[apps-discuss] Spam reporting over IMAP

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com> Mon, 09 January 2012 18:50 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 ED1DE21F873E for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Jan 2012 10:50:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.548
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.548 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.050, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 tHwQfWABKPAi for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Jan 2012 10:50:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E11FD21F8734 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Jan 2012 10:50:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from malice.corp.cloudmark.com (172.22.10.71) by EXCH-HTCAS901.corp.cloudmark.com (172.22.10.73) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Mon, 9 Jan 2012 10:50:46 -0800
Received: from EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.1.74]) by malice.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.10.71]) with mapi; Mon, 9 Jan 2012 10:50:53 -0800
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>
To: "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2012 10:50:51 -0800
Thread-Topic: Spam reporting over IMAP
Thread-Index: AczO/5w0zIm+SpJ7RGmLza1UzvIy+A==
Message-ID: <F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C6C157A4@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C6C157A4EXCHC2corpclo_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: [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 18:50:55 -0000

In September the OMA sent a notice to the IETF that it had submitted draft-ordogh-spam-reporting-using-imap for our consideration as they need it (or something like it) to complete work of their Enhanced Visual Voice Mail working group.  It has since then failed to get any IETF attention.

It was submitted to the Messaging Abuse Reporting Format (MARF) working group but they are not chartered to handle this work, nor is there any apparent interest or momentum to recharter to do so.

Is there any interest among those of us following APPSAWG to do this kind of work?  I can't think of any current working groups where it might otherwise fit.

I can suggest they present in Paris if they want to gauge interest if people would be interested in hearing something about it.  Otherwise, I believe I should reply to them that the IETF is not currently doing work in this area so their options include an ISE submission or something AD-sponsored that goes for Experimental status or suchlike.

I'd be happy if someone (or a few of us) here could review it and make some suggestions about next steps.

Thanks,

M. Kucherawy
<hat-type='OMA-Liaison'/>