIHRoaW5rICJjb3VsZCIgaXMgZmluZSBo ZXJlLiAgV2hhdCdzIGluIEFwcGVuZGl4IEEgZ2l2ZXMgYW4gZXhhbXBsZSBvZiB3aGF0IHRoZSBz ZWNvbmQgc2VudGVuY2UgZGVzY3JpYmVzLCBzbyBJIHRoaW5rIGl0J3MgYWxzbyBmaW5lIHRoYXQg dGhpcyBzdGF5cyBpbi4NCg0KPiAqIFNlY3Rpb24gMy4zLCAybmQgcGFyYWdyYXBoDQo+IFRoZSBy ZWZlcmVuY2Ugc2VlbXMgaW5jb3JyZWN0LiAgSXNuJ3QgaXQgUkZDIDY0NDkgdGhhdCBkZXNjcmli ZXMgdGhlDQo+IGVzdGFibGlzaG1lbnQgb2YgYmlsYXRlcmFsIGFncmVlbWVudHMgYmV0d2VlbiBy ZXBvcnQgcHJvZHVjZXJzIGFuZA0KPiBjb25zdW1lcnM/DQoNClNlY3Rpb24gOC4yIG9mIFtBUkZd IHRhbGtzIGFib3V0IHRoZW0gKHRoaXJkIHBhcmFncmFwaCksIGJ1dCBzbyBkb2VzIFJGQzY0NDkg KG9mIGNvdXJzZSkuICBJJ2xsIGFkZCB0aGUgcmVmZXJlbmNlLg0KDQo+IFRoaXMgSS1EIGV4cGFu ZHMgc2VjdGlvbiA4LjUgb2YgUkZDIDU5NjUuICBBIHJldmVyc2UtcmVmZXJlbmNlIHNob3VsZA0K PiBiZSB3cml0dGVuIGFzIHN1Y2gsIHNlZSBodHRwOi8vZW4ud2lraXBlZGlhLm9yZy93aWtpL0NP TUVGUk9NIDotKQ0KDQpUaGUgYmVzdCB3ZSBjb3VsZCBkbyB3b3VsZCBiZSB0byBtYXJrIFJGQzU5 NjUgYXMgdXBkYXRlZCBieSB0aGlzIG9uZSwgYnV0IHRvIGRvIHRoYXQgdGhpcyBvbmUgd291bGQg aGF2ZSB0byBiZSBTdGFuZGFyZHMgVHJhY2sgKGEgbG93ZXItc3RhdHVzIGRvY3VtZW50IGNhbid0 IHVwZGF0ZSBhIGhpZ2hlci1zdGF0dXMgb25lKS4gIEkgZG9u4oCZdCB0aGluayB0aGF0J2xsIGZs eSBoZXJlLg0KDQpPdGhlcndpc2UsIEkgdGhpbmsgdGhlIHRleHQgaW4gdGhlIEludHJvZHVjdGlv biBhbHJlYWR5IHNlcnZlcyB0aGlzIHB1cnBvc2UuDQoNClRoYW5rcywNCi1NU0sNCg== From internet-drafts@ietf.org Mon Nov 21 15:19:29 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55C6A11E814C; Mon, 21 Nov 2011 15:19:29 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.541 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.541 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.059, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XZzG9luU+LCO; Mon, 21 Nov 2011 15:19:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E35A111E80F5; Mon, 21 Nov 2011 15:19:24 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 3.64 Message-ID: <20111121231924.3762.91212.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2011 15:19:24 -0800 Cc: marf@ietf.org Subject: [marf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-marf-redaction-03.txt X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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: Mon, 21 Nov 2011 23:19:29 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Messaging Abuse Reporting Format Work= ing Group of the IETF. Title : Redaction of Potentially Sensitive Data from Mail Abuse = Reports Author(s) : J.D. Falk M. Kucherawy Filename : draft-ietf-marf-redaction-03.txt Pages : 7 Date : 2011-11-21 Email messages often contain information which might be considered private or sensitive, per either regulation or social norms. When such a message becomes the subject of a report intended to be shared with other entities, the report generator may wish to redact or elide the sensitive portions of the message. This memo suggests one method for doing so effectively. [NOTE TO EDITOR: Murray Kucherawy is listed as an author only to enable him to complete the publication process on behalf of J.D. Falk. Please remove Murray from the author list prior to publication.] A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-marf-redaction-03.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-marf-redaction-03.txt From shmuel+gen@patriot.net Tue Nov 22 06:19:04 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2181521F8CE4 for ; Tue, 22 Nov 2011 06:19:04 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.755 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.755 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.225, BAYES_00=-2.599, DATE_IN_PAST_06_12=1.069] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Q8FABsPvOvs0 for ; Tue, 22 Nov 2011 06:19:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.patriot.net (smtp.patriot.net [209.249.176.77]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 865C321F8CE1 for ; Tue, 22 Nov 2011 06:19:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from ECS60015111 (unknown [69.72.27.226]) (Authenticated sender: shmuel@patriot.net) by smtp.patriot.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78589F5808A for ; Tue, 22 Nov 2011 09:06:16 -0500 (EST) From: Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2011 21:21:57 -0500 To: marf@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <4ECAAE38.4000201@tana.it> 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: <20111122140618.78589F5808A@smtp.patriot.net> Subject: Re: [marf] draft-ietf-marf-redaction X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 14:19:04 -0000 In <4ECAAE38.4000201@tana.it>, on 11/21/2011 at 09:02 PM, Alessandro Vesely said: >* Section 3.3, 2nd paragraph >The reference seems incorrect. Isn't it RFC 6449 that describes the >establishment of bilateral agreements between report producers and >consumers? Yes. Section 8 of RFC 5965 is Security considerations. I agree that the reference belongs in a separate sentence, perhaps a separate paragraph. -- 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 shmuel+gen@patriot.net Tue Nov 22 08:16:32 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91B9421F8C82 for ; Tue, 22 Nov 2011 08:16:32 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.513 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.513 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.403, BAYES_05=-1.11] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZWjFKf-zw6wn for ; Tue, 22 Nov 2011 08:16:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.patriot.net (smtp.patriot.net [209.249.176.77]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9A6921F8C79 for ; Tue, 22 Nov 2011 08:16:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from ECS60015111 (unknown [69.72.27.66]) (Authenticated sender: shmuel@patriot.net) by smtp.patriot.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0519AF5808C for ; Tue, 22 Nov 2011 11:04:03 -0500 (EST) From: Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 10:46:55 -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: <20111122160405.0519AF5808C@smtp.patriot.net> Subject: Re: [marf] draft-ietf-marf-redaction X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 16:16:32 -0000 In , on 11/21/2011 at 02:57 PM, "Murray S. Kucherawy" said: >Section 8.2 of [ARF] talks about them (third paragraph), More like mentions in passing: "In particular, S/MIME offers the strongest authentication and the cost of key exchange is assumed in the process of establishing a bilateral reporting relationship that uses this specification;" -- 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)