IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [apps-discuss] Call for Adoption: draft-ordogh-spam-reporting-using-imap

John C Klensin <john@jck.com> Sat, 12 May 2012 09:29 UTC

Return-Path: <john@jck.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 9F43C21F855D for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 12 May 2012 02:29:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, 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 PsBVsvKZ+Gr7 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 12 May 2012 02:29:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (bsa2.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17B0E21F8555 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Sat, 12 May 2012 02:29:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [198.252.137.7] (helo=PST.JCK.COM) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.71 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john@jck.com>) id 1ST8YQ-0000x9-5B; Sat, 12 May 2012 05:23:58 -0400
Date: Sat, 12 May 2012 05:29:19 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john@jck.com>
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>, apps-discuss@ietf.org
Message-ID: <D2F7909C5275B0107275BCD2@PST.JCK.COM>
In-Reply-To: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E00392811EE83@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
References: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E00392811ECBB@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <B01B996E5DF9C9B47BF9204F@PST.JCK.COM> <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E00392811EE83@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Call for Adoption: draft-ordogh-spam-reporting-using-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, 12 May 2012 09:29:28 -0000

--On Saturday, May 12, 2012 04:02 +0000 "Murray S. Kucherawy"
<msk@cloudmark.com> wrote:

>...
>> * I agree with Ned that we do not want to standardize or
>> propagate a number of different reporting mechanisms and
>> formats.  This work should not, IMO, be initiated unless
>> minimizing those differences is an explicit high-priority
>> goal.
> 
> Ned's remarks about MARF hadn't occurred to me before.  I'll
> discuss this suggestion with our ADs, though MARF has
> basically already completed its chartered work list and is
> just waiting for its three documents in the RFC Editor queue
> to publish before formally shutting down.

I wasn't particularly arguing for assigning this to MARF or any
place particular.  Only that the net result should not be to
increase the number of different ways of doing something more
than absolutely necessary or the number of different report
format models to more than one ... at least without really
persuasive and explicit reasons that would overcome the
considerable cost.

   john

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email