Re: [apps-discuss] Spam reporting over IMAP

SM <sm@resistor.net> Sat, 14 January 2012 12:03 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@resistor.net>
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 468A221F8503; Sat, 14 Jan 2012 04:03:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.637
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.637 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.038, 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 FP+rCpyK9QeI; Sat, 14 Jan 2012 04:03:16 -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 0315521F84F6; Sat, 14 Jan 2012 04:03:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q0EC38d3029048; Sat, 14 Jan 2012 04:03:11 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1326542594; i=@resistor.net; bh=ZcBVy0ynj9LmI3kldrOBqrt0ON1qSrXUFxLPiJdeAXE=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=PkqRCff2RgCjQmFaI98Cr5hVLU7ruHKd7DH39LxlZ7s8smt5RH1E4et1D69HwFkPL o6UOXs84gm23FwjZ9OPpoPUZe+jYDOepP8P8w2klkAblQBIwVKRSNYicq0EBc7V8Ie d2+IZOc/tTdRS7D+smLd8PoaSMVqtoW4SbBJyQ34=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120114024516.09b814f8@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2012 04:00:29 -0800
To: Zoltan Ordogh <zordogh@rim.com>
From: SM <sm@resistor.net>
In-Reply-To: <1DE983233DBBEB4A81F18FABD8208D76226BE438@XMB107ACNC.rim.ne t>
References: <F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C6C157A4@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com> <1DE983233DBBEB4A81F18FABD8208D76226BE438@XMB107ACNC.rim.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Cc: trustees@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, apps-discuss@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Spam reporting over IMAP
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: Sat, 14 Jan 2012 12:03:18 -0000

Hi Zoltan,
At 11:11 13-01-2012, Zoltan Ordogh wrote:
>Instead of responding to individual emails one by one, I try to 
>clarify some of the concerns at least in a single response.

The single response does not address the issue I raised ( 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg04079.html ).

>PS. I am solely a technical contributor, so asking me IPR-related 
>questions will always be a dead end. Please direct those questions 
>directly to the appropriate contact person, which, in, this case is 
>Sarah Guichard. Thank you.

draft-ordogh-spam-reporting-using-imap-kleansed-00 lists Zoltan 
Ordogh, Research In Motion Limited, as the author of the 
Internet-Draft.  The document states that:

   "This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
    provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79."

Do you have any concerns about 
draft-ordogh-spam-reporting-using-imap-kleansed-00 in respect to BCP 
78 and BCP 79?

Regards,
-sm