IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [apps-discuss] WGLC on draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc5451bis-00

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Thu, 16 May 2013 14:27 UTC

Return-Path: <superuser@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C944221F8F0A for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 May 2013 07:27:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.359
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.359 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.040, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_54=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_62=0.6, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
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 8qEuBjjw8xs8 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 May 2013 07:27:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-x22c.google.com (mail-wi0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::22c]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 848C121F8EDA for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 May 2013 07:27:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wi0-f172.google.com with SMTP id ey16so4302567wid.17 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 May 2013 07:27:00 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=yeW9xrW0UdOaMvAmBvzK1IR/NfGZNtkPO7cxe5syPAM=; b=Ig2kp90IfCLwgEZXOW0GJJg+RDMrwxfMkfna0ShPHFVkd7+ifs3AaosBUTPrUW3rpK xE/0XS70I+SS6f4Q8JjqUNXSgHluW6PqSIhECraeO8GWYwVrIdHzt92yCXv9+Zji4zMt ElwASRjEb6w/e3GbXntIh9UzR/O832T5ZGsZOpbyK4Yj/EnwcD3miFqxZpGiVfCjMVT/ B1l/AVeMLuwEVGsTCcBsiElPsiP8X0sf9Oi+72drrXQl3heggrbu3VA0y7f4x4wHvTsX Kxzijk/BVPPHHMKYekeOcgY/97Xvegt9cuwapS88n87qh1xDOZwCiKEMkfTCsJFsck+Y 6wsg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.210.242 with SMTP id mx18mr24948062wic.14.1368714420537; Thu, 16 May 2013 07:27:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.180.14.34 with HTTP; Thu, 16 May 2013 07:27:00 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <5194DE26.1000702@tana.it>
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20130503141649.0d8252f0@elandnews.com> <51923CFB.8090702@isode.com> <CAL0qLwbF3CUfChe9C2yASW_FaOtEQwVA7+vyrU2OKpXbdXzZyw@mail.gmail.com> <67D63FBF-D54E-4C99-9A5C-F74FDD635226@isode.com> <CAL0qLwYWfUcBA7UkQFPuxxQGbM3C0wR58jysaTS5ynALSjeQBA@mail.gmail.com> <5194DE26.1000702@tana.it>
Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 07:27:00 -0700
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwbHKgDE913UfXmG7RJ+OQX5Pm9FdpKrAh35W-c=UDYF6A@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
To: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11c262e8d5d08604dcd6a824"
Cc: Sam Varshavchik <mrsam@courier-mta.com>, IETF Apps Discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] WGLC on draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc5451bis-00
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 14:27:07 -0000

On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 6:24 AM, Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> wrote:

> One is the DNS White List (dnswl) method, used by Courier (mentioned
> in Appendix E).  It writes:
>
>   Authentication-Results: wmail.tana.it;
>       dnswl=pass dns.zone=list.dnswl.org
>       policy.ip=127.0.9.1
>       policy.txt="ietf.org http://dnswl.org/s?s=1703"
>
> Since it was me who suggested to use Authentication-Results, I think
> it's up to me to register that.  I'm waiting for this I-D to get
> published so as to avail of Designated Expert rather than IETF review.
>
>
>
To be consistent with the other registered methods, the policy.ip and
policy.txt things wouldn't be included.  A-R is meant to provide results
and return details of what visible parts of a message were evaluated (e.g.,
header fields, SMTP properties).  The client IP isn't one of those, nor is
resulting text.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email