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

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Sun, 07 February 2010 06:28 UTC

Return-Path: <vesely@tana.it>
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 47BDC3A6C61 for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 6 Feb 2010 22:28:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.719
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.719 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245, 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 BOe1freXApS1 for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 6 Feb 2010 22:28:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (wmail.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5601C3A6B7E for <asrg@irtf.org>; Sat, 6 Feb 2010 22:28:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mach-4.tana.it (mach-4.tana.it [194.243.254.189]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 515, TLS: TLS1.0,256bits,RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPSA; Sun, 07 Feb 2010 07:29:39 +0100 id 00000000005DC033.000000004B6E5DD3.00004E95
Message-ID: <4B6E5EB9.7000800@tana.it>
Date: Sun, 07 Feb 2010 07:33:29 +0100
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Macintosh/20090812)
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>
In-Reply-To: <4B6DB6D1.5050805@dcrocker.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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: Sun, 07 Feb 2010 06:28:46 -0000

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.

+1. However, that necessarily depends on the nature of the reports 
that have to be sent:

>    [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.)

The former suits well "generalized FBLs", and ARF.


>    [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.)

The latter is better for maintaining Bayesian data on the servers, 
an apparently related topic.