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

Dave CROCKER <dcrocker@bbiw.net> Mon, 08 February 2010 20:23 UTC

Return-Path: <dcrocker@bbiw.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 BF6E328C175 for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Feb 2010 12:23:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.579
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.579 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.020, 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 NtYiObsx6lel for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Feb 2010 12:23:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D105228C171 for <asrg@irtf.org>; Mon, 8 Feb 2010 12:23:48 -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 o18KOUNO008613 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 8 Feb 2010 12:24:36 -0800
Message-ID: <4B7072FD.7040202@bbiw.net>
Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2010 12:24:29 -0800
From: Dave CROCKER <dcrocker@bbiw.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: Andrew Richards <ar-asrg@acrconsulting.co.uk>
References: <201002082023.18887.ar-asrg@acrconsulting.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <201002082023.18887.ar-asrg@acrconsulting.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.92/10366/Mon Feb 8 08:41:04 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]); Mon, 08 Feb 2010 12:24:37 -0800 (PST)
Cc: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg@irtf.org>
Subject: Re: [Asrg] who has the message (was Re: 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: Mon, 08 Feb 2010 20:23:49 -0000

On 2/8/2010 11:11 AM, Andrew Richards wrote:
 >> The alternative requires that a copy of the message still be at the
 >>   server. That works in only some MUA-based models.  Often/typically, the
 >>   entire message is downloaded to the MUA's site and the server no longer
 >>   has a copy.  Hence, it's too late to enjoy merely passing a citation
 >>   back to the server.
 >
 > I wish to imply that it would become a requirement for the server to hold a
 > copy if it wishes to implement this functionality

That creates a massive barrier to adoption.  Huge implementation overhead.


 >> The challenge is the "few days".  It means that the mechanism fails
 >>   after a few days.  Is that acceptable?  Why?
 >
 > Reports of spam are most useful the fresher they are

while no doubt true, it is not a clear to me that it's appropriate to make it 
impossible to submit older reports.

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net