On Jul 27, 2011, at 1:54 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:

> This WGLC ended last week.  We got two pieces of feedback only.  It would be 
> a lot more comfortable to send this to the IESG with more feedback than that, 
> even though it’s a pretty simple draft.
>  
> Can we please have a few more reviewers?   I assure you it’s pretty short.

The use case is sufficiently far outside a "normal" ARF use case that I didn't 
feel I had enough context to usefully comment on it.

At the protocol level, it's adding a new ARF tag and making no other changes to 
the protocol, so there's really nothing to say (other than that maybe 
"not-abuse" would be a more logical name, given we don't have a "spam" type).

Whether it makes any operational sense to have it depends on a whole lot of 
missing details (authentication, typical use case, whether it's likely to be 
attacked by people claiming that spam is not-spam, who the recipients are, who 
the senders are, whether it's used MUA->recipients ISP or recipients ISP -> 
outsourced spam filter provider, MUA to original sender, etc, etc.). Without 
those details, there's not really much to say about that end of it.

That doesn't mean it's a bad idea at all, I think it's probably a good one, 
just that I'm not sure what there is to say about it.

Cheers,
  Steve



>  
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-marf-not-spam-feedback/
>  
> Thanks,
> -MSK
>  
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of 
> Murray S. Kucherawy
> Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2011 2:52 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: [marf] Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-marf-not-spam-feedback
>  
> There has been little feedback about the above draft since its submission, 
> and given its fairly trivial nature and fit within our charter of SpamRep 
> convergence, I believe we’re ready to move forward.  Therefore…
>  
> This note declares the beginning of a Working Group Last Call on 
> draft-ietf-marf-not-spam-feedback, ending on July 21st.  Please submit any 
> comments you have about this draft prior to that time, after which we will 
> begin the process of submitting it to the IESG for review and approval.
>  
> -MSK, as co-chair
>  
> _______________________________________________
> marf mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf

_______________________________________________
marf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf

Reply via email to