IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [apps-discuss] Spam reporting over IMAP

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Tue, 10 January 2012 19:20 UTC

Return-Path: <vesely@tana.it>
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 B844421F881C for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 11:20:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.645
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.645 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.074, 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 T2pf0+QP3FOk for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 11:20:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (mail.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA81221F881A for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 11:20:31 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=test; t=1326223230; bh=LmIKLexJ0EwihTR39AXJIOGKO/ocqZd8Uo5a6wNDib8=; l=944; h=Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:CC:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=hC5Hwx9QyfaXsChk8F4b2XgTkMYikCL8YY2ZSdiGTFyedjFV3I0o9hpLOB0RJSYa3 X/3hHVs3UKu6lXnIhu4eMdHukrb+yZXbFJ63GLKmk+FCs5egenH6r4bJjlwnohGlkx oS8/OcX25Iw9pm/Te328cxCCEJwXIWY9zYTShZdI=
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, 10 Jan 2012 20:20:30 +0100 id 00000000005DC035.000000004F0C8F7E.000044E2
Message-ID: <4F0C8F7E.4070809@tana.it>
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 20:20:30 +0100
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: apps-discuss@ietf.org
References: <F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C6C157A4@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20120109155713.0b022fe0@resistor.net> <F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C6C157C8@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20120109171236.0ad2e840@resistor.net>
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20120109171236.0ad2e840@resistor.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 19:20:33 -0000

On 10/Jan/12 03:22, SM wrote:
> 
> I don't think that IMAP folks would say that it is a reasonable
> architecture.  I would not spend too much time working on an IMAP
> draft if the author has not understood RFC 3501.  John Klensin already
> commented about the Abstract Section.  The draft needs a lot of
> development.  I suggest that the author finds someone to work with him
> on the draft before asking the IETF to consider it.

I posted a draft-ordogh-spam-reporting-using-imap-kleansed-00 with
some of the cleanup John mentioned.  I'm unable to understand some
other comments he made, e.g. about sieve, but I hope this version is
easier to read anyway.

I've made some arbitrary changes, including IPR, as explained in the
appendix.  If that's not correct, please delete my post.  The doc is
not to be used directly anyway: Zoltan can reuse any xml parts that he
likes and repost the result as version -01 of its draft.

hth

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email