Michael Thomas wrote:
> I'm pretty much of the same mindset, but it does beg the question
> of when we're free to recharter (or not)?
Barry and I chatted briefly with Tim on this recently. We were all
of the opinion that any re-chartering (other than milestone changes)
should follow A/SSP being
Florian Sager wrote:
> http://www.mipassoc.org/arf/specs/draft-shafranovich-feedback-
> report-02.html#rfc.section.4 claims that the original email has to be
> contained (with rather few modifications). Unfortunately any
information
> sent back to the signing authority (that should be linked to th
>I'm pretty much of the same mindset, but it does beg the question
>of when we're free to recharter (or not)?
SSP desperately needs real life experience before we start twiddling it.
I'd like to go with the current modest version and come back after
we've found out what's useful and what isn't.
Dave Crocker wrote:
>
>
> Michael Thomas wrote:
>> I'm pretty much of the same mindset, but it does beg the question
>> of when we're free to recharter (or not)?
>
>
> A worthy task... perhaps after we complete the challenging draft that we
> are so close to completing and wouldn't want to get
Michael Thomas wrote:
> I'm pretty much of the same mindset, but it does beg the question
> of when we're free to recharter (or not)?
A worthy task... perhaps after we complete the challenging draft that we are so
close to completing and wouldn't want to get distracted from...?
d/
--
Dav
Dave Crocker wrote:
>
> Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>> On Thu, 28 Feb 2008, Florian Sager wrote:
>>> Thanks for this reminder, I forgot about this draft: maybe section 4.1
>>> can be extended by s.th. like "a Reports are requested for passed
>>> signatures inside mails with suspicious content". T
Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Feb 2008, Florian Sager wrote:
>> Thanks for this reminder, I forgot about this draft: maybe section 4.1
>> can be extended by s.th. like "a Reports are requested for passed
>> signatures inside mails with suspicious content". The same intent may
>> alre
Murray S. Kucherawy schrieb:
> On Thu, 28 Feb 2008, Florian Sager wrote:
>> Thanks for this reminder, I forgot about this draft: maybe section
>> 4.1 can be extended by s.th. like "a Reports are requested for passed
>> signatures inside mails with suspicious content". The same intent may
>> alre
At 14:15 28-02-2008, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>On Thu, 28 Feb 2008, Florian Sager wrote:
> > Thanks for this reminder, I forgot about this draft: maybe section 4.1
> > can be extended by s.th. like "a Reports are requested for passed
> > signatures inside mails with suspicious content". The same
On Thu, 28 Feb 2008, Florian Sager wrote:
> Thanks for this reminder, I forgot about this draft: maybe section 4.1
> can be extended by s.th. like "a Reports are requested for passed
> signatures inside mails with suspicious content". The same intent may
> already be included in 4.2 "s ... signe
Murray S. Kucherawy schrieb:
> On Thu, 28 Feb 2008, Florian Sager wrote:
>> I just reviewed [ietf-dkim] "Proposal to amend SSP draft with a
>> reporting address" --> the responses dealt with using ARF or an own
>> abuse report format but they didn't refer to the reporting address.
>> What was th
On Thu, 28 Feb 2008, Florian Sager wrote:
> I just reviewed [ietf-dkim] "Proposal to amend SSP draft with a
> reporting address" --> the responses dealt with using ARF or an own
> abuse report format but they didn't refer to the reporting address. What
> was the result of this discussion? There
Murray S. Kucherawy schrieb:
> That said, originally I had some motivation during the initial
> interoperability testing of DKIM over a year ago; specifically, it was
> nice to have someplace to send diagnostic reports (canonicalizations,
> etc.) when verifications failed. I still find that pra
t; To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Proposal to amend SSP draft with a reporting
> address(fwd)
>
>
>
> >I gather that AOL has something where you (a sender) can sign up to
> >receive an ARF feed of stuff you are sending that is generating spam
> >r
What does it mean to send back a report "via" SSP?
Whatever this reporting address add-on is supposed to be.
R's,
John
___
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
John Levine wrote:
If you're going to send back reports about messages, via SSP or
otherwise,
Just realized I did not understand one tidbit in your note:
What does it mean to send back a report "via" SSP?
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_
I agree. It would be a massive hassle for us to have to do something else.
Mike O'Reirdan
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of John Levine
Sent: Sat 11/10/2007 12:23 AM
To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Proposal to amend SSP draft w
>I gather that AOL has something where you (a sender) can sign up to
>receive an ARF feed of stuff you are sending that is generating spam
>reports. It's probably a good guess that this or something close to
>it is what the big guys are using to share information between
>themselves. (Honestl
At 07:05 09-11-2007, Eric Allman wrote:
explicitly non-disclosure. However, it's not hard to find
information about ARF (Abuse Reporting Format).
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-shafranovich-feedback-report-03.txt
Regards,
-sm
___
NOTE
On Nov 9, 2007, at 7:05 AM, Eric Allman wrote:
I gather that AOL has something where you (a sender) can sign up to
receive an ARF feed of stuff you are sending that is generating
spam reports. It's probably a good guess that this or something
close to it is what the big guys are using to
Eric, do you have any info, technical material on how the existing
pre-arrange reporting is being done? Proprietary, open standard
Unfortunately nothing official that I can share --- all the MAAWG
information is explicitly non-disclosure. However, it's not hard to
find information about ARF
Eric Allman wrote:
--On November 8, 2007 4:55:36 PM -0800 Michael Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Maybe rather than proposing a change, it might be more productive
to talk through what the problem actually is? I'm not convinced
that random reports from potentially untrustworthy outsiders
Eric Allman wrote:
--On November 8, 2007 4:55:36 PM -0800 Michael Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Maybe rather than proposing a change, it might be more productive
to talk through what the problem actually is? I'm not convinced
that random reports from potentially untrustworthy outsiders
--On November 8, 2007 4:55:36 PM -0800 Michael Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Maybe rather than proposing a change, it might be more productive
to talk through what the problem actually is? I'm not convinced
that random reports from potentially untrustworthy outsiders is
what's wanted her
On Thu, 8 Nov 2007, Michael Thomas wrote:
Maybe rather than proposing a change, it might be more productive to
talk through what the problem actually is? I'm not convinced that random
reports from potentially untrustworthy outsiders is what's wanted here.
I'm not sure I should defend someone e
Murray,
I'd be really concerned about drinking from this particular firehose, and
most especially the law of unintended consequences.
Maybe rather than proposing a change, it might be more productive to
talk through what the problem actually is? I'm not convinced that random
reports from potenti
This time with feeling! (and the attachment)
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2007 16:13:41 -0800 (PST)
From: Murray S. Kucherawy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
Subject: Proposal to amend SSP draft with a reporting address
At MAAWG someone pointed out tha
27 matches
Mail list logo
