Re: [Asrg] Consensus Call - submission via posting (was Re: Iteration #3)

Steve Atkins <steve@blighty.com> Sat, 06 February 2010 20:41 UTC

Return-Path: <steve@blighty.com>
X-Original-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A56A03A6E03 for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 6 Feb 2010 12:41:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.526
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.526 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.073, 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 YyjJT-PkcSOz for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 6 Feb 2010 12:41:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from m.wordtothewise.com (fruitbat.wordtothewise.com [208.187.80.135]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E67C63A6CD0 for <asrg@irtf.org>; Sat, 6 Feb 2010 12:41:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from platterhard.wordtothewise.com (184.wordtothewise.com [208.187.80.184]) by m.wordtothewise.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7971E4F82DE for <asrg@irtf.org>; Sat, 6 Feb 2010 12:42:06 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1077)
From: Steve Atkins <steve@blighty.com>
In-Reply-To: <4B6DB6D1.5050805@dcrocker.net>
Date: Sat, 6 Feb 2010 12:42:06 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <3B7D577A-2E2D-4310-A5BD-C30838F5E7A3@blighty.com>
References: <4B6C6D35.1050101@nortel.com> <4B6D41E3.8000209@tana.it> <4B6DAD0C.3020109@nortel.com> <4B6DB6D1.5050805@dcrocker.net>
To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg@irtf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1077)
Subject: Re: [Asrg] Consensus Call - submission via posting (was Re: Iteration #3)
X-BeenThere: asrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg@irtf.org>
List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg>, <mailto:asrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/asrg>
List-Post: <mailto:asrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:asrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg>, <mailto:asrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 06 Feb 2010 20:41:11 -0000

On Feb 6, 2010, at 10:37 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:

> 
> 
> On 2/6/2010 9:55 AM, Chris Lewis wrote:
>> Alessandro Vesely wrote:
>>> If we reset the discussion why do we maintain that reports have to be
>>> sent by SMTP/MSA? IMAP is better (see below).
>> 
>> You just did it again. This _forces_ technology dependence,
> 
> My reading was that the group appeared to converge on using regular posting for submitting a report.
> 
> But perhaps the presence of rough consensus needs to be determined explicitly.
> 
> Would folks please respond to the list with their preference:
> 
> 
>     Reports should be submitted using a mechanisms that:
> 
> 
>     [1]  Is the same as for submitting regular new mail, that is, normal
>          posting.  (Determination of the address to send to is a separate
>          issue.)
> 
> 
>     [2]  Is specific to the mechanism for retrieving the message for which a
>          report is being submitted.  (The details of such mechanisms is a
>          separate issue.)
> 

For completeness there's also 

 [3] Is the same for every mechanism for retrieving the message,
      but not based on submitting email.

... for example, reporting via an HTTP post, or an SMTP extension,
or XMPP, or telepathy, regardless of whether the original message
was read via POP, IMAP, spool access, SMTP ETRN, SMS or an
XML-RPC call.

I think [1] is the right way to go, though.

Cheers,
  Steve