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

Dave CROCKER <dhc@dcrocker.net> Sat, 06 February 2010 18:36 UTC

Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.net>
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 C437D3A6B28 for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 6 Feb 2010 10:36:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.573
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.573 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.026, 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 5o54w2Apq-fa for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 6 Feb 2010 10:36:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7E983A68FA for <asrg@irtf.org>; Sat, 6 Feb 2010 10:36:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.43] (adsl-68-122-70-87.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net [68.122.70.87]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o16IbCXg002226 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <asrg@irtf.org>; Sat, 6 Feb 2010 10:37:17 -0800
Message-ID: <4B6DB6D1.5050805@dcrocker.net>
Date: Sat, 06 Feb 2010 10:37:05 -0800
From: Dave CROCKER <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.7) Gecko/20100111 Thunderbird/3.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg@irtf.org>
References: <4B6C6D35.1050101@nortel.com> <4B6D41E3.8000209@tana.it> <4B6DAD0C.3020109@nortel.com>
In-Reply-To: <4B6DAD0C.3020109@nortel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.92/10362/Fri Feb 5 23:14:06 2010 on sbh17.songbird.com
X-Virus-Status: Clean
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]); Sat, 06 Feb 2010 10:37:18 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [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: dcrocker@bbiw.net, 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 18:36:23 -0000

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.)


d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net