RE: [Asrg] CRI Header

"Eric D. Williams" <eric@infobro.com> Wed, 04 June 2003 02:33 UTC

Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA04876 for <asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 22:33:24 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h542X0d20917 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 22:33:00 -0400
Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h542WxB20914 for <asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 22:32:59 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA04867; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 22:32:53 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NO3O-0005QF-00; Tue, 03 Jun 2003 22:31:06 -0400
Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NO3N-0005QC-00; Tue, 03 Jun 2003 22:31:05 -0400
Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h542VMB20847; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 22:31:22 -0400
Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h542UWB20778 for <asrg@optimus.ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 22:30:32 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA04729 for <asrg@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 22:30:26 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NO10-0005OP-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Jun 2003 22:28:38 -0400
Received: from black.infobro.com ([63.71.25.39] helo=infobro.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19NO10-0005NL-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Jun 2003 22:28:38 -0400
Received: from red (unverified [207.199.136.153]) by infobro.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id <B0002668949@infobro.com>; Tue, 03 Jun 2003 22:28:29 -0400
Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Tue, 3 Jun 2003 22:28:28 -0400
Message-ID: <01C32A1F.74D402B0.eric@infobro.com>
From: "Eric D. Williams" <eric@infobro.com>
To: 'Yakov Shafranovich' <research@solidmatrix.com>, Vernon Schryver <vjs@calcite.rhyolite.com>, "asrg@ietf.org" <asrg@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: [Asrg] CRI Header
Organization: Information Brokers, Inc.
X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg>, <mailto:asrg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:asrg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:asrg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg>, <mailto:asrg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
List-Archive: <https://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/asrg/>
Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2003 22:23:17 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Tuesday, June 03, 2003 1:56 PM, Yakov Shafranovich 
[SMTP:research@solidmatrix.com] wrote:
8<...>8
> >I thought you guys were clever to use MIME for more than one reason.
> >Pushing a new official RFC 2822 header (other than an ad hoc X-whatever)
> >through the IETF would take a year or more and you might fail.  That
> >you are sure challenge/response systems will be effective against spam
> >will be a weak response to Last Call criticisms.  However, I've the
> >impression that MIME headers don't have that bureuacratic problem to
> >the same degree.  That should be checked.
>
> According to section 2.1.1 of RFC 2048, there is plenty of bureaucratic
> problems involved. I am assuming that we would want to register this MIME
> type under the IETF tree, if so the following from RFC 2048 applies:
>
> "The IETF tree is intended for types of general interest to the Internet
> Community. Registration in the IETF tree requires approval by the IESG and
> publication of the media type registration as some form of RFC."
>
> The MIME type would have to go through the standards process anyway.
> Additionally, all MIME types of type "message" which I am assuming will be
> used for CRI, have been registered based on RFCs (take a look at
> http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/message/)

The rigor of the Last Call and criticisms of a Standards Track RFC should not 
IMHO be a limiting factor on the work of this group.  The point would be 
whether a MIME type would be an appropriate methodology for addressing the 
'spam' problem.  This is not an IETF working group (as many have said).

As a researchy group perhaps the focus would be better placed on how such a 
MIME type would work and/or the benefits and constraints of using either a MIME 
type or 2822 ad hoc private header field (X-).  How such a content type would 
work is also a valid research area in addition to what effects such a construct 
would have on the 'spam' problem.

IMHO I would not focus on what the IETF process is at this stage OR if it is a 
must to you, I would suggest including it as a constraint or assumption that is 
addressed by the documentation of proposed method.

-e

_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg