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

Ian Eiloart <iane@sussex.ac.uk> Mon, 08 February 2010 12:42 UTC

Return-Path: <iane@sussex.ac.uk>
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 5C9053A7393 for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Feb 2010 04:42:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.529
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.529 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.070, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 9QJ5IWhLepo7 for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Feb 2010 04:42:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lynndie.uscs.susx.ac.uk (lynndie.uscs.susx.ac.uk [139.184.14.87]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B48C3A7380 for <asrg@irtf.org>; Mon, 8 Feb 2010 04:42:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lewes.staff.uscs.susx.ac.uk ([139.184.135.133]:51702) by lynndie.uscs.susx.ac.uk with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.64) (envelope-from <iane@sussex.ac.uk>) id KXIWO1-000304-PO; Mon, 08 Feb 2010 12:43:13 +0000
Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2010 12:43:13 +0000
From: Ian Eiloart <iane@sussex.ac.uk>
Sender: iane@sussex.ac.uk
To: dcrocker@bbiw.net, Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg@irtf.org>
Message-ID: <BFA242D2B9C2F5A7180CBA14@lewes.staff.uscs.susx.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <4B6DB6D1.5050805@dcrocker.net>
References: <4B6C6D35.1050101@nortel.com> <4B6D41E3.8000209@tana.it> <4B6DAD0C.3020109@nortel.com> <4B6DB6D1.5050805@dcrocker.net>
Originator-Info: login-token=Mulberry:01IyXrNIyGWZlkkj+Wj0uWml6niZ0MjoZLmJA=; token_authority=support@its.sussex.ac.uk
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Mac OS X)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-Sussex: true
X-Sussex-transport: remote_smtp
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 12:42:13 -0000

>
> 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.)

I prefer [2].


-- 
Ian Eiloart
IT Services, University of Sussex
01273-873148 x3148
For new support requests, see http://www.sussex.ac.uk/its/help/