Re: [domainrep] WGLC: draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-04

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Wed, 14 November 2012 06:30 UTC

Return-Path: <superuser@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E04D421F85D5 for <domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 22:30:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.465
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.465 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.133, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Sz8Hh-Z5URMt for <domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 22:30:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-la0-f44.google.com (mail-la0-f44.google.com [209.85.215.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D699E21F85D3 for <domainrep@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 22:30:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-la0-f44.google.com with SMTP id d3so73462lah.31 for <domainrep@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 22:30:45 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=x+Xm6dKZCoK0Tr1I3Oj66CoqOx6MXrj2asVXYQYtQwQ=; b=ARGvII1MLOnKw38rJGTaofh0pXncPnB48FYAvpVaKuW2fhLEcLHK4tiqGKMrvWeFuY GgggYNf3+iDSw+DsSkMk81ntL1nIK/2wPCFWBb7+LxGa9G5cvFdQPkbdRQJSdvR34GpU Avy0FK+jgxxcsL/o+LkenxjvHgA2HHtF298MzIBGVinaJh1f2CSPzpf+ddNcQCQdmHSz YzTnUHDlQZYJSJVWmtG81PmYv4l3+WpQ5ZRPiUp0S8tmvKW8FoGi8ymkWAYrB/JWwzte ALfYOFEUGOET1blJMPsgtZJagXdRUWi9rPxvXpifbcvQ80Gv4k/lUOzFf72rZK98E02Y DO0w==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.112.47.228 with SMTP id g4mr9614119lbn.21.1352874645551; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 22:30:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.112.83.232 with HTTP; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 22:30:45 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <50A32506.5090803@mustelids.ca>
References: <509C24FC.8090107@gmail.com> <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D6B0CBF@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <5604f52c-2027-454a-941a-487b5ec63ce4.maildroid@localhost> <50A32506.5090803@mustelids.ca>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 22:30:45 -0800
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwa2NVCW6REBxdNGKnmJio_dRBA8VXt9kG0CpTrto02HXA@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
To: Chris Lewis <clewis+ietf@mustelids.ca>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="bcaec554ddfeac7a4c04ce6eac07"
Cc: "domainrep@ietf.org" <domainrep@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [domainrep] WGLC: draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-04
X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list <domainrep.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/domainrep>, <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/domainrep>
List-Post: <mailto:domainrep@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/domainrep>, <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 06:30:48 -0000

I typed several messages arguing that we shouldn't do this, and then talked
myself out of sending each of them.  I think that means it's a reasonable
suggestion.

I do think it's useful to include threatening conduct as an example though,
so how about compromise text:

ABUSIVE: The subject identifier is associated with sending or handling
email of a personally abusive, threatening, or otherwise harassing nature.

?


On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 8:58 PM, Chris Lewis <clewis+ietf@mustelids.ca>wrote:

> On 12-11-13 08:44 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
> > Perhaps 'personally abusive'?  Some problematic mail is not exactly
> threatening.  E.g, sending lots of mail to you that criticizes everything
> you post or constantly calls you an asshole.
>
> Better I think:
>
> ABUSIVE: The subject identifier is associated with sending or handling
> email of a personally abusive or otherwise harassing nature.
>
> [The stereo-typical "love-sick stalker"'s emails aren't strictly
> definable as "abusive" per-se in the sense of your phrase.  Harassment
> most certainly.  I don't think "Harassive" is a word, and the spell
> checker seems to agree ;-)]
>
> I don't think you'd see that flag very often.  But for completeness...
> _______________________________________________
> domainrep mailing list
> domainrep@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/domainrep
>