IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Asrg] Development of an object assessment format/protocol

Martijn Grooten <martijn.grooten@virusbtn.com> Mon, 04 March 2013 15:46 UTC

Return-Path: <martijn.grooten@virusbtn.com>
X-Original-To: asrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: asrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B428521F8BEF for <asrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Mar 2013 07:46:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uG-CNF7qnvkW for <asrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Mar 2013 07:46:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx4.sophos.com (mx4.sophos.com [216.47.234.213]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D7CE21F8BE7 for <asrg@irtf.org>; Mon, 4 Mar 2013 07:46:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx4.sophos.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 193964E0326 for <asrg@irtf.org>; Mon, 4 Mar 2013 15:46:16 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from ABN-EXCH1A.green.sophos (abn-exch1a.green.sophos [10.100.70.61]) by mx4.sophos.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BC9104E00FE for <asrg@irtf.org>; Mon, 4 Mar 2013 15:46:15 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from abn-exch1b.green.sophos ([fe80::dc96:facf:3d2c:c352]) by ABN-EXCH1A.green.sophos ([fe80::67:3150:dacd:910d%15]) with mapi id 14.02.0328.009; Mon, 4 Mar 2013 15:46:14 +0000
From: Martijn Grooten <martijn.grooten@virusbtn.com>
To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg@irtf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Asrg] Development of an object assessment format/protocol
Thread-Index: AQHOGNxQAb9aIe4DYkedCXol+NqIjpiVkAvA
Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2013 15:46:14 +0000
Message-ID: <0D79787962F6AE4B84B2CC41FC957D0B20C05A58@abn-exch1b.green.sophos>
References: <20130304132924.GA27928@gsp.org>
In-Reply-To: <20130304132924.GA27928@gsp.org>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.100.110.133]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Asrg] Development of an object assessment format/protocol
X-BeenThere: asrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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/options/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, 04 Mar 2013 15:46:17 -0000

Rich Kulawiec wrote:
> And all of these are great, except: they all use different ways to express
> information.  Some of them can be queried; some can't.  Some of them carry
> metadata like "how did we decide this?" or 'when did we decide this?" or
> "for further reference, see:" and some don't.
> Some of them support methods for asking narrower/broader questions,
> some of them don't.

Is the reason different sources use different ways to express information the fact that there is no suitable protocol? Or is it a mere consequence of the fact that sources have different things they are willing and able to share?

I think the idea is nice. Whether such a format is really needed I'm not sure. I can see how having more information available makes for better decisions, but I am worried the accuracy gained isn't worth the performance lost.

Perhaps you can come up with examples of where such a protocol would be useful?

Martijn.


________________________________

Virus Bulletin Ltd, The Pentagon, Abingdon, OX14 3YP, England.
Company Reg No: 2388295. VAT Reg No: GB 532 5598 33.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email