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

Dave CROCKER <dhc@dcrocker.net> Sat, 06 February 2010 22:16 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 7FADB3A6E10 for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 6 Feb 2010 14:16:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.57
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.57 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.029, 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 QwcTdThsSuG7 for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 6 Feb 2010 14:16:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B0C23A6978 for <asrg@irtf.org>; Sat, 6 Feb 2010 14:16:35 -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 o16MHPia011822 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 6 Feb 2010 14:17:30 -0800
Message-ID: <4B6DEA6E.1070904@dcrocker.net>
Date: Sat, 06 Feb 2010 14:17:18 -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> <4B6DB6D1.5050805@dcrocker.net> <3B7D577A-2E2D-4310-A5BD-C30838F5E7A3@blighty.com>
In-Reply-To: <3B7D577A-2E2D-4310-A5BD-C30838F5E7A3@blighty.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 14:17:31 -0800 (PST)
Cc: Steve Atkins <steve@blighty.com>
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: 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 22:16:36 -0000

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