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, 08 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
- [Asrg] Iteration #3. Chris Lewis
- Re: [Asrg] Iteration #3. Dave CROCKER
- Re: [Asrg] Iteration #3. Steve Atkins
- Re: [Asrg] Iteration #3. Chris Lewis
- Re: [Asrg] Iteration #3. Derek Diget
- Re: [Asrg] Iteration #3. Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [Asrg] Iteration #3. Chris Lewis
- Re: [Asrg] Iteration #3. Chris Lewis
- [Asrg] Consensus Call - submission via posting (w… Dave CROCKER
- Re: [Asrg] Consensus Call - submission via postin… Lyndon Nerenberg (VE6BBM/VE7TFX)
- Re: [Asrg] Consensus Call - submission via postin… Chris Lewis
- Re: [Asrg] Consensus Call - submission via postin… Steve Atkins
- Re: [Asrg] Consensus Call - submission via postin… Dave CROCKER
- Re: [Asrg] Consensus Call - submission via postin… Dotzero
- Re: [Asrg] Iteration #3. Derek Diget
- Re: [Asrg] Consensus Call - submission via postin… Derek Diget
- Re: [Asrg] Consensus Call - submission via postin… Bart Schaefer
- Re: [Asrg] Consensus Call - submission via postin… Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [Asrg] Iteration #3. Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [Asrg] Iteration #3. Daniel Feenberg
- Re: [Asrg] Iteration #3. John Levine
- Re: [Asrg] Iteration #3. Daniel Feenberg
- Re: [Asrg] Iteration #3. Dave CROCKER
- Re: [Asrg] Iteration #3. John Levine
- Re: [Asrg] Iteration #3. Dave CROCKER
- Re: [Asrg] Consensus Call - submission via postin… Ian Eiloart
- Re: [Asrg] Consensus Call - submission via postin… John Levine
- Re: [Asrg] Consensus Call - submission via postin… BOBOTEK, ALEX (ATTCINW)
- Re: [Asrg] Consensus Call - submission via postin… Andrew Richards
- [Asrg] who has the message (was Re: Consensus Cal… Dave CROCKER
- Re: [Asrg] Consensus Call - submission via postin… Chris Lewis
- Re: [Asrg] Consensus Call - submission via postin… Andrew Richards
- Re: [Asrg] who has the message (was Re: Consensus… Andrew Richards
- Re: [Asrg] who has the message (was Re: Consensus… Dave CROCKER
- Re: [Asrg] who has the message (was Re: Consensus… Chris Lewis
- Re: [Asrg] who has the message (was Re: Consensus… John Levine
- Re: [Asrg] who has the message (was Re: Consensus… Dave CROCKER
- Re: [Asrg] overloading server names doesn't work,… John R Levine
- Re: [Asrg] Consensus Call - submission via postin… Bill Cole
- Re: [Asrg] overloading server names doesn't work,… Daniel Feenberg
- Re: [Asrg] who has the message (was Re: Consensus… Ian Eiloart
- Re: [Asrg] Consensus Call - submission via postin… Ian Eiloart
- Re: [Asrg] who has the message (was Re: Consensus… Ian Eiloart
- Re: [Asrg] who has the message (was Re: Consensus… Andrew Richards
- Re: [Asrg] who has the message (was Re: Consensus… Andrew Richards
- Re: [Asrg] who has the message (was Re: Consensus… Ian Eiloart
- Re: [Asrg] who has the message (was Re: Consensus… Andrew Richards
- Re: [Asrg] who has the message (was Re: Consensus… Ian Eiloart
- Re: [Asrg] overloading server names doesn't work,… Dave CROCKER
- Re: [Asrg] who has the message (was Re: Consensus… Paul Russell
- Re: [Asrg] overloading server names doesn't work,… John R Levine
- Re: [Asrg] overloading server names doesn't work,… Dave CROCKER
- Re: [Asrg] DNS basics, was overloading server nam… John R Levine
- Re: [Asrg] Consensus Call - submission via postin… Andrew Richards
- Re: [Asrg] Consensus Call - submission via postin… Ian Eiloart
- Re: [Asrg] DNS basics, was overloading server nam… Dave CROCKER
- Re: [Asrg] DNS basics, was overloading server nam… John R Levine
- Re: [Asrg] Consensus Call - submission via postin… Jose-Marcio Martins da Cruz
- Re: [Asrg] DNS basics, was overloading server nam… Douglas Otis
- Re: [Asrg] Consensus Call - submission via postin… Ian Eiloart
- Re: [Asrg] Consensus Call - submission via postin… Jose-Marcio Martins da Cruz