Re: [Asrg] Iteration #3.

"Chris Lewis" <clewis@nortel.com> Fri, 05 February 2010 19:56 UTC

Return-Path: <CLEWIS@nortel.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 3914E28C142 for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Feb 2010 11:56:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.512
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.512 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.087, 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 d2XYC4f6uZs6 for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Feb 2010 11:56:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from zcars04e.nortel.com (zcars04e.nortel.com [47.129.242.56]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AFD128C1CC for <asrg@irtf.org>; Fri, 5 Feb 2010 11:56:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from zrtphxs1.corp.nortel.com (zrtphxs1.corp.nortel.com [47.140.202.46]) by zcars04e.nortel.com (Switch-2.2.0/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id o15Juo723592 for <asrg@irtf.org>; Fri, 5 Feb 2010 19:56:50 GMT
Received: from zrtphx5h0.corp.nortel.com ([47.140.202.65]) by zrtphxs1.corp.nortel.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 5 Feb 2010 14:56:49 -0500
Received: from [47.130.80.234] (47.130.80.234) by zrtphx5h0.corp.nortel.com (47.140.202.65) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.1.340.0; Fri, 5 Feb 2010 14:56:49 -0500
Message-ID: <4B6C77F5.30002@nortel.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2010 14:56:37 -0500
From: "Chris Lewis" <clewis@nortel.com>
Organization: Nortel
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.23) Gecko/20090812 Lightning/0.9 Thunderbird/2.0.0.23 Mnenhy/0.7.6.666
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg@irtf.org>
References: <4B6C6D35.1050101@nortel.com> <505F1889-5D8B-4B96-BD2D-1F2B40605C20@blighty.com>
In-Reply-To: <505F1889-5D8B-4B96-BD2D-1F2B40605C20@blighty.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Feb 2010 19:56:49.0795 (UTC) FILETIME=[5ADC6530:01CAA69D]
Subject: Re: [Asrg] 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: Fri, 05 Feb 2010 19:56:04 -0000

Steve Atkins wrote:

>> 2) a followon spec that specifies what goes on at arf@arf.<domain>" in terms of remote report forwarding (if any).  Rather than relying on inband ARF destination signalling, I think we should consider doing something with DNS ala SPF/SenderID and DKIM.
> 
> -1.
> 
> It's a can of worms buried in a rathole behind a bikeshed that needs painting.

Yeah, but we don't _need_ (2) to have accomplished something useful.

Maybe (2) never gets done.  Even if (2) is never specified, most admins 
will not need it because they don't intend on forwarding them anywhere 
anyway and, secondly, if they do want to forward them, they at least 
have something to base automated forwarding of some to select 
hand-crafted destinations.