IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [apps-discuss] Spam reporting over IMAP

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com> Mon, 09 January 2012 23:48 UTC

Return-Path: <msk@cloudmark.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 95D4321F84FB for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Jan 2012 15:48:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.575
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.575 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.024, 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 tu0gt2zBu6os for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Jan 2012 15:48:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B14921F8469 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Jan 2012 15:48:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from spite.corp.cloudmark.com (172.22.10.72) by EXCH-HTCAS901.corp.cloudmark.com (172.22.10.73) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Mon, 9 Jan 2012 15:48:40 -0800
Received: from EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.1.74]) by spite.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.10.72]) with mapi; Mon, 9 Jan 2012 15:48:46 -0800
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>
To: "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2012 15:48:45 -0800
Thread-Topic: [apps-discuss] Spam reporting over IMAP
Thread-Index: AczPJ7ag7X4CqF/4RMSvQwcUFektggAAPUYQ
Message-ID: <F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C6C157C6@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com>
References: <F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C6C157A4@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com> <F0F3F170FC88900571B5E5E9@PST.JCK.COM>
In-Reply-To: <F0F3F170FC88900571B5E5E9@PST.JCK.COM>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
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: Mon, 09 Jan 2012 23:48:47 -0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John C Klensin [mailto:john-ietf@jck.com]
> Sent: Monday, January 09, 2012 3:38 PM
> To: Murray S. Kucherawy
> Cc: apps-discuss@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Spam reporting over IMAP
> 
> Conclusion:
> 
> Not ready from prime time.  Not even ready for a careful and
> comprehensive review.
> 
> You asked.

I did, and thanks for that.

I think at this point perhaps a higher-level question is in order: Are we (either IETF in general, or APPSAWG specifically) interested in or willing to put time into developing this in conjunction with OMA?  Would this be something ultimately beneficial to have, and have it come from us?

I suppose I'm also concerned with the idea of an external SDO, on getting a "no" from us, deciding they want to do this anyway so they publish their own (unsanctioned, of course) IMAP extension only to have it see some level of ubiquity as a result.  Indeed it may be possible that this is coming to us only because some OMA member organizations have already developed and are deploying this, at least experimentally.  There's friction between geopriv and OMA's LOC WG of this nature already which I'd just as soon resolve sooner rather than later somehow.

-MSK

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email