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

"BOBOTEK, ALEX (ATTCINW)" <AB3778@att.com> Mon, 08 February 2010 16:49 UTC

Return-Path: <AB3778@att.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 8AF0128C167 for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Feb 2010 08:49:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.221
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.221 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.378, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 uTZMXHMqR8zj for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Feb 2010 08:49:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail129.messagelabs.com (mail129.messagelabs.com [216.82.250.147]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3658128C158 for <asrg@irtf.org>; Mon, 8 Feb 2010 08:49:18 -0800 (PST)
X-VirusChecked: Checked
X-Env-Sender: AB3778@att.com
X-Msg-Ref: server-7.tower-129.messagelabs.com!1265647819!28568572!1
X-StarScan-Version: 6.2.4; banners=-,-,-
X-Originating-IP: [144.160.112.25]
Received: (qmail 28614 invoked from network); 8 Feb 2010 16:50:20 -0000
Received: from sbcsmtp3.sbc.com (HELO tlph064.enaf.dadc.sbc.com) (144.160.112.25) by server-7.tower-129.messagelabs.com with DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 8 Feb 2010 16:50:20 -0000
Received: from enaf.dadc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by tlph064.enaf.dadc.sbc.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o18GoHe3032684; Mon, 8 Feb 2010 10:50:19 -0600
Received: from td03xsmtp006.US.Cingular.Net (td03xspare19-new.us.cingular.net [135.179.64.43] (may be forged)) by tlph064.enaf.dadc.sbc.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o18GoDiX032477; Mon, 8 Feb 2010 10:50:13 -0600
Received: from BD01XSMTP003.US.Cingular.Net ([135.163.18.44]) by td03xsmtp006.US.Cingular.Net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 8 Feb 2010 10:50:13 -0600
Received: from BD01MSXMB015.US.Cingular.Net ([135.214.26.11]) by BD01XSMTP003.US.Cingular.Net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 8 Feb 2010 08:50:12 -0800
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 08:50:12 -0800
Message-ID: <BF533A28DBE487489EAB3411C5412CBE0FE16B84@BD01MSXMB015.US.Cingular.Net>
In-Reply-To: <4B6DEA6E.1070904@dcrocker.net>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [Asrg] Consensus Call - submission via posting (was Re: Iteration #3)
Thread-Index: AcqnejTZRSMgMau4QCafCurhEFH33gBCDaqA
References: <4B6C6D35.1050101@nortel.com><4B6D41E3.8000209@tana.it> <4B6DAD0C.3020109@nortel.com><4B6DB6D1.5050805@dcrocker.net><3B7D577A-2E2D-4310-A5BD-C30838F5E7A3@blighty.com> <4B6DEA6E.1070904@dcrocker.net>
From: "BOBOTEK, ALEX (ATTCINW)" <AB3778@att.com>
To: <dcrocker@bbiw.net>, "Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF" <asrg@irtf.org>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Feb 2010 16:50:12.0932 (UTC) FILETIME=[C83FF040:01CAA8DE]
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: Mon, 08 Feb 2010 16:49:19 -0000

Less coupling to the access protocol (e.g., POP, IMAP) is better IMO.  1
is better than 2.  

Report submission methods should, to the extent practical, be
independent of the access protocol.  



Regards,

Alex


-----Original Message-----
From: asrg-bounces@irtf.org [mailto:asrg-bounces@irtf.org] On Behalf Of
Dave CROCKER
Sent: Saturday, February 06, 2010 2:17 PM
To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF
Cc: Steve Atkins
Subject: Re: [Asrg] Consensus Call - submission via posting (was Re:
Iteration #3)

Just to be clear:  the purpose of a consensus call is to resolve
ambiguity about 
preferences among choices being discussed.

So I listed the choices that I had seen dominating the discussion,
rather than 
listing among a full range of theoretical -- albeit possibly quite
reasonable -- 
choices.

If there is a consensus that /neither/ of the two listed choices is
preferred, 
then a more careful listing and consideration of alternatives would make
sense.

d/


On 2/6/2010 12:42 PM, Steve Atkins wrote:
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Asrg mailing list
> Asrg@irtf.org
> http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg
>

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg@irtf.org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg