IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Proposed WG charter for "arf" (Abuse Report Format)

Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> Thu, 09 July 2009 14:02 UTC

Return-Path: <lear@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BD2B3A704E for <apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Jul 2009 07:02:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.432
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.432 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.833, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sPECbkxWHL9t for <apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Jul 2009 07:02:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sj-iport-3.cisco.com (sj-iport-3.cisco.com [171.71.176.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 447453A7059 for <discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Jul 2009 07:02:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.42,373,1243814400"; d="scan'208";a="175707737"
Received: from ams-dkim-2.cisco.com ([144.254.224.139]) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 09 Jul 2009 14:02:45 +0000
Received: from ams-core-1.cisco.com (ams-core-1.cisco.com [144.254.224.150]) by ams-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n69E2i29021464; Thu, 9 Jul 2009 16:02:44 +0200
Received: from adsl-247-4-fixip.tiscali.ch (ams3-vpn-dhcp6731.cisco.com [10.61.90.74]) by ams-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n69E2i5U005697; Thu, 9 Jul 2009 14:02:44 GMT
Message-ID: <4A55F884.6070703@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2009 16:02:44 +0200
From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; en-US; rv:1.9.1pre) Gecko/20090602 Shredder/3.0b3pre
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>
Subject: Re: Proposed WG charter for "arf" (Abuse Report Format)
References: <BB012BD379D7B046ABE1472D8093C61C0112AA8C82@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com>
In-Reply-To: <BB012BD379D7B046ABE1472D8093C61C0112AA8C82@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=241; t=1247148164; x=1248012164; c=relaxed/simple; s=amsdkim2001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=lear@cisco.com; z=From:=20Eliot=20Lear=20<lear@cisco.com> |Subject:=20Re=3A=20Proposed=20WG=20charter=20for=20=22arf= 22=20(Abuse=20Report=20Format) |Sender:=20; bh=vWri8QmK8NP+I6BQDDAuX9MTH4GxX/PHz0v6ehfBmuQ=; b=YgzMvKrL1tDzzqURiI2yfOfUqFVTeMFlbvzut+NHB2GXE0IWl+sUDmJBFn JDJu+pW8E0I4i0Im5ytbY4hWiUvTJs6vmvJofCNmW89IxFMSzFPwo2K09ahT L7qATodtX+;
Authentication-Results: ams-dkim-2; header.From=lear@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/amsdkim2001 verified; );
Cc: "discuss@ietf.org" <discuss@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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, 09 Jul 2009 14:02:19 -0000

Murray,

I think standardizing ARF is a GREAT idea, but I wonder if we need a 
working group to do it.  There's a lot of ARF out there today.  Is there 
something controversial here that requires us to bang our heads together?

Eliot

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email